Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for the extension of the existing Marina to provide an additional 240 berths, 120 parking spaces and additional associated facilities such as refuse collection points, elsan points and a 28.88 square metre extension to the facilities building.

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Management) presented a report for the extension of the existing Marina to provide an additional 240 berths, 120 parking spaces, additional associated facilities and a 28.88m² extension to the facilities building at the Roydon Marina, High Street in Roydon. This application was before the Committee as it was classed an application for major commercial and other developments.

The Assistant Director stated that the site was part of the existing Roydon Mill Leisure Park and the lake had been used for recreational purposes for many years. There were residential mobile homes to the east of the site and much of the Leisure Park had been redeveloped with new log cabin style mobile homes. Most of the lake was already in use as a Marina and access to the site was via the existing access track which was along the tow path from its junction with Roydon High Street. The application proposed to extend the existing 315 boat marina with mooring for an additional 240 boats, along with an additional 120 parking spaces. Some additional works were proposed to the access road to further deter speeding. The additional boats would be moored to floating jetties, and the floating walkways to access the jetties would be approached from the northern bank of the lake.

The Assistant Director reported that the main issues in the determination of this application were: the impact on the Green Belt; the landscape and the visual amenity of the area; the impact on wildlife, conservation and ecology; the impact on highways and highway safety; the effect on residential amenity; hydrology; the loss of open water; residential use; the adequacy of facilities; and drainage and flood risk. In addition, the Committee were informed that policies RST1 (Development of additional Recreational, Sporting & Tourist Facilities) and RST22 (Potentially Intrusive Activities) were also applied to this application, and the Transport Policy within the National Planning Policy Framework was also highlighted.

Planning Officers had concluded that the development would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt due to the impact on the openness of the moored boats and cars that might be parked rather than the physical works proposed, and was therefore inappropriate development. However, the need for moorings to serve the recreational needs of London and the South-East, and the suitability of this site to provide for that need with minimal works, was considered sufficient to amount to very special circumstances that outweighed the relatively limited harm to the Green Belt and any other harm from the development. It was considered a development that supported open air, rural tourism and leisure activities in a logical and appropriate location within the Lee Valley Regional Park, and was therefore recommended for approval with conditions.

The Committee noted the summary of representations received in respect of this application. The Parish Council had objected on the grounds of access, traffic, parking, the existing planning conditions for the site not being complied with and in particular the boats not to be used for full time residential use, health and safety, the Green Belt, ecology, and the existing facilities within the village. The Roydon Society strongly opposed the application and the Roydon Boaters Association also objected. The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority commented that the number of berths should be reduced by 50% to preserve the openness of the water and Green Belt. In addition, 30 objections had been received from neighbours, relating to similar issues raised by the Parish Council. The Committee heard from an Objector, the Parish Council and the Applicant’s Agent before proceeding to debate the application.

Cllr Sartin, the local Ward Member, reminded the Committee that the Tow Path was never meant for two-way traffic, as there was only one passing place and was also used for walking and cycling. It was also emphasised that Essex County Council Highways department had no authority over the access road as it was a private road owned by the Canal and Rivers Trust. The area of water sat within the Metropolitan Green Belt and was also a recreational area for anglers; Cllr Sartin queried that if the water was land within the Green Belt then would the Council consider the building of houses at this location? Cllr Sartin felt that the application should not be approved; however, if it was approved then condition 3 should be amended for full details of the Management Plan to be agreed in writing by the Council before any development of the site commenced, not prior to first use.

A number of Members who had attended the site visit emphasised the traffic congestion that had resulted whenever the barriers at the adjacent railway level crossing were lowered to allow trains to pass. This was potentially dangerous, and it was felt that the situation would only worsen if the application was approved, as the increased traffic movements from a 35% increase in the size of the site would also affect the village. The potential traffic congestion would concern Network Rail and nearby Stansted Abbotts in East Hertfordshire. It was also pointed out that condition 4 was ultra vires as the developer did not have the authority to refresh the existing ‘Keep Clear’ markings, and that a sum of money should be paid to Essex County Council by the Developer for this. The significant number of objections to the application received by the Council was also highlighted.

The Assistant Director accepted that the Applicant did not have the right to renew the road markings, and that East Herts District Council had been consulted on the application but not Network Rail. No comments had been received from East Herts District Council. The Committee were reminded that it could refuse the application on the grounds of the impact on the Green Belt. The Chairman added that if the application was for houses then the Committee would have to consider it in a completely different light.

Members also highlighted that traffic from Stansted Abbotts frequently sat on the Railway line at the level crossing waiting to turn right, which was potentially dangerous, and that there was also a small, blind humpback bridge on the site to add to the traffic concerns. Sewage and refuse from the site also had to be removed by service vehicles. The boats moored at the existing marina were larger than canal barges, and there was very little movement of boats witnessed at the site visit so maybe there was more residential use of the moored boats than the owners were aware of. It was suggested that if the non-residency condition could not be granted then the application should not be granted. It was also proposed that a condition could be included to outlaw any habitation of boats during January and February of each year, for example.

The Assistant Director stated that such a condition would be difficult to enforce as it would not cover the whole site, only the proposed extension. It was acknowledged that there would be conflict between the moored boats and cyclists on some parts of the tow path but Planning Enforcement Officers had investigated whether the existing boats were being used for residential purposes. The Assistant Director highlighted that the openness of the Green Belt would be affected by the proposal, although the Chairman commented that the visual impact would only likely affect other boat owners.

Cllr Sartin stated that the Committee had not been shown the special circumstances to justify the granting of the application in the Green Belt, and proposed that the application be refused by virtue of being inappropriate development in the Green Belt resulting in the loss of the existing open water area, and the increased parking and traffic movements would be detrimental to the use of the towpath and highway safety close to the nearby Railway level crossing. This proposal was seconded by Cllr Chambers.

Decision:

(1)        That planning application EPF/0934/16 at Roydon Marina, High Street in Roydon be refused permission for the following reasons:

1.         The proposed development, which would enable the intensive use of the whole of the lake for the mooring of boats, would result in the loss of the         existing attractive open water area, and an increase in traffic         movements along the narrow tow path access road, together with increased parking around the lake. These changes would adversely impact on the openness, character and visual amenity of the area and undermine the recreational value of the lake and surrounding area for existing boat owners, local residents and visitors to the Lee Valley Regional Park. It represented inappropriate development in the Metropolitan Green Belt and there were no very special circumstances to outweigh the resultant harm or any other of the identified harms. The proposal was therefore contrary to policies GB2a, RST1, RST7 and RST22 of the adopted Local Plan and Alterations and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         The proposal would unduly exacerbate the traffic movements into and out of the tow path access road from the High Street access very close to a frequently used level crossing, which would be severely detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety, contrary to policies RST22(V) and ST4 of the Adopted Local Plan and Alterations and the National Planning Policy Framework.