Agenda item

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The report was introduced by the Planning Officer who outlined the reasons for refusal as set out in the report.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Luke Osborne, supporter

·         Linda Neale, supporter

·         Kiara O’Rourke, supporter – statement read out on behalf of the applicant

Members highlighted that the building was small and simple and was invisible to the public. However, Members pointed out that the build was in a very special, historic and natural location amongst a rock outcrop and that the localised landscape needed to be protected in its own right. It was also noted that future changes to public access or land ownership that changed the public visibility of the proposals could not be predicted. Members were concerned about the precedent that approving such an application would have, and that it could easily give rise to similar types of proposals at countless other sites. Officers also pointed out that it differs from approved small pod-like structures that have policy support in some settings, in that it has several associated external structures included such as the toilet, hot tub, dining area and washing area.

A motion to refuse the application was proposed, seconded,