Additional 14 static caravans, including change of use of part of the land.

Additional 14 static caravans, including change of use of part of the land.

 

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the details of the Site Licence and advised that Building Control had confirmed that the treatment plant capacity would accommodate the additional static caravans.  It was reported that objections had been received from the CPRE and a letter had been received from the applicant’s agent clarifying the drainage arrangements.

 

Councillor Mrs. J.E. Pemberton, the Local Ward Member, commented on the importance of community involvement and consultation.  It was noted that the Local Ward Member had been inundated with letters of complaint regarding this propsol, particularly given the spread and speed of development in this sensitive landscape area in recent years.  Councillor Mrs. Pemberton outlined a number of concerns, including:-

§      There was a need look into unauthorised development at the site.

§      It was suggested that the caravans only be occupied for a limited number of months per year.

§      The report did not mention that the site was designated a Special Area of Conservation.

§      If planning permission was to be permitted, then it should be subject to the resolution of the outstanding matters in consultation with the Local Ward Member and the Chairman.

§      The need for appropriate landscaping to minimise the impact of the development was emphasised.

 

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas concurred with the Local Ward Member, particularly that the outstanding matters should be resolved before planning permission was granted.  In response, the Central Team Leader advised that there was a list of possible breaches but none were germane to this application.  He said that a meeting could be convened with the Local Ward Member, the Chairman and the applicant to follow up the claims and further consideration given as to whether a planning application or cessation of use was required in each instance.  However, he said that the outstanding matters could take some time to address and it would be unreasonable to require that these be completed prior to the determination of this application.  Councillor Thomas commented on the importance of local confidence and maintained that the scheme should not be implemented until all other matters were resolved.

 

Councillor D.B. Wilcox noted the importance of tourism but felt that there were issues which had to be addressed in this case, particularly in relation to the number of units on the entire site, the drainage arrangements and highway safety implications. 

 

The Central Team Leader clarified the drainage arrangements and the matters controlled by the Site Licence.

 

Councillor R.I. Matthews supported the views of the Local Ward Member and, noting the proximity of the proposed development to the highway, stressed the need for adequate landscaping.

 

Councillor Mrs. M.D. Lloyd-Hayes felt that the park was well screened and moved that the application be approved and this was seconded.

 

In response to questions from Councillor P.J. Edwards, the Central Team Leader advised that landscaping would be required on the land within the applicant’s control and that, as the static caravans did not have a residential use class, there were no permitted development rights which could be removed.  Councillor Edwards suggested that the concerns of Members should be relayed to the Council’s Licensing Section.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the Special Area of Conservation designation was linked to the Site of Special Scientific Interest which was outside but adjacent to the application site.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that, at the last meeting, it was suggested that the colour of the caravans should be conditioned, Members indicated that this should be a part of the planning permission if granted.

 

In response to concerns expressed by Councillor Ms. A.M. Toon, the Central Team Leader re-iterated that it would be unreasonable to withhold planning permission whilst possible breaches were investigated, particularly as the issues were not directly connected to the specific location of this proposal and there was no certainty that the matters could be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. 

 

The Legal Practice Manager clarified the options available to the Sub-Committee and advised that planning permission could not be contingent on putative investigations into possible breaches.

 

Councillor Mrs. Pemberton drew attention to the comments of Holme Lacy Parish Council and commented on vehicular and pedestrian safety concerns.

 

Councillor Mrs. E.M. Bew moved “that the question be now put”.  Councillor D.B. Wilcox requested an amendment but this was rejected due to the closure motion.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.     A01 (Time limit for commencement (full permission)).

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

2.     Prior to the introduction of the static caravans hereby approved, the existing field gate serving the application site shall be permanently closed to vehicular traffic.

 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

3.     G04 (Landscaping scheme (general)).

 

Reason: In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

 

4.     G05 (Implementation of landscaping scheme (general) variation.

 

Reason:  In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

 

5.      Threshold floor levels of the caravans shall not be set less than 46.45m AOD, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

 

Reason: To protect the development from flood risk.

 

6.     Dry pedestrian access shall be provided, in accordance with the submitted 1:2500 plan, entitled 'Proposed Layout Alterations', on land no lower than 45.85m AOD and thereafter maintained, to ensure access to the public highway.

 

Reason: To provide a safe dry pedestrian access in a 1% flood event, plus climate change.

 

7.     F18 (Scheme of foul drainage disposal)

 

Reason: In order to ensure that satisfactory drainage arrangements are provided.

 

8.    Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), no external surface of any static caravan hereby approved shall be of a colour other than one which has previously been approved in writing by the local planning authority for that purpose.

 

        Reason: To minimise visual intrusion.

 

Informatives:

 

1.     N01 – Access for all.

 

2.     N03 – Adjoining property rights.

 

3.     N04 – Rights of way.

 

4.     HN1 – Mud on highway.

 

5.     HN2 – Public rights of way affected.

 

6.     N11A - Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) – Birds.

 

7.     N11B - Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Conservation (Nat. Habitats & C) Regs 1994 – Bats.

 

8.     N15 – Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC.