Agenda item

Redevelopment and extension of existing caravan site, relocation of access and associated drainage

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for the redevelopment and extension of the existing caravan site, and relocation of access and associated drainage (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Caines, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.

In presenting the report the Officer advised of amendments to paragraphs 57 and 77. Paragraph 57 referred to Local Plan Policy TL7 which should read TM7. Paragraph 77 referred to Section 72 of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and this should be removed, the relevant legislation being Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Marion Forest from Edmundbyers Parish meeting addressed the Committee against the application. She stated that Edmundbyers was a small historic village of approximately 60 houses, characterised by a distinctive landscape in an AONB, and was a Conservation Area.

The Parish meeting considered that the application was contrary to a number of Local Plan Policies contained in the Wear Valley District Local Plan as amended by Saved and Expired Policies September 2007, which were set out in the Officer’s report.

Whilst the Highways Authority had raised no objections residents believed that the increase in traffic would exacerbate road safety problems on the B6278. Having looked at the site from all angles a development of the scale proposed could not be absorbed into the landscape and it was unfair that such a small village would have to contend with a large expansion of a site that was immediately outside the Conservation Area.

Maria Ferguson, the applicant stated that she had worked closely with Planning Officers to produce an acceptable scheme in terms of layout and landscaping. The development would be phased thereby reducing any immediate impact. The main concerns appeared to be the visual impact of the proposals from the Muggleswick Road. This road was not well-used and was half a kilometre from the site.

The existing site already had permission for 30 caravans and caravan sites often occupied sensitive rural locations. The NPPF supported the provision and expansion of rural tourism developments.

David Anderson, the owner gave a background to the family business stating that the site was in need of modernisation to remain viable. Four full time employees and seasonal workers were employed, and the business helped to sustain the local economy. He was responsible for maintaining the farm’s viability and the caravan site was paramount to its success. The demand for the additional facilities was already there as Edmundbyers was a beautiful village in an AONB which attracted tourists.

J Day, Senior Landscape Architect, DCC was asked to comment on the visual impact of the development.  He advised that the views of the Landscape Section were summarised in the report, and despite discussions with the applicant to reach an acceptable scheme it was clear that screening would not be adequate in view of the sloped nature of the site. The proposals were contrary to Local Plan Policy TM2, the site would extend considerably beyond the existing settlement and the static caravans would be very visible.

A Member noted that there was already planning permission in place for 30 caravans and that the site was in a poor condition. The Principal Planning Officer responded that the current planning permission ensured that any additional caravans remained close to the existing settlement. Proposals to modernise the site were welcomed, however this should not be a reason to either support or refuse the application.

A further Member commented that there were many caravan sites located in sensitive rural locations but that these were not intrusive because they were well-screened. It was clear that in the case of Struthers Farm it would not be possible to screen the site adequately.

In discussing the application Members noted that the NPPF advised that planning permission should be refused for tourism proposals in designated AONBs except where it could be demonstrated that they were in the public interest. The application was also contrary to Local Plan Policy TM2 as the proposal would detract from the landscape quality of the AONB due to its visibility in the countryside from the south.

It was therefore Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the report.