6
The Committee received report ES/1619 of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management, which related to planning application DC/22/2520/FUL.
The application sought full planning permission for the extension of Pakefield Holiday Park to provide for the following development on land to the west of the park:
1. A new and improved access and main site entrance off the A12
2. New entrance buildings and clubhouse facility
3. The siting of additional static holiday caravans, involving the rollback of existing static caravans away from the coast
4. Environmental improvements and landscaping throughout
The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planner, who was the case officer for the application.
The site location was outlined in relation to the current holiday park. The Senior Planner also shared aerial photographs and 3D models of the site and photographs through the site showing the existing agricultural buildings, which would be removed, and the site boundaries.
The Senior Planner shared photographs showing the current entrance to the site and the proposed entrance to the site. The proposed access arrangements including new signage were displayed. The Senior Planner explained that the new entrance and exit would be left turn only, and displayed the proposed block plan showing access barriers on the site.
The proposed elevations, floor plans and models of the new club house were displayed. The Senior Planner stated that this had been designed to be a similar size to the existing agricultural buildings on the site. Indicative drawings of the new caravans which would be used on the site were displayed, the Senior PLanner stated that a limited colour palette would be used for the new caravans. The proposed landscaping and an illustrative masterplan were also displayed.
The Senior Planner shared aerial photographs showing coastal erosion on the site since 1999 and a plan of the coastal change management area. It was estimated that twenty three pitches had been lost on the site due to coastal erosion. The extension of the site would allow for rollback of the coast in this area.
The proposed links to public footpaths in the area were shared.
The Senior Planner summarised the material planning considerations and key issues as:
- Policy and Legislative Background
- Principle of Development
- Holiday Occupation and Restrictions
- Landscape and Visual Impact
- Highways and Transport
- Economic Considerations
- Amenity Impacts
- Ecology and Biodiversity
- Coastal Change Management and Re-location of Development Affected by Coastal Erosion
- Sustainability
- Heritage Assets
- Other Matters
The recommendation to approve the application, subject to the conditions set out in the report was outlined to the Committee.
Members raised questions relating to;
- Planting and landscaping
- The rate of coastal erosion
- The proposed site entrance and options for physical barriers preventing right turns
- Mitigation measures for neighbours during construction
- Site density
- Noise from the clubhouse
Regarding planting, officers confirmed that a detailed planting plan including species had not yet been confirmed. Landscaping was generally required to be made up of native species and so it was likely planting would be more deciduous. Officers confirmed the Council's ecologist considered impact to be suitable.
Officers confirmed this part of the coast was managed by Coastal Partnership East with support from East Suffolk Council and others in the area. Officers shared photographs of the site showing coastal erosion since 1999 to demonstrate the rate of erosion in the area.
Officers stated that the proposed entrance system had been considered by Suffolk County Council Highways Department and was considered a good option for entrance and exit from the site. Officers explained that highways did not dictate the solution and road layout, but that they ensured the solution that had been put forward was safe and sensible. As they had no objected, it was reasonable to assume that there was no issue with this proposal. The Planning Development Manager reminded the Committee that a proposal had been put forward and they were to judge this on its own merits not against any alternatives.
Regarding mitigation measures for neighbouring properties, officers confirmed there was no requirement to protect views. There was a construction management plan in place which included measures to protect against interruption from the construction of the site.
Officers confirmed a noise assessment had been completed and noise levels were considered appropriate. The clubhouse was approximately 32 metres from the rear boundary of properties on Jubilee Road. The outside area of the clubhouse was designated for dining, and the existing clubhouse on the old site would be removed.
Regarding caravan density, officers confirmed that this was set by a licence and there was a standard model setting the density of sites and so it was reasonable to assume the density would be similar to the existing site.
The Chair invited Mrs Batley, representing objectors to address the Committee.
Mrs Batley summarised the main objections of the neighbours on Jubilee Road. This area was rich in wildlife and protected species, crossed by the national coastal footpath and had the potential to be a great asset to the area as a nature reserve. Traffic on the A12 was already heavy, the area was an accident blackspot and a child had been killed here. Large caravans, transporters and holiday traffic negotiating the two roundabouts would only add to the danger and congestion, and previous applications had been refused. Noise across the site would be considerable from entertainment, holiday makers and traffic around the site, and noise from the nearby Pontins site could clearly be heard.
