Agenda item

The Planning Officer reminded Members of the application and laid out the reasons for refusal as set out in the original report. The Policy and Communities Team Manager introduced the report and outlined the policy implications of approving such an application and advised Members to stick to the original recommendation of refusing the application. She also highlighted a couple of errors in the report, namely in paragraph 21 of the report where the policy should be DMR1C instead of RT1 C, and paragraph 24 where the policy should read RT3B instead of RT1C.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Sir Richard FitzHerbert, supporter – statement read out by Democratic Services

·         Cllr Peter O’Brien, supporter – statement read out by Democratic Services

·         Mano Belivanis, applicant and Rodger Yarwood, agent.

Members and Officers discussed the size of the pods in comparison to other similar pods that had been approved, for example at North Lees, or refused and found that in addition to the pods being slightly bigger than others that had also been refused, another key issue officers had with them was the nature of their complexity by including additional rooms and services, making them more akin to chalets as opposed to simple camping pods. The Officer pointed out that, due to the fact that it had a shower and toilet plumbed in, it was built into the ground and had space for a small kitchen and living area, a bedroom and bathroom, and was fully set up with electricity, the pods were not small simple structures  but more of a holiday dwelling. In comparison, the approved pods at North Lees had no plumbed in services, no separate rooms within the pod, and were smaller in size.

The discussion highlighted issues around the lack of clarity of some of the policies, specifically that there was no definition for what is considered small and simple, and this sparked conversation on whether these policies need reviewing.

Members acknowledged that the site location worked well but that the proposals over-stepped the policy lines that could lead to many more, larger, permanent structures in the landscape over time. Members highlighted that if tourists were desperate to have toilets and showers as part of their holiday dwelling, they could choose a different form of holiday accommodation which included these facilities – the glamping pod is unique in that they typically have external, communal facilities.

A motion to refuse the application was proposed, seconded, voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

          1.

          2.

The proposal is considered to be unacceptable by virtue of the number, scale and nature of the pods.  As such the proposal is in conflict with Core Strategy policy RT3 and DM policy DMR1.

The proposal would be contrary to Core Strategy policy T6 and DM policy DMT5 Development affecting a public right of way as it would increase vehicular traffic on the public right of way network serving the site, to the detriment of the quiet enjoyment of the route by walkers and riders.