The report of the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AQ”) considers a full planning application for the development of a new caravan and cabin park on Land between Silsden Beck and the River Aire to the East of Keighley Road, Silsden – 17/06814/MAF.

Recommended –

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

The report of the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AQ”) considered a full planning application for the development of a new caravan and cabin park on Land between Silsden Beck and the River Aire to the East of Keighley Road, Silsden – 17/06814/MAF. A range of plans and photographs were displayed.

The Assistant Director reported the receipt of a further representation since the publication of his technical report. He also updated the Committee on the substance of additional comments from the Urban Design Officer and Environmental Health.

In response to Members’ questions, he said that the site was a restored landfill site and, if approval was to be granted, it would have to be subject to a full site investigation. Technical solutions would be available in order to permit the site to be used safely, however the feasibility of those solutions was not known.

The applicant spoke in support of the application:

·         Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that the Local Planning Authority should plan positively for outdoor recreation and improve damaged and derelict land.

·         Caravanning and ‘glamping’ came within the definition of outdoor recreational activity.

·         The development would bring about benefits for ecology and tourism.

·         There were local footpaths and the site had fishing rights nearby.

·         The landscape would be enhanced by additional planting.

·         It had now been accepted that the site was within Flood Zone 2. Clarification of how this designation was reached had been requested but not received. Information had been provided to demonstrate that the site did not flood and would not flood. The site could be evacuated if there was a red alert.

·         Access would be achieved via the same road as existing residential development and a local Cricket Club.

·         The application met the Sequential Test. This was the only Flood Zone 2 area in the valley bottom between Keighley and Skipton.

·         The tree planting would assist with drainage and would also have ecological benefits. A kilometre of hedgerow planting had been undertaken and stone walls rebuilt; more planting would be undertaken in future.

·         In respect of Policies DS1 and DS2; Google Maps illustrated the improvements made to the site since it was acquired; it was not part of the urban sprawl but was rural in nature.

·         The trees would enhance the area.

·         It was an old landfill site/sewage works and had been a derelict site.

·         The necessary distance and visibility splays could be achieved for the access/egress.

Further to a question from a Committee Member he confirmed that the units would be for holiday rentals not on a long term basis.

In response, the Assistant Director explained that:

·         The issue of whether this use was appropriate in the Green Belt had been considered but existing case law did not support this conclusion.

·         The site was within both Flood Zones 2 and 3. There had been a range of correspondence on this issue but the Local Planning Authority had to rely on the expert advice it was given and both the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment Agency had said that the proposal was not acceptable. Neither the Exception Test or the Sequential Test had been passed.

·         The planting of willows was not necessarily considered to be an ecological enhancement as it comprised monoculture and the format of the planting was not sympathetic to the area. The benefits were certainly not sufficient to counteract the harm to the Green Belt.

·         The applicant had indicated a willingness to design an appropriate junction at the point of access but no plans had been provided to show how this might be achieved.

·         The Landscape Architect’s comments were set out in full in his report.

Members expressed agreement with the officer’s recommendation.

Resolved –

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways