Proposed erection of three sustainable holiday lodges.

The application was refused, contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor John Stone left the committee to act as the local ward member for the next application.)

The Development Manager, North team, gave a presentation on the application and updates/ representations received following the publication of the agenda as provided in the update sheets and appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr D Edwards, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr E Thomas, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary he commented there were concerns locally the lodges would become houses for residential use. Local objection concerned: the sustainability of the site; the increase in traffic movements accessing the site; drainage from the site; noise; and the overlooking of existing properties. The application was not in accordance with policy BLH18 of the neighbourhood development plan. Car parking was limited and the noise from the site would impact adversely upon residential amenity. The application would result in greater levels of traffic on local roads. It was noted that alternative tourist facilities existed locally therefore the need for the development was questioned. The sustainability of the site was questioned: there was limited economic and social benefit; and adverse environmental impact on local residential amenity caused by increased noise and light.

The committee discussed the application.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He explained: the application was in open countryside; it would impact on the local highway network; drainage issues had not been clarified; the application did not conform to policy BLH8 and BLH18 in the local neighbourhood development plan; the location was not sustainable; and the impact on residential amenity posed by noise, parking and lighting was unacceptable.

A motion that the application be refused due to: a lack of evidenced need for the development; an unacceptable impact on residential amenity; and insufficient evidence of the sustainability of the application (with reference to policies SS1, SD1, RA6 and E4 of the Core Strategy and policies BLH 8 and 18 of the neighbourhood development plan) was moved and was carried unanimously.

Resolved – that planning permission is refused due to: a lack of evidenced need for the development; an unacceptable impact on residential amenity; and insufficient evidence of the sustainability of the application (with reference to policies SS1, SD1, RA6 and E4 of the Core Strategy and policies BLH 8 and 18 of the neighbourhood development plan)