Agenda item

Proposal: The erection of 3 No. detached holiday letting units with parking and associated works.

The Principal Planner (Development Management) presented the application as detailed in the agenda and highlighted the key considerations. She noted a number of local concerns had been raised relating to noise from the existing holiday lets, however, Environmental Health had raised no objection to the proposal and they had also confirmed they had not received any official noise complaints relating to the existing holiday business. It was considered the current proposal, as now single storey and with adequate landscape planting much of which is evergreen, would not adversely impact on the setting of the nearby listed buildings or local area. There were no highway safety concerns and conditions were detailed to meet drainage requirements.

A representative for Long Sutton Parish Council and four members of the public spoke in objection to the application, some of their concerns included:

·         A previous application had been turned down on appeal as it was outside the development limits of Long Sutton.

·         The design is poor.

·         No opportunity for low carbon travel, there is no public transport.and it’s over a mile from local services.

·         If the whole site is fully occupied, including this proposal, it will increase the population of the village by 10%.

·         Noise is an issue. These are large holiday homes suitable for parties and large celebrations. No official complaints does not mean there are no issues. The site has grown over the past few years and now the noise is day and night, into the early hours.

·         Online reviews indicate there are large young parties using the properties.

·         There will cause material harm to the setting of nearby listed buildings and will be detrimental to other neighbouring properties.

·         The three proposed buildings will not be well screened, especially in the winter months as they are extremely large.

·         All local neighbours have written in objection.

·         There is fairly low occupancy with the current holiday homes, why the need to increase to such a high capacity? This proposal would mean there would be 83 beds at the site, a hotel would be subject to licensing restrictions but this doesn’t seem to apply holiday lettings.

·         The economic gain will be for the applicants at the expense of the neighbours.

·         Reference to previous planning history of the site.

·         The proposal conflicts with multiple policies.

The applicant then addressed members, and some of her comments included:

·         Family run business hosting multi-generational family holidays and the majority are family or work events, not young parties.

·         There is a significant spend in the local economy each year working with local businesses including, cider/wine tours and dining bookings at pubs.

·         They had never received a complaint about noise form any neighbour.

·         There is an 11pm curfew to manage noise at the site.

·         They had worked with officers regarding the design and had incorporated their suggestions.

·         SSDC business development team evaluated the proposal on the impact to the community and the economy; both were found to be positive.

·         Many new jobs will be created.

Ward Member, Councillor Gerard Tucker, raised a number concerns and points, including:

·         The application is clearly controversial.

·         Acknowledge the argument on both sides regarding the benefits to the local economy but also note the intrusion it brings to the local community.

·         After discussion with the applicant, it is anticipated that the number of employees will rise from 12 to 20. Feel this is a breach of policy SS2 and Economic Development policies regarding a development creating opportunities appropriate to the scale of the settlement. This proposal is disproportionate for the scale of the settlement, as are the potential numbers of visitors to the site at any one time.

·         Feel the comments of Economic Development were generic and did not take into account the specific detail of this site and proposal. There was more to the local economy than tourism.

·         Share concerns of local residents regarding noise and noted the enhanced growth should not be detrimental to those in close proximity.

·         Presented a slide to demonstrate the location of neighbouring properties to the site.

·         There is no public transport through Long Sutton.

(Cllr Tucker started to play an audio recording submitted from a local resident to indicate the noise coming from the site. However the Chairman explained that it should not be played as it had been discussed with the officer prior to the meeting that audio recordings could be easily distorted or open to interpretation regarding playback volume and location of recording etc)

During a short discussion several members expressed their objection to the proposal. Some of the comments included:

·         Usually would be in favour of supporting local businesses but this proposal seems disproportionate, and the units are very large.

·         Local residents should be taken into consideration.

·         Concern about harm to the setting of the nearby listed building.

·         Feel this is a large scale development on a greenfield site in open countryside

·         Seems a very large development for this location.

It was proposed to refuse the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, on the grounds that it is against policies due to its disproportionate size, lack of green travel plans and the harm to existing residents and properties.

On hearing the comments made, the Principal Planning suggested wording for the reason for refusal which was agreed by members.. A vote was taken on the proposal to refuse the application, which was carried 8 votes in favour, 1 against with no abstentions.

(Voting: 8 in favour of refusal, 1 against, 0 abstentions)