Agenda item

To consider an application for a change of use of agricultural land to holiday let and erection holiday let unit, yurts, kitchen and shower unit (Retention of works partially completed).

That planning application 2021/2525/FULbe APPROVED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it was considered that the benefits of the scheme outweighed any harms identified and it was not regarded as an unsustainable location. Approval was granted subject to a S106 agreement for phosphate mitigation and delegation of conditions was made to Planning Officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

Votes – 6 in favour, 4 against

Application for the change of use of agricultural land to holiday let and erection holiday let unit, yurts, kitchen and shower unit (Retention of works partially completed)

The Officer’s Report stated that this application related to a field to the north of Barton Road, Butleigh, a site known as Greenhill. The site had vehicular access from the classified 3 unnumbered road which was shared with a public footpath. A stone track from the road sloped down to site and within the field there were some Yurts which were rented out as holiday lets and a stable building.

In the summary, the Planning Officer recommended that that planning permission be refused as the principle of development was unacceptable as the site lay in the countryside outside the development limits where development is strictly controlled. The proposal did not represent sustainable development by virtue of its distance and poor accessibility and connectivity to local services and facilities. The development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and would be detrimental to highway safety.

Any limited economic benefits that could be attributed to the development given the proposed uses as tourist accommodation associated with this development, did not outweigh the harm identified.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

The Committee was then addressed by the applicant. Some of the comments he made were as follows:

• The site is a 5 minute walk away from the footpath.
• There are a number of approved holiday lets nearby so why is this any different?
• The holiday will employ 4 people, one of which will be full time.
• Supported by local people and no objections from the highway authority.
• Guests use the local resources and services, thus improving the economy.
• There is easy access to the site which will also suit larger vehicles.

In the discussion which followed, Members made a number of comments including the following:

• The Council  should support enterprises that boost the local economy and provide jobs.
• The building is of a high eco-standard and will be off grid and on an existing foundation so will be sustainable in that respect.
• It does not appear to be in open countryside as it is shielded by trees.
• It is an ideal site for this type of business.
• Concern with the roof lights and effect on dark skies and wondered if a condition could be added to ensure blinds are used on the roof lights.
• The site would be outside the development limits and should therefore be refused.

In response to the comments made, Planning Officers advised the following:

• If the Committee was minded to approve the application, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, then delegated authority should be granted to Officers to grant permission subject to the imposition of planning conditions and the prior completion of  S106 agreement to secure phosphate mitigation.
• A condition could be added for the fitting of blind,  but it would be impossible to enforce so there would be little point.
• It would not be possible to prevent a future application to change the building from a holiday let to a permanent dwelling, but this would need to be approved by the Local Planning Authority at the time.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Alistair Hendry and seconded by Councillor Helen Kay to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as the site was not considered to be in an unsustainable location and the benefits outweighed any harms identified in the Officer’s report. 

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 6 votes in favour and 4 votes against.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2021/2525/FUL be APPROVED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it was considered that the benefits of the scheme outweighed any harms identified and it was not regarded as an unsustainable location. That delegated authority be given to Officers to grant planning permission subject to the prior completion of  S106 Agreement to secure phosphate mitigation and the imposition of planning conditions to be agreed in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

Votes – 6 in favour, 4 against