Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Construction of accommodation block comprising 7 self-catered units (6 one-bedroomed studio suites and 1 two-bedroomed suite) and change of use of land for the siting of 6 shepherd's hut style camping pods.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

49.23        This application was for construction of an accommodation block comprising seven self-catered units (6 one-bedroom studio suites and 1 two-bedroomed suite) and change of use land for the siting of six shepherd’s hut style camping pods. 

49.24        The Senior Planning Officer advised that the site included the adjoining field parcel to the immediate east of the public house which was considered to be a non-designated heritage asset and lay wholly within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The proposals were for accommodation in two locations on the site; a block of seven suites on the disused tennis court where the proposed structure would be cut into the existing slope of the land and was intended to be finished with a grass (green) roof and six shepherd’s huts located within the lower portion of the eastern field adjacent the existing car park.  The huts would have their own bathroom facilities with all kitchen and bathroom waste to be treated on site.  Gretton Parish Council had objected to the proposal as detailed within the Committee report.   A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment had been submitted in support of the scheme by virtue of its location on the edge of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the predicted landscape and visual impacts were in keeping with the strategies and guidelines of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan. Neither the Cotswolds Conservation Board nor the Council’s Heritage Adviser raised any objection to the scheme.  The accommodation would be accessed through the existing car park which served the public house; however, direct vehicular access to the accommodation would not be permitted.  The scheme proposed 13 allocated spaces for the occupiers of the accommodation, along with electric vehicle charging points, and covered secure cycle parking facilities.  County Highways raised no objection to the scheme.  There were no immediate neighbouring residential properties adjoining the site that would be impacted by the proposal with the nearest residential property ‘Field Watch’ lying approximately 50 metres to the west of the site.  No objection had been raised by the Environmental Health Officer; however, in line with similar approvals of this nature, it was recommended that conditions be included on the planning permission to ensure the site was properly managed so that any potential impact on neighbouring amenity was limited and to require the submission and approval of a noise management plan.  An amended ecological report had been provided following initial concerns raised by the ecological specialist and final comments were awaited in that regard.  Subject to the suggested conditions which sought to ensure satisfactory landscaping and mitigation measures, it was considered that the proposed development would constitute sustainable development in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole and it was therefore recommended that authority be delegated to the Development Management Manager to permit the application, subject to conditions and the satisfactory resolution of the outstanding matters as set out in the Committee report and consultation with the infrastructure manager of the railway which was missed originally.

49.25        The Chair invited a local resident speaking against the application to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that he was surprised the application was recommended for delegated permission - having heard nothing for 17 months, he had assumed it would be refused on the basis of the obvious Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  He referenced the recent appeal refusal for a single back-fill residence on the same hillside due to the short single access track and its effect on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  This development brought no value to Gretton or the wider community – no new housing, nothing for the local economy, just a busier pub, noise disturbance, group bookings and more holiday accommodation.  The pub was successful because it had tremendous views so it was recognised that the site could be seen for miles.  Every year, thousands of train passengers, walkers and road users would look across at the scarred hillside and ask who had let that happen.  If permission was inevitable, he asked that approval be delayed to allow collaborative work to seek improvements for village residents and he urged Members not to waive this through accepting everything the developer said – ‘communicate, collaborate and compromise’ used to be a good planning motto but there was no evidence of that happening here and Gretton residents had the right to expect the Planning department to stand up for them.  With regard to the accommodation block, he felt this would inevitably attract group bookings, stag parties etc. and, if this unit had to go ahead, a simple mitigation would be to move the communal area and fire pit to the other side of the building away from the village side.  This would be a simple change that removed the blight of late-night noise heard in the village every Friday and Saturday in summer and he questioned why that had not already been addressed given residents’ concerns.  Furthermore, the shepherd’s huts were not mobile, they were fully plumbed and wired and had decking so were effectively 18 foot green static caravans.  A known fact which was ignored here was that the public house already used that field for overflow parking so parking for this proposal would be a big problem; of course, vehicular access and parking at each hut would be established in time – it would start with drop-off and utility vehicles which would get stuck on sloping grass causing a track to appear and then parking next to each hut would begin because the pub car park would be full which was how a static caravan site started.  He questioned why there could not be simple mitigation that addressed the main car park and limited vehicular access and parking in the field.  In conclusion, he asked Members to consider whether this should happen at all and, if it had to be permitted, to address some of the concerns of the many people who would suffer as a result of the proposal.

49.26        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Management Manager to permit the application, subject to conditions and the satisfactory resolution of the outstanding matters as set out in the Committee report and consultation with the infrastructure manager of the railway, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Management Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The seconder of the motion asked if it was possible to move the fire pit to the other side as part of the delegation, as had been suggested by the public speaker, to prevent noise from travelling down to the village.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that the Environmental Health Officer had raised no objections to the proposal in terms of impact on residential amenity, which included the position of the fire pit, and a noise management plan had been requested as part of the conditions to ensure there was no negative impact on residential amenity. 

49.27        A Member congratulated the Senior Planning Officer on a balanced report.  He did not think the Council was likely to win an appeal, should the application be refused; however, he shared the concerns that had been raised by the public speaker.  The public house was higher than the village of Gretton which meant there was an impact in terms of noise travelling down to the village and adversely affecting neighbouring residents, particularly in summer.  He could envisage the proposal being used for group parties with people staying in the pub until it closed and then moving on to the fire pit.  In his view, the fire pit should be removed from the proposal to prevent people from congregating and causing disturbance.  Whilst he felt there were no grounds to warrant refusal, based on the Council’s policies and the economic benefits it would bring he would like the Environmental Health Officer to relook at the proposal, given that the site was higher than the village itself, and for the fire pit to be removed.  Another Member shared the view that the fire pit should be omitted and he sought reassurance from Officers regarding the car parking as he was aware of an event in 2016 when the field had been completely packed with cars and he felt that measure to alleviate the traffic and car parking should be addressed as part of the delegation.  The Senior Planning Officer clarified that car parking was currently very informal in nature and the plans indicated that the parking would be formalised.  It was possible to include a condition requiring a car parking management plan to demonstrate where parking would be provided for special events, should Members so wish.  In terms of noise, the Environmental Health Officer was the Council’s own statutory consultee who had raised no objection to the proposal.  Whilst it was possible for the fire pit to be removed or relocated as part of the delegation, it should be borne in mind that a noise management plan had been requested as part of the decision to tie in any use of the external areas in line with the licensing of the public house.  A Member understood the arguments about parking but nothing had been said about the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which she felt was the main concern.  Development creep was happening all over the borough and, in her view, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty should be protected at all costs.  Whilst she appreciated each application should be considered on its own merits, she felt there was a lack of consistency with regard to the approach taken - this proposal would result in a large development in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty so she had expected the impact of that to be a significant concern. 

49.28        The proposer of the motion for a delegated permission indicated that he was happy with the suggestion made by the seconder of the motion to move the fire pit.   A Member asked whether it would be appropriate to set a maximum time for occupation of the accommodation and the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that a condition could be added to ensure the accommodation was for temporary use and could not be occupied on a permanent basis.  A Member suggested it might be more appropriate to defer the application given the various concerns and requests for additional conditions.  The Legal Adviser clarified that a deferral was a procedural motion which took precedent over all others; a deferral would be appropriate if Members felt there was not enough information to determine the application today and would mean the application would be brought back to the Committee.  A delegated permit would enable Officers to have conversations regarding specific matters Members wished to see resolved before permission was granted and, provided those matters were resolved, the application did not need to come back to Committee.  It was a decision for Members as to which was the most appropriate way forward.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for a Planning Committee Site Visit to assess the location of the fire pit and the potential impact of noise on local residents.  Another Member indicated that he was supportive of the suggestion to remove the fire pit, and would second a proposal on that basis, but he would not be happy to support a deferral.  The Development Management Manager advised that the removal of the fire pit could be discussed with the applicant as part of a delegation, if Members so wished.  The proposer and seconder of the motion for a delegated permission confirmed they would amend the delegation to be on the basis of the removal of the fire pit and the inclusion of conditions requiring submission of a car parking management plan and to restrict the accommodation to temporary use to prevent permanent occupation.  In response to a query, the Development Management Manager clarified that, if the applicant was not willing to remove the fire pit, the application would come back to the Committee.  On that basis, the proposer of the motion to defer the application confirmed he was happy to withdraw his proposal and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Management Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to removal of the fire pit, the inclusion of conditions requiring submission of a car parking management plan and to restrict the accommodation to temporary use to prevent permanent occupation, and the satisfactory resolution of the outstanding matters as set out in the Committee report and consultation with the infrastructure manager of the railway.