Agenda item

Change of use of land for the sitting of up to 60 static caravans, along with associated infrastructure and hard and soft landscaping.

Land North West of Springwood Coast View, Swarland

T. Lowe – Principle Planning Officer, introduced the application and gave the following updates:

·       There was an error on condition 2 where it referred to Plans, the Planting Strategy drawing and should read P07 and not P06.

·       In paragraph 8.75 and in the recommendation in paragraph 9.1, the Coastal Mitigation service should read £10,080 and not £10,040.

·       3 late representations had been received and had been circulated to members

Following a PowerPoint presentation, Councillor Thorne introduced the public speaking section.

J. Stent spoke in objection to the application and gave the following information:

·       There was no restaurant, church or pub in Swarland and the full-time shop and post office had closed several years ago.

·       No public transport.

·       It was stated in the report that the development was self-contained within the existing golf course and holiday park, however the proposed site was not near the other caravans and lodges already on site but on the periphery of the golf course.

·       Proposed screening on the eastern boundary was indistinct and non-existent on the southern side of the boundary.

·       There was no information regarding the supply of the caravans or the design, shape, size or how environmentally friendly the caravans would be.

·       There were issues regarding drainage, sewerage, and flooding in the area with no consideration to a long-term solution.

S. Stanley spoke on behalf of Newton on the Moor and Swarland Parish Council and gave the following information:

·       The proposed site would be immediately outside the new Northumberland Local Plan’s settlement boundary for Swarland.

·       The development would intrude on the existing long-established community and merged holiday accommodation with regular housing.

·       The planned site would be a higher density than the rest of the holiday park.

·       The inappropriateness of 60 holiday lets so close to existing and planned housing.

·       The parish council questioned the need for further such developments in Swarland and had no confidence in the proposed arrangements for foul and surface water.

H. Elms spoke in support of the application and gave the following information:

·       The application had been submitted for over two years, and there had been a series of meetings with the Parish Council, residents, and the adjacent land owner.

·       The drainage scheme within the application provided localised betterment in terms of drainage into the network, confirmed by Northumbrian Water and the Flood Authority.

·       Highways had withdrawn their concerns and the entrance to the extension would be through the main gates.

·       The issues around ecology had been accepted and would be controlled by planning conditions. 

·       There was no reserved matters application so far.

Following members questions to the planning officers, the following information was provided:

·       There were plans to enlarge the existing ditch’s width from 1m-1.5m to 5m-7m

·       With the mitigation measures in the application, the risk of flooding from surface water drainage would be reduced.

·       The drainage officer was content with the mitigation and stated that the measures put forward would not increase the risk of flooding.

·       There were no Great Crested Newt breeding ponds affected by the development, but they were present on the site. There was a requirement for a Natural England licence for works to terrestrial habitat and all works must be supervised by an ecologist.

·       There was no restriction with length of stay at the site.

·       The caravans would rest against the wooded area and screening would affect the visual amenity along with boundary screening.

·       The planning officers were not aware of any EV charging points to be implemented with the development.

·       There had been no objection from Northumbrian Water.

Councillor Hill proposed to defer the application to allow for further mitigation saying that there could be further consultation carried out and to allow more conditions to be added to the application. There was no seconder and the motion failed.

Councillor Thorne proposed to refuse the application and explained the reasons, including; adverse visual impact and cumulative impact in that adding another 60 caravans would take the site to over 400 caravans total, the site was not well landscaped, there was issues around draining and flooding, there was no local amenities close by with no public transport, and the application had not specified the type of caravans which would be on the site. Councillor Bridgett seconded the motion, stating that he disagreed with the comment from Northumbrian Water and that in the past they had been fined by the environmental agency at peak times.

L.Sinnamon gave advice regarding the proposed reasons for refusal and addressed the committee in respect of policies relevant to the application.

Councillor Thorne agreed for the exact wording of the reasons for refusal be delegated to the Director of Planning in conjunction with the chair.

A vote was taken as follows: FOR 7; AGAINST 0, ABSTAIN 2.  

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for adverse visual impact and cumulative impact in that adding another 60 caravans would take the site to over 400 caravans total, with the exact wording delegated to the Director of Planning in conjunction with the chair.