Agenda item

20. As Councillor Tony Vickers had declared a pecuniary interest on item 4(2), in that he was pre-determined to support the application, he excused himself from the Committee and moved to the public gallery where he would offer his support as Ward Member. He made clear he would leave the room before questions to officers were asked to ensure that he did not influence the proceedings of the debate.

21.The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 25/00827/FULMAJ in respect of use of land for wedding ceremonies and receptions for 6 months a year (April - September), including the temporary erection of tipis, catering tent, ceremony tent, toilet block and associated car parking (for a temporary period of 5 years) at Welford Park, Welford.

22. Ms Lauren Hill introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unsatisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main report.

23. Fiohn Menpes Greenslade highlighted the ecological concerns that had led to the Ecology team objecting to the application. It was noted that direct effects of development could cause loss of ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees. He noted that he had concerns about the proposed mitigations as they were in very close proximity to human activity which would be unsuitable for a number of affected species due to the likelihood of human disturbance.

24. Jon Thomas raised the concerns of the Tree Team that had caused them to object to the application. He noted that the clearing had been used for permitted development and it was evident a number of trees had been removed since 2016. He felt it was important for the Council to consider whether it was appropriate to enforce a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Overall it was noted that the proposal was likely to have a significant effect on trees in the woodland.

25. The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he any observations relating to the application. He noted the following:

·       Access to the proposal would be obtained from Welford Road. There were two access points proposed, the southern access adjacent to the M4 was proposed as the access with the northern access proposed as the exit. There were no concerns on this.

·       A concern for Highways officers was sustainability as there were limited means to access the site through any means other than motor vehicle.

·       He noted that the proposal was likely to generate a significant increase in traffic generation to the site which was itself unsustainable, this was contrary to the NPPF.

·       He felt that it failed to comply with local and national policy on climate and sustainability.

26. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Will Puxley, supporter, and Ms Kerry Pfleger, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Supporter Representation

27. Mr Will Puxley addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 23 July 2025 - YouTube (1:58:24)

Member Questions to the Supporter

28. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       This area of the site was selected as there was a natural clearing which had been well used by other agricultural activities. Anywhere else on the site would have required tree felling. They tried to ensure every area of the site was used.

·       It was noted that there was a church nearby which had seen a massive uplift as a result of the use of the site.

·       In order to scale the business they needed to be able to do more than the 8 weddings that could be done over the 28 days allowed under permitted development rights. Woodland grants received did not cover the cost of managing the woodlands and scaling the business was key to making the business sustainable.

·       An operator was bought in to reduce the overall cost of running the site, this provided additional resource for site management. 

Applicant/Agent Representation

29. Ms Kerry Pfleger addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 23 July 2025 - YouTube (2:10:48) 

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

30. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       An ecological proposal had been submitted alongside the planning application which was informed by surveys of the site. As this was a natural clearing there were grasses present on the site which did not themselves contain any ancient woodland ground flora.

·       The woodland management plan had not been submitted when the application was originally submitted but it had some reference to events at Welford Park. This plan was for the whole of Welford Park, not the site specifically, it had been accepted by the Forestry Commission but was sat with the admin team awaiting formal sign off. A separate woodland management plan for the tipi site could be submitted as part of this application.

Ward Member Representation

31. Councillor Tony Vickers addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 23 July 2025 - YouTube (2:19:25)

Member Questions to the Ward Member

32. Members did not have any questions for clarification.

33. Councillor Tony Vickers left the meeting at 20:25

Member Questions to Officers

34. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Paul Goddard felt that it was very unlikely anyone would travel to the site by any other means than motor vehicle with very limited public transport available to transport people to the site.

·       Jon Thomas advised that they were informed on site that there was a felling licence. As part of the application they had checked the Forestry Commission website but had been unable to find one. This had since been sent through by the applicant. For the compartment relevant to the application there was permission to thin, which granted specific permission to fell the poorer quality trees. He highlighted that there was a difference between thinning and removing for safety. He felt that his concerns would not be successfully ameliorated by a woodland management plan due to the site’s status as ancient woodland.

·       Jon Thomas noted photos taken above the site illustrated that a number of trees had been removed since 2016. He felt that this was done for the purpose of supporting the existing wedding business.

