Agenda item

Siting of 4no. Glamping Pods with associated highways access, car parking & wash block

Land Adj. to Olcote, Scrane End North, Freiston, Boston, PE22 0LR

Mr & Mrs A. Drury

Siting of 4no. Glamping Pods with associated highways access, car parking & wash block

Land Adj. to Olcote, Scrane End North, Freiston, Boston, PE22 0LR

Mr & Mrs A. Drury

The Assistant Director - Planning presented the details of the application, as set out in the report.

It was reported that, since the publication of the agenda pack, the following additional submission had been received. 

·         Two photographs from the applicant’s agent, which had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting. 

·         Five letters of support, including a further letter from the We’ll Meet Again Museum, stating that the proposal would boost visitor numbers, add to the range of accommodation and that it would be acceptable in these surroundings. 

·         Four further letters from nearby residents, objecting to the application on the grounds of the impact of additional people visiting the area, particularly with respect to loss of privacy. 

The Chairman then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.

Mr P Weaver, a neighbour, spoke in objection to the application, stating that almost all local residents were objecting to the application.  Their grounds were the adverse impact on wildlife; the felling of trees; noise (particularly with respect to potential anti-social behaviour and the impact on mental health of residents in a quiet rural location); loss of privacy; litter; and possible trespass.  A back garden was not a suitable location for such a proposal.

Mr G Forman, the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee.  The applicant had paid for pre-application advice and had received positive feedback from Planning Officers; in particular that the proposal satisfied Policy 1 and 9 of the Local Plan in terms of need and benefits to the area. Therefore, the Planning Officers’ change of opinion was confusing.  The neighbours’ objections were out of proportion to such a small-scale proposal.  The applicant had put this environmentally friendly application together with care, was passionate about the wildlife and countryside of the area where they had lived for many years, and felt it did comply with Policies 1 and 9.  There was no objection from Environmental Health and 6-foot high fencing and trees screened the site.  The applicant lived on site and so could ‘police’ activity in the unlikely event there was any adverse impact.  It would be possible to have 5 touring caravans on the site without planning permission, but the applicant did not feel this would be appropriate.  The pods were smaller, allowing 2 adults and 1 child, fewer in number, and would be used by bird watchers and walkers who wished to visit Freiston Shore and would appreciate the site, which had been developed as a micro setting for wildlife.

Councillor Judith Welbourn, the Ward Member, then addressed the meeting and spoke in favour of the proposal for two pods.  The proposal would benefit the area; the pods would be small and built by a local firm; the site was well screened; there would only be two additional vehicles on site; dogs would not be allowed and the applicant worked so would discourage noise at night and visitors would be exploring the area in the daytime.  The applicant was passionate about the area and had done all they could to address objections and the proposal would be an asset to the area.

Members then asked questions of the speakers, who answered as follows, in summary.

Mr Weaver confirmed that local residents were concerned about the potential for litter.  Mr Forman confirmed that the applicant lived immediately adjacent to the proposed site and aimed to cater for visitors who enjoyed countryside and nature, and so would not be the type to litter the area. 

The Assistant Director - Planning confirmed that there would be a condition regarding seasonal use of the site if the Committee wished to approve the application.  The applicant would be able to site five touring caravans within the curtilage of the dwelling, in accordance with permitted development requirements, related legislation and membership of the Caravan and Camping Club; it was for the Committee to decide what weight to give this.  The applicant could control litter on the site and permission could include a condition to provide litterbins.  The issue of litter in the wider area was not a matter for the Committee. 

With respect to waste arrangements, Mr Forman referred to the bin storage area shown on the site plan and confirmed the applicant pay commercially for waste to be collected.  Mr Forman added that there would be less of an impact than if the site operated all year round.  Only some small trees and shrubs, possibly on the roadside, would be felled, no mature trees.  Trees felled so far had been in the applicant’s back garden. 

The Assistant Director - Planning added that trees at the front of the site would need felling, but they were not ancient and planning permission would not be required.

[The registered speakers left the meeting at this point.]

During debate, some Members expressed views opposing the proposal and quoted Policies 2 and 3. They considered that the road was not adequate for additional usage; there was no proven need for the proposal in this location; there was a high number of objections from local residents; there would be an adverse impact on neighbouring properties in visual terms and noise; and the proposal would be an intrusion into open countryside.  Members noted that Caravan and Camping Club membership required compliance with rigorous rules. 

Councillor Peter Bedford proposed that planning permission be refused, as recommended by the Planning Officers, and this was seconded by Councillor Paul Skinner. 

Other Members spoke in favour of the proposal, feeling that the proposed pods were preferable to caravans, and screening would mitigate against noise and visual intrusion.  There was sympathy with the aims and objectives of the proposal, which would benefit the area; therefore, the proposal was in accordance with Policies 1 and 9.

The Chairman proposed that planning permission be granted and Councillor Yvonne Stevens seconded the proposal.  However, as this was a direct negative, Members voted on the original proposal to refuse planning permission. 

Vote: 6 for, 5 against

RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED as recommended for the following reasons:

Reason 1:    

Insufficient evidence has been submitted that demonstrates that the proposed development is necessary in this location and/or will provide the sustainable development needs of the area in terms of community benefits.  As such the proposed development is contrary to the objectives of Policy 1 (d) of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Reason 2:    

The proposed development will generate significant noise and general disturbance, especially during the evenings of the summer months, that will be harmful to residential amenity and the quiet and peaceful living conditions of nearby residents in this relatively remote location, in particular the occupiers of Roses Cottage, Scrane End which lies adjacent to the site. This development is therefore contrary to the objectives of Policies 2, 3, 9 and 30 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan and paragraph 127 of the NPPF (2019) which seeks, amongst other things, to create places which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.