Agenda item

Erect 2 no. semi-detached 3-bed holiday cottages and site 2 no. shepherd huts and associated parking provision (sui generis commercial leisure accommodation).

The meeting adjourned at 11:59 – 12:10.

The Lead Project Officer introduced the application for the erection of two semi-detached properties. The site location was outlined on a map of the area and photographs of Langton House were shown to members. It was noted that a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) covered the entire site.

The proposed site plan was provided and reference was made to Policy EE4, which supported the visitor economy and it was explained that the proposal fell within the relevant criteria of supporting tourism.

Photographs of the proposed site were shown and the proposed site for the holiday cottages was identified, along with the proposed floorplans and elevations for the cottages. Proposed elevations for the shepherd’s hut were also presented and it was confirmed that a condition would control the external appearance of these units.

Plans showing trees and landscaping were provided and it was confirmed that the biodiversity net gain could be delivered on site. The Lead Project Officer outlined the drainage scheme and reported that concerns had been raised by the Parish Council regarding increased flood risk in the local area. Following site investigations, the scheme proposed rain downpipes on the holiday cottages discharging to a soakaway. Arrows on the plan illustrated the direction of water flow, and a shallow swale was proposed along the north-eastern boundary. The Parish Council had requested that the swale be made wider and deeper but officers considered that a further condition to require it to be increased in size if needed, did not meet the planning tests.

It was noted that the holiday cottages would not contribute to the housing land supply position. The Lead Project Officer explained that a condition would ensure that the cottages and shepherds’ huts remained tied to the wider holiday estate. Impacts on neighbouring amenity were considered acceptable, subject to the inclusion of obscure glazing in certain areas.

Mr Moir spoke as the agent for the application. He noted that the properties would be holiday accommodation only and would support the local economy by bringing more tourists to the area and by supporting a local rural business.

In response to members questions the following responses were provided by officers:

·       National flood risk modelling had been provided by the Environment Agency and further information had been gained from public consultation which fed into the detailed drainage strategy.

·       The foul water drain was highlighted on the plans and it was explained that the full details were to be submitted.

·       The application included permission for two shepherds huts and if the applicant wanted to develop them beyond the scope of the submitted plans in the future then a new application would be required.

·       The shepherd huts were defined as caravans in planning terms and a condition was included to ensure the appearance of the shepherd huts would be as submitted.

·       The ownership of the holiday accommodation would be tied to the wider estate and this would be secured via condition.

Members were in agreement that the application was acceptable.

It was proposed by Cllr Brenton and seconded by Cllr Sowry-House, that the application be granted as per the officer’s recommendation.

Decision:

That authority be delegated to the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement and/or the Development Management Area Manager East to issue planning permission following completion of a S106 Planning Obligation.

Or

That permission be refused for the reasons set out in the appendix to these minutes if the s106 agreement is not completed by 20^th May 2026 or such extended time as agreed by the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement and/or the Development Management Area Manager East.