A COUNTY planning committee has approved a proposal for two holiday huts in a rural part of the dale – despite its chairman admitting anyone would be “horrified” if the development happened in a garden next to their home.
Nine people had objected to plans for two new shepherd’s huts at Lonton, near Mickleton, before officers recommended it for approval by members of the south and west planning committee last week.
Planning officer Steve Pilkington told councillors that while the objectors worried about visual impact, noise and light pollution and general disturbance, on balance the development would not have a significant impact on the quality of life of neighbours, nor adversely affect the wider landscape.
However, objector Gillian Bainbridge described the 3.1metre high huts as overbearing and visually dominant, particularly for the elderly resident of Lonton Blacksmiths, whose front door is about 30 metres away.
She added: “This resident will lose the privacy which he has enjoyed for 60 years.
“This resident will have to put up with noise pollution from outdoor living and drinking throughout the day.
“He will have to tolerate smells and pollutants from barbecues and al fresco dining.
“His quality of life will be unacceptably impacted through visual intrusion, visual dominance, noise and loss of privacy.”
She reiterated concerns highlighted by county councillors for the area Ted Henderson and Richard Bell, that the applicant already has approval for a similar development on another part of the property that would have less impact on neighbours.
However, owner Liam Patrick said the previous application had been for camping pods, since when tourism demands had changed and people now want higher quality accommodation.
The other parcel of land was not suitable for this type of development, he added.
Mr Patrick said he had made a number of compromises, including moving the huts further away, changing the parking area and ensuring smaller windows were placed in the bathrooms and kitchenette areas that faced the neighbour’s home.
He concluded: “We have tried to address any issues that would create conflict with national planning or the county plan. That includes lots of ways of creating privacy.”
Cllr Liz Brown said she saw no reason to deny permission and said the holiday accommodation would be vital in providing help to town and village centres post Covid-19.
However, Cllr George Richardson opposed the plans. He said: “This is the countryside where friends and neighbours really care for each other’s opinions.
“This is placed right in front of the objectors and, as such, it blocks their amenity. Personally, I am going to have to go for refusal.”
Committee chairman Cllr John Clare described it as a difficult decision.
He said: “There is not a single member of the committee who would not be horrified if they lived out in the countryside, in what they believed to be a quiet and rural location, and suddenly in the garden next to them there were two holiday chalets, with people who are there to have a good time. The perceived impact on that person’s amenity will be absolutely huge.”
He added, however, that perceived impact, and actual impact on amenity are very different. Put to the vote, five members supported the plans with only Cllr Richardson opposing it. The chairman abstained from the vote describing it as “distressing”.
