Agenda item

The Committee considered application WND/2022/0989 for the construction of a holiday let building and associated infrastructure. This was a revised scheme following a previous refusal and subsequent Inspector dismissal. Parking provision would be extended, and 8 additional spaces provided. There were flooding issues in Dodford, but not near the site.

Simon Steel, on behalf of a neighbouring property, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. He stated that the application did not reflect the market use of the site and suggested that based on its use, an all-encompassing change of use was reasonable and consultative. He further suggested that a commercial level of sewage removal was needed; there was no stream or watercourse nearby and effluence sometimes flowed downhill to the village.

Colin Newton, Dodford Parish Clerk, addressed the Committee in objection to the application, and voiced concerns around parking, noise, and waste. He advised that a previously added condition relating to parking was not being met, and a recent incident breached noise-related conditions. He stated that the parish council was supportive of enterprise, but the proposal was unacceptable; the harm caused would outweigh any benefits.

In response to questions, Mr Newton advised that the stretch of road where parking overspills happened was very narrow. The Planning Officer explained that that effluence had a degree of treatment in that it either went into a ground system or into a ditch that ran along the highway/footpath.

Councillor D Smith addressed the Committee in objection to the application and commented that since Dodford was a small village, any developments were expected to be small-scale. He stated that the application conflicted with several policies in the Local Plan.

Councillor Jo Gilford addressed the Committee in support of the application. She acknowledged that the application did contravene some policies, but the benefits outweighed the negatives. She advised that the applicant had worked to make significant changes to address concerns raised by the Inspector and the Council. The single objection raised by the parish council had been addressed and the proposal was no longer considered inappropriate.

Roy Hammond, the agent on behalf o the applicant, addressed the Committee in favour of the application. He stated that work had been done to address the concerns of the Inspector and the local community as far as possible. The Inspector’s main concerns regarding scale and harm to the gap between 2 parts of settlement had now been addressed. He advised that the principle of development was acceptable and had economic advantages.

In response to questions, the Committee heard that there were 2 conditions limiting the use of the buildings. It was noted that there was no intention to change the premises licence. Maximum occupancy was 8; there were 4 double bedrooms.

The Planning Officer advised that there was no need to remove permitted development rights for a commercial property since development was limited by the use of the building. It was the opinion of the Planning Officer that the previous reasons for refusal had been adequately addressed.

Members discussed the report and commented that there were no planning reasons to refuse the application; the Committee could not determine what might happen in the future, and any noise issues would be dealt with under the licensing regime; it was not a planning matter.

Councillor Irving-Swift proposed and Councillor Joyce seconded that the officer recommendation be agreed. The recommendation contained in the report was put to a vote and declared carried with 9 votes for.

RESOLVED:

PERMISSION GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS as set out in the report with delegated authority to the Assistant Director – Planning and Development to approve an amendment to conditions as deemed necessary.