Decision details

Proposal Description: Item 11: (AMENDED DESCRIPTION) Conversion of existing facilities building to one bedroom holiday let and Replacement of three yurts with one three bedroom and one two-bedroom holiday let; retention of 2 no. yurts for ancillary purposes; and associated works 

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which provided additional information regarding several matters including the following:

-       Condition 4 has been amended to emphasize that the units shall be occupied exclusively for holiday purposes and cannot be used as someone's sole or main place of residence. Additionally, the owners are required to maintain an up-to-date register of all occupiers, and specific occupancy limits must be adhered to.

-       Condition 5 has been amended to specify that the holiday accommodation may only be occupied between April and October. It shall be used exclusively for short-term holiday lets and cannot be used, let, or sold for permanent residential accommodation.

Details of these amendments were set out in full on the Update Sheet.

During public participation, Dan Kwiatkowski spoke in objection to the application, Alice Drew spoke in support of the application and Councillor Chris Corcoran spoke on behalf of Twyford Parish Council and answered members' questions.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application and received advice from the Legal Officer concerning holiday let occupancy restrictions and the general holiday lodges application and policy assessment

          RESOLVED:

                     The committee voted against the recommendation to grant    planning permission and instead voted to refuse permission for the         proposal. In reaching this decision they raised the following material    planning matters which weighed in favour of refusing planning         permission:

1.    Loss of Visitor Accommodation (Policy SD23, 2a): The proposed development would result in a significant reduction in visitor accommodation capacity on the site. Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate, as required by policy, that:

a.    The existing level of provision is financially viable.

b.    A robust marketing campaign of at least 12 months has been undertaken which clearly demonstrates no market demand for the existing or an equivalent tourism use.

2.    Inappropriate Design: The design of the proposed development is considered inappropriate for its specific location and context, failing to meet the requirements of Policy SD23 g i regarding design quality and local distinctiveness.

3.    Failure to Make a Positive Contribution to Natural Beauty and Heritage (Policy SD23, Gi): The proposed development fails to make a positive contribution to the natural beauty and respond positively to the natural heritage of the area, contrary to the requirements of Policy SD23 G1.