Decision taken on plans for 31 cottages and 13 pods at former Dunton Basset quarry

A plan for 31 holiday cottages, 13 lodging houses and equestrian facilities in Leicestershire has been unanimously refused by councillors. The proposal, submitted by AT Contracting and Plant Hire Limited, was a revised scheme for reclaimed land at a former quarry in Dunton Road, Dunton Bassett.

It also included 111 parking spaces. Planning officers recommended Harborough District Council’s planning committee refuse the application when it came before it on Tuesday 14 May.

Ward councilor for the area, Councilor Neil Bannister, said the development site already had planning consent for eight cottages, four camping houses and stables. He said the app in question has dramatically increased development on half the site.

READ MORE: Leicestershire’s richest people revealed in survey of nation’s multimillionaires

Planning officers said the proposed scheme would cause damage to a local wildlife site and added there were no public benefits to outweigh the harm. They also said the scale of the proposal was disproportionate and detrimental to the rural and peaceful character of the site and would have an urban aspect which would not respect the character and appearance of the countryside and surrounding environment.

They added that the scheme, if allowed, would have a negative effect on the “distinctive rural character of this part of the parish of Dunton Bassett”.

The proposal was for 31 cottages, of which 30 had two beds and one had three beds. The walls of the proposed dwelling would be of hardwood logs, and each cabin would have an outdoor patio. A further 13 single-bed camping pods were included in the proposal. A two-bedroom management cottage would include a private kitchen, lounge and bathroom.

The proposal included a new road created at the western end of the site on Dunton Road, with existing access closed and tracks and roads created within the site, including a short section for horses. The 111 parking spaces were proposed to be distributed around the site. Equestrian facilities would be clustered on the site, with holiday cottages and camping pods scattered throughout the rest of the site.

Planning officers said most statutory consultants were happy with the proposal, apart from the environmental team which opposed it. They said the proposal was half the space of the original proposal, but almost four times the accommodation proposed. They said they believe the proposed sum has a “planning aspect” which gives it a “disproportionate and harmful character and appearance”. They added that there had been a significant increase in the use of the activity, which would be evident to road users.

Coun Bannister told the planning meeting: “As you will have heard, the development site already has planning consent for eight cottages, four camping houses and stables. This application dramatically increases the development with 31 holiday cottages, 13 guest houses, a management office and 111. car parking spaces and, as you have heard, in half the area of ​​the originally permitted site.

“The main objections relate to the building of this particular site as well as the damage the development will cause to a local wildlife site.

“The scale of the proposed development is disproportionate and detrimental to the rural and peaceful character of this site and creates – in the officer’s words – an urbanization effect in the countryside. The development has resulted in a cramped layout of the cottages located. In some cases, up to seven meters away, along with the proposed 111 parking spaces and other hardscapes will have an urban appearance when viewed from within the site.

“Even if the built form is not seen from outside the site, the increase in activity on the site from the proposed use, entries and exits, will be noticed. I respectfully ask the committee to support the officers’ recommendation to refuse the application as not being in accordance with local plan policy.”

The planning committee agreed and voted unanimously to deny the application.