Private pool group use at Weston Covert Field Road, Weston Longville

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by South Norfolk Broadland Broadland Planning Committee on 3 Dec 2025.

2025/2342Refused

What was proposed

The application sought to change a private swimming pool to occasional appointment-only use by small private groups.

“Applicant’s Name [name withheld] Address Weston Covert Field Road Weston Longville Norfolk NR9 5JN Proposal Change of use from private swimming pool to occasional use by small private groups on an appointment basis…”

“The application seeks planning permission to change the use of a private swimming pool to allow occasional use by small private groups on an appointment-only basis. The pool is located in a separate building adjoining the main dwelling and has its own entrance, along with associated facilities including a sauna, steam room, hot tub, exercise equipment, and kitchenette.”

Officer report

The site and access

The pool is in a separate building in open countryside, with access from Field Road and parking on existing hardstanding.

“The site is situated in open countryside approximately 700 metres north of Weston Longville and is relatively remote, with surrounding lanes, Morton Lane and Field Road, being narrow, single-width, and lacking footpaths or street lighting. A small group of dwellings is located to the west of the site, and the main dwelling adjacent to the pool is accessed from Field Road.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Three earlier pool-use applications were refused, and an appeal concerning five glamping pods was dismissed.

“20211750 A change of use of part of an existing enclosure Refused of agricultural land to a camp site for five 31/01/2022 non-permanent glamping pods to be used in conjunction with the dwelling and leisure centre.”

“20211750 A change of use of part of an existing enclosure Appeal of agricultural land to a camp site for five Dismissed non-permanent glamping pods to be used in 13/09/2023 conjunction with the dwelling and leisure centre.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council, ward member and highways authority objected, while the Environmental Quality Team raised no objection subject to noise controls.

“Environmental Quality (Protection) – No objection. Conditions and notes have been requested…”

“The Environmental Quality Team has no objection to the proposed development but recommends that any approval include a condition requiring a detailed Noise Management Plan to protect the amenity of nearby sensitive receptors. The plan should set out contact arrangements for residents to raise concerns, mechanisms for investigating and responding to complaints, and management measures to minimise noise.”

Officer report

The committee vote

Members voted unanimously to refuse the application.

“Decision : Members voted unanimously for refusal for the following reasons:”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The application was refused because the unclassified road was inadequate for the development and the remote location conflicted with transport sustainability aims.

“The unclassified road serving the site is considered to be inadequate to serve the development proposed, by reason of its restricted width / lack of passing provision / substandard construction. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety contrary to Policy TS3 of the Broadland Development Management DPD 2015 and paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

“Transport sustainability The proposal is remote from local service centre provision conflicting with the aims of sustainable development, the need to minimise travel, and the ability to encourage walking, cycling, use of public transport and reduce the reliance on the private car as represented in national and local policy contrary to Policies 2, 6 and 7.4 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan, Policies GC1 and GC4 of the Broadland Development Management DPD 2015, paragraph…”

Minutes

The members' reasons

The resolution gives these reasons:

  1. Highway safety The unclassified road serving the site is considered to be inadequate to serve the development proposed, by reason of its restricted width / lack of passing provision / substandard construction. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety contrary to Policy TS3 of the Broadland Development Management DPD 2015 and paragraph 116
Minutes

Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.

Sources

  • South Norfolk Broadland Broadland Planning Committee minutes, 3 December 2025
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of South Norfolk Broadland's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Date
Wednesday 3 December 2025
Recommendation
Officers recommended refusal
Committee decided
Refused
Vote
Unanimous
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)
Application
The application (council website)

This committee's year

11 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 2 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →