Agenda item

Full Application - Proposed holiday retreat with holiday accommodation including 2 static caravans, 1 yurt, 9 touring caravan pitches, 17 camping pods, 5 camping pitches and ancillary facilities including toilet block, conversion of pole barn to flexible space for events, conversion of dutch barn to catering area, conversion of old milking parlour to 4 holiday lets, replacement of 2 storey storage barn with 2 underground single storey holiday let studios, a polytunnel and associated access and access tracks, parking and landscaping at Home Farm, Sheldon (NP/DDD/1223/1459, AM)

Minutes:

The Planning Officer presented the report and outlined the reasons for refusal.

 

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

 

It was noted that the footpath mentioned on the site visit is not actually on the site and starts at Lower Farm. The Conservation Area was clarified. 

 

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

 

Mr Andrew Ford – Sheldon Village Planning Committee

Mr Joe Noble – Sheldon Village Planning Committee

Mr Ammir Kohanzad – Applicant – Statement read out by a member of Democratic Services.

 

The Members noted from the site visit that this development can be seen from a distance and from a number of view points.  It was noted that there is a lack of information provided in this application including:

 

·         No ecological survey

·         No tree survey

·         No noise survey or noise management plan

·         No list of sustainability measures to be employed so contrary to CC1 policy

·         No drainage or suds proposals

 

The impact and upset imposed on the community was acknowledged by the Members.

 

It was discussed as to what would be acceptable and noted that small scale tourism development would be more likely to be acceptable. However this would be a different development than the current proposal. The Officer invited the applicant to use the Authority’s pre-application advice service.

 

The Officer recommendation to refuse the application was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

 

1.    The development would not be in the public interest and exceptional circumstances do not exist to justify the proposed major development. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies Core Strategy policies GSP1, GSP3 and DS1, Development Management policy DMC1 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.    The development would involve the retention of new build holiday accommodation and the conversion and alteration of modern buildings of no historic or vernacular merit contrary to Core Strategy policy RT2 and Development Management policy DMC10.

 

3.    The development would involve the retention and use of static caravans and is not an appropriate site for camping pods or the scale of touring caravans or camping proposed contrary to Core Strategy policy RT3 and Development Management policy DMR1.

 

4.    The development would result in a significant adverse visual and landscape impact and would significantly harm valued landscape character contrary to Core Strategy policy L1, Development Management policy DMC1 and DMC3 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

5.    Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to demonstrate that the application would enhance biodiversity or that the development would not harm trees, protected species or their habitat contrary to Core Strategy policy L2, Development Management policies DMC11, DMC12 and DMC13 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

6.    The development would result in harm to the Sheldon Conservation Area and its setting and the setting of the Grade II listed Church of St Michael and All Saints contrary to Core Strategy policy L3 and Development Management policies DMC5, DMC7 and DMC8. The harm identified would not be outweighed by public benefits arising from the development contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

7.    The development would result in harm to the character, appearance and amenity of the local area and neighbouring properties contrary to Core Strategy policy GSP3 and Development Management policy DMC3.

 

8.    Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to demonstrate that the development would encourage behavioural change to achieve a reduction in the need to travel or reduce traffic movements. Visitors to the development would be largely or wholly reliant upon the private car and therefore would not be a sustainable form of recreation development contrary to Core Strategy policies GSP3 and T2.

 

9.    Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to demonstrate that the development would be served by a suitable sustainable urban drainage scheme or that pollution from foul drainage associated with the development can be satisfactorily mitigated contrary to Core Strategy policy CC5, Development Management policy DMC14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

10.  The proposal would not deliver high quality design or the highest possible standards of carbon reductions and water efficiency in order to mitigate the causes of climate change contrary to Core Strategy policies GSP3 and CC1, Development Management policy DMC3, the Authority’s adopted Supplementary Planning Documents ‘Design Guide’ and ‘Climate Change and Sustainable Building’ and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: