Proposed holiday park for 40 holiday caravans, associated infrastructure and managerial lodge.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed holiday park for 40 holiday caravans, associated infrastructure and managerial lodge.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A Elliot, of Acton Beauchamp Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Venables, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr J Lambe, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor PM Morgan, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        She questioned whether the development was sustainable.  Any other form of development would have been refused planning permission on the grounds that it represented development in the open countryside.

·        A recent application for the construction of 5 dwellings next door to the application site had been refused at appeal on the grounds that it was not a sustainable location and another application for a house in Acton Beauchamp had been refused on the grounds that it represented development in the open countryside.

·        In this case weight was being given to the economic benefits of the development associated with tourism.  She highlighted paragraph 6.2 of the report which referred to policy E4 – tourism.  She noted that having regard to paragraph 2 of policy E4 the policy supported the development of sustainable tourism opportunities “where there is not detrimental impact”.  It was questionable whether the landscaping plans would be capable of mitigating the impact of the proposed development. It was also the case that there were a number of caravan developments in the area (the adjoining Malvern view (permission for 323 caravans and lodges), and, on the other side of Bromyard, Saltmarshe Castle (approx. 100 caravans) and Rock Farm (approximately 40 caravans). The application site did not support the type of developments referred to in paragraph 4 of policy E4.  There would be some economic benefit but this had to be weighed against the other impacts of the proposal.

·        The area was very rural; the parishes of Stanford Bishop, Acton Beauchamp and Evesbatch had small populations and the cumulative impact of the development on the locality had to be viewed in that context.  There had been 31 letters of objection, a large number given the population.

·        The access road was very narrow.  The Transportation Manager had originally recommended refusal of the application.  Some mitigation in the form of new white lines had now been proposed but there was a question as to whether this was sufficient, noting also that their condition would deteriorate over time.  Visibility splays were also a concern and the right turn travelling to Bromyard was difficult.

·        In summary the application site was not in a sustainable location; the economic benefit was not sufficient to outweigh this and there was already a significant number of such developments in the area.  There were significant highways concerns and landscape issues.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        Some concern was expressed about the arrangements in place to ensure that the caravans were not permanently occupied.  The legal adviser commented that council’s enforcement team’s ability to enforce was not a material planning consideration.  The Lead Development Manager undertook to discuss the concerns raised with the Development Manager (enforcement).

·        There were concerns about highway safety.

·        There would be some limited economic benefit but this did not outweigh the significant impact on local amenity.  The development was not sustainable.

·        It was questioned when the cumulative impact of such developments in a locality could be considered detrimental and therefore inconsistent with policy E4.

·        The landscape mitigation proposed would vary in its effectiveness according to the seasons.

·        The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the proposed lodges fell within the legal definition of caravans and the application needed to be considered within that policy context, which was different to that in terms of housing sites when considering sustainability.  It was inherently the case that caravan sites would be located in more rural locations.

·        The Lead Development Manager commented, having regard to concerns expressed in the debate, that if the Committee was minded to refuse the application the two main issues were the impact on local infrastructure potentially making the application contrary to policy MT1 and the cumulative impact on the landscape of the number of caravans on sites in the locality potentially making the application contrary to policy LD1.

Members suggested that policy E4 was also relevant.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She commented that the site was not small and discrete, as had been suggested, particularly when viewed in conjunction with the large, neighbouring caravan site.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication based on the Committee’s view that the proposal was contrary to policies LD1, E4 and MT1.