A devastated couple have criticised a ‘barmy’ council decision that forced them to close their tiny holiday let business because their driveway was too small.
Mark Short and husband Lawrence Wolfe had five-star reviews for the accommodation, a former carpenter’s shed they converted into a luxury holiday retreat for £16,000.
Over the course of a year, they had 120 guests with no problems – before the local authority dropped the bombshell that the 55ft by 35ft driveway was inadequate. It also stated there was poor visibility pulling out onto the road.
The couple, who live in a quiet, idyllic spot in Swafield, Norfolk, pointed out that none of their guests had had an accident or complained, while there is ample space in the driveway to manoeuvre cars – and their set up is exactly the same as neighbours’.
But North Norfolk District Council refused to back down – and even said they needed to spend another £10,000 on a ‘nutrient neutrality works’ to prevent water pollution.
They have now decided to ditch their dream and return to Milton Keynes in Buckinghamshire, which they moved from in 2022, after deciding they’ll never make £26,000 back charging £85 a night.
‘It’s just a little bit barmy,’ said Mr Short, who also described the ruling as ‘health and safety gone mad’.
‘We’ve had 120 people stay here from across the country. We even had a Met police officer who said “Of course cars can turn round in the driveway”.
Mark Short and Lawrence Wolfe invested £16,000 in the pretty cabin, set in a secluded spot at the end of their garden in Swafield, Norfolk
The luxurious accommodation, including a double bed, shower room, dressing gowns and patio with furniture was described as a ‘beautiful hidden gem’ by one guest
But the local authority turned down retrospective planning permission, saying the 55ft by 35ft driveway was too small to allow guests to turn their cars round and drive out forwards
‘We’ve got two cars but they are parked right outside the living room so there’s enough turning space. If you can’t turn a car in that space then you shouldn’t be driving.’
The couple moved to the area three years ago after health issues meant Mr Short, 59, had to leave his railway job of 22 years and they sought a location with a slower pace of life.
They bought their home, Lilac Cottage, as the perfect spot to provide a holiday rental room that would provide Mr Short with an income.
He completed much of the work on the lodge himself, although thousands were spent running water and electricity to the two-person cabin before they started taking paying guests in March 2023.
Online adverts for the cabin stated it was ‘tucked away in a corner of our garden, surrounded by fields just outside the lovely village of Swafield’.
The pet-friendly accommodation had a double bed, shower room, dressing gowns, patio with garden furniture, plus ‘breakfast made from local produce served in the main house’.
Rave reviews included one that said ‘the cabin was warm and the bed is out of this world’, with the visitor adding their appreciation for the ‘homemade cakes left in the fridge to the rum and raisin fudge’.
Others commented on the ‘excellent hosts’, ‘great location’ and described the holiday let as a ‘beautiful hidden gem’.
Mr Lawrence (left) and Mr Short moved to the area from Milton Keynes in 2022. They plan to return there, following the council’s ‘barmy’ decision
It was only when the couple mentioned their modest entrepreneurial venture to their solicitor that they discovered planning permission was needed.
They applied retrospectively and received no objections from the parish council or other homeowners in the area.
But the district council turned the request down last month, raising concerns about customers pulling out onto the B-road they live beside, especially if they backed out onto it.
A mirror placed on the opposite side of the road failed to provide adequate assistance, it added.
Mr Short said: ‘The road was 60mph but on the day we got the refusal letter it had been dropped to 40mph.’
He pointed out he and Mr Wolfe, 44, a project manager, clearly stated in adverts that guests shouldn’t reverse onto the road and they were always on hand to help them leave the driveway.
‘It’s just ridiculous, considering the houses along here have been around a lot longer than cars. Are they saying our friends and family can’t visit?’ he added.
‘They want people to visit the county and we use local businesses, like the butcher’s for breakfast and the ironing lady for linen.
The pet-friendly cabin was designed for two guests and was a short drive to Mundesley Beach
Guests could sit on their private patio and relax while looking across the picture perfect garden
Facilities included a shower room, satellite TV, tea and coffee making facilities and a homemade breakfast in the main house using local produce
North Norfolk District Council said poor visibility while leaving the driveway made it dangerous for guests
‘But we’ve decided now if we can’t do this we’ll move back to Milton Keynes.’
Franck Henot, 64, of Chesterfield, Derbyshire, who has stayed at the lodge with his wife Sarah several times, said the ruling was ‘absolutely atrocious’.
The retired council worker added: ‘We’ve never had an issue with the parking and as you move your car, Mark’s always outside to direct you if there’s any traffic.
‘The decision is absolutely atrocious. They [Mark and Lawrence] have been absolutely great and Mark is a great cook. It’s just such a shame.’
North Norfolk District Council said in its ruling: ‘The proposed development, by virtue of its resultant intensification of on-site parking, would fail to provide sufficient space for three cars to park and manoeuvre in order to join the highway in forward gear.
‘The resulting additional traffic movements would also be from a substandard access, which the applicant does not appear to have sufficient land control of to increase the visibility to an adequate level for safe access to the highway.’
A North Norfolk District Council spokeswoman said: ‘The applicants have a right of appeal against the decision and the information as to how to appeal was included on the Decision Notice issued.’
