Agenda item

Station 3 holiday lodges and install a package treatment plant and associated works.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the site plan, proposed landscaping plans, elevations and floor plans were shown. Members were informed that there was a tree preservation order which had been put in place to mitigate harm. The Case Officer also discussed public rights of way and included images of views looking south, southwest, west, north, and northwest onto the site. The presentation also outlined key issues and referred to policies ECON6 and ECON 7 which referred to caravan and camping sites and built tourist accommodation.

 

The officer’s recommendation was to:

 

A) Grant planning permission subject to conditions and subject to the completion of a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), in a form to be agreed by the legal services manager to secure landscaping.

 

B) Refuse to grant planning permission if a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) is not completed by 05/09/2024 or such extended time as agreed by the Head of Planning.

 

 

Public Participation

 

Members of the public spoke in objection to the application. An area of concern was nutrient neutrality with concerns raised as to whether the harm from increased phosphate discharge could be successfully mitigated and thus avoid harm to the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Site. Mr Park highlighted that the site consisted of high-quality barn conversions and semi-permanent wooden lodges used by owners for extended periods of time, it was not a caravan park for short term holiday lets. Concerns were raised as to the practicalities of the proposed drainage mitigation solution. Speakers queried Natural England’s advice that any harm could be mitigated. Ms McDowall also made a representation and commented on the proposal, highlighting that she had a second home situated on the proposal land and was concerned about additional caravans. She commented on the impacts that this would have in relation to privacy and lack of natural light which would have become overbearing. Mr Howard also discussed the site layout plan and the boundaries which they felt violated the Council parking requirements as to width and turning space provision. Objectors felt as though the proposal was insufficient and if approved, would have negative impacts. In conclusion, they hoped members would make the decision to refuse permission.

 

The applicant spoke in support of the application and highlighted the history of the site which was originally submitted in 2021. Mr Funnell was hopeful that a decision would have been made to support. He noted that it was a comprehensive planning scheme but felt as though it had a lot of positive benefits to the surrounding areas. The applicant discussed how the area attracted a lot of visitors and holiday makers all year and thanked the members for their time and consideration.

 

 

A statement was read on behalf of Cllr Robin Legg in his absence. Saxon Maybank had a caravan site licence but was not a typical holiday caravan park where residents live near one another for a week or two. Only two of the sixteen units on site were available as short-term holiday lets. The remainder are second homes in a countryside setting and six of those, barn conversions. The proposed development would have had a significant and overbearing impact on the amenity of unit 11. Residents which live and visit here should enjoy the same level of amenity as any other housing development and referenced policy ENV16. Over development of the site was also discussed. Permission was granted on appeal for development of 11 units. Cllr Legg felt that it ought not to have received approval looking at policy. However, the local landscape character would have benefited by the removal of an ugly and derelict feed mill. Increasing the number of units to 19 was a clear over development. The Local Ward members statement also reflected views that the proposal would not improve the quality and appearance of the site. The treatment of wastewater was also a cause for concern as it was calculated that drainage fields proposed wouldn’t cover the area. It would cause harm to the protected area and residential units. Cllr Legg was also concerned by the lack of archaeological conditions and the impact of public rights of way.

 

 

Members questions and comments

·       Drainage of the site

·       Clarification regarding completed surveys.

·       Residential amenity

·       Confirmation on use of the building’s occupancy.

·       Comments regarding fire risk assessment

·       Concerns regarding amenity of the lodges.

·       Clarification of public footpaths on site.

·       Proximity of archaeological site.

·       Occupancy figures.

·       Concerns regarding parking, turning spaces and onsite disabled parking.

·       Questions as to why the application had taken this length of time to come to committee for a decision.

·       Distance of units and length of proposed caravans.

·       Lack of communal space

·       Members felt it was an overdevelopment and was a poorly designed scheme.

 

 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to overturn the officer’s recommendation for APPROVAL and REFUSE planning permission, was proposed by Cllr Les Fry, and seconded by Cllr David Taylor.

 

Decision: To refuse planning permission subject to the following reasons:

 

1.    Insufficient drainage information has been provided to demonstrate that the site would be appropriately drained, taking account of surface water, and with the surrounding agricultural land being sited at a higher gradient.

 

2.    The proposal would result in an adverse impact on the amenity of unit 11 through sharing an overbearing relationship which would result in a reduced level of amenity afforded to the living areas of unit 11, contrary to policy ENV.16 of the West Dorset and Weymouth Local Plan.