Development Management Panel 27 February 2012

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL 27 FEBRUARY 2012

Case No: 1101950FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: CHANGE OF USE OF AGRICULTURAL GRASSLAND TO CAMPSITE FOR UP TO 25 TENTS OR MOTORHOMES, PROVISION OF TOILET/SHOWER FACILITY IN EXISTING BUILDING

Location: SUMMERFIELD FARM HIGH STREET

Applicant: MACNEIL HAYNES

Grid Ref: 507715 268994

Date of Registration: 30.11.2011

Parish: TILBROOK

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 This site lies in the countryside southwest of Tilbrook with an access onto the B645.

1.2 The site measures over a hectare. It includes an access which is used in association with the applicant’s own dwelling to the east and a neighbouring property, 60 High Street, to the west.

1.3 The main body of the site is set back from the road and measures approximately 100m at its widest northern end, excluding the access, approximately 166m long and approximately 47m wide at the southern end. There are hedges and ditches around parts of the site. Part of the eastern boundary of the site is undefined.

1.4 The site is predominantly grassland and includes the southern part of a modern agricultural building, the remainder of which is used for offices and storage. The site excludes a small area of land (approximately 32m x 45m) immediately south of the building to be converted containing two other buildings built for agricultural purposes.

1.5 The proposal is to change the use of the land which the applicant describes as agricultural grassland, to a campsite for up to 25 tents or motorhomes and provision of toilet/shower facility in part of the existing agricultural/office building.

1.6 The supporting statement advises that the site will not cater for towed caravans and approximately half of the pitches will have access to electric hook up facilities. There would be no external alterations to the front/west elevation of the existing building to be converted to provide wcs/showers but new openings would be inserted into the south elevation, which faces a building in the applicants’ control.

1.7 The applicants describe the proposal as being for a ‘family’ camping and motorhome site. The proposal is to operate from March to October inclusive, ie not all year round and to not cater for towed caravans.

1.8 The applicants advise that they own 10 acres and have rented 90 acres of farmland for a mix of grassland and arable crops since 2002. Their Farm Business Tenancy is for a further 3 harvests ending in 2015 at which time they plan to secure a further 5 year Farm Business Tenancy. The applicants advise that the farm is not viable on its own, and that the development could enhance its viability. Water and mains sewerage are available. The applicants propose to supplement the landscaping at the northern edge of the site and point out that there is screening from off-site hedges on land in their control north of the site.

1.9 The main road through the village is in a valley and the site is on a slope; levels rise from the road and across the site and up to the south. There is no path on the frontage of the application site but there is a path on the opposite side of the road.

1.10 There is a public path in the field approximately 175m west of the site and there are other public rights of way in the vicinity of the site, including through the grounds of the pub on the opposite side of the road.

1.11 The site can be seen some distance away from the other side of the valley.

1.12 Tilbrook has no shops. There is a pub in a Grade II listed building opposite the site entrance. The south-west corner of Tilbrook Conservation Area lies approximately 107m away from the north-east of the site.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1: “Delivering Sustainable Development” (2005) contains advice on the operation of the plan-led system.

2.2 PPS4: “Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth” (2009) sets out the Government's comprehensive policy framework for planning for sustainable economic development in urban and rural areas.

2.3 PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010) sets out the Government's planning policies on the conservation of the historic environment.

2.4 PPS7: “Sustainable Development in Rural Areas” (2004) sets out the Government's planning policies for rural areas, including country towns and villages and the wider, largely undeveloped countryside up to the fringes of larger urban areas.

2.5 PPS9: “Biological and Geological Conservation” (2005) sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system.

2.6 PPG13: “Transport” (2011) sets out the objectives to integrate planning and transport at the national, strategic and local level and to promote more sustainable transport choices both for carrying people and for moving freight.

2.7 Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism (2006): sets out guidance on tourism and para 20 of Annex A Tourist Accommodation advises that planners ‘should carefully weigh the objective of providing adequate facilities and sites with the need to protect landscapes and environmentally sensitive sites’. The economic and environmental impacts need to be considered.

2.8 BS5837:2005: Trees in relation to construction.

2.9 Draft National Planning Policy Framework: Consultation (2011) - sets out the Government’s key economic, social and environmental objectives and the planning policies to deliver them. The intention is that these policies will provide local communities with the tools they need to energise their local economies, meet housing needs, plan for a low-carbon future and protect the environmental and cultural landscapes that they value. It seeks to free communities from unnecessarily prescriptive central government policies, empowering local councils to deliver innovative solutions that work for their local area.

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

Further information on the role of planning policies in deciding planning applications can also be found at the following website: http://www.communities.gov.uk then follow links Planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Information and Guidance, Planning Guidance and Advice and then Creating and Better Place to Live

3.1 East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008) Policies viewable at http://www.go-east.gov.uk then follow links to Planning, Regional Planning then Related Documents

 SS1: “Achieving Sustainable Development” – the strategy seeks to bring about sustainable development by applying: the guiding principles of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy 2005 and the elements contributing to the creation of sustainable communities described in Sustainable Communities: Homes for All.

