Agenda item

To consider the application to vary the site licence conditions in relation to Westwood and Glendene Mobile Home Park.

The Committee considered an application received from Haulfryn Group Limited to vary the licence conditions in respect of Westwood and Glendene Mobile Home park.

The application sought to increase the maximum number of homes on site from 150 to 158, allowing for 8 caravans to be placed onto three distinct areas of the site. The first area proposed was Glendene Green, the second, Westwood Green and the third, the site currently occupied by Westwood bungalow.

Glendene Green and Westwood Green were currently open spaces of grass. Haulfryn Group Limited proposed siting three park homes on each of these locations, and two additional park homes on the site currently occupied by Westwood bungalow.

The Environmental Health Manager advised members that the proposal to place 3 caravans on part of Westwood Green and 3 caravans on Glendene Green would result in a significant reduction in the amount of green open space on the site. When examining the whole area of the site and the green spaces within it, calculations showed that the total area of land currently available for recreational purposes on the site amounted to approximately 6.1% of the total area. The proposed loss of Westwood Green and Glendene Green would reduce the overall recreational land by 3.5% to a total of approximately 2.6%.

The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 required that when deciding what (if any) conditions were to be attached to a site licence, the Licensing Authority must have regard to the model standard conditions. The current model standards provide that, where practical, 10% of the total area of a site should be allocated for recreational purposes, unless there are adequate recreational facilities within a close proximity to the site.

Members were informed that the nearest recreational space to the site was approximately 0.7 miles on foot.

The Applicant’s representative, Ms Whaley, was in attendance and addressed the Committee. She explained that the application was before the Committee as her clients wished to further develop their business. She pointed out that condition 17 of the current licence stated that “where children live on the site, space equivalent to about one-tenth of the total area shall be allocated for children’s games and/or other recreational purposes”.  As no children lived on site, her clients were not obliged under the current licence to provide 10% recreational space. Furthermore she explained that the Applicant had approached the owner of a neighbouring field, who had indicated that, should the application be granted, he would lease part of his field to the Applicant for recreational purposes. The Applicant had also offered to provide a community hall. For those who would lose their visual amenity through the proposal, the Applicant had offered to buy back their properties and would waive the 10% commission fee usually applied. The Applicant considered that as the two greens could only be seen from within the park, the visual amenity and character of the site would not be compromised. To refuse the application on the basis of visual amenity and open space was not justified.

In response to a question from members regarding the offer from the Applicant to provide recreational space through the leasing of land near to the site, the Applicant’s representative confirmed that no formal arrangement had been made with the owner of the neighbouring land, and that it was proposed to progress this should the application be successful.

Mr Watson, speaking on behalf of some of the residents of the mobile home park, addressed the Committee. He said that both greens offered a focal point for residents and their visitors. They were important open spaces for recreational purposes and social gatherings, and were a facility enjoyed by residents and their visitors, including young grandchildren. The greens were of amenity value to residents, particularly for those whose properties faced onto the greens. Whilst it was recognised that Haulfryn had offered to purchase the properties adjoining the greens, many residents were elderly and wished to remain in their homes, enjoying their current views, without the stress of having to move home.  With regard to condition 17 of the licence, Mr Watson felt that this went against the Equality Act as open space should be made available to residents, for their enjoyment, regardless of age. Open space was not just for young people. Whilst the Applicant had indicated plans to lease land for recreational space, a formal agreement had not been entered into and this did not mitigate the negative impact on the value of residents’ homes, the loss of the amenity value of the park and the loss of useable recreational space which was vital for continuing the sense of community.

Mr Sedgewick spoke on behalf of other residents of the mobile home park. He had been a resident of the park since the early 1990’s. In that time, residents had had to manage various changes to the park including the loss of several amenities such as allotment space, an open area used by dog walkers and a clubhouse (the development of which was funded by the residents), all to make space for new homes.  The two green spaces were the only recreational spaces left to residents. Many residents used these spaces for enjoyment with their visiting grandchildren. The positioning of the greens near to residents’ homes meant that communal gatherings