Holiday shepherd’s hut at Little Massingham Manor, Little Massingham, King's Lynn

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission for one shepherd’s hut, parking, a sauna and hot tub as a holiday let.

“Retrospective application for one shepherd's hut with associated parking and well-being facilities (sauna and hot tub) to be used as a holiday let Location:”

“The application seeks retrospective planning consent for one shepherd's hut with associated parking and well-being facilities (sauna and hot tub) to be used as a holiday let.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal supported rural tourism, fitted its rural setting, caused no significant neighbour or visual harm and could be conditioned.

“In terms of the principle of development, the scheme is in accordance with the NPPF and Local Plan, as the development supports an existing rural tourism business. The development does not cause harm to the form and character of the locality, and would not impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring residents due to its limited scale and the separation distances.”

“When balancing the substantial weight arising from Policy DM8(2) of the NPPF against the wider planning merits of the scheme, it is considered that the proposal’s compliance with the development plan, the NPPF and the other material considerations assessed throughout this report carry greater weight.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector representing the Parish Council spoke, and Councillor Beales outlined concerns about the application.

What members debated

Members discussed sustainability, reliance on private vehicles, cumulative lighting, intentional unauthorised development and the balance between refusal and rural tourism benefits.

“Officers considered the hut acceptable on its own merits, whilst acknowledging that DM8 required the Committee to give substantial weight to intentional unauthorised development and balance that against support for rural tourism and rural businesses.”

“Councillors questioned the site’s sustainability because the nearest bus stop was approximately 800 metres away and services were sporadic, creating reliance on private vehicles. Officers explained that highways had identified sustainability as an issue but that the Committee had to balance it against the benefits of rural tourism.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee voted 8–3 to refuse the application after a proposal by Councillor Storey, seconded by the Chair.

“It was proposed by Councillor Storey and seconded by the Chair, that the unauthorised development was intentional and carried substantial weight under DM8, outweighing the policy support for the rural business.”

“The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the proposal to refuse the application and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (8 votes for, 3 votes against).”

Minutes

The decision and reason

The application was refused because intentional unauthorised development carried substantial weight and outweighed policies supporting expansion of the rural business.

“RESOLVED: That the application be refused, contrary to recommendation, for the following reason:”

“On the basis of the available evidence, the unauthorised development was intentional, and in accordance with NPPF Policy DM8 this is given substantial weight in the planning balance. This outweighs the NPPF and development plan policies in support of the expansion of the rural business.”

Minutes