 ENG1: “Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Energy Performance” – new developments should be located and designed to optimise carbon performance.

 E6: “Tourism” - Proposals for tourist development should be fully sustainable in terms of their impact on host communities, local distinctiveness and natural and built environments.

 ENV6: “The Historic Environment” - Within plans, policies, programmes and proposals local planning authorities and other agencies should identify, protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment of the region including Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings.

 ENV7: “Quality in the Built Environment” - requires new development to be of high quality which complements the distinctive character and best qualities of the local area and promotes urban renaissance and regeneration.

3.2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) Saved policies from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 are relevant and viewable at http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk follow the links to environment, planning, planning policy and Structure Plan 2003: None relevant.

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95:

 En17: "Development in the Countryside" - development in the countryside is restricted to that which is essential to the effective operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, permitted mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services.

 En2:“Character and setting of Listed Buildings” - indicates that any development involving or affecting a building of architectural or historic merit will need to have proper regard to the scale, form, design and setting of that building.

 En5: “Conservation Area Character” - development within or directly affecting conservation areas will be required to preserve or enhance their character and appearance.

 En9: “Conservation Areas” - development should not impair open spaces, trees, street scenes and views into and out of Conservation Areas.

 En18: “Protection of countryside features” – Offers protection for important site features including trees, woodlands, hedges and meadowland.

 En20: Landscaping Scheme. - Wherever appropriate a development will be subject to the conditions requiring the execution of a landscaping scheme.

 En25: "General Design Criteria" - indicates that the District Council will expect new development to respect the scale, form, materials and design of established buildings in the locality and make adequate provision for landscaping and amenity areas.

 E7: “Small Businesses” will normally be supported subject to environmental and traffic considerations.

 T18: “Access requirements for new development” states development should be accessed by a highway of acceptable design and appropriate construction.

 T19: “Pedestrian Routes and Footpath” – new developments are required to provide safe and convenient pedestrian routes having due regard to existing and planned footpath routes in the area.

 En24: “Access for the disabled” – provision of access for the disabled will be encouraged in new development

 To1: “Promotion and Development” offers support for the development of tourism opportunities at an appropriate scale.

 To2 – New or improved tourist facilities will be encouraged where the scale and location is not environmentally detrimental and in keeping with the landscape and not damaging to residential amenities

 To9: “Caravan and Camping Accommodation” – indicates that the District Council will support the provision of caravan and camping sites for tourists where they are not environmentally detrimental, nor adversely affect residential amenity. Satisfactory road access and essential services are required.

 To11 indicates that the District Council will support farm based developments which support tourism, subject to agricultural considerations, where they are not environmentally detrimental, nor damaging to residential amenities, and where satisfactory access and car parking can be provided.

3.4 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002) Saved policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002): None relevant.

3.5 Policies from the Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2009 are relevant and viewable at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk click on Environment and Planning then click on Planning then click on Planning Policy and then click on Core Strategy where there is a link to the Adopted Core Strategy.

 CS1: “Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire” – all developments will contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development, having regard to social, environmental and economic issues. All aspects will be considered including design, implementation and function of development.

 CS3: “The Settlement Hierarchy” – states that any area not specifically identified are classed as part of the countryside, where development will be strictly limited to that which has essential need to be located in the countryside.

3.6 Policies from the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010 are relevant:

 C1: “Sustainable Design” – development proposals should take account of the predicted impact of climate change over the expected lifetime of the development.

 E1: “Development Context” – development proposals shall demonstrate consideration of the character and appearance of the surrounding environment and the potential impact of the proposal.

 E2: “Built-up Areas” – development will be limited to within the built-up areas of the settlements identified in Core Strategy policy CS3, in order to protect the surrounding countryside and to promote wider sustainability objectives.

 E3: “Heritage Assets” – proposals which affect the District’s heritage assets or their setting should demonstrate how these assets will be protected, conserved and where appropriate enhanced.

 E5: “Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows” – proposals shall avoid the loss of, and minimise the risk of, harm to trees, woodland or hedgerows of visual, historic or nature conservation value, including ancient woodland and veteran trees. They should wherever possible be incorporated effectively within the landscape elements of the scheme.

 E8: “Sustainable Travel” – proposals must demonstrate how the scheme maximises opportunities for the use of sustainable travel modes, particularly walking, cycling and public transport.

 H3: “Adaptability and Accessibility” – the location and design of development should consider the requirements of users and residents that are likely to occur during the lifetime of the development.

 H7: “Amenity” – development proposals should safeguard the living conditions for residents and people occupying adjoining or nearby properties.

 P7: “Development in the Countryside” – development in the countryside is restricted to those listed within the given criteria: a. essential operational development for agriculture, horticulture or forestry, outdoor recreation, equine-related activities, allocated mineral extraction or waste management facilities, infrastructure provision and national defence; b. development required for new or existing outdoor leisure and recreation where a countryside location is justified; c. renewable energy generation schemes; d. conservation or enhancement of specific features or sites of heritage or biodiversity value; e. the alteration, replacement, extension or change of use of existing buildings in accordance with other policies of the LDF; f. the erection or extension of outbuildings ancillary or incidental to existing dwellings; g. sites allocated for particular purposes in other Development Plan Documents.

 P8: “Rural Buildings” - The principle of the reuse of buildings in the countryside will be supported where the building is either: a. of permanent and substantial construction, is structurally sound and capable of conversion and in an accessible location; or b. of historic or architectural value which the scheme will preserve. Proposals will be expected to show that the building will not be substantially altered or increased in footprint or scale. Where a business reuse, including tourist accommodation, is proposed this will be supported provided that: c. the employment generated is of a scale and type that is consistent with the specific location; and d. the proposal is accompanied by an acceptable travel plan.

 P9: “Farm Diversification” - A sustainable proposal for a farm diversification scheme will be supported where it makes an ongoing contribution to sustaining the farm business as a whole. A proposal should: a. be complementary and subsidiary to the agricultural operations on the farm; and b. be of a scale, character and location that are compatible with the landscape setting of the proposal; and c. not have a detrimental impact on any area of nature conservation importance; and d. not involve built development on any site that does not contain existing built development, unless the reuse or redevelopment of existing buildings, on the holdings, for the intended use, is not feasible or an opportunity exists to demolish an existing structure and re-build in a location that makes a clear and substantial improvement to the surrounding area; and e. not involve a significant, irreversible loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land; and f. ensure that the type and volume of traffic generated could be accommodated within the local highway network.

 P12: “Tourist Accommodation” - Proposals for touring caravan or camp sites will be acceptable where: d. the site is adjacent to an existing settlement; or e. well-related and with good links to an existing settlement; and f. no adverse visual impact is caused on the surrounding landscape; and g. the site is, or can be served by adequate water and sewerage services; and h. safe physical access can be achieved.

The occupation of new tourist accommodation will be restricted through the use of conditions or legal agreements to ensure tourist use and not permanent residential use.

3.7 Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance:  Huntingdonshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2007.  Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment Supplementary Planning Document 2007 includes the site in the Northern Wolds Landscape Character Area.  Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines.  External Lighting SPG.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The most significant elements are as follows:

4.2 Dwelling:  8400866FUL – erection of dwelling – approved subject to agricultural occupancy condition and S106 obligation.  0503539FUL – extensions to dwelling – approved.  0800744FUL - extension – approved.

4.3 Other buildings/uses:  8800415FUL: use of land for milk business and erection of fridge and shed -approved.

 0100916FUL Change of use and alterations to farm building to form offices (B1)-approved. At that time it was noted that the applicant was employed as an agricultural consultant and employed 4 members of staff.

 1002078FUL Change of use of a larger area of agricultural grassland to campsite for up to 40 tents and 5 touring caravans. Provision of shower/toilet facilities and general washing/drying facility and shop: Withdrawn 10.03.2011.

 The camping and caravanning club rejected an application for a certificated site on 30th June 2011.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Tilbrook Parish Council: Recommend refuse due to lack of community benefit, unacceptable scale relative to scale of village, unacceptable location in countryside, harm to views and amenity, not farm diversification, highway safety issues (copy attached).

