Issue - meetings

Application for erection of 36 holiday lodges and a management building with associated vehicular accesses, parking, surface water balancing and landscaping (revised scheme of application 21/01390/FUL).

Late items received after publication of main agenda:

Introduction:-

1.1.       A supplementary statement to the original Landscape Visual Impact Assessment has been received from the applicant and states the following:

“This statement has been prepared to accompany planning application 23/00767/FUL which proposes to increase the number of holiday lodges on site from 22 (including the management lodge) to 37 (including the management lodge). It is noted that the maximum height of the proposed lodges has reduced from 4.7 metres to 3.5 metres in the revised submission. 

Whilst it is accepted that the number of lodges has increased, the overall visual impact is considered to remain low and accordingly the proposal would not detract from the rural landscape as concluded in the original LVA referenced above.”

Appraisal:-

1.2.       Amendments to paragraphs 9.11 and 9.56 of the report. The text highlighted in bold is the addition;

9.11.     “The previous scheme was approved by the Council earlier in 2023 for 21 holiday lodges and associated infrastructure. This extant permission has a realistic prospect of being developed if planning permission is not granted subject to this application therefore constitutes a material consideration.”

9.56.   “The extant permission for 21 holiday lodges and associated infrastructure is a fall back position and is to be given weight in the consideration of the revised scheme.”

Application for erection of 36 holiday lodges and a management building with associated vehicular accesses, parking, surface water balancing and landscaping (revised scheme of application reference 21/01390/FUL).

The agent spoke on this application.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, members felt that the site would be cramped with 36 holiday lodges and concern was expressed about highway safety due to the narrow width of the access road. It was moved by Councillor R Allen and seconded by Councillor C Allen that permission be refused due to being contrary to policy DM10 of the site allocations and development management policies DPD in respect of overdevelopment of the site. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be refused due to the proposal constituting overdevelopment contrary to policy DM10 of the site allocations and development management policies development plan document.