Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/23/009

Planning application - change of use of land to well-being centre comprising of a. central hub, b. therapy building, c. pets as therapy building, d. replacement storage building and animal enclosure e. installation of four camping domes f. remodelled access, parking and associated works g. replacement garage

Planning application - change of use of land to well-being centre comprising of a. central hub, b. therapy building, c. pets as therapy building, d. replacement storage building and animal enclosure e. installation of four camping domes f. remodelled access, parking and associated works g. replacement garage

The application was referred to the Development Control Committee by the Delegation Panel following a call-in request by Councillor Mike Chester (Ward Member for Chedburgh and Chevington).

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 84 of Report No DEV/WS/23/009.

Speakers:    Winifred Evans (neighbouring objector on behalf of herself and other neighbouring objectors) spoke against the application

                   David and Karen Sturgeon & William, Neil and Jean Milne (neighbouring objectors) spoke against the application

                   (Neither the Sturgeons or the Milnes were in attendance to personally address the Committee and, instead, the Democratic Services Officer read out joint a pre-prepared statement on their behalf.)

                   Matt Plummer (architect) and Jon Cardy (applicant) spoke in support of the application

During the debate a number of Members commended the aims of the scheme and recognised the real need for mental health support services such as those proposed.

Some of the Councillors that attended the site visit also remarked on the way in which the proposal would benefit the site visually from its current condition.

However, concerns were also raised in respect of the loss of trees proposed, the location (some of which is outside the settlement boundary) and the practicalities of the scheme in relation to waste removal, staffing and the number of individuals who would be on the site at any one time.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to questions/comments in connection with the following topics:

Policy – DM5 and DM34 permitted development such as that proposed outside of the settlement boundary;

Animals – whilst not a Material Planning Consideration, it was confirmed that use of the animals on site in the proposed facility would require a licence from the Licensing Authority. Irrespective of the outcome of the application the existing animals would remain on site and if granted there was no intention to increase the number of animals housed;

Refuse – the Council’s waste team had been consulted and they had not raised objection to the proposal;

Listed Building – the proposed layout gave three distinct areas on the site with various areas of screening. Due to the relative lack of intervisibility the Council’s Conservation Officer had therefore not raised concerns in respect of the Listed Building’s setting;

Trees – a condition had been proposed for landscaping which included replacement trees, however, those seeking removal were not good quality examples;

Staffing – the facility was mainly to be operated by the two applicants, with one or two specialists being utilised where required, together with potentially one or two other part-time supplementary staff members for services such as housekeeping; and

Surfacing – a condition had been included for hard surfacing which would create low level impact in respect of both noise and visual impact.

Councillor Brian Harvey raised a specific query in respect of the timings set out in condition 21 which did not entirely align with those outlined elsewhere in the report. The Service Manager (Planning – Development) assured Councillor Harvey that this would be clarified.

Councillor Nick Clarke made reference to Central Government’s stance in respect of planning consent for glamping ventures similar to that proposed. The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that there was currently an open consultation being carried out in relation to Permitted Development rights to support temporary recreational campsites. However, this was still ongoing and no regulations had been put in place in connection with this matter.

Councillor Peter Stevens proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to overdevelopment, impact on the setting of the Listed Building, impact on neighbouring amenity and the impact on the countryside policies of the development plan. This was duly seconded by Councillor Mike Chester.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) confirmed that the Decision Making Protocol would be invoked and the motion would be ‘minded to’ and subject to the production of a Risk Assessment for future consideration by the Committee.

Upon being put to the vote and with 9 voting for the motion and 6 against it was resolved that

Decision

Members be MINDED TO REFUSE THE APPLICATION, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, due to overdevelopment, impact on the setting of the Listed Building, impact on neighbouring amenity and the impact on the countryside policies of the development plan. A Risk Assessment would therefore be produced for consideration by the Committee at a future meeting.

(On conclusion of this agenda item the Chair permitted a short comfort break.)