5.2 Local Highway Authority: No objection subject to improved visibility.

5.3 Environmental Protection Officer: No objections. Site would be subject to site licence.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 15 Objections from Tilbrook residents or their agents, including the occupiers of 60 High Street and properties in Station Road, High Street and Hall Lane: * Tilbrook is a small quiet village which could not absorb proposal without destroying the very pleasant ambience of village, proposal will ‘engulf’ the village. * the village lacks facilities/infrastructure for this scale of proposal. Facilities for increased number of families remain inadequate and would be overwhelmed (pub and playing fields) * Noise of say 110 extra arrivals and exits plus noise from campers, Noise along access, at field, bridge and church, the prevailing wind will spread noise pollution across the village, concern about noise made particularly in the evening/night time; especially for a neighbour who is a retained fireman so noise disturbance would be a particular problem * Antisocial behaviour and litter * Concern about congestion- perhaps dangerous * Note Station Road is narrow and has no path: danger to local children * Concern about increased traffic and use of narrow and unsuitable Station Road (which sat-navs direct users to) * Access inadequate and visibility poor, harm to pedestrians, campers and children as vehicles speed on B645: campers would cross to Pub and playing field, a recent traffic speed survey by Cambridgeshire County Council revealed that the average speed of vehicles was well in excess of the posted 40mph and closer to 50mph. Vehicles accelerate to leave the village well before they reach the proposed access to the development and vehicles turning out of the development or Station Road will be a traffic hazard, the junction at Station Road is not always the easiest to manoeuvre out of and visibility is restricted here and at site. * If the lease to the farm land is not renewed by the applicant, future lessee farmers will have the right of way along the access for large machinery. Even if the lease is renewed by the applicant the access will still be used by heavy machinery. This, added to traffic visiting the site, would create a risk to pedestrians and farm drivers and the B645. * Note motor homes can be longer than caravans. * Consider campers will need to use cars/vehicles. Note lack of public transport. * Query validity of application and certificate. * Harm to landscape. * Increased security problems with more strangers in village * Loss of privacy to neighbours as site is elevated. * Location is inappropriate * Concern about noise pollution especially with pub music and beer festival in May bank holiday * Note Camping and caravanning club refused application and surmise Club appreciated lack of suitability * Note PC object to proposal * Harm to views from 2 Station Road and public path * Concern about site becoming a permanent static caravan site. * Concern about applicant’s lack of transparency: Prior notice from applicant did not refer to motor homes * Not subsidiary to farm operation therefore not farm diversification. * No contribution to welfare of village * Concern that as there have been breaches in planning controls on this site that more breaches may arise if the application were approved. * Adequate provision for current and foreseeable future demand. The applicant refers to two sites within 5 miles near Covington and Gt Staughton. However, 6.5 miles (by road) from the proposed site is an existing camping/caravan site at Top End Farm, Little Staughton with 150 pitches and which is open all year and is rarely full. Farm camp sites exist in the county in the immediate area e.g at Grafham. Regular caravan rallies are held at Kimbolton School. *as Tilbrook is so close to two other counties, any commercial benefit the potential campers may bring is likely to be shared with Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire * Conflicts with policy:PPS4 Policy EC7: Planning for Tourism in Local Areas. The applicant quotes para 34 of PPS7 as grounds for approval but fails to identify how the development will be a significant source of employment or how it would support the prosperity of country towns and villages where most residents commute to work and do not rely on employment in the place they live. * The site is not "countryside fringing urban areas" and as such the argument quoting PPS7 is void. * PPS4 Policy EC6 states that local planning authorities "should support diversification for business purposes that are consistent in their scale and impact with their rural location". The proposal for 25 pitches represents 27% of the number of houses in Tilbrook (Parish) and if assume 3 persons per pitch it would be a 29% increase in the population or 39% increase if assume 4 persons per pitch. Even using the lower figure we consider this development to be out of scale with and have too large an impact on the village and parish of Tilbrook. * Detrimental impact on view/ visual amenity * No need for this facility * Insufficient playspace * Additional landscaping will take 5-10 years to reach a maturity that will hide the development. No detailed landscaping plans are available. The promised landscaping could fail to shield the development but could in itself be detrimental to the countryside. * The landscaping is also only proposed to mitigate the visual impact but should be designed to a depth and maturity to mitigate noise pollution. * The applicant states that the accepted stocking density for tents is 60 per acre. This is irrelevant as the application is for Motorhomes and/or Tents. * Farm diversification: applicant’s income is derived from agriculture as an agricultural consultant; this does NOT mean the applicant is a farmer. * Not farm diversification. Understand the fields the applicant owns amount to less than 10 acres, which are not used for agricultural income. Part of one of 4 paddocks was sold to 60 High Street as garden. The remainder of that paddock, and two of the smaller ones to the east of the dwelling, have been used for horse grazing (horses used solely for recreational use) and recreational use. The paddocks are regularly mown and the site is used as private recreational ground. The remainder of the land that is “farmed” is rented on short 5 year leases and is contracted out to another party. * Proposal not sustainable and so contrary to PPGs PPS7 SPPS1 and CS1, * Harm to countryside would be contrary to CS1 and To1 E1 and P12 of DPD * Proposal is contrary to To8 To9 and To11. * No contact with neighbours or dialogue with the village over scheme, despite the concerns caused by last application. * Harm to amenities of 60 High Street from extra activity and disturbance from cars and people/activity. * Plans: Lack of plan of facilities and accurate plan of hedge to be removed for visibility * Concern about future marquee with events and harm to amenity and environment, * Stress on the old bridge in Station Road * Allege wash and shower facilities and bedrooms are in the barn which has been converted to office space: why was permission for the change of use of barn granted and is the change of use subject to conditions? * The village has been connected to mains sewerage. Is it adequate for the waste of 25 additional households? * Village playing field repairs will only increase with potentially at least double the amount of use the equipment might receive – by people with no allegiance to the village. * Debris that some people leave behind would also be undesirable e.g. glass on playing fields. Concern not all strangers would adhere to requests to dispose of their litter in the proper way. * All these issues would reduce quality of life in the village. Enjoyment of our environment would be severely compromised if the development proceeds. * The proposed camp site would have a damaging effect on the landscape and a detrimental effect on the village community. The irreversible consequences of the impact the extra, intrusive traffic would have on the village infrastructure would be significant particularly if the site were to change hands in the future and/or be allowed to grow. * Harmful consequences would outweigh any limited benefits. * Note lawful use is agriculture: applicant breaches agricultural occupancy condition on dwelling and s52 agreement, disagree with claim that holding is 100 acres as the holding is less than 10 acres and mostly not agricultural, the office is Class B1 not agriculture. * Contradiction on figures of site area * The pitches and hook ups are not shown on the plan although ½ of the 25 units would have them. * Assume previous objections will be taken into consideration * Precedent for larger development if application approved. * Some of the supporting letters are not from Tilbrook and should have less weight.

