Agenda item

NED/21/00214/FL - BARLOW

Application for retention of use of café for general café use and the retention of the existing café building as currently built at Lakeside Café, Fishing Ponds, Keepers Lane, Barlow. (Amended Plans / Amended Title)


(Planning Manager – Development Management)


The report to Committee explained that an Application had been submitted for the retention of a café for general café use and the retention of the existing café building as currently built at Lakeside Café, Fishing Ponds, Keepers Lane, Barlow. The Application involved Amended Plans and Amended Title. It had been referred to Committee by the Planning Manager (Development Management) because of the complex planning issues which the Application had raised.


Planning Committee was recommended to approve the Application, subject to conditions. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this.


Members heard about the complicated and long-running planning history of the development, which was now in place. In particular, they heard how it had been subject to a Planning Enforcement Enquiry, that there had subsequently an application for a Lawful Development Certificate, and how planning officers had refused this application, using their delegated powers.


The report explained how the original application had been modified. This meant that permission for two additional buildings was no longer requested. Rather, the Application only now sought to retain the existing structure so that it could continue to be used as a café.  Officers felt that because of their scale and construction the existing development was appropriate for the countryside and that planning permission should be granted.


Before the Committee discussed the Application, it heard from D Hann, the Agent for the Application.  No one had registered to speak against it.


Planning Committee considered the Application. It took into account the relevant Planning Issues, including the Principle of Development and the site’s location within the Green Belt. Committee considered National and Local Green Belt policy, including Local Plan Policy 2b, allowing appropriate facilities for outdoor sports, which do not impact on the visual aspect of Green Belt openness, for outdoor sports. It took into account the implications for highways safety, and in this context Local Plan Policy ID3 and National Planning Policy Paragraph 11 on the specific grounds when development should be prevented or refused – if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or if there would be a severe impact on the road network.


Committee also took into account Local Plan Policy SDC6 on developments affecting listed buildings. It considered and what impact the development would have on the nearby Grade II listed Lee Bridge. Committee


Members discussed the Application. They discussed the scale of the structure, the use made of the café and potential for greater use in the future.  In this context, Members discussed extensively how traffic to and from the café was managed and if this could be improved. They heard about the specific proposals to access part of the access path, so that visitors to the site would not have to reverse on to main highway. Some Members felt that a traffic management scheme for traffic visiting and leaving should be drawn-up.


Members discussed what impact had on the Grade II listed Lee Bridge and whether might increase if the development received retrospective planning permission They reflected on the rules relating to Enforcement Notices and the circumstance where the usual 4 year time limit for taking action against developments that do not have planning permission would not apply


At the conclusion of the discussion, Councillor P Elliot and D Ruff moved and seconded a recommendation to approve the Officer recommendations, subject to two additional conditions. These would requiring a scheme of works for the vegetation that would have to be removed as part of the partial path widening along with an overall scheme of traffic management to and from the development.


The motion was put to the vote and was approved.




(1)  That the Application be approved conditionally in line with officer recommendations


(2)  That the final wording and content of the conditions be delegated to the Planning Manager (Development Management).


Supporting documents: