Skip to main content

Agenda item

26/00905/FUL - Land South of Longfurlong Lane, Tetbury

Proposal

Change of use of land to Class F 2 (c) Areas or places for outdoor sport or recreation.

 

Case Officer: Helen Cooper

 

Ward Member: Cllr Laura Hall-Wilson

 

Recommendation

REFUSAL

Minutes:

Marie Barnes (Legal) returned to the Chamber

The proposal was the change of use of land to Class F 2 (c) areas or places for outdoor sport or recreation.

 

Case Officer: Helen Cooper

Ward Member: Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson

Recommendation: REFUSAL

 

The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application. The Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee and explained the reasons for the recommendation to refuse:

•          The required Ecological Impact Assessment had not been completed, and a Biodiversity Net Gain assessment was required as a result of the proposed change of land use.

•          A Flood Risk Assessment had not been provided.

•          The proposal did not satisfy the criterion listed by Policy INF2 ‘Social and Community Infrastructure’ of the Local Plan and resulted in the loss of agricultural land.

The reference to Flood Zones 2 and 3 was removed from refusal reason 4 as it had been included in error. The site was not identified within these flood zones on the current Environment Agency mapping.

 

Public Speakers

Public speaker – Steven Keitley – Supporter

The application would protect and preserve the landscape, views and open countryside within the Cotswold National Landscape. The proposal would prevent future development, protect the area for future generations and accord with planning policies relating to nature and the countryside. The emerging Regulation 19 Local Plan did not identify the site for development and approval of the application would protect the land from speculative development.

 

Public speaker – Peter Martin– Agent/Applicant

The application was intended to protect the site in its current form and would not result in increased traffic, parking, visitors, flooding, development or loss of biodiversity. The level of information requested by officers was disproportionate and any future change of use would require a separate planning application.

 

Public Speaker – Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson – Ward Member

The Ward Member supported the intention to safeguard the land from residential development and noted strong local opposition to housing on the site. They acknowledged concerns about the application being made on land not owned by the applicant but considered the protection of the land from residential development to be an important local concern.

 

Members questions

Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that:

•          Legal Services confirmed that an applicant could submit a planning application on land they did not own, provided the required notices were served. Officers confirmed that the necessary notices had been served on the landowners and that the application was valid, regardless of the landowner’s intentions for the site.

•          Granting permission would establish the planning permission for the proposed community use, but implementation would depend on the applicant’s ability to use the land.

•          Granting the proposed change of use would not prevent the landowner from subsequently submitting a residential planning application. Any future application would be considered on its own merits, and the proposed recreational use would not prevent a future housing proposal.

•          The proposed change of use constituted development and therefore triggered the statutory Biodiversity Net Gain requirement. The applicant had claimed a de minimis exemption, but officers required further ecological information to establish whether this applied, particularly given the potential presence of priority habitats and proposed mowing of pathways. If BNG were required, it could be delivered on-site, off-site or through the purchase of biodiversity units.

 

Member comments

•          Legal rather than planning considerations were raised. It was noted that approval could set a precedent for similar applications, although the intentions behind the proposal to prevent over-development were acknowledged.

 

Councillor David Fowles proposed that the application be deferred due to insufficient information to enable the Committee to determine the application. The motion was not seconded and therefore fell.

 

Councillor Patrick Coleman proposed that the application be approved. The motion was not seconded and therefore fell.

 

Councillor Paul Evans proposed REFUSING the application and Councillor David Fowles seconded the proposal. The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee

RESOLVED: to REFUSE the application.

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages