Agenda item

Removal of existing reception building and associated structures; erection of new reception building with associated parling landscaping and infrastructure; relocated/enlarged play area; sitting of up to 23 static caravans with associated landscaping infrastructure; vehicular access routes and LPG compound; enlarged caravan display area.

Land at South West of Elmbank Caravan Park, Cow Road, Spittal, Northumberland

Removal of existing reception building and associated structures; erection of new reception building with associated parling landscaping and infrastructure; relocated/enlarged play area; sitting of up to 23 static caravans with associated landscaping infrastructure; vehicular access routes and LPG compound; enlarged caravan display area.  

Land at South West of Elmbank Caravan Park, Cow Road, Spittal, Northumberland

T. Lowe – Principal Planning Officer, introduced the application with a PowerPoint presentation and gave the following updates:

·       In paragraph 2.4 of the report, it referred to Area A already being in operation. In hindsight the statement may have been ambiguous and while there was a reception building and parking in operation, the proposed development, as set out in the report, was intended to replace that.

·       2 additional objection letters had been received. Issues raised included use of Area B as a public amenity and impact on open space, proximity of caravans to existing housing, impact on views and highways impacts.
The matters had been addressed within the report and members had already had the opportunity to view all objections.

·       It was confirmed that the notification letters had been posted out on 13^th December which was within the statutory timescale.

B. Gowthorpe spoke in objection to the application and gave the following information to the committee:

·       The Berwick-Upon-Tweed Civic Society objected to the planning application.

·       Any intensification of use on the caravan site would increase traffic on a narrow and bendy country road, originally used to drive cattle to high-level pastures and which was not well adapted to motor vehicles.

·       There was no separate footpath or cycleway.

·       The site was in the Northumberland Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

·       The site was extremely prominent on a sloping cliff-top site and was very visible from Spittal Promenade.

·       The view was spoiled by the caravan site.

G. Davies spoke on behalf of Berwick Town Council and gave the committee the following information:

·       Berwick Town Council were satisfied that the issues of pollution levels within the required drainage system, and foul drainage were no longer an issue.

·       The issue of views being effected from within and adjacent to the site due to layout was an issue of amenity.

·       The site was an urban location, with a former industrial site adjacent to social housing.

·       There were concerns around the A1169 into Cow Road.

·       The benefits of the development were overstated and therefore the balance should thereby be tilted towards respecting the amenity of residents.

·       Berwick Town Council objected to the application.

M. Bonner spoke in support of the application and gave the committee the following information:

·       The sustainable growth of tourism which protected key environmental and historic assets was a strategic objective of the Local Plan.

·       The proposals would contribute toward the objective within the boundary of the existing holiday park and was within the settlement boundary. It would provide access to shops and services, minimising the need for car travel, and avoid visual impacts on the AONB.

·       The additional pitches could generate between £100,000 - £280,000 of visitor spend for the locality and wider county each year.

·       The expanded park as a whole could equate to between £1,000,000 to £2,500,000 of spending per annum, depending on occupancy levels.

·       The transport assessment and subsequent updates had demonstrated that Cow Road could accommodate additional traffic and that safe access could be achieved. Additional road markings would be provided.

·       New pitches were situated an adequate distance from neighbouring properties and the implementation of existing site rules would ensure that there were no unacceptable impacts on amenity.

·       Boundary landscaping would be maintained between 60-90cm to ensure planting did not grow too high.

·       The proposals ensured that the LPG tanks were a stand-off distance of at least 11.5 metres, with existing dwellings located further away. The HSE only required a stand-off distance of 7.5 metres. There would be no risk of harm to neighbours and the park had a licence for their use.

·       There had been objections to the erection of fencing around the site, however this was erected under permitted development rights to restrict access to private property and had no bearing on the use of any Public Right of Way.

·       The applicants had offered to provide additional signage at the top of Cow Road.

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

·       The site was not in the AONB.

·       There were existing passing places on Cow Road.

·       The site had a license for 278 caravans and the site currently held 182.

·       The lighting scheme was still to be proposed.

·       There was a legal obligation for a financial contribution of £7,949.49 to the Coastal Mitigation Service.

·       Issues with Cow Road had been looked at in detail by Highways and the Planning Officer, and the application was deemed acceptable.

·       The caravans were to be occupied for holiday purposes only and would not be a person’s sole, or main place of residence.

·       There was no requirement for EV chargers.

Councillor Watson proposed to accept the officer’s recommendation, this was seconded by Councillor Thorne.

Councillor Hill explained that there were 10 houses before the railway on Cow Road, and that she received a huge number of complaints about congestion.  The addition of 23 more caravans would increase the problem and she would be voting against the motion.

Councillor Thorne and Councillor Watson stated  that the site was already an established Caravan Park, it was a small extension of 23 caravans, and all authorities were consulted and agreed. 

A vote was taken as follows: FOR; 6, AGAINST; 4, ABSTAIN; 0 

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions in the report and a legal obligation for a financial contribution of £7,949.49 to the coastal mitigation service.