Skip to Main Content

Agenda item

Application DM/2020/00883 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission DM/2019/01480 to enable up to 4 touring caravans to be parked on site for the use permitted under planning permission DM/2019/01480, and removal of condition 4 (the limitation to a personal consent) from planning consent DM/2019/01480. Land Adjacent Sunnybank, A48 Crick to Parkwall Roundabout, Crick, Monmouthshire

Minutes:

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence. The officer recommendation was a split decision, namely:

 

·         Approve the variation of condition number 3.

·         Refuse the removal of condition number 4.

 

The local Member for Shirenewton, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the following points:

 

·         Nothing has changed since the original application and the decision made by the Planning Committee to keep as a personal consent and to exclude the four touring caravans.

 

·         The local Member asked that the Committee to refuse both variations to the conditions and that the original Planning Committee decision should remain.

 

·         The original application had been granted with permission for a shower utility block and for a two and three bedroomed park home.  The four touring caravans had not been included in that permission.  It had been accepted at a previous Planning Committee meeting that this would have been an overdevelopment of the site.

 

·         The site slopes indicating that the main development area is only at the top of the site on a plateau.

 

·         The local Member referred to Policy H8, paragraph C.

 

·         Mathern Community Council commented that the site overall was not large enough to house the proposed two park homes, two amenity blocks, four traveller pitches plus the necessary vehicular parking and circular turning area.  On that basis it was considered that the proposal represents overdevelopment of the site.

 

·         The local Member stated that in the original Committee report for the site it had been commented that officers would echo concerns that the full use of the site would appear crammed. 

 

·         On the amended plan it is not clear where the four caravans (each over five metres long) will go.  The amended plans and the turning circle conditions were based on the site without the four touring caravans.

 

·         The parking area in the flat plateau area at the top of the site has blotted out caravans on the plan.  This is the parking area for the cars, which has an allowance for five car parking spaces for the two park homes.

 

·         The highways condition was to cover the turning circle for a tanker to empty the cesspit.  If the cars are parked at the top of the site indicated on the plan, this will leave only the sloped area at the bottom of the site for the caravans. This will block the turning circle for the caravans or the tanker.

 

·         If the caravans are parked at the top end of the site, then the drive will be blocked not only for the tanker but for the caravans’ turning circle with the cars parked on the slope. Concern was expressed that emergency services vehicles will not be able to access the site.

 

·         Parked vehicles on a sloping access drive will create visual amenity concerns of an overdeveloped site.  If vehicles cannot leave the site in a forward gear they will have to reverse onto the busy A48 causing safety concerns.

 

·         Mathern Community Council considers that an alternative more appropriate site should have been found by the local Authority on safety grounds as the A48 is a busy commuter road.

 

·         It is necessary to provide safe access and egress from the site for the residents and to ensure safe circulation within the site for residents using the highway.

 

·         The local Member read from Page 65 of the report relating to condition 3 in respect of overdevelopment of the site.

 

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, the following points were noted:

 

·         The Head of Planning informed the Committee that at the previous Planning Committee meeting in March 2020 in which this site was discussed, the discussion related to four additional pitches for the touring caravans. When the applicant agreed to remove the caravans from the site he was referring to the pitches rather than the touring caravans which would be used for his own purposes.  This planning application is seeking to rectify that condition in relation to it not applying for any additional pitches for wider family members.  These touring caravans would only be used for residential purposes of the applicant.  There is a condition in the application to retain the use for the applicant and his son. Planning officers consider that there is sufficient space on the site for up to four touring caravans.  Highways officers have also reviewed the planning application and consider that there is enough space on the site for caravans to turn, as well as safely access and egress onto the site. It was also considered that the visual amenity of the site would not be negatively impacted by having four touring caravans on the site. Approval for the septic tank has been granted which will be monitored by Building Control in the longer term.

 

·         Concern was expressed that approval of the application would lead to overdevelopment of the site.

 

·         It was considered that having a scaled plan of the location of the touring caravans would be helpful.

 

·         In response to questions raised, the Head of Planning informed the Committee that up to four touring caravans could be located anywhere within the red line indicated on the plan of the site.  The size of the caravans would be determined by the caravan act.

 

The local Member for Shirenewton summed up as follows:

 

·         If the Planning Committee is minded to approve the application, the local Member asked for a split decision, namely, to allow the officer recommendation on personal consent.  With regard to the touring caravans, it was considered that this matter needs to be deferred to investigate the need for amended plans and also look at adding a highway condition to ensure that there is safe access and egress onto the site and that there will be a safe turning circle area in place.

 

The Head of Planning informed the Committee that with regard to highways safety there is no ambiguity in respect of the site.  There are no highways objections to the proposal.  However, the local Member disagreed with this statement.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor L. Brown and seconded by County Councillor A. Webb that the Planning Committee considers a split decision in respect of application DM/2020/00883, namely:

 

·         That consideration of condition 3 be deferred to the next Planning Committee meeting to seek amended plans to demonstrate that up to four touring caravans can be accommodated on site plus space for parking and turning, as well as two park homes and utility blocks.

 

·         That condition 4 not be approved and that it be re-worded to agree with the officer recommendation to retain the personal permission.

 

Proposal relating to condition 3:

 

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

 

In favour of the proposal                 -           8

Against the proposal                       -           4

Abstentions                                       -           0

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that consideration of condition 3 would be deferred to the next Planning Committee meeting to seek an amended layout plan to demonstrate that up to four touring caravans can be accommodated on site plus space for parking and turning, as well as two park homes and utility blocks.

 

Proposal relating to condition 4:

 

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

 

In favour of the proposal                 -           11

Against the proposal                       -           0

Abstentions                                       -           0

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that condition 4 not be approved and that it be re-worded to agree with the officer recommendation to retain the personal permission.

Supporting documents: