Agenda item

Steve King, Planning Team Leader Applications, introduced the application which sought permission for the proposed siting of three luxury glamping pods together with associated landscaping and car parking. He drew Member’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet with regards to refuse collection.

The Planning Applications Team Leader noted that the site is situated on the northern side of Cross Colwood Lane, within the countryside and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). He confirmed that the site rises up to the area where the timber structure pods would be situated, and that the nearest residential property is ‘The Yards’ to the east of the site. Additional landscaping is proposed on the site adjacent to the hard standing area which would become the car park, along with additional tree planting around the pods. He drew Member’s attention to the main issues as set out in the report noting that District Plan Policy (DP) 12 does allow development in the countryside where it maintains or enhances rural landscape. The application is also supported by DP14 and DP19 and Policy BOLE1 and 2 from the Bolney Neighbourhood Plan. In the Officer’s opinion the proposals are for modest structures which will blend into the environment and will be set 240m from the nearest residential property. The proposal has no objections from the West Sussex County Council Highways department relating to the access or volume of traffic. It is also not in a designated nature conservation site and does not require an ecological study, for the reasons set out in the report.

Parish Councillor Baron von Thunderclap and Zoe Brown spoke in objection to the application. Patrick Griffin spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Lewellyn-Burke spoke in objection to the application as Ward Member for Bolney. She declared a personal interest as she lives adjacent to the site but confirmed that a dispensation had been given by the Solicitor to the Council as she spoke on behalf of the residents of Bolney.  She noted that the application was for 3 permanent buildings in an area of outstanding natural beauty which will change the character of the landscape as they will not be situated near the existing buildings, but at the highest point on the land, visible to walkers who enjoy the area. She commented that it is not a sustainable location as it will require a car journey to the nearest shops and pubs which are over a mile away. She also noted that it will increase waste and carbon emissions on the site which will cause damage to the ecosystem. There is no proposal for the owner to be on site and therefore no way to regulate activities.

Due to the declaration of interest, Councillor Llewellyn-Burke left the meeting at 4.26pm to allow the debate to take place.

The Chairman sought clarification on a point raised by a public speaker, that the owner could use the site for camping for 56 days of the year. The Planning Applications Team Leader confirmed that it could only be used for 28 days under permitted development rights. Rights had been extended to 56 days during the pandemic but had now been reduced back to the original timeframe. The Chairman also clarified that other examples of glamping in the District had different circumstances such as the owners being on site, and shops provided nearby.

A Member sought clarification on how the pods will be managed daily, whether there was a condition for the timings of refuse collection, fire issues with cooking and whether parking is available near the pods. He noted that the Water and Access Manager had commented that the fire hydrant was too far away at 780m and the entrance to the site is not wide enough for a fire engine.

The Planning Applications Team Leader confirmed that the advice from the Water and Access Manager is the same as the Fire Brigade and will be dealt with under Building Regulations. Regarding utilities, the provision of infrastructure such as electricity and water supply is not a planning issue. Regarding the refuse collection, a condition could be put in place to regulate the collection times so as not to be at unsociable hours. There is no parking proposed adjacent to the pods. Parking would be at the entrance to the site and users of the pods would need to walk up to the pods. He also confirmed that the management of the site is for the applicant to determine and there is no requirement under planning policy for a management plan for this proposal.

A number of Members expressed concern over the potential fire risk and the inability of the fire brigade to adequately access the site. It was also noted that there was nothing to stop residents driving up to the pods from the carpark.

A Member noted that the application does not appear to support sustainable growth of the rural economy as, for example it is not a working farm diversifying its business. In his opinion the design also does not meet DP26 to reflect the outstanding natural environment that they would be situated in.

A Member expressed concern at the precedent it would set to approve the application as 3 pods may not prove economical and so a request for more may come forward, along with a need for a manager’s house. The Planning Applications Team Leader advised the Committee that the application has to be considered on its own merits and not on what may happen in the future.

A number of Members expressed concern regarding the lack of on-site management as there was nothing to regulate the parking, use of BBQ’s and campfires and disposal of rubbish. Concern was also expressed that the pods were permanent structures and the impact that would have on the countryside. A Member felt it was an unacceptable commercial development in the AONB.

The Vice Chair proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of it being a detriment to the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This was seconded by Councillor Eggleston.

The Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendation to refuse the application which was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED

That the planning application be refused on the grounds of it being harmful to the character and appearance of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. (Exact wording to be determined by the Planning Officer in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chair.)