Caravan layout changes at Ferry Road West, Scunthorpe

What was proposed

The application sought to update the caravan layout while retaining 10 units, with seven on the west, three on the east and open space to the north.

“PA/2016/613 Planning permission to change the use of land to provide an extension to an existing residential static home park – refused 27/07/2016. SITE CONSTRAINTS The site is within SFRA flood zone 2/3 (a). ASSESSMENT Site and proposal The applicant is seeking to vary condition 2 of PA/2017/192, namely to update the layout of the caravans.”

“An existing fence (approximately 1.8m) is to be retained on the northern boundary. Each caravan will include its own parking space and area of open space to the south between the caravans. The main issue in determining this application is whether the variation of condition 2 of PA/2017/192, to update the layout of the caravans, is acceptable.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is unallocated, lies within settlement limits and includes nearby homes, rear-garden outbuildings, a boundary fence and flood-zone constraints.

“DS14 Foul sewage and surface water drainage DS7 Contaminated land DS16 Flood risk T1 Location of development T2 Access to development T19 Car parking provision and standards Housing and Employment Land Allocations DPD: PS1 Presumption in favour of sustainable development Proposals Map – Inset 36 Scunthorpe The site is unallocated and within the settlement limits.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier applications for extending the static home park included refusals, an approval and an appeal allowing a condition relating to the approved plans.

“RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY PA/2015/1504 Planning permission to change the use of land to provide an extension to an existing residential static home park – refused 06/04/2016 PA/2016/1214 Planning permission to change the use of land to provide an extension to an existing residential static home park – refused 21/09/2016 PA/1998/0532 Planning permission to erect a replacement garage/storage building – approved with conditions 13/11/1998 PA/2017/192 Planning application to…”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the amended layout acceptable because it would not cause unacceptable privacy, design, flood-risk, drainage or highway effects, subject to conditions.

“Appearance and quality of design Policies DS1 and CS5 are both concerned with visual amenity, the former stating that proposals should be sympathetic in design, scale and materials. Both seek to improve the quality of design across North Lincolnshire. The NPPF places an emphasis on good design.”

“It is noted the Site Location Plan did not form part of the plans condition; it is recommended that this be referenced and included in any future permission should the local planning authority be minded to approve the application. Flood risk and drainage Policies DS16 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, CS18 and CS19 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, and paragraphs 166 and 167 of the NPPF are considered relevant in respect of flood risk and drainage.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Highways and the Environment Agency raised no objections, while the parish council objected to information and access concerns and one comment raised residential concerns.

“Through telephone discussions with the case officer, Highways are aware that the access road has been reduced slightly from 4m to 3.7m wide; however, do not have any objections and consider that the level of vehicle traffic on the site will be minimal and that there is sufficient space for vehicles within the site.”

“Environment Agency: No objections to the variation of condition 2 of PA/2017/192 to change the layout of the caravans, providing the flood risk assessment (ref: 2015/1902 revision B, prepared by EWE Associates Ltd, dated 7 December 2015) is included in the list of plans. LLFA Drainage: No comments.”

Officer report

What was said at committee

A councillor said residents had raised concerns about noise, disturbance, residential amenity, design and rear security, and sought attention to operating hours and conditions.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed remaining security concerns, possible additional conditions, operating hours and the enforceability of hedge height.

“Cllr Marper stated that local residents had raised a number of concerns related to this application, particularly around noise and disturbance, residential amenity, and the quality of design. Whilst security issues had been addressed for the front of the site, Cllr Marper stated that security concerns remained towards the rear of the development, and that there may be a need for additional conditions.”

“Cllr Ross queried the enforceability of the hedging height, and the Planning Development Manager responded accordingly.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to grant permission in accordance with the officer recommendation was proposed, seconded and carried.

“It was then moved by Cllr C Ross and seconded by Cllr C Patterson –”

“That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report.”

Minutes