An appeal to construct threealong the Grand Western Canal in Tiverton ( ) was rejected.
According to a report, Mid Devon District Council previously declined the permission in March 2021 for the change of use of land for the siting of three-lodges and alterations to existing access, at Crown Hill, between the Grand Western Canal, Tiverton Golf Club, and the road between Tiverton and Halberton.
At the time, the council said that the submitted business plan and marketing strategy did not provide sufficient detail to adequately demonstrate a market for thelodges in this location nor demonstrate its financial viability.
To this end, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that a countryside location is appropriate and necessary for this development.
On behalf of the applicant, Alan Brine, the agent XL planning, disagreed against the council’s ruling and filed an appeal.
In a letter addressed to the inspectorate, they wrote that the council’s reasons for refusal are considered unreasonable and entirely disregards the professional opinion and consultation responses provided by the county’s highways authority and the council’s planning officer.
“It is considered that the proposed development would be within a suitable and accessible location relative to Tiverton, where visitors couldby means other than the private car to avail of local services and facilities. The site would also provide an appropriate form of tourist for which there is broad support within the development plan.”
“The appellant respectfully requests the inspector attach great weight to the benefits of the scheme in this location. There are no unacceptable adverse impacts created upon the highways network, with the benefits of the scheme far outweighing any perceived harm as a sustainable form of development.”
However, David Wyborn, the planning inspectorate, junked the appeal.
Wyborn stated that the threelodges would encourage tourists and provide an economic and social boost to the area, with the visitors spending money at local facilities and attractions. However, as only three lodges would be provided, the proposal’s benefits, while worthwhile, should be afforded only limited weight in favor of approval.
“While the countryside location of the lodges may accord with the locational policies of the development plan, because of the harm that would result to pedestrian safety, and the resulting conflict with the identified policies, I consider that the scheme would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. There are no considerations that outweigh the identified harm and the conflict with the development plan.”