Issue - meetings

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and to the amended conditions 4 and 5 as detailed in the late observations. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 8 October 2012.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.

            The officer detailed the background to the report and referred Members to the late observations where a letter of support and one of objection were reported along with two points of officer clarification. 

            Mr. I. Betts spoke against the application as a nearby resident of the site.  He referred to the profound detrimental impact of the application on residential amenity and spoke of problems of poor site design, noise, dust, fumes, traffic and pedestrians.  He requested that Members visit his property to see the effect for themselves.  He also did not feel that the site complied with the Unitary Development Plan.  He suggested that a solution to the problems could be to use fields to the side of Hendre Lane, which could include the use of the existing large buildings as facilities for the site and the use of a different access/egress.  Mr. Betts referred to the Section 106 agreement which was in place in respect of the application approved in February 1993 for 25 caravans on the site which had been requested to protect the amenity of neighbours; he felt that the agreement had been ignored.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application until the alternatives had been explored.    

                        Mr. J. Williams, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the applicants wanted to diversify and that he felt that other businesses would benefit from the tourism brought into the area.  He said that the reputation of the site had been built up on the basis of a family business.  He said that 75% of clients stayed on the site on a repeat basis.  He recognised that the other element to the application, the facilities for campers and backpackers, had the potential for anti social behaviour but this had been addressed by CCTV which operated for 24 hours per day and a strict curfew was in operation.  He added that the site boundary had been moved 150 metres away from the residential property. Mr. Williams said that there had been no objections from statutory consultees and the 85 objections had been submitted by one family on grounds which were unsubstantiated.  He commended the officer’s report to the Committee.   

Prior to speaking on the application, Councillor W.O. Thomas said that he had in the context of an earlier application signed an affidavit to confirm that the caravan park had been in place for a number of years but that he had had no involvement with the caravan park.  In order to put Councillor Thomas's remarks in context, the Principal Solicitor drew Members’ attention to application 049598 for a lawful development certificate for an existing use as a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77