Mrs Batley stated that drainage and flooding was also a great concerns. Flash storm flooding caused by runoff from rooves was an issue due to the clay soil in the area which was no easily permeable. Subsidence was also a risk on this type of soil, and Mrs Batley stated that having a large amount of heavy machinery moving around the site was a great concern and neighbours needed reassurance about the stability of the site. Adding further accommodation would also stretch the areas emergency services even further.
Mr Batley stated that residents would face loss of light, security and privacy. Some properties were at a lower ground level than the site, and so the loss of light would be even worse in these properties. Security was also a concern due to recent crimes in the area, and the turnover of strangers at the site could increase crime levels.
Property values would also decrease. A clubhouse, swimming pool and caravans were planned against properties with no buffer zone between properties and the site, and Mrs Batley encouraged the Committee to view the site to understand this.
Mrs Batley stated that approving this site would create a precedent and allow for development all the way along the A12 to Kessingland, ruining an area of high landscape value which was an asset to residents and visitors.
There were no questions from members. The Chair invited Mr Jones, representing the applicant, to address the Committee.
Mr Jones stated that the planning application covered two aspects, the extension of the park and a new entrance on to the A12. Coastal erosion had resulted in the loss of twenty three pitches in the last three years and it was estimated that an additional twenty five to thirty would be lost over the next three years. This application would secure the future of the park and the employment of thirty five staff.
Mr Jones stated that the current access arrangements bought traffic through a residential area which was a regular cause on conflict with residents, particularly in busy periods when caravans were being delivered. All traffic would instead be directed to a dedicated entrance, removing traffic through a residential area.
Mr Jones stated that the additional pitches would replace the pitches that had been lost and as the applicant had improved the park following their purchase in 2019, and reduced the number of pitches on the older area of the park, the number of pitches would stay the same and within the park licence. It was anticipated that an additional eighteen people would be employed when the park was completed, and the park would contribute over £1.5million to the local area each year. A pre application and public consultation had been held and was well attended.
Mr Jones stated that the application represented a significant investment of over £10million into Pakefield by Park Holidays, and that they were committed to improving the site and facilities.
Members raised questions around
- Control of the entry and exit
- The location of the clubhouse on the site
- Terms of licences for caravan owners
- The boundary with Jubilee Way
- Coastal erosion
Regarding options for the entrance to the site, Mr Jones stated that clear signage would be put in place. Options for a hard barrier had been discussed but were not considered appropriate.
Mr Jones stated that the clubhouse was located reasonably central on the new site as it was replacing a facility that was centrally located. Different options had been considered but this location was felt to be most appropriate and no issues with the position had been raised during public consultation. Officers added that there was an existing feature on the south of the site that was being retained and limited options.
Regarding terms and licences for caravans, Mr Jones stated that the maximum age for a caravan on the site was twenty years. Holiday makers were not allowed to live on the site permanently, and there were conditions in leases which prevented this. Mr Jones confirmed that residents owned their caravans and occupied a plot which was leased to them. For those that had lost their plot to erosion, they would be offered a plot on the new site depending on their lease.
Regarding the sites boundary with properties on Jubilee Way, Mr Jones stated that mitigation measures were felt to be sufficient. The ditch on this boundary would be cleared and reinstated. Any concerns about ownership of this boundary would be resolved separately, although the ownership of the land had been confirmed as part of the planning application.
Mr Jones stated that Park Holidays were a stakeholder with the Coastal Steering Group and were contributing to discussions about erosion in this area. At present they had not been asked to contribute to any defences but they were working with the group for solutions. Mr Jones also confirmed there was access to the beach from the site.
The Chair invited Councillor Byatt to address the Committee as ward member.
Councillor Byatt stated that he lived near the caravan park. He was pleased to see the thoroughness with which the Committee were considering this application. Councillor Byatt stated that he welcomed the new entrance to the site and asked if this would be installed first so the rest of the construction traffic could use it to access the new part of the site. The removal of large vehicles and holiday traffic from a residential area was welcome, as was the investment in the site, the improvement in infrastructure, and the increase in jobs which would come with the expansion of the site. Councillor Byatt in particular noted the provision of air source heat pumps and asked if these would replace the use of bottled gas on the site.
Councillor Byatt noted that there had been twenty four expressions of support for the site, and sixty objectors. It was difficult as ward Councillor to balance these opinions within one community.
Councillor Byatt summarised his objections to the site, namely the closeness of the new caravan plots to existing residents, and Councillor Byatt demonstrated the closeness of the plots to the boundary. Although screening planting was planned this would take time to mature and for privacy to be restored. Properties on Jubilee Road, which was closest to the site, were south facing and it was reasonable to assume that there would be a loss of light. Multiple new sources of noise would also be introduced to the area, and again it would take time for planting to mature to dampen this sound.
Councillor Byatt stated that the greatest visual impact would be felt by residents on Jubilee Road. The build phase would take place in the closed winter season, however Councillor Byatt noted that there was no defined closed season for the site. The site also had a different ground level to properties on Jubilee Road and the topography varied across the site, meaning some caravans would look over and into the gardens of neighbours and little consideration had been given to fencing to provide further privacy. Councillor Byatt noted that the exact location of caravans was not dictated by planning and stated that the caravans could be moved around to provide more privacy.
Councillor Byatt summarised that this was a large application that would benefit some residents and not others, and asked that the Committee view the site in person to ensure they fully understood the impact it would have. Councillor Byatt stated he believed there was more that could be done to mitigate the impact of the development for neighbouring properties regarding noise and loss of privacy.
Members raised questions regarding traffic management on the site. Councillor Byatt stated that he would like to see a physical barrier to prevent right hand turns rather than just signage. However removing traffic from the residential parts of Pakefield would be incredibly beneficial, and that there was no merit to keeping the existing entrance even for limited access. Movement around the site certainly needed to be looked at, as did the entrance, but his main concern was mitigation for noise and loss of privacy.
Councillor Ashdown stated that having heard the presentation and representation from residents, it was clear that the new access seemed sensible but there were still concerns regarding mitigation measures. Councillor Ashdown proposed that a site visit take place and the application be deferred.
This proposal was seconded by Councillor Pitchers.
Councillor Ashton stated he agreed with comments from Councillor Byatt. Jobs and the protection of the site from coastal erosion in the shorter term was welcome, as was the moving of the access road which would improve the movement of traffic through a residential area. Councillor Ashton stated he was concerned about the mitigation against noise and he did not feel this was currently sufficient to approve the application.
Councillor Ewart commented that she would like the site owners to consider moving the clubhouse to and that she would welcome being able to visit the site to understand concerns. Officers stated that moving the clubhouse could be considered as a comment for the applicant and it would be up to them to consider this.
Councillor Pitchers asked if Suffolk County Council Highways could engage with the applicant on a physical barrier to the site. Officers confirmed this was not up to highways to enforce, but that it could be passed on as a comment. Suffolk Highways were the experts in this area and might have considered a barrier detrimental to road safety in other respects.
Councillor Hammond commented that he would like to see a bigger buffer strip between the site and Jubilee Road and he encouraged the applicant to consider this.
Clerks note: the meeting was adjourned at 15.37pm to allow members of the public to leave the meeting.
Following the adjournment the Planning Development Manager summarised the process for a site visit and stated that members of the public would be allowed to observe this but not engage. Committee members would use this as an opportunity to understand the facts of the site and no discussion or deliberation would take place.
The Democratic Services Officer confirmed the process for registering to speak at a Planning Committee Meeting and stated that three minutes was allocated for objectors, town councillors and applicants regardless of how many people had registered to speak in these roles to ensure a fair hearing.
By a unanimous vote it was
RESOLVED
That the application be DEFERRED to enable the Committee to visit the application site.
Officers advised that a site visit would be arranged and that details would be circulated to members of the Committee in due course.