6.2 7 support application: 1 from Tilbrook, 1 from Kimbolton, 4 from Upper Dean and Spaldwick and 1 from Suffolk: * Consider proposal will benefit local economy such as farms selling produce and pub, * Consider objections re security, peace and privacy are nonsense * Note ‘glamping’ [a1]can be a very middle class activity * Consider development will be barely visible from High Street and only a short section of footpath west of site. * Consider applicants history of tidying the site should be taken into account. * Relatively modest proposal * Toilet and shower facilities will be housed in one of these barns effectively reducing the overall visual impact on the surrounding area. * The site will be seasonal - between March and October and, with very few attractions offered by other campsites, is unlikely to operate at full capacity for most of this period. * Access to and egress from the site from the B645 is good - evidenced by the lack of objection from Cambridgeshire County Council. * Location for a maximum of 25 tents or motorhomes will not be detrimental to the visual amenity of the village as it is to be located behind the barns, some distance from neighbouring properties. * Increase in traffic movements will not be significant even if these are via Station Road: road is quite heavily used already. * There will be no significant increase in noise that will affect the village as a whole. The applicants will be closer to the users and will still wish to enjoy a pleasant home life. * Concern about increase in crime in the village created by users of the site is unfounded and offensive to those who choose to spend their time on camping sites with few facilities. * If this application leads to a larger development in future, a further planning application would be required. * For most of the year anticipate very little, ‘weekday traffic’ and especially for the first year or so while the site becomes known to the camping community. * Campers come from all walks of life with evidence showing that camping is becoming increasingly popular with the ‘professional classes’. * It would be a breach of most Camp Site planning consents should any of the clients be other than holiday makers. All visitors will need to book and their details recorded both at time of booking and upon arrival. The camping and caravanning community does not have in its ranks “itinerants” * Visitors to Tilbrook are most likely to simply use the site as a base to visit the wider area or relax and enjoy the facilities on site including the younger element of the families. * Visitors will not come for the benefits of the village playing field. Most of the campers are likely to be from urban backgrounds wanting to enjoy a short time in the open air of the countryside. Their own urban play facilities are superior to the Tilbrook playing field has to offer. * An increase in visitors to the pub across the road is likely and will be welcomed by the landlord. * Note several changes of pub landlord since 2000. * Litter and basic recycling facilities can be provided on site. * Litter and noise need not be a problem. * Property price devaluation is a highly subjective issue. On another Campsite outside the district, three properties have been sold in the past five to ten years at the full asking price. * Suspect house prices would be devalued if Summerfield Farm were to revert to its previous use of outdoor pig farming or the siting of large straw stacks etc.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues are: * the principle of the development in the countryside, * the effect on the character and appearance of the countryside and setting of the conservation area and listed building (pub to north), * highway safety, * amenities of residential properties in vicinity of site and amenity of the village.

Principle of the development:

7.2 The site is outside the built-up area of the village and in the open countryside where development is strictly controlled in order to protect the countryside for its own sake, in the interests of its character and to conserve natural resources and to restrict motor journeys.

7.3 However, the national guidance, for example in the Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism (2006) highlights the importance of tourism. It seeks to facilitate tourism in appropriate locations. It points out that tourism can help support local services such as shops and pubs amongst other benefits.

7.4 The guide seeks developments which are, amongst other matters, well-designed, safe and accessible and improve the well-being of individuals, protect and enhance the natural and built environment and avoid adverse impacts, for example, by disturbance to activities on adjacent land.

7.5 The Local Planning Authority therefore needs to balance the broadly positive encouragement in national guidance for suitable tourist proposals with impacts on the host community in Tilbrook, the impact on the countryside and natural and built environment, sustainability in terms of accessibility, the relationship to farm diversification/ occupancy of agricultural dwelling and viability of farm, the effect on the character and appearance of the countryside and setting of the conservation area and listed building, highway safety, amenities of residential properties in vicinity of site.

7.6 The most pertinent local policies for this type of development are To9 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and P12 of the Development Management DPD Proposed Submission 2010. The policies do not refer to motor homes but it would be reasonable to apply the camping and caravan policies to this application for camping and motor homes.

7.7 The policies for the countryside generally restrict development. However, Policy To9 supports the provision of camping and caravan sites for tourists where they are not environmentally detrimental, nor adversely affect residential amenity and which have satisfactory access and essential services such as water supply and sewerage.

7.8 In addition, the proposal accords with policy P12d and e, g and h of the DPD in terms of location as the site is adjacent to an existing settlement, the site is reasonably well linked to the village being on the opposite side of the road to a footpath into the village and Anglian Water has previously confirmed that the site is served by adequate water and sewerage services.

7.9 It is therefore considered that subject to the consideration of the impact on residential amenity, community life, highway safety and visual amenity (policies To9 and To1 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and 12.f of the Development Management DPD Proposed Submission 2010), the principle of the development is acceptable.

7.10 The proposed change of use complies with policy P7b of the Development Management DPD Proposed Submission 2010 being new outdoor leisure and recreation use where a countryside location can be justified as camping and caravanning can be an appropriate use in the countryside.

7.11 The principle of the establishment of a new small business accords with policy E7 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 subject to traffic and environmental considerations.

7.12 The proposed change of use of part of the barn to showers/wc building complies with the large part of policy P8a. of the DPD as the building is of permanent and substantial construction and structurally sound. The building is also considered to be in a reasonably accessible location as the site is close to the village. The change of use of the building to shower/wcs satisfies Policy P10c.

7.13 The applicant has understated the provision of camping and caravan facilities in the area as, apart from the two small sites certificated by the camping and caravanning club for up to 5 caravans and 10 tents within a 5 mile radius: close to Great Staughton and at Fairy’s Lodge Farm near Covington, there is also a camping/caravan site to the south-east, approximately 6.5m away, at Top End Farm, Little Staughton, Bedfordshire with 150 pitches and 5 hardstandings, a 69 pitch site near Grafham Water and at Kimbolton School a limited number of caravan rallies for up to 50 units are held during the school holidays. Nevertheless, the proposal will enhance the provision of camping and motor home sites in the area.

7.14 The occupation of the accommodation could be restricted through the use of conditions to ensure tourist use and avoid a permanent residential use.

7.15 Although there are policies that support farm diversification, and objectors have questioned whether the applicant is a farmer, there is policy support for the proposed use whether or not it is part of a farm diversification scheme.

Impact on character and appearance of the area:

7.16 The proposal will change the rural character and appearance of the area by introducing tents, motor homes, vehicles, people, their equipment and activity on the access and main body of the site. The associated visual clutter can be intrusive in the countryside, for example with the often light external colour of motor homes, and the varied colours and designs of tents.

7.17 The access is part screened by hedges but the extra activity will significantly intensify. Camp sites are however acceptable in principle in the countryside and will often be visible.

7.18 The main body of the site is set back from the road and is part screened by hedges and large buildings but the activity on this part of the site will be visible from various points along the main road and public footpaths and in longer distance views across the valley. However, on balance, it is considered that the location of the site with the significant screening provided by hedges and buildings, together with supplementary landscaping and the limited number of units mean that the development would not cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the area. Conditions can be imposed to limit the number of units to 25, to limit the use to March to October inclusive as proposed by the applicants (and thereby avoiding a large part of the year when trees and hedges are not in leaf), and to control aspects such as hardstandings/parking areas, lighting and enclosures to minimise the intrusion of the development. Additional indigenous landscaping and the retention and protection of the more significant landscaping on land in the applicants control will enhance the appearance of the site and its biodiversity value. The applicants’ proposal to supplement the landscaping at the north side of the main body of the site should be supplemented with landscaping at the southern end and within the site to minimise the impact of the development on the skyline, as viewed from the main road. There are some fine trees adjoining the eastern boundary of the site and hedges worthy of retention. They should be protected by condition.

7.19 The alterations to the building would be limited to an unobtrusive location and the scale and footprint of the building is not being altered.

7.20 The provision of the eastern visibility splay will entail the loss of a small part of the hedge at the back of the highway verge but this loss would not be unduly harmful and replacement planting can be introduced.

7.21 The main body of the site is far enough from the listed building and Conservation Area to avoid an undue adverse impact upon their wider settings.

7.22 On balance, the proposal is considered to satisfy the guidance of PPS5, PPS7, policies ENV6 and ENV7 of the East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008), En2, En5, En9, En18, En25, To2, To9 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, CS1 of the Adopted Huntingdonshire Core Strategy 2009 and E1 E3 P8 and P12 of the Development Management DPD Proposed Submission 2010.

Residential amenity and amenity of the village:

7.23 The existing activity on the access and remainder of the site is limited to traffic associated with the two dwellings, office and farm land.

7.24 The proposed business will generate additional activity and disturbance from visitors and vehicles on the site and its access and notably in the vicinity of the wc building. Activity could be 24/7 for the months that the camping and caravanning business operate.

7.25 The activity and disturbance will particularly impact on the occupiers of 60 High Street, who share the access. However, it is considered that the additional activity will not be so significant that the application should be refused, bearing in mind the limit in number of tents and motor homes to 25, the separation between the access and neighbouring house, the distance between the wc block and the house and the neighbours nearest property boundary (the former is approximately 90m and the latter is approximately 30m) and the screening provided by boundary enclosures and landscaping.

7.26 The level of the main body of the site and access is somewhat elevated above 60 High Street but landscaping separates the neighbours’ property from the main body of the site and access and therefore on balance it is considered that the proposal will not result in a significant harmful loss of privacy and amenity to that property.

7.27 It is considered that the site is far enough away from other dwellings that no undue harm should arise from loss of amenity through noise and disturbance and loss of privacy. It is understood that there is a flat in the pub opposite but it is considered that the proposal would not result in a significant harmful loss of amenity to that property.

7.28 The proposal will result in extra noise and activity on the access and site and surroundings but it is considered that the noise and disturbance would not be so great as to harm the amenity of the village unduly.

7.29 The proposal therefore accords with the residential amenity aspect of policies To2 To9 and T012 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and H7 of the Development Management DPD Proposed Submission 2010.

The impact on highway safety:

7.30 The proposal will increase the number of vehicles visiting the site compared to the authorised uses. It is, however, anticipated that the type and volume of traffic generated could be accommodated within the local highway network and that the access is adequate in safety terms being in reasonable condition and wide enough to accommodate the proposed traffic with adequate space to provide on-site parking, turning and servicing space. Enhanced visibility splays and suitable parking arrangements can be secured by condition. Concerns about congestion and highway safety, including pedestrian safety, are noted but the proposal is acceptable to the Local Highway Authority.

7.31 It is concluded that the proposal will not create highway safety problems subject to a condition to improve visibility at the access.

7.32 The proposal therefore complies, in safety terms, with R2 T18 T19 To9 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and P12 of the DPD.

Other matters:

7.33 The proposal includes provision for a level hardstanding for a vehicle and pedestrian access to the wc block to contribute to suitable disabled access for the site in accordance with policies En24 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and H3 of the Development Management DPD Proposed Submission 2010.

7.34 The main Parish Council and third party issues are addressed above. However the responses to the remainder are as follows:

7.35 Need: It has been suggested that there is no need for the proposal. Other camping and caravanning sites do exist in the District and wider area but the proposal accords with the national guidance that encourages additional facilities and therefore an alleged lack of need is not a reasonable reason for refusal.

7.36 The query about the validity of application and certificate of ownership: the certificate is correct in relation to the application site but the applicants have been asked to amend the notation on the site plan to distinguish between the other land they own and rent.

7.37 The Parish Council is concerned that the proposal will not only damage the community but also provide no benefit to it and particularly refers to seeking a raised quality of life and the enrichment of the character of the countryside and villages and the highway implications.

7.38 In response, it is considered that there will be some impact on the amenities of the neighbours and character of the site. However, on balance, due to the limited number of units the proposal is considered to avoid undue harm to the village and the harm is not so significant that the proposal should be refused. Furthermore, tourism and leisure developments are broadly encouraged by the policies and guidance for the benefit of the service to campers and motor home users and in this case there is also the potential to aid the viability of the pub, which is an asset to the village, and shops in Kimbolton High Street. It is considered that any harm to the community would not be so significant that the application should be refused.

* Concern about potential increased security problems with more strangers in village is noted but is not a reasonable for refusal.

* Noise from the extra visitors off-site at the playing field, church and pub is not a reasonable reason for refusal. Concern about noise pollution, especially associated with pub music and beer festivals, is a matter to be addressed by the Environmental Protection Officer with the assistance of the pub landlord under the noise nuisance legislation.

* The proposal is considered to be modest enough to avoid undue issues with extra litter and antisocial behaviour.

* The refusal of an application by the Camping and Caravanning Club has been taken into account but this application must be considered on its merits.

* The concern about the site becoming a permanent static caravan site or a larger site with a possible marquee is noted but would require a separate planning application. The concern about precedent for a future larger development is noted but each application has to be considered on its own merits.

* It is unfortunate that the applicant appears not to have contacted his neighbours or pursued a dialogue with the village over these plans, other than requesting a meeting with the Parish Council in March 2011 but this is not a reason for refusal.

* The possible breach of the agricultural occupancy condition on dwelling and s52 agreement has been referred to enforcement for consideration but does not merit the refusal of the application.

* Future breaches in planning controls are not a reasonable reason for refusal: if the Local Planning Authority was alerted to breaches, it would need to consider if it was expedient to take enforcement action.

* Paragraph 34 of PPS7 has been superseded by PPS4.

* It is acknowledged that additional landscaping will take some years to mature. However, it is not necessary to ‘hide’ the development, rather it is necessary to help minimise its impact on the character and appearance of the area and integrate it into its surroundings.

* The proposed plan of the wc/shower facilities was secured during the processing of the application. There is no proposal to alter the front or back of the building and the side to be altered does not face any neighbouring property. The internal details would, if the application were approved form part of the site licence application to the Environmental Protection Officer.

* The details of any hardstandings and hook ups can be secured by condition.

* Objections to previous applications are not taken into consideration

* It is noted that some of the supporting letters are not from Tilbrook but they still have to be taken into account.

* Comments have been made about the type of user of such sites but it is not possible for the Local Planning Authority to control the type of person visiting the site or to secure a ‘family’ campsite or to limit the intensity of the use in the authorised opening times.

* Effect on property values is not a planning matter. The effect on amenity has been addressed in the report.

Conclusion:

7.39 The proposed development is considered to comply with the relevant national and local policy as:

* the proposal is considered to be acceptable development in the countryside, * it would increase the range of recreation/leisure/tourism facilities in the district and is likely to benefit the local community by helping to sustain the viability of the adjoining public house, * on balance, the proposal will, due to its modest scale and with suitable landscaping, have a satisfactory effect on the character and appearance of the countryside and will enhance the biodiversity value of the site, in other words, the proposal is considered to be consistent in its scale and environmental impact with its rural location, as required by PPS4, * the proposal will have no significant harmful effect on the setting of the conservation area and listed building (pub to north), * on balance, no undue loss of residential amenity should arise through noise and disturbance and loss of privacy, * the proposal will have no significant harmful effect on highway safety, subject to a condition to secure adequate visibility, * suitable disabled access can be secured and * the hedges can be retained, and where necessary replaced.

7.40 The proposal is considered to comply with the guidance of PPS1 PPS4 PPS5 PPS7 PPS9 PPG13 Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism (2006) Draft National Planning Policy Framework: Consultation (2011), policies ENV6 ENV7 of the East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008), En2 En5 En9 En18 En25 E7 T18 T19 En24 To1 To2 To9 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, E1 E3 E5 H3 H7 P7 P8 P12 of the Development Management DPD Proposed Submission 2010 and guidance of the Huntingdonshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2007 and Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment Supplementary Planning Document 2007.

7.41 Taking national and local planning policies into account, and having regard for all relevant material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

8. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE subject to conditions to include the following:

02003 Time limit (3yrs)

Nonstand - No more than a total of 25 tents/ motorhomes.

Nonstand - March to October inclusive.

Nonstand - visibility splays

Nonstand - parking and turning

Nonstand - hard and soft landscape works

Nonstand - landscape programme

Nonstand - holiday purposes.

Nonstand - trees and hedges to be retained

Nonstand - external lighting

Nonstand - sustainability measures.

BACKGROUND PAPERS:

Planning Application File References: 1101950FUL, 1002078FUL East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008) Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 Adopted Huntingdonshire Core Strategy 2009 Development Management DPD Proposed Submission 2010 Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment SPD.

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Sheila Lindsay Development Management Officer 01480 388247

Development Management Panel Application Ref: 1101950FUL Location: Tilbrook

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. HDC 100022322

Pond

Manor House

37.7m

The Lodge

36.5m

4 4 ! Brook a 35.7m 2 4 Farm 36.9m Stone

2 4 Riv Tilford er 55

Pond r Til Riv e Rook Barn

Croft Cottage The Old Barn Rose Cottage

3 5 3 The Croft 39.3m

3 3

O 41.5m

N Cromwell House O I

S 4 2 All Saints' Church

5 2

Tilbrook Tilbrook Hall

The Rectory 41.9m 0 3

9 42.1m 1 Pond 0 2

Pa 8

th 2

1 5 42.1m 2

8 41.9m 1

4 The White Horse 2

0 1

8 1

L Playground

0 H n 1 i H C a IG R r H Homefield Cottage D 43.3m U ST R H E Hall E C T 60 Playing Field

4 The Shuttles 4

3 43.1m 1

a 35 B 1 645 31 2 25 LB 50 48 42.7m TCB 44 42 Shelter Summerfield Farm B 645 30 40

36 34 n i

a r D 24 40.1m Cattle H IG H Grid ST RE E T

Wintersdene

Tilbrook Cottage

Wellington House

42.7m

r Pond

in a r D

E N A L

Y D R N C A S Legend

46.5m The Site Other land owned by applicant

in Land rented by applicant ra D Conservation Area Listed Building Pond ¯

Scale: 1:5000