·       Jon Thomas was very certain that the usage as a wedding venue was causing damage to the site due to the trampling and the vehicle movements.

·       Fiohn Menpes Greenslade was confident that there was ongoing degradation caused by the permitted development that was likely to be exacerbated by approving this application.

·       Paul Goddard reiterated that the site was unsustainable from a highways and planning perspective.

·       Jon Thomas advised that they were unaware of the permitted development prior to the application, as a result there was no trigger for a TPO. He noted that it was their responsibility to implement TPOs in the interest of amenity, this development was likely to increase harm to the woodland and as a result required protection.

·       Bob Dray advised that permitted development rights were set nationally which the applicant was exercising. The Council could not do anything to trigger a review of that. He noted that the proposal was likely to lead to severe intensification of the problems witnessed through the permitted development.

·       Bob Dray noted that if planning permission was granted the authority were required to inform the Secretary of State and give them an opportunity to call in the application and consider whether it needed to be redetermined.

·       Bob Dray highlighted that this case was not a carbon copy of the Lilas Wood appeal. He advised that this was included as there were strong similarities between the two. He was unaware of what had specifically changed in policy terms since that decision but the high bar as to what constituted ‘wholly exceptional’ was still present.

·       Bob Dray accepted that degradation of the site could be caused by uses that did not require planning permission, however, he highlighted that the purpose of this Committee was to consider the planning application before them.

Debate

35. Councillor Adrian Abbs opened the debate by highlighting he came into this with an open mind, but felt that this was an important venture for the local economy. However, the course of the meeting made it clear that this was an application that was contrary to a number of policies. He highlighted that 3 different officers had raised objections. He felt that this had to sway the outcome of the meeting. He also highlighted the importance of protecting ancient woodland and noted that the permitted development had already caused degradation of the site. He noted that he was surprised on the site visit to see that the tent was actually a semi-permanent building with concrete footings, he felt this was further damaging the ancient woodland. He noted that over the course of the meeting he had gone from being generally supportive of the application to being inclined to support officers recommendations to reject.

36. Councillor Antony Amirtharaj highlighted that the site was likely to create significant economic benefit. He noted that approving this application would allow for support of the wider economy. He noted officers recommendations and respected their knowledge, but highlighted that the site had permitted development rights regardless and this application was simply seeking to extend that usage. He felt that it was appropriate to approve this application with a woodland management plan and with officers working closely with the landowner to ensure that further damage was not caused to the ancient woodland and mitigate the harm that was being caused. He felt that it was important to empower landowners to enable economic development within their communities. He felt that restricting legacy landowners from ensuring their sites were economically viable ran the risk of corporate entities buying land and creating more harm moving forward.

37. Councillor Denise Gaines highlighted that ancient woodland was over 400 years old and it was their duty as Councillors to ensure that that woodland continued to thrive and not be cleared. She understood the economic argument but stressed that the woodland and its unique ecology could not be replaced if damaged. She noted that they had just adopted a local plan and approving this application would contravene a number of policies within it.

38. Councillor Howard Woollaston supported Councillor Amirtharaj’s comments noting that there was significant economic benefit to the proposal. He noted that there was not a single objector and highlighted that it would generate employment within the local community. He noted the landowner was very considerate of the countryside and invested in preserving the land. He felt that the traffic concerns were irrelevant as no one travelled to a wedding via public transport nor did they walk to them. He advised he was inclined to go against officers’ recommendations.

39. Councillor Paul Dick noted that the community and economic aspects of this application were strong, but noted that an Ancient Woodland could not be replanted.

40. Councillor Nigel Foot complimented the quality of the report and felt that it was balanced and informative. He felt that this was an extremely difficult situation noting the difficult circumstances faced by farmers all across the country. He stressed the grave concerns raised by the ecology and tree officers over the welfare of the ancient woodland and noted the importance of preserving this. He urged the applicant to review ways to truly mitigate this. He highlighted that rejecting this application would mean that this was referred up to the Secretary of State so felt that there was little recourse to go against officer’s recommendations due to national and local policy.

41. Councillor Nigel Foot proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and reject planning permission for the reasons listed in the main report. This was seconded by Councillor Adrian Abbs.

42. The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Foot, seconded by Councillor Abbs, to refuse planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main report.