Holiday let building at Red Lodge, Frith Common, Tenbury Wells

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission for a holiday let building, raised platform engineering works and gravel parking and turning space.

“Application Number M/24/01785/FUL Site Address Red Lodge, Frith Common, Eardiston, Tenbury Wells, WR15 8JX Description of Development Erection of a building for the purposes of holiday let use, engineering operations to facilitate erection of a raised platform and creation of a hardstanding for parking (retrospective)”

Officer report

The site and building

The building sits in a former orchard behind homes, accessed by a byway and public footpath, with trees and vegetation screening much of the site.

“The proposal site comprises of a prefabricated holiday cabin sited within a former orchard. The bungalow building replaces a caravan that was used for holiday let purposes. The site benefits from a holiday let use as previously approved in 17/01173/FUL. The site is accessed from a byway/ public footpath which intersects with the main road through Frith Common.”

“The proposed building is positioned on a parcel of land formerly an orchard and already benefiting from a planning permission for the use of the land for holiday let purposes in 17/01173/FUL. The new building measures approx. 16.2m in length, approx. 6.37m in width, and would have a maximum internal height of approx. 2.2m.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and history

The site has a long history of holiday caravans, including permission in 2017 for a mobile home used as a holiday let.

“In 1976 a personal planning permission was granted for its continued seasonal use. This permission was for the applicant’s father, [name withheld], only, for holiday purposes between March and September. This permission expired on his death in 1987 at which time a condition on the permission (76 C 178) required the van to be removed and the land returned to its former state. The caravan remained on site.”

“In 2016 an application for a certificate of lawfulness for use of the caravan for holiday purposes was refused as while there was no doubt that there has been a caravan on the land since the 1950s, once in use as a holiday home by [name withheld], there was not enough evidence to demonstrate that the land had been used for holiday purposes since the use became unauthorised in 1987.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

The parish council, rights of way team and residents objected mainly over access, drainage, visual impact, mobility and the footpath, while highways and drainage consultees raised no objection.

“The Parish Council raised concerns with regards to mobility. It was queried whether the nature of the building created meets the definition and spirit of the relevant legislation. Given the nature of the byway offering access to the site it would be a challenging operation to achieve removal from the site of the dismantled unit.”

“Lindridge Parish footpath LR-566 runs through the location site of this application. The proposed block plan doesn’t depict how LR-566 is being accommodated as the full path isn’t included. There is no information provided to depict how close the septic tank will be to the right of way. The objection is raised on the basis that the plans do not depict how the Public Right of Way will remain unaffected.”

Officer report

Main objections raised

Six representations opposed the proposal, citing runoff, foul drainage, unsuitable access, increased size, removed vegetation, noise, glare and obstruction of the footpath.

“Siting and capacity of foul water drainage: The existing septic tank would be unsuitable, as the scale of the building would be an increase over the previous caravan. The siting and capacity of the foul water drainage is therefore questioned.”

“Obstruction to the footpath: Comments have noted that building materials were left on the Public Right of Way. Furthermore, a Consultee noted that a drain pipe was sited on the byway near the proposal site.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The case officer presented the application; the parish council representative, the applicant’s agent and the ward member addressed the committee, with no objector speaking.

The committee vote

A motion to refuse permission against the officer recommendation was proposed and seconded, passing with seven votes for, two against and one abstention.

“A motion to REFUSE planning permission, contrary to officer recommendation, was proposed by Councillor D Godwin, seconded by Councillor A Willmott and…”

Minutes