Agenda item

Note: The meeting reconvened at 1933, and all Members present at the start of the meeting were present, with the exception of Councillor Matt Boles.

 

The Principal Development Management Officer introduced application number 138145, an application for change of use of land for the siting of 84no. chalet lodge units, with 3no. additional lodges for use as site manager’s accommodation, multi-functional space and a reception manager’s office Holywell Grange, Moor Road, Snitterby Gainsborough DN21 4UH.

 

There were a number of updates for this item, as follows:

 

·         The final comments from the Highways department had been received , recommending imposition of conditions relating to:

-the provision of a proposed 1.5 m footway;

-prohibition of site occupation until implementation of Travel Plan;

-Implementation of an approved surface water drainage scheme;

-Prohibition of development until submission and subsequent approval of a Construction Management Plan and Method Statement. This to be strictly adhered to throughout construction;

 

·         3 additional objections to the proposal since the report had been prepared on the perceived lack of capacity for the drainage that had been put forward, and concerns it would drain onto other people’s land. It was noted by the PDMO that no objections were raised by the Lead Local Flood Authority to the proposal;

 

·         There had been a response from the applicant and agent on proposed changes to the scheme since the report had been prepared, relating to the reduction in the number of lodges (either 82, or 75).

 

They had also submitted a “rebuttal” to the comments of WLDC’s Landscape Officer. This had been assessed together with proposed revised layouts by the Landscape Officer who confirmed that it did not alter her conclusions and objections to the scheme;

 

·         There had been a detailed response from the applicant’s heritage adviser in relation to the comments of the conversation officer on the impact on Holywell Grange, a Grade II listed building. There is a difference of opinion between the two and reference was made to a detailed response from the conservation officer. On the whole the impact was considered “less than substantial” and weighed against approval detracting from the benefits to the tourism economy.

 

The first of the speakers was Kate Hiseman, the agent for the applicants.  She raised the following points:

 

·         The proposal contributes to visitor shortfall in the WLDC area.  It was recognised that the provision of quality accommodation was important for sustainable development in the District;

 

·         Families and couples would buy lodges and use them as a retreat;

 

·         It could be used by those who have long-term health issues;

 

·         A diverse tourism offer would contribute to sustainability in the area;

 

·         Visit England reported that 400,000 residents with an impairment did not take a holiday in the previous year;

 

·         There was support from a national chiropractor and wellness clinic searching for sites in the UK; the nearest equivalent was in Thirsk;

 

·         All objections were based on the assumption that the scheme submitted would fail; no-on had challenged the Business Plan.  The lodges would only be in position once sold;

 

·         The applicant had 30 years’ experience in the caravan and holiday industry, and was on the committee of the Caravan Club that wrote the code of practice for the siting and transportation of caravans and lodges.  He had been contacted by them to use the site as an example nationally;

 

·         The scheme would deliver significant spin-off expenditure to the local economy, and a sustainable tourism plan was uniquely placed to deliver this;

 

·         It would contribute to £380,000 gross value added per year and offers the opportunity for joint working with communities;

 

·         The scheme aims to create high value tourism jobs;

 

·         The Sustainability Tourism Plan was clear in putting local people first in terms of jobs;

 

·         The sustainability appraisal and planning statement as submitted conform there were no unacceptable adverse impacts on the CLLP or national planning policy;

 

·         The proposal takes a multi-layered view of how tourism can provide benefits, and add to health and wellbeing;

 

·         The development would be for up to 84, high quality detached lodgings, with a mix of sizes, and a site office and café.  It would sit within woodland and a wildlife area.

 

The Principal Development Management Officer advised the committee that the application before them was for holiday lodges; there was nothing before the committee on implementation and delivery of the scheme, which would be something for the future.  There were no delivery mechanisms in terms of transport.

 

The final speaker was Councillor Jeff Summers, Ward Member for the application.  He raised the following points;

 

·         The site was in open agricultural land, and was bounded on two sides by a highway.  It was on the opposite side to Black Dyke, which runs past Snitterby, forming a natural boundary between the application site and the village.  In 2007 this dyke overtopped and house were flooded;

 

·         In no way was the site connected to Snitterby or Waddingham;

 

·         The application did not meet or comply with any of the 15 points in the CLLP at 2.5.2; nor did it meet any of the criteria of LP55 of the same document;

 

·         The inclusion of a shop on the site would do nothing to add to the Public House in Snitterby and the shop in Waddingham; both are struggling somewhat and therefore do not need competition;

 

·         There had been 54 representations from local people opposing the application;

 

·         The main residence was an 18^th century listed building; wooden lodges crowding the building would not enhance its designation;

 

·         There did not seem to be any justification for sustainability; in recent years a similar application in Caistor that came to committee several times had to be converted into full-time living accommodation;

 

·         The officer recommendation was fully supported.

 

Note:   Following his speech, Councillor Summers left the Chamber.

 

Members then provided comment on the application:

 

·         The transport links in the area were relatively non-existent; the Call-Connect bus would be to Gainsborough or Brigg only;

 

·         Paragraphs 193 and 194 of the NPPF would be covered by LP25 of the CLLP which was in conformity with the NPPF.

 

There were no further questions or comments and it was therefore moved, seconded and voted upon that permission be REFUSED, as per the officer recommendation in the report.