Agenda item

Officer’s Report

The PO-AW introduced the Officers report and recommendation for refusal. She advised that the application was a scaled down resubmission of PF/21/2263 which came before the committee in 2021 and seeks full planning permission for the siting of 2 self-contained timber glamping pods to be constructed on a rectangular parcel of land at Shrublands Farm to the south of Northrepps village.

It was noted that the application site does not have planning permission and currently operates under a ‘Certified’ Camping and Caravanning license. This license is a permitted development exemption which allows land to be used for the purposes of camping for up to 28 consecutive days at any one time, for up to 10 tent pitches and 5 motorhomes. The glamping pods do not qualify under this exemption and therefore are required to be assessed against Planning Policy.

The PO-AW affirmed the sites location, images of the site and its context in its local surroundings.

In terms of the key issues for consideration, the proposal is located in an area designated as countryside within the Norfolk Coast AONB where Policy EN 1 of the Core Strategy recognises the impact of individual proposals and their cumulative impact on the AONB, stating that proposals which would be significantly detrimental to the special qualities of the AONB and their setting should not be permitted.

Polices EC 7 and EC 10 deal specifically with controlling the location of new tourism development, EC 7 gives specific reference that new build un-serviced holiday accommodation in the Countryside should be treated as permanent residential dwellings and should not be permitted. Policy EC 10 further states that new static caravan sites and woodland holiday accommodation (which would also cover glamping pods) will only be permitted in limited circumstances, and not where they are located within sensitive landscape designations such as the Norfolk Coast AONB. Extensions to existing sites are tightly controlled and only where they demonstrate a high standard of design and have minimal adverse impacts upon their surroundings.  Given its certified status Officers conclude that the land at Shrublands farm cannot be treated as an existing site and that the scheme should be assessed as a new camping site under Policy EC 10, and is considered contrary to the aims of this policy.

With respect on landscape matters, the PO-AW stated that the proposed pods would occupy the site year round making them permanent structures. Landscape Officers are of the opinion that, whilst wider visual impact would be relatively contained by the enclosed wooded setting, as permanent structures the pods would be visible in the winter months. This, together with the increased human activity, light spill and vehicle movements that the development would generate would not conserve or enhance the valued features or the defined special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB, particularly ‘a sense of remoteness and tranquillity.

The Case Officer advised that the benefits of the proposal would need to be balanced against the harm which would result from new tourist accommodation being permitted within this sensitive landscape designation, and noted there would be some economic benefits from the scheme. However, however there is little detail in the submitted farm report as to how much the pods themselves would generate and given they are already in use on a different part of the farm and the application only seeks to relocate these, little weight can be afforded to this economic benefit.

Further, there was also an objection to the proposal in terms of highway safety. Highways officers consider that the traffic impact of a 28-day Certified Camping site does not provide an adequate fallback position in highway terms to justify or enable permanent all-year glamping pods which would intensify highway movements. They consider the road serving the site to be inadequate due to restricted width, lack of passing provision, restricted visibility and lack of pedestrian facilities. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety contrary to Development Plan Policy CT 5 and Highways officers recommend the application for refusal.

The PO-AW advised that the authority had not received GIRAMS payment and therefore the application fails to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in adverse effects on the European Sites and so the proposal is currently contrary to the requirements of Policies SS 4 and EN 9 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.

The Case Officer reaffirmed Officers’ recommendations and stated that the proposal is considered contrary to Policies EN1, EN 2, EC 7, EC 10 CT5, SS4 and EN 9 of the Adopted Core Strategy.

Public Speakers

Alistair Mackay - Chairman of Northrepps Parish Council

Matthew Rooke - Supporting

Member’s Question’s and Debate

1. The Local Member – Cllr A Fitch-Tillett – expressed her support for the recommendation and affirmed her reasons as outlined of P.60 of the Agenda Pack. She stated that the application would entice tourism away from the coastal hotspots within the AONB which accorded with adopted core strategy policies.

With respect of the suitability of Craft Lane, the Local Member advised that this road was used by a mini bus service between North Walsham and Cromer 3-4 times a day both ways. If the road was considered unsuitable by the Highways Authority, this bus route would not have been permitted.

Cllr A Fitch-Tillett considered the benefits the additional footpath from the rear of the camping site would bring. Such benefits would not be limited to users of the proposal, but also to local residents including allotment holders, who do not currently have access to paved routes into the village.

The Local Member advised that the application had been discussed by Norfolk Coast Partnership within the last week, and noted P.62 of the Agenda Pack which detailed that the Partnership neither objected to, nor supported the application. She stated that the proposal was not considered to have a significant detrimental impact to the AONB. Further, any potential light pollution would be controlled, and the Local Member commented that the Parish Council held their own ‘Dark Skies’ Policy which the proposal would accord with.

Cllr A Fitch-Tillett noted that Development Committee had approved Planning Application PF/22/1337 located within the West Runton AONB at the last meeting, which she considered had set a precedent. 

2. The DM clarified that the pathway discussed by the supporting speaker did not form part of the proposed scheme. He cautioned Members in attributing weight to this consideration when it was not included in the formal application. Should the applicant wish to include the pathway in the scheme, they would be required to submit amended plans and have that secured as part of any decision.

He noted that the supporting speaker referred to a 12-month Caravan use of the site, but advised this was not Officer’ understanding and they had been provided no evidence to indicate 12-month use was permitted. This formed an important consideration when weighing the highway impacts, as going from 28 days permitted use to 365 days was a significant increase.

With reference to Cllr A Fitch-Tillett’s comments on the West Runton application, the DM advised with respect of that scheme it did not propose additional pitches, rather it was an enhancement of the existing site. It was therefore not a straightforward comparison with the proposal presented.

3. Cllr R Kershaw thanked officers for their advice, and affirmed that the distinction between 28 days and 365 days permission was important in decision making. He noted that the pods would not be available all year round and would run March - October. He questioned the Highways objection as the pods were already located on the site in an alternate location, and expressed his preference for cars to make use of Craft Lane as opposed to caravans or motorhomes.

From an economic perspective, Cllr R Kershaw spoke favourably of the application, the need to support farmers, promote diversification, and in attracting visitors away from coastal hotspot areas.

Cllr R Kershaw affirmed that clarification was needed regarding the footpath and the conflicting opinion about the 28 day vs 52 week designation. He therefore proposed deferment of the application.

4. The Chairman permitted the applicant to make a representation. The Applicant advised the site was open 365 days a year.

5. The DM advised no evidence had been provided as part of the application to establish that the site had the full 365 day permission. The DM recommended that this item be deferred, and cautioned Members from reaching a decision on potentially incorrect information.

6. Cllr A Brown seconded the recommendation for deferment.

RESOLVED by 11 votes for and 1 abstention

That Planning Application PF/22/1708 be DEFERRED to clarify whether the site had 12 month Caravan permission, and if the footpath was to form part of the proposal.