Agenda item

Change of use from multi-use building (Class D2) to a single holiday let, installation of windows and external staircase leading to timber deck with glass balustrade to support the existing elopement and micro wedding business - Duckhaven Stud, Cornborough Road, Westward Ho!

Minutes:

The following Councillors had attended the virtual site visit listed below:

 

Councillors: M Brown, R Lock, P Christie, R Craigie, P Watson, C Leather and R Boughton

 

 

 

Application No. 1/0855/2021/FUL - Change of use from multi-use building (Class D2) to a single holiday let, installation of windows and external staircase leading to timber deck with glass balustrade to support the existing elopement and micro wedding business - Duckhaven Stud, Cornborough Road, Westward Ho!

 

Interests:   Councillor Pennington declared a prejudicial interest – after speaking on the application as a Ward Member for Monkleigh & Putford and not as a Plans Committee Member - left the room and took no part in the debate and decision making

 

 

Officer Recommendation:  Grant

 

The planning application had been called into Plans Committee by Councillor Christie if the Officer is minded to approve, for the following reasons:

 

ST09/ST14

ST09  A facility that is currently and used intermittently with the external lighting could be seen to void this policy if used permanently with domestic style lighting

ST14  The comments by the AONB team indicate how this policy could be voided

 

 

Prior to the presentation Members were advised of the following update:

 

·         Councillor Pennington had also called in the application if the Officer recommendation was to refuse.  As the recommendation was to approve, Councillor Pennington’s call in had not been added to the report.

 

The Development Management Team Leader presented the report and informed Members of the main planning considerations.

 

Councillor Lock asked if the wording in the Design & Access Statement which says that the Covid 19 pandemic can be considered as a material consideration with considerable weight being given, was accurate.

The Planning Manager confirmed whilst it can be considered a material consideration, it is for the decision taker to consider the weight afforded to it.’

 

Councillor Lock suggested that, if the application was to be approved, the following additional conditions be imposed:

 

·         That no furniture such as tables and chairs be allowed on the timber decked balcony at any time.

 

·         Condition 4 – to include the word “elopement” – elopement and micro weddings

 

During the debate the following concerns/issues were raised:

 

·         History to the site – the number of previous planning applications for both Ocean Kave and Sunset Rooms.  Original application for Sunset Rooms emphasised that the rooms were needed to make the Kave viable and economic benefit to the business.  There were concerns that this application is not for weddings, but for 12 months holiday use and will be another piecemeal development.

 

·         Following comments from Members in relation to further development on the site, it was suggested that the applicant submit a Business Plan to show what the future plans for the site are.  The advice from the Planning Manager was, it would be unreasonable to ask the applicant to put in a Business Plan.

 

·         Roof lights – light spill having an impact on the AONB.  Members were referred to Condition 7 which addresses this issue.

 

·         Catering facilities on the site – Members were advised of the preference now for smaller weddings and there will be one Chef who will use the catering facilities in the Sunset Rooms.

 

·         Condition 5 to be robust, to ensure marquees, tents etc. are not assembled on the site.

 

·         Building now not visible, the balcony will make the building more obtrusive.

 

The Planning Manager and Development Management Team Leader addressed Members concerns, most of which had been covered by the Conditions set out in the report. 

 

The Planning Manager advised the Committee that should they be minded to refuse the application contrary to the recommendation, they would need to have robust reasons including a list of relevant policies which the application is in conflict with.

 

 

The following refusal reasons were put forward:

 

•       The proposal will result in a detrimental impact on the protected

         landscape of the AONB due to additional light spill from the roof

         lights contrary to Policy DM08a of the adopted North Devon &

         Torridge Local Plan and Paragraph 176 of the NPPF.

It was proposed by Councillor Lock that the application be approved.  There was no seconder to the motion.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Leather, seconded by Councillor Craigie that the application be refused.

 

A recorded vote was taken.

 

Councillor

For

Against

Abstain

Cllr R Boughton

X

 

Cllr M Brown

X

 

 

Cllr P Christie

X

 

 

Cllr R Craigie

X

 

Cllr C Leather

X

 

Cllr R Lock

 

X

 

Cllr D McGeough

 

 

Cllr P Pennington

 

 

 

Cllr P Watson

X

 

 

Cllr R Wiseman

 

 

 

 

(Vote:  For 6, Against 1)

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be refused for the reasons as stated above.

 

 

The Planning Manager read out a statement received from Mr M Wilson objecting to the application.

Mr P Marlow addressed the meeting objecting to the application.

Councillor Pennington, Ward Member, addressed the meeting.

Councillor Laws, adjoining Ward Member, addressed the meeting.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: