Four holiday mobile homes at Spring Park, Willingham St Mary

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for four additional mobile homes for holiday accommodation, increasing the site from 24 to 28 units.

“This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the siting of four additional mobile homes for holiday accommodation at Spring Park Caravan Park, increasing the total number of units on the site from 24 to 28.”

“This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the siting of four additional mobile homes for holiday accommodation within Spring Park Caravan Park.”

Officer report

The site

The site is at the western edge of an established caravan park in open countryside, accessed through the existing internal road network.

“The application site forms part of Spring Park Caravan Park, located on the southern side of the A145 London Road, Willingham St Mary. The site lies outside any defined settlement boundary within the open countryside and comprises a parcel of land at the western edge of the established caravan park. The wider site has historically expanded from a touring caravan and camping site to a static caravan park through a series of planning permissions.”

“The application site is accessed via the existing internal road network serving the caravan park, which itself gains access from the A145 through the adjacent public house car park. The four mobile homes subject to this retrospective application are already positioned on the site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for the same development was refused, while a later appeal confirmed that the site should remain holiday accommodation.

“Planning application DC/25/4589/FUL sought retrospective permission for the siting of four mobile homes for holiday use on the application site and was refused planning permission. The reasons for refusal related to landscape impact arising from the extension of the caravan park into open countryside, the absence of biodiversity mitigation measures, and concerns regarding the submitted red line boundary and site access arrangements.”

“A recent appeal decision relates to application DC/25/4502/ROC, which sought the removal of Condition 3 attached to planning permission DC/25/0398/VOC. That condition restricts all units on the site, with the exception of Units 13, 14 and 15, to holiday accommodation only and prevents their occupation as a sole or main residence. The effect of the application would in the view of officers have allowed unrestricted residential occupation of the caravans across the site.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the expansion acceptable in principle and found that landscaping, ecological measures, parking, highway safety and residential amenity could be satisfactorily addressed.

“The imposition of such a condition should not be interpreted as indicating that the existing holiday occupancy restrictions applicable elsewhere on the site are ineffective or unenforceable. Rather, it reflects the Council's current approach to the regulation of holiday accommodation and provides additional certainty that the units will remain available for visitor accommodation rather than permanent residential occupation.”

“National decision-making policies (NDMP) S5: Principle of development outside settlements sets out that only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements, this includes development for rural businesses and services, including tourism, where a location outside settlements is shown to be necessary. The site is an expansion of an existing site and as such officers consider this shows a level of necessity for the proposal.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council and Highways objected, while ecology, landscape and environmental protection consultees raised no objections subject to conditions.

“Consultee Date consulted Date reply received Shadingfield, Sotterley, Willingham and Ellough Joint Parish Council 14 April 2026 1 May 2026 Summary of comments (comments available online in full): Objection raised to the proposal, citing concerns regarding the cumulative and linked nature of recent applications at the site, the continued intensification of development in an unsustainable location, and the apparent conflict between proposals for additional holiday…”

“Consultee Date consulted Date reply received East Suffolk Environmental Protection 14 April 2026 22 April 2026 Summary of comments: No objections raised subject to an unexpected contamination condition being applied…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent supported approval, while the Ward Member asked for refusal or deferral over highways, policy, drainage and retrospective development.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed parking, cycle storage, occupancy monitoring, drainage, landscaping, heritage setting, enforcement and the unresolved Highways response.

“Councillor Pitchers sought clarification on Councillor Hammond’s comments regarding dark skies and cycle provision. The Planning Manager advised that, should Members be minded to approve the application, a condition requiring cycle storage could be imposed.”

“Councillor Ashton noted that, as the application was retrospective, google maps showed vehicles parked on the site and demonstrated that space was available for parking. He supported the addition of a condition requiring details of cycle storage. While he did not consider drainage to be a significant issue in this case, he commented that further information would have been helpful.”

Minutes