Proposed change of use to create a retirement park by allowing the residential use of 143 caravans approved under planning permissions APP/P1560/W/17/3183981 and 19/00707/FUL.

Councillor Harris had earlier in the meeting declared a personal interest in Planning Application 20-00119-FUL Oakleigh Residential Park, Weeley due to his being the Ward Member. Councillor Harris had also declared that he had called in this item to the Committee following a direct request from on behalf of Weeley Parish Council. Councillor Harris had confirmed that he was not pre-determined regarding the matter and that therefore he would be able to participate in the consideration of the application.

Councillor Bray had earlier in the meeting declared a personal interest in Planning Application 20-00119-FUL Oakleigh Residential Park, Weeley since he previously stated publically that the application this site should not be residential. He withdrew from the meeting at this time.

It was reported that this application sought permission to remove condition 5 of planning permission ref. APP/P1560/W/17/3183981 and condition 5 of planning permission ref. 19/00707/FUL which restricted the use of the approved caravans to holiday use only. It was proposed to create a retirement park which would allow for residential occupations but restricted to those over the age of 50.

Members were reminded that Paragraph 47 of the NPPF required that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The site lay outside of the Settlement Development Boundary of both Weeley and Weeley Heath in the Saved and Draft Local Plans and was not allocated for development.

Officers felt that in terms of applying the tilted balance to the planning merits of the case, given that the Council could not currently demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, there was a need to weigh up the following planning considerations put forward in support of the application; namely:

•           Although the permitted caravans could only be occupied for holiday use at present, the caravan units were the same whether they were made available for holiday or residential occupation. Each of the extant permissions allowed for the caravans to remain in place all year round, and this proposal was not for any additional caravans or built development in addition to that which had already been permitted. In physical form, operational and land use terms (this was no longer a green field site), therefore, the development would not introduce any use of land or development that had not already been found to be acceptable, and the land would essentially remain in use as a park home site. The only change would be the form of occupation;

•           The proposed development was considered to address the three pillars of ‘sustainable development’, namely economic, social and environmental sustainability. The proposed use would help contribute to the local economy; in environmental terms, the application did not propose any additional development and would retain the existing screening; and would be relatively socially sustainable, given that it had been accepted through previous approvals on this site that although it was outside the settlement boundary, there was suitable vehicular and public transport access to the site including local bus stops, and the adjacent railway station. In addition the site was within walking distance of a range of services and facilities;

•           There were parallels in this case with a recent appeal decision (Appeal Ref. APP/P1560/W/17/3183981), issued on 22 November 2019, allowing the residential occupation of previously permitted holiday caravans at Sacketts Grove Caravan Park, Jaywick Lane, Clacton-on-Sea. In allowing the appeal the Inspector had stated:

“The delivery of 104 homes would be a benefit of the appeal scheme given the framework’s aim to make a more efficient use of land and significantly boost the supply of housing, which the Council are currently not doing due to the housing supply deficit. The supply of housing under the appeal proposal would be significant, and even were I to accept the level of housing need is as stated by the Council, the delivery of 104 homes affords significant weight in favour of the proposal”.

The Inspector had concluded that “…the proposal would not create adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the application of Paragraph 11 indicates that permission should be granted”.

•           The applicant’s aspiration was to deliver a ‘retirement village’ and as such they proposed that, if approved, the park homes would be restricted to people aged 50 or over without children living at home. A Section 106 agreement was being drafted which would include provisions to address the age restrictive nature of the accommodation. Whilst not in itself a reason to justify the approval of this application, the provision of age-restricted park homes was something that complemented the Council’s emerging ‘Housing Strategy’ to cover the period 2020-2025. The draft strategy pinpointed the Council’s approach to delivering the housing necessary for the needs of the area, which included meeting the particular needs for older people around Clacton. The Strategy confirmed that the District had “…the highest proportion of over 65’s in the UK and the prediction was for this age group to continue increasing. Addressing the housing and other needs of the elderly would be paramount over the coming years”.

On balance, given the District’s current housing supply position; the relative sustainability of the site against the three pillars of ‘sustainable development’; the recent appeal decision at Sacketts Grove Clacton for a similar change of use from holiday use to permanent residential occupation; and the Council’s emerging support for meeting the needs of the elderly, it was considered by Officers that this application could be supported.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Temporary Planning Team Leader (TF) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of:

8 further letters of support that had been received.

(1)        The fact that since the finalisation of the officer report, the referred to Section 106 Agreement had been completed and the Officers’ recommendation no longer needed to refer to it still requiring completion.    

Ian Roberts, a local resident, spoke in support of the application.

Carol Bannister, a local resident, spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Christine Hamilton, representing Weeley Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Martin Taylor, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Fowler, seconded by Councillor Casey be authorised to grant permission for the development.

Following further discussion by the Committee, it was then moved by Councillor Cawthron, seconded by Councillor Alexander and RESOLVED that the Acting Assistant Director (Planning) (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to refuse planning permission for the development, for the following reasons:-

(1)  Outside Settlement/ Unsustainable Development/ Cumulative Impact

(2)  Loss of tourist related facility

(3)  Inadequate financial contributions

(4)  Inappropriate form of development in terms of space standards/parking

(5)  Inadequate information re. sewer infrastructure