Agenda item

Members had visited site the previous day.

The Planning Officer introduced the report, setting out the reasons for refusal as outlined in the report.

The following spoke under the Public Participation at meetings scheme.

·         Mr Hague, Supporter – Statement read out by Democratic Services

·         Ms Deborah Congreve, Supporter – Statement read out by Democratic Services

·         Ms Becky Wright, Supporter – Statement read out by Democratic Services

·         Mr Len Shepherd, Supporter – Statement read out by Democratic Services

·         Ms Julie Firth, Supporter – Statement read out by Democratic Services

·         Mr Jacob Couldwell, Supporter - Statement read out by Democratic Services

·         Ms Rachel Hague, Supporter

·         Ms Charlotte Hague, Supporter

·         Sir Richard Fitzherbert, Supporter

·         James Thomson, Supporter

·         Neil Northrop, Supporter

·         Chloe Parmenter, Agent

Members agreed that it was desirable that the building should be redeveloped in order to save it from total dereliction, however several issues of concern were discussed with regards to the application. In particular, it constituted major development in open countryside, the need for detailed and clear information about the viability of other options and to support the need for enabling development,  the lack of sufficient climate change mitigation measures in the proposals, the importance of preserving the front façade of the building,  the likelihood of preserving the internal layout, and the impact on the landscape. 

The positive impact of the proposed scheme on the local economy was acknowledged, however Members felt that the current scheme could be improved via further communication between Officers and the Applicant.

A motion to refuse the application in accordance with Officer recommendation was moved and seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1. The development would not be in the public interest and therefore exceptional circumstances do not exist to justify the proposed major development. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies GSP1, DS1, RT1, E2 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. The development would result in very significant harm to Thornseat Lodge, which is a non-designated heritage asset of regional importance contrary to policies L3, DMC3, DMC5, DMC10 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
3. The development would harm valued landscape character, as identified in the Landscape Strategy and Action Plan and tranquillity and dark skies. The development is therefore contrary to policies L1, DMC1, DMC3, DMC14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
4. The development would not be sited in a sustainable location and has not been designed to mitigate the impacts of climate change. The development does not encourage sustainable transport and would exacerbate the impact of traffic in the local area. The development would not encourage behavioural change or achieve a reduction in the need to travel. The development is therefore contrary to policies CC1, T1, T2, DMT6 and the National Planning Policy Framework