Agenda item

Members had visited the site on the previous day.

The Planning Officer introduced the report.

The following spoke under the Public Participation at Meetings Scheme:

·         Ms Caroline McIntyre, Agent

The Officer recommendation to refuse the application was moved and seconded.

Members discussed that although there was limited landscape impact and parking where it was proposed to be sited,, introducing a commercial development to a domestic garden setting was not ideal.

The motion for refusal was put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

To  REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1.         The proposal is unacceptable in principle as it amounts to the creation of a new holiday let dwelling in a permanently sited ‘Shepherds Hut’ type caravan in the rear garden of an existing dwelling. The proposal is therefore contrary to the policies of the development plan including Core Strategy Policy RT3 and Local Plan policy LR3.

2.         The materials and general design do not reflect that of the original dwelling or the National Park’s local building traditions. Therefore the proposal is not considered to be of a high quality design or detailing. The proposal is incongruous in this domestic setting and wholly contrary to the design policies of the development plan. The site is open to public view from the nearby footpath to the north of the site and would detract from the character of the original dwelling and the established character of the area and the National Park’s Landscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to the policies of the development plan including Core Strategy policies GSP1, GSP3, L1, RT3 and Local Plan Policy, , LR3 as well as the Authority’s ‘Design Guide’, ‘Detailed Design Guide for Alterations and Extensions’ and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.         There is no off street parking available to the property. The proposal will generate the need for an additional parking space. The policies of the development plan require adequate parking space and no more and seek to protect residential amenity and the living conditions of communities. The representations and consultation responses that have been received suggest that residents experience difficulty parking already. This demonstrates that there is clearly pressure for the existing parking spaces. The proposal will add further pressure for parking to the existing situation and this is likely to cause an amenity issue for the residents in this community. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policies GSP3, RT3, T7 and Local Plan Policies, LR3, LT11 and the ‘Design Guide’ paras 5.7-5.9 and the National Planning Policy Framework.