Change of use of land to site 67 static holiday caravans, together with associated landscaping.
522
The Committee considered an application for the change of use of land to site 67 static holiday caravans together with associated landscaping. The application was referred to Committee as it had been called in by Councillor T. Young. The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out together with further information on the Amendment Sheet.
The Committee made a site visit in order to assess the impact of the proposal upon the locality and the suitability of the proposal for the site.
Chris Harden, Planning Officer, and Simon Cairns, Major Developments and Projects Manager, presented the report and assisted the Committee in its deliberations.
Maurice Lainchbury addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. He represented the views of over 100 residents. The application was in breach of planning policy. The claimed benefits of the scheme would come at the cost of damage to the environment and increased pressure on infrastructure. There would also be costs to the local authority from 11 month occupation of the caravans. Whilst it was claimed that the application would bring economic benefits, it did not specify who would benefit. Nearly all visitors to the site would travel by car, which would generate an extra 260 vehicle movements per day. Therefore the proposals were contrary to transport policy and would put more pressure on Mersea’s road network, which was characterised by narrow roads without footpaths, and would result in increased congestion.
Carl Castledine, Chief Executive of Away Resorts, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. Away Resorts were a small but growing business. There had been a recent decline in the attractiveness of holiday parks which they were seeking to reverse. Cosways Holiday Park had suffered from under investment. The proposals would provide a modern and attractive holiday park which would provide both part time and full time job opportunities. It would also increase the amount paid in business rates. There would be a minimal impact on traffic and the any day arrival policy would reduce the traffic impact. They were dealing with the NCC to deal with the with long term residency issues. The proposal would create an excellent holiday park which would boost tourism in the area.
Councillor T. Young attended and with consent of the Chairman addressed the Committee in support of the application. The proposals were well designed and if approved, would enhance tourism and the borough’s economy. The proposals did not breach the Local Plan but supported policies on tourism, employment and economic growth. Away Resorts had owned the site for two years and had invested heavily in the site to turn it into a quality park. The field which the applicant sought to develop was of low landscape and amenity value. The extension to the holiday park would be well designed and low density. It would not generate significant traffic and there was no objection from the Highways Authority. Strict controls would be imposed to prevent year round occupancy. Whilst it was noted that the application site was in the Coastal Protection Zone, this was also the case with Coopers beach site, which had been allowed to extend. This was not an allocated site in the Local Plan, and Policy DP10 allowed the extension of holiday parks. Policy ENV1 permitted development where it was compatible with its location. This was the case with this application which would improve the visual amenity of the area.
Councillor J. Young attended and with the consent of the Chairman addressed the Committee in support of the application. If approved the proposal would help provide affordable holiday accommodation for residents of the borough. It would also help support local businesses. The owners had already significantly improved the park whilst it was under their ownership. It would only operate for 10 months a year, which should reassure those concerned about long term occupancy. Whilst concerns about traffic were noted, traffic in the area had temporarily increased recently as a result of the opening of a new playground at Cudmore Grove.
Councillor Moore attended and with the consent of the Chairman addressed the Committee. The costs of the development were too high for the proposed benefits. Once built the development would only create an additional four jobs. Mersea already suffered from the results of poorly managed tourism. There were already approximately 2000 caravans on Mersea. It was impossible to control residencies to prevent 12 month occupation. There would be 24 hour lighting on the site which would impact on the amenity of neighbours. Essex Wildlife Trust, who had objected to the proposals, had a better knowledge of the site than Natural England. The proposed development was also not compatible with the Council’s Sustainable Transport Policy and the applicant’s transport submission was inaccurate. There were robust planning reasons for the refusal of the application.
Councillor Goss attended and with the consent of the Chairman addressed the Committee in his capacity as Chairman of the Local Plan Committee. Whilst he was not in a position to comment on the merits of the application, he stressed the importance of respecting the Local Plan and expressed his concern that it was claimed that the application was in contravention of the Local Plan.
The Planning Officer explained that there would a significant impact on landscape, and whilst there be some economic benefit, this would not outweigh the harm to landscape. The application site was a valuable buffer between Cudmore Grove and the holiday park. Whilst an application had been approved at Coopers Road, this was an allocated site in the Local Plan. It was also set further back from the coast and views of it were hidden by the by the existing park. It was therefore not directly comparable. The comments of Essex Wildlife Trust had been carefully considered. However, it would be difficult to justify refusal on the grounds of impact on wildlife. The application was contrary to the Local Plan and conflicted with policies ENV1, ENV2 and DP23. Whilst policy DP10 supported the provision of sustainable rural tourism in appropriate locations, this was only where the proposals were compatible with the rural character of the area, which was not case with this application.
Members of the Committee were concerned that the application was contrary to Local Plan policies ENV1, ENV2, DP23 and DP10. In addition it was also contrary to the East Mersea Village Plan. Particular concern was expressed about the significant impact the application would have on the Coastal Protection Zone. Members of the Committee also highlighted the height of the site which would mean that the site would be highly visible and therefore have a significant impact on the landscape and character of the area. Concerns were expressed that the application was too large in scale. Whilst the arguments in support of tourism were noted, some members felt that Mersea was reaching saturation point and the application would be detrimental to tourism in the long term. Concern was also expressed about the transport issues although members noted that the Highways Authority had not objected and that therefore a refusal on these grounds could not be sustained.
RESOLVED (EIGHT voted FOR and TWO ABSTAINED from voting) that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.