The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report.

Bernard Trask, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

The Chair invited Members to make comments and points raised included:

·      What was the situation with the recent approval of four holiday cottages that were on the site?;

·      the proposal was for a permanent residency, not temporary which was the standard policy required for the designated holiday park area;

·      the development met the policy requirements of a public house extension;

·      thought that this was a sustainable approach to providing a service to a holiday park;

·      made more sense for the flats to home the workers of the public house, rather than the workers travelling to the site;

·      could a condition be placed that tied the occupants of the flats to the business use of the public house?

·      this was a sensible proposal made by a local business to improve their custom; and

·      sometimes the policy did not always apply to every application, and it was the Committee’s responsibility to know when it was suitable to go against policy.

The Senior Planning Officer responded and informed Members that the four holiday cottages had been approved in a different application as they were for temporary accommodation rather than permanent residency.

On being put to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was lost.

The Team Leader (Planning Applications) suggested that if Members were putting ‘weight’ on the benefits of the occupants of the residential unit working at the associated business, then a condition could be imposed requiring there to be a link between the occupant and the business.

The Vice-Chair moved the following motion: That a condition be placed on the application that tied the occupants of the flats to the business use of the public house. This was seconded by the Chair. On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

The Chair moved the following motion: That the application be approved as it was a legitimate sustainable extension of a public house and it was in line with policies ST6 & DM3, that SAMMs payment be made and delegated authority be given to officers to issue a decision notice with the standard worded conditions. This was seconded by the Vice-Chair. On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

Resolved: That application 23/505783/FULL be approved subject to SAMMs payment and that delegated authority be given to officers to issue a decision notice with the standard worded conditions.