233-lodge holiday resort at Land at Roanhead Farm, Hawthwaite Lane, Barrow-in-Furness

The site and surroundings

The site comprised agricultural fields and farm buildings near Askham, close to Roanhead Beach, the Duddon Estuary, Sandscale Haws and protected ecological areas.

“The topography of the site is undulating with a central raised plateau on which sits the core farm buildings (farmhouse and agricultural buildings) and from where the land slopes gently downwards towards the north, east, south and southwest, with a more steeply sloping landform on the north-western boundary towards Roanhead beach/the Duddon Estuary.”

“To the immediate north east of the site is an operational ground mounted solar farm (Roanhead Solar Farm) that abuts a short section of the site boundary but otherwise separated and screened to a degree and in-part from the application Site by High Wood, a section of ancient woodland to the north of Roanhead Farm.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the principle and highway arrangements acceptable, but recommended refusal because of likely harm to protected ecological features and the coastal landscape.

“Summarily: in broad land-use planning terms the principle of locating this form of development within the ‘open countryside’ is considered appropriate. In addition, on the advice of the Local Highway Authority and National Highways, it is recommended that the proposal of this scale and nature could be satisfactorily accommodated by the local highway network conditional upon agreement being reached particularly in respect of improvements therein and the management of…”

“Nevertheless, after lengthy, detailed consideration and deliberation over the main issues, taking into account the many representations and comments from other agencies (statutory and non-statutory), recognised bodies, and members of the public including various organisations and business interests, the conclusion reached here is that the application be recommended for refusal broadly on the grounds of likely harm to designated ecological features afforded the highest…”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Many organisations and residents objected over ecological damage, visitor pressure, landscape change, traffic, instability and infrastructure, while some supported tourism, jobs and local spending.

“Represents a fantastic opportunity to improve local community amenities, create new jobs, and enhance the area for residents and visitors alike; • Welcome new sports facilities for all ages; • The development will support local businesses and boost the local economy; • Will enhance our region’s appeal as a destination of choice for travellers, showcasing the natural beauty and unique cultural heritage of the area; • The project’s commitment to preserving the area’s natural…”

“Considerable harm to and loss of important wildlife habitats and the biodiversity of the area containing special designations (SPA, SAC, Ramsar, SSSI, NNR and Ancient Woodland) resulting from visitor pressure enjoying the beach, general noise and disturbance, lighting, and pollution run-off from the resort; • Not the right place for a holiday resort – highly intrusive; • Traffic would clog local roads and cause congestion at the bottleneck leading Sandscale Haws; • No…”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

Objectors spoke about ecology, landscape, tranquillity, traffic, infrastructure, ground hazards and economic claims; supporters spoke about planning, conservation, jobs and regeneration.

What members discussed

Members discussed whether further surveys and mitigation could be secured by conditions, but officers advised that the ecological assessment lacked sufficient scientific certainty.

“Further, the Lead Lawyer indicated the report goes on, same page, there must be no reasonable scientific doubt as to the absence of such effects, and on this basis all information required to undertake a sufficiently robust HRA must be supplied prior to a planning decision being made. This was not the case in this instance. The Senior Development Manager referred members to page 160/161 of the pack.”

“The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that in response to the officers’ comments on the applicant’s HRA additional information had been submitted regarding mitigation of the ecological impacts but that officers remained unable to conclude that there would be no residual effects on the integrity of the Habitat Sites.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to accept the HRA and follow the officer recommendation, with an amended second refusal reason, passed by seven votes to one.

“Members were concerned to hear this, and felt disgruntled that they were being told this. However, the Lead Lawyer confirmed that this was the law, and members had little choice in this. The Principal Planning Officer re-iterated that in accord with the Habitats Regulations officers were unable to conclude no residual effects on the integrity of the Habitat sites.”

“The Lead Lawyer again advised that on the basis of the information submitted by the applicant, officers remained unconvinced that the effect of the proposal could be adequately mitigated. Cllr Hughes felt that in these circumstances it was not appropriate to defer the application it and she moved that the officer recommendation, with the amended reason 2 for refusal, be accepted. This was seconded and put to a vote.”

Minutes