Agenda item

(Councillor Derek Yeomans and Shane Pledger, having declared personal and prejudicial interests, left the meeting prior to this application being presented and considered.)

Councillor Dean Ruddle took the role of Chairman.

Proposal: Change of use of agricultural storage barns to domestic storage and workshop for Long Sutton House. Change of use of barn to holiday/ancillary cottage. Change of use of root cellar to Laundry, domestic store, home office and holiday/ancillary cottage with basement. Erection of 2 no. holiday let/ancillary cottages. Change of use of barn to holiday let/ancillary cottage with store and potting shed. Change of use of agricultural land to domestic use. (Part retrospective application).

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda. He provided members with an overview and history of the site, and explained the proposal in detail. He noted that conditions included detail for a drainage scheme and engineers were confident a solution could be found. Clauses within the Section 106 agreement would protect de-fragmentation.

Mr R Fry of Long Sutton Parish Council, Mr S Burdett, Mrs V Burdett, Mr M Lancaster and Mr Ellerbeck, spoke in objection to the proposal. Some of their comments included:

·         The application could be refused due to traffic issues and encroachment onto agricultural land. On previous application for an agricultural building there were conditions imposed regarding the impact of traffic.

·         If approved, occupation must be by bona-fide tourists.

·         The plans show an entertainment building but no detail is provided.

·         Will be traffic and noise day and night for local residents.

·         Concerned about drainage and possibility of sewage being discharged onto fields. Drainage in Crouds Lane cannot cope in bad weather when sewage is tinkered away from the pumping station in Crouds Lane.

·         Will do more harm to village than good.

·         Not one permanent resident of Crouds Lane supports the application.

·         Feel market for tourism holiday lets is saturated in the area.

·         Transport access and service vehicle access should be via Shute Lane and not Crouds Lane.

·         Development is not wanted.

·         Wording in condition 3 regarding ancillary accommodation should be removed.

·         Background documents include a high level business plan with top-end finished letting accommodation, but all of it is based on this customer base customer to Long Sutton.

Members were then addressed by Mr P Cox, Mr E Yiallouris and Mr D Good in support of the application. Some of their comments included:

·         The applicant hosted events using Long Sutton House as the base.

·         With a background in the hospitality industry I have worked with the applicant on several events in Somerset and London. Takes a similar time to travel by train to Somerset as it does for many to commute daily to work in London.

·         Applicant aspires to deliver luxury accommodation.

·         Support bringing tourists into the area, and proposal will provide employment which is good for the area.

Applicant, Mr N Gould, addressed the representations that had been made. He was sorry if people had concerns, but was seeking to address and mitigate the issues. There is an element of retrospectiveness, but once officers had raised concerns, the work on site had stopped.  If approved, he would probably be employing a total of 35 staff.  He noted encroachment onto agricultural land would be very limited, and most of the land where building had taken place was more part of the garden.

During discussion members raised a number of concerns including:

·         If this was a new application would we approve?

·         More detail on drainage needed.

·         Scheme will have little impact on existing situation.

·         Difficult application.

·         Local economy and tourism is important.

·         If want local support then need to consult with them first.

·         In effect creating a gated community.

·         Feel proposal of this size in Long Sutton is not appropriate.

·         Disappointing that someone of the applicant’s standing has commenced building without permission.

·         A site visit would be useful to comprehend the size and scale.

·         An artist’s impression of the proposal would be helpful.

On hearing the comments made, the Area Lead and Planning Officer clarified that the drainage detail would need to be agreed by the Council’s engineers before planning approval was issued, and that no further detail was provided in the application regarding an entertainment room.  The Area Lead acknowledged a site visit might be useful and officers could try to gain more information about the potential drainage solution, plus detail of the business plan could be circulated to members.

It was proposed to defer the application for a site visit and to clarify the business plan, drainage and to obtain drawings to show artist’s impressions. On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)