Agenda item

Public participation:

Mrs Douse spoke in objection to the application.

Mr J Coleman spoke in objection to the application

Mr M Gairdner spoke in objection to the application

Mr T Allen, agent, spoke in support of the application

Mrs E Lovelcok, warden, spoke in support of the application

Mr W Grant, land owner, spoke in support of the application

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended approval, subject to conditions.  He explained that the report referred to Annex A of PPS7.  PPS7 had, in fact, been replaced by the NPPF.  However, in the absence of other guidance the tests it sets out relating to the need for accommodation at rural enterprises remained, taking into account all matters, an appropriate way to consider evidence to arrive at a decision.

He explained that this application was deferred at the last meeting for officers to investigate ways of controlling the type of caravan that may be stationed on the site.

Further legal advice had been obtained which had changed the position previously reported.  Specifically, as the development was described as a “touring caravan site”, this was the use to which it was limited.  It followed that a material change from this use to another use would require planning permission.

A material change would include replacing any of the touring caravans with mobile homes regardless of the nature of their occupation, this in view of their size and appearance, their permanence and their resulting impact on the character of the area which is materially different to that of a touring caravan.  However, campervans and the two holiday pods as currently on site do not require planning permission, these having sufficiently similar impacts to a touring caravan to not materially alter the nature of the underlying permitted use which remains primarily a touring caravan site.

Therefore, in response to the Committee’s question, control over what type of caravan could be stationed was provided by the narrow description of the development – that is, a touring caravan site – and this encompassed touring caravan and campervans.  A limited number of pods which are similar in terms of their size, occupation and impact to a touring caravan, as currently on site, would equally not be considered a material change of the use of the land but further pods may require planning.  But, other types of caravan – such as, mobile homes or lodges – would present a material change to the use, and so could not be stationed on the site without further planning permission.

The current application was for a material change to the original planning permission in that it proposed change of use of the site to a touring caravan site but now with two pitches to be used to station a touring caravan or campervan or pod for longer term occupation by wardens.  In view of the explanation just given, in the event of planning permission being given the narrow description of the development would continue to limit the type of caravan to these types.  Other caravan types such as mobile homes would not be permitted.  The control was provided by the description and condition no. 2 of the report, and was explained in the informative at the end of the report.

Regarding the merits of this application, Policy T7 resists proposals for static holiday caravans and permanent holiday accommodation in the open countryside, but does not resist proposals for non-permanent holiday touring caravans or impermanent holiday accommodation.  It follows that the overall proposal in this case for a touring caravan site is acceptable under Policy T7.  The incidental wardens’ accommodation now also proposed is not holiday accommodation but rather is accommodation associated with the touring caravan site enterprise.  It follows that the tests for its acceptability are those set out in Annex A of PPS7.  The Policy HC27 tests for rural workers accommodation are also material, notwithstanding that they relate to agricultural workers dwellings.

In particular, if an applicant can demonstrate a functional need for accommodation to support a rural enterprise and if the business is financially sound with every prospect of remaining so, then there is policy support.  This is also subject to the accommodation satisfying other normal planning considerations such as safeguarding amenity.

The proposal was to allow two of the pitches in the caravan site to be used for the stationing of a campervan or caravan or pod by a senior warden all year round, and by an assistant warden between 19 March and 30 September which is the permitted camping season.

The officers were satisfied that there was a demonstrated functional need for these – specifically to have wardens on hand day and night to deal with customers and manage activities, and to provide security.  The applicant had also demonstrated that the business was viable and able to sustain this employment.

In relation to other planning issues, the existing planning permission has established that having caravans in the caravan site is not detrimental to amenity, and in this context two more permanently sited caravans centred amongst the other transitional caravans would have no measurably harmful impact. 

The Legal Officer advised the Committee in relation to whether the permission granted use of the land for touring caravans or caravans within the statutory sense of the word.  She stated that the Council interpreted a permission drafted by the Secretary of State taking into account what it thought what was intended by the Inspector and what the Court would be likely to decide should the matter come before it.  The drafting in this case was not clear and interpretation by its nature could be argued more than one way.  In this matter the Council initially interpreted the permission as allowing caravans within the statutory meaning based upon various issues and legal points.  Subsequently the Council received correspondence from an interested party stating that it had obtained Counsel’s opinion which stated the permission should be interpreted otherwise.  The Council sought its own Counsel’s opinion.     Based upon the information now before it the Council reassessed the probability of successfully defending its interpretation before the Courts and balanced the risks to the Council.  The fundamental point that the condition can not enlarge a permission as described means that the Council consider that the permission is interpreted as permitting use of the land for touring caravans, not caravans within the statutory meaning.

During the debate concerns such as functional need and impact on the countryside were discussed.

Resolved:

REFUSED against officer recommendation for the following reason:

In accordance with paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), this planning application has been processed in a proactive way.  However, due to technical objections or the proposal’s failure to comply with the development plan and/or the NPPF as a matter of principle, the local planning authority has had no alternative other than to refuse planning permission.

Cllrs Devine, Hewitt and Westmoreland requested that their votes against the motion be recorded.