NATIONAL Park members went against the recommendation of their officers and refused plans for an eco-smallholding in Newport on Wednesday (March 9).

The Development Management Committee had voted to carry out a site visit the last time they discussed Sue Gillooley’s application, and that took place earlier this month.

Permission was sought to build a house, a greenhouse, barn and associated trackways and parking on land adjacent to Castle Hill, just below Carningli Mountain.

The application was made under the One Planet Development (OPD) which requires applicants to be self-sufficient in terms of food, income, energy and waste.

Ms Gillooley proposed to have sheep, grow lavender, raise chickens for meat and eggs and keep six hives for honey production.

Speaking at the last meeting, she said: “I feel passionately about grass roots initiatives” and “I am seeking planning permission to enable me to live simply and modestly to respect and lovingly tend to this beautiful land.”

Despite an objection from Newport Town Council and letters from locals, the case officer recommended the application for conditional approval.

Opening the debate, committee member David Ellis said: “I’m not going to support this proposal.”

He was unconvinced by the applicant’s management plan, which he said “isn’t backed up by hard evidence” and has several “overly optimistic” elements.

Mr Ellis added: “I cannot see why the applicant really needs a house there other than it’s in a beautiful location in Newport. There’s no reason this project couldn’t get off the ground without it.

“It’s very hard to imagine a site with a greater landscape sensitivity than this.”

Cllr Bob Kilmister said: “I purchased a smallholding 12 years ago with 17 acres, roughly five miles away from where this is.

“I understand the desires of the applicant, and I’m very sympathetic with what she’s trying to do.

“I think in the years we ran the smallholding we struggled to get more than about 15 per cent of any sort of income at all, and I tried just about everything to make it work.”

What tipped the balance for Cllr Kilmister was the location of the property.

“It’s to be sited at the highest point of the land,” he said, and requires an access track, which “is going to be substantial and visible from skylines in other areas.”

He added: “It certainly fails the test, in my view, of the low ecological footprint.”

A motion to go against the officer’s recommendation was backed by 14 members of the committee, and was therefore refused.