Change of use of land for siting of five lodges to be occupied for holiday purposes only.

Members heard that the application was before the Planning Committee at the discretion of the Head of Planning and Building Control and that it sought permission for the change of use of the land to tourism and including the erection of five lodges for holiday purposes.

It was reported that the site was outside of a Settlement Development Boundary and that policies within the Local Plan did not specifically mention holiday lets in the types of tourism opportunities to be promoted within the District, and overall were not clear whether a small-scale proposal such as that represented a departure. A recent appeal decision had allowed the conversion of a stable block into two holiday units, and while that differed from the current application, it did add some weight to the acceptability of the current scheme. Further, the proposal was considered by Officers to result in a small boost to the tourism offering within the District and was also not within an isolated and unsustainable location.

The Committee was told that if it was considered that the development represented a departure from the Local Plan, planning harm had not been identified as no objections had been raised in regard to the impact to the character of the area or to the impacts to neighbouring amenities, and ECC Highways had raised no objections. Whilst ECC Ecology initially had had concerns, additional information provided by the agent for the application had since satisfactorily addressed that.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Senior Planning Officer (MP) in respect of the application.

An Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting with an update on Paragraph 8.35 of the Officer report which was to be corrected as follows:-

“Paragraph 8.35 of the Officer report incorrectly states that the proposal will connect to an existing public foul sewer. The proposal is instead provided by a Package Treatment Plant, and therefore Paragraph 8.35 should be replaced with the following wording:

In relation to non-mains drainage from non-major development the Environment Agency's advice is that to comply with the Framework and PPG on foul drainage matters, an LPA needs to be satisfied that foul drainage can be provided without adverse impact on the environment. This requires ensuring that both those environmental risks outside of the control of the permit and the relevant considerations in the PPG are addressed. The LPA should also be mindful that the developer will need to address foul drainage matters to get their environmental permit and meet building control regulations. Therefore, they should be confident that it is likely that any necessary permits and approvals can be successfully obtained.

Question 11 of the application form states that it is not intended to connect to a mains sewer. Instead, foul sewage will be disposed of by way of a package treatment plant; the declaration implies that a mains connection is not possible.

In considering the acceptability of the proposed non-mains drainage, the site is not located in close proximity to any dwelling, the site is not close to any designated site of importance to biodiversity, nor is it located within close proximity to any watercourse. The site is not located within a Drinking Water Safeguard Zone or a Source Protection Zone, and the site is sufficiently large enough to accommodate a soakaway. Furthermore, flows from a treatment plant serving five lodges served by one bedroom would be low. Taking all these factors into account, and the absence of a mains connection in close proximity to the site, the proposed foul drainage arrangements are considered to be acceptable.”

Peter Le Grys, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Harris, the Ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application.

It was moved by Councillor Sudra, seconded by Councillor Alexander and unanimously:-

RESOLVED that:

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 10.2 of the Officer report (A.3), or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the conditions as referenced is retained; and

2)    the sending to the applicant of any informative notes as may be deemed necessary.