Agenda item

Change of use from agricultural to recreational for the purpose of providing a campsite for 60 consecutive days per calendar year. This application affects a Public Right of Way and is in CIL Zone 5 (Zero Rated) as other development.

The Team Leader (Development Management) presented an updated presentation and the update report reminding members that at the last meeting of the committee they had voted to defer the application with a request that legal advice be sought on whether there is a realistic prospect of refusing this as a planning application given the permitted development rights. Contained within the update report is the council’s Planning Lawyers advice that it could be considered unreasonable to refuse an application where there was ‘fall back’ permission through permitted development rights. Due to further concerns raised in the previous debate, an additional condition had been added (number 10) to require that the applicant notify the Local Planning Authority each year of the start of the 60-day consecutive period. In addition, condition 13 had been added to remove permitted development rights for any further 60-day use by tents or motorhomes.

The recommendation was then proposed by Councillor Partridge and seconded by Councillor Blanchard-Cooper.

During debate members discussed the following points, concern that there had been no comments from Highways England, given that the road floods regularly, the high traffic flow at peak times, the variable size of motorhomes verses the width of the site entrance and its location on a bend. Questions were then asked relating to the legal advice provided and it was confirmed by the Councils Legal Services Manager that appeal inspectors would take a pragmatic approach when considering the site, costs could be incurred should if the decision was to be appealed and the appeal was lost. She confirmed that should the application be approved; the conditions would allow for the management of any issues should they arise.  It was then commented that there was still concern regarding the 60-day consecutive period given that it was known the applicant had already breached this Condition. The Planning Team Leader advised members that there had been no breach by the applicant as there had been no approved application yet. It was confirmed that the applicant had been served with an enforcement notice and that was in place currently. A member then asked for an explanation regarding the permitted development rights, specifically that it stated that touring caravans were not allowed within these rights, however the applicant has requested for touring caravans to be allowed, so why do permitted development rights not allow touring caravans. The Legal Services Manager confirmed that there was no real commentary or reason why, which further highlighted the reason why appeal inspectors take a pragmatic approach. Members wanted assurance that the 60-day consecutive period would be adhered to and managed by the Council, the Planning Team Leader confirmed that Condition 10 had been added for this reason and would allow for monitoring of the full 60-day usage, the condition would not prevent a breach, but it would allow for the management of the site, should there be breach. It was then asked if the council would have the ability to shut the site on day 61 if there was a need, it was explained that a breach of condition notice could be issued, or the injunction process could be started at that point. It was then asked why the photos and video referred to in the update report had not been provided to members at the meeting. The Group Head of Planning confirmed to members that when applications were presented, officers only use their own material. It was confirmed that the photos and video had been made available on the council’s website if member wished to view them. He also stated that conditions in all application were enforceable and if they were not complied with then action would be taken by the council.  Another member asked officers if the 60-day consecutive period could be set by the council, it was confirmed that the applicant had specifically not applied for that, probably for flexibility reasons.

Members continued their debate on the above concerns where it was eventually agreed that there was no reasonable reason, despite their concerns that could be used to refuse the application that wouldn’t result in their decision potentially being overturned on an appeal. 

The Committee

          RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY SUBJECT TO A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT