Agenda item

Removal of Condition 5 (holiday home occupancy restriction) of planning permission DM/15/01520/FPA for the siting of 16 executive holiday lodges (resubmission).

The Senior Planning Officer, Jennifer Jennings, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The application was for removal of Condition 5 (holiday home occupancy restriction) of planning permission DM/15/01520/FPA for the siting of 16 executive holiday lodges (resubmission) and was recommended for refusal, for the reasons set out within the report. 

The Senior Planning Officer noted properties to the south of the application site were granted a Lawful Development Certificate in 2006 for use as permanent residential dwellings.  She noted the report set out that application was contrary to the requirements of CDP Policies 6 and 10 and Paragraph 105 of the NPPF, as well as being contrary to the aims of CDP Policy 29, the Council’s Residential Amenity Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2020) and Paragraphs 124 and 127 of the NPPF.  It was added the application was also in conflict with CDP Policies 15, 25 and 26 in terms of failure to provide off-site affordable housing and open space contribution and therefore was recommended for refusal.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked the Committee Services Officer to read out a statement on behalf of the former County Councillor Lynn Pounder.

‘As a Councillor last year I made comments regarding the change of use and as a resident I would like to fully support the removal of occupancy condition on this application.  It would be a huge benefit to the community with a positive impact for the older population.  The choice and benefits of smaller housing in a beautiful location in a popular up and coming area of the County.  Evergreen Park is a beautiful well maintained site surrounded by coastal views and amenities at nearby Crimdon beach and dene as well as many other amenities.  The transport links are good and the bus stops a very short distance from the site, with links to the surrounding areas.  Permanent Residential occupation of the units would free up larger family homes in the area which are currently in high demand. This would create a more specific choice of smaller high quality homes of which we have a shortage throughout the County.  The boost to the economy from the change of use to this application would have an extremely positive impact on the wider local community’. 

The Chair asked Mr Robert Drummond, the applicant, to speak in support of his application.

Mr R Drummond noted he felt the Committee report was a little misleading and noted the report was numbered Paragraphs 1 to 111.  He noted Paragraph 2 lead people to believe Evergreen Park was a ‘caravan park’, as in touring caravan park.  He explained he was the owner and operator of Evergreen Residential Park and he had operated for nearly 20 years uninterrupted with no problems whatsoever.  He added that his park was not the only residential park in the UK, noting there were several thousand, reiterating that the park was residential and the reference to caravan park was misleading.  He noted his park was residential, for the over 50s and with all occupants owning the units individually.  He added all were very happy, with one resident over 90 years of age.

Mr R Drummond noted Paragraph 44 of the report set out that there was a need for affordable housing in the area, however, it noted the use of a mobile home was not a suitable product.  He noted he would contradict that and say that for several thousand parks around the UK, which operated as he did with Evergreen Residential Park, it seemed to work.  He added that Paragraph 44 also stated that ‘discussions with estate agents and mortgage brokers indicate that these units would not be suitable for affordable purchase’.  Mr R Drummond noted that 100 percent of the homes sold, whether they were referred to as units or park homes, had all been sold through local estate agents, Keith Pattinson, Dowen and so on.

In reference to Paragraph 72 of the report, Mr R Drummond noted it had referred to the density of the properties and to what was suitable for holiday lets.  He explained that the point he wished to make was that mobile, residential, park homes operated completely different to traditional housing schemes of say 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 houses in terms of the distance between each unit, it being six metres, as required by park home law, three metres to boundaries, six metres between units and two metres to the road edge.  He added that he had many other points he could raise in terms of the Committee report, though he did not have the time.

Mr R Drummond noted he made the following case for the application to be granted.  He noted that permission was granted at appeal, with costs awarded, for the 16 holiday lodge units.  He explained that the relevant condition was for holiday use only and noted that the 16 bays had been installed with 10 having been sold under the holiday restriction, with six units currently unsold.  Mr R Drummond noted that due to the COVID-19 situation and the repeated requests of holiday lodge owners, it was necessary for the application for full residential use to be granted.  He added that the only issue appeared to be Council Officers making unrealistic demands in respect of Section 106 contributions which his professional advisors did not feel were justifiable. 

Mr R Drummond noted the contributions requested rendered the matter unviable and Council Officers were demanding Section 106 contributions from all 16 units, adding that his advisors had felt that was unreasonable, maybe unlawful, and certainly a grey area in planning terms. 

The Chair thanked Mr R Drummond and asked the Senior Planning Officer to respond to the points raised.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that, in relation to affordable homes and what would be an acceptable form, the Council’s Housing Delivery Team noted that park homes would not constitute an acceptable form.  She added that Officers did not feel what was being proposed would meet that demand, even if, under a Section 106 agreement, there was a requirement that two of the units be affordable in perpetuity.  She noted that therefore, to meet policy requirements, an off-site contribution would be required for another housing site.  She noted that the application before Members was for the condition to be removed from all 16 lodges and therefore the Section 106 agreement would have to apply to all in that case.  The Senior Planning Officer noted she had explained as regards distance standards within the report and presentation and reiterated, as Members would be aware, that between houses in residential estates the Council would expect a 21 metre separation between habitable windows, which was not being achieved in the case of the application.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked Members for their questions and comments.

Councillor J Elmer asked for clarification, if the condition were removed in relation to holiday home status, to all intents and purposes, the properties would be considered as any other residential property in terms of a planning application.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that was correct, when the permission was originally granted it was for holiday lets, with full and permanent occupancy as a residential property being a very difference type of occupation.  He noted that the separation distances that would be considered acceptable for a holiday let were not considered acceptable for permanent accommodation.  He added that in terms of affordable housing and Paragraph 44 of the Committee report, affordable housing was based upon whether a Registered Provider would take on a property as affordable housing long-term, and it was clear a Registered Provider would not take on a static caravan as a form of affordable housing. 

Councillor P Jopling asked what the period of occupation was under the current permission.  The Chair noted he would allow Mr R Drummond to respond. 

Mr R Drummond noted it was 12 months, 52 weeks of the year the same as the adjacent residential park, with the difference between the two areas being one fence, with homes being like-for-like, no difference in build quality, and noted six metres apart was standard for residential park homes, not 21 metres.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the current restrictions were set out at Paragraph 4 of the Committee report: ‘The lodges hereby approved shall be occupied for holiday purposes only, and shall not be occupied as a person’s sole, or main place of residence’.  He added the occupancy was qualified in those terms, rather than a restriction for certain months of the year.

Councillor J Elmer noted the need to comply as best one could with the policies of the CDP and noted Policy 10 referred to the need to conserve the countryside, the open aspect of the countryside and avoid permanent residential development in the countryside.  He added that decisions were always difficult, however, if Members were to allow approval of the application it would be creating a mechanism through which applicants could develop the countryside, in this case applying for holiday homes then applying for change of use for those holiday homes.  He noted that regretfully he would move the Officer’s recommendation that the application be rejected.  He was seconded by Councillor E Mavin.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons as set out within the report.

Councillor P Jopling left the meeting at 3.40pm