Agenda item - Planning Application DC/19/1700/FUL - Caravan Site South, Pigeon Lane, Fornham All Saints (Report No: DEV/WS/20/009)

Agenda item

Planning Application DC/19/1700/FUL - Caravan Site South, Pigeon Lane, Fornham All Saints (Report No: DEV/WS/20/009)

Report No: DEV/WS/20/009

 

Planning Application - (i) Change of use of part of golf course for the siting of 35no. caravan lodge holiday homes (ii) new access from A1101 (iii) construction of access roads, parking spaces and associated infrastructure (as amended by email on 14.01.2019 to omit 2 caravans)

Minutes:

Planning Application - (i) Change of use of part of golf course for the siting of 35no. caravan holiday homes (ii) new access from A1101 (iii) construction of access roads, parking spaces and associated infrastructure (as amended by email on 14.01.2019 to omit 2 caravans)

 

The application was a re-submission of a recently withdrawn application for Change of Use of two sites on part of a golf course (one in the north and one in the south) for the siting of 70no. caravan holiday homes, with associated works including the creation of a new access from the A1101 and the B1106. This current application related to the southern part of the previous application only.

 

The application site and large parts of the golf course fell within the parish of Fornham All Saints. The All Saints Hotel and parts of the golf course was within the parish of Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve. Therefore, both Parish Councils had been consulted.

 

The application was referred to the Development Control Committee because Fornham All Saints Parish Council had made comments in support of the application and Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve Parish Council had objected. One of the Ward Members for The Fornhams and Great Barton Ward had asked for the application to be considered by the Committee due to the number of representations received and one of the Ward Members of the adjoining Tollgate Ward had objected to the proposal.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that the amended application was for 35 caravans and therefore the word ‘lodge’ should be removed from the title of the proposal.

 

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

 

Speakers:    Malcolm Johnson (local resident) spoke against the application.

Enid Gathercole (local resident) spoke against the application.

Frank Stennett (local resident) spoke against the application.

Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger (one of the Ward Members for The Fornhams and Great Barton ward) spoke against the application.

David Harris (applicant) spoke in support of the application.

 

A detailed discussion was held and the majority of Members expressed several concerns with this application. The Officers had considered that the application accorded with relevant planning policies, particularly Policy DM34 – Tourism Development of the Joint Management Policies Document. This sought to direct larger scale tourism activities and overnight accommodation to the larger urban areas. The policy permitted new tourism facilities, including overnight visitor accommodation such as holiday lodges, static and touring caravans provided that a number of criteria were being satisfied. The policy required proposals to:

 

a)      be connected to and associated with existing facilities or located at a site that related well to the main urban areas and defined settlements in the area and could be made readily accessible to adequate public transport, cycling and walking links for the benefit of non-car users;

b)      not adversely affect the character, appearance or amenities of the area and the design was to be of a standard acceptable to the Local Planning Authority;

c)       vehicle access and on-site vehicle parking would be provided to an appropriate standard.

 

Additional criteria applied to rural areas, where proposals must also:

 

d)      have no significant adverse impact on nature conservation, biodiversity or geodiversity interests, or upon the character or appearance of the landscape and countryside;

e)      be of an appropriate scale for their context and/or comprise the conversion of suitable existing rural buildings or limited extension to existing visitor accommodation.

 

Officers considered that whilst the proposal was located in the countryside, it accorded with the above policy and other relevant policies, and therefore was considered to be acceptable development in the countryside in this case.  

 

Some Members considered this location in the Lark Valley was a major gateway into Bury St Edmunds and the siting of the proposed caravans would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity and landscape of this important gateway. The removal of a significant number of trees to allow for the development was considered to have a harmful effect on the character of the landscape, and whilst a replacement landscaping scheme had been proposed, this planting would take some time to mature and provide screening and adequate softening to the appearance of the caravans. 

 

Moreover, whilst not protected, these trees provided a distinctive feature towards separating the two settlements of Fornham All Saints and Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve. Their removal was considered by some Members to impact on the boundaries of these two villages which should remain clearly separate and distinct, and therefore coalescence was to be resisted.

 

Further concern was also expressed regarding the impact of the proposal on carbon emissions and highway safety.

 

Other Members, however, concurred with the Officers’ recommendation and considered the development to be acceptable and in accordance with development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework. These Members considered the impact on visual amenity and the landscape was minimal and temporary, particularly given the proposed development’s proximity to an industrial area. Recognising the economic benefits of promoting tourism, the location was considered to be appropriate for encouraging tourists that wished to visit Bury St Edmunds and its surrounding area. The proposed landscaping scheme was also considered to be acceptable by these Members, including that the settlement boundaries of Fornham All Saints and Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve would still sufficiently remain separate and distinct.

 

Contrary to the Officers’ recommendation of approval, it was moved by Councillor Peter Stevens that the application be refused on the grounds of the adverse impact on the landscape, visual amenity, carbon footprint, highway safety and potential for settlement coalescence of the two villages of Fornham All Saints and Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve. This was duly seconded by Councillor Susan Glossop.  Members were however, subsequently advised that there was no technical evidence to support a potential adverse impact on the proposed development’s carbon footprint and highway safety, therefore upon the agreement of the proposer and seconder of the motion, these two reasons for refusal were removed from the motion.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 9 voting for the motion, 5 against and 1 abstention, it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be REFUSED on the grounds of the adverse impact on the landscape, visual amenity and potential for settlement coalescence of the two villages of Fornham All Saints and Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve.

 

(Councillor Peter Stevens left the meeting at the conclusion of this item at 2.23 pm)

Supporting documents:

 

In this section