Agenda item

Wycomb Lane, Scalford

Applicant:     Mr & Mrs Watchorn

Location:      Land off Wycomb Lane, Scalford

Proposal:      Proposed log cabin for tourism use

 

(a)  The development Manager (LP) stated that: The application seeks full planning permission to site a log cabin on land north east of Scalford village approximately 1.5km from Scalford with access from Wycomb Lane.

Members requested confirmation of nearby footpaths to the site and these are displayed on the screen taken from the County Council Website, additional information with regards to location of parking and recreation space was requested by members but this has not been provided by the agent.

There are no updates to the report and the proposal is recommended for refusal due to the location of the cabin not being considered as sustainable tourism and therefore not in accordance with either the NPPF nor the Melton Local Plan which has now passed examination and should be given significant weight.

 

(b) David Manning, on behalf of the Agent, Maurice Fairhurst was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Proposed site is on the site of disused recreational grounds

·         Network of footpaths connects site to other villages

·         Site has existing access which is to be realigned and widened to improve visibility splays

·         The single cabin is not a significant development and will not attract significant amounts of traffic

·         The cabin will be largely hidden from view through existing/new planting

·         Existing parking and turning spaces

·         Level site, with plenty of room to do whatever is required

·         Support from residents, no objections

·         Will diversify the farm’s business interests

·         Create and help to sustain local employment

·         No adverse impact to the local landscape

·         Some smaller tourist sites, like this one may have to be found satisfactory in terms of sustainability

·         People attracted by the peace and quiet of these rural areas

·         Cannot agree that it’s been said the site is unsustainable due to its distance from the nearest services and facilities. Makes a comparison to the success of Eye Kettleby Lakes

 

A Cllr commented that the proposed 1 bathroom didn’t seem enough for the 3 bedrooms which could potentially accommodate 6 adults.

 

The Agent agreed 6 occupants would be tight. 4 or 5 would be much more realistic, and suggested that the applicants would willingly look at this again in order to provide top quality facilities.

 

A Cllr queried the curtilage. The COU is within the red line. With cars and recreational space this seems very tight. Could it be considered to extend curtilage?

 

The Agent stated that they are encouraged to minimise anything that happens out in open countryside. The red line is more than 7m from the building. If deemed appropriate, and committee agreed, the applicants who own the whole plot, would be more that happy to extend to 10m or 15m.

 

The Agent added that the whole farm will be open to visitors, which is part of the appeal.

 

Cllr Holmes, Ward Cllr for Waltham on the Wolds, proposed to permit the application. The reasons given, that it encourages diversification, and would be sustainable due to the large number of footpaths surrounding the site. Plus its location so close to Scalford.

 

Cllr Cumbers seconded the proposal. With the suggestion that a condition be added to ensure use as a holiday let only.

 

A Cllr stated that this is the future for agriculture. The opportunity should be taken, as there are very few small farms and an increasing number of big units. The support is needed in order to maintain income.

 

A Cllr expressed concerns regarding there needing to be a site specific reason for this being permitted otherwise it could be seen a lot more frequently. Also voiced concerns of how easily it could be turned into housing.

 

A Cllr stated that the site used to be recreational ground, and that is what it will be again if permitted.

 

A Cllr stated that this is not included on the application. No activities listed apart from walking.

 

A Cllr asked for clarification on the wording of proposed condition for non residential use.

 

The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services explains there is a set of conditions, rather than individual conditions that can be applied to these circumstances. a; Talk about it not being a principal dwelling and b; length of occupancy.

 

A Cllr stated that there is an unusual supply of local footpaths, making it good for walking.

 

A Cllr requested clarification from the Solicitor to the Council. If the holiday let wasn’t successful due to its specific target customer. Would we turn the land back to its former use? Wouldn’t support if application was for a home.

The Solicitor to the Council stated that a condition can be imposed. If owners wanted to revert to permanent dwelling then they would be required to apply to release that condition at which point application could be refused.

 

A Cllr asked what guarantee is there of it being a holiday let.

 

The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that we would respond to suggestions raised that it’s not being used as it should. This could potentially trigger inspection or enforcement.

 

The Solicitor to The Council states there could be a requirement that the owner supply details of occupancy. It could be conditioned that a register of occupancy is kept.

 

Cllr Holmes stated that she does not think that is necessary. It’s just another part of their business. Genuine diversification which is what is encouraged.

 

Cllr Cumbers agrees that it is ideal. However it is the responsible thing to do, to protect the countryside. Suggestions for conditions are reasonable.

 

A Cllr stated we need to be careful, so the register is a good idea. They also urge the proposer to include as a condition.

 

Cllr Holmes agreed to include.

 

The Chair asked for confirmation on wanting to include the condition.

 

Cllr Cumbers agreed.

 

The Chair stated he cannot support, as it’s against 3 policies. Not against principle, however it goes against the plan which would not be consistent.

 

A vote was taken. 5 members voted to permit the application and 4 voted against the proposal.

 

Determination:   The proposal encourages Rural Diversification, and would be sustainable due to the large number of footpaths surrounding the site. Plus its location so close to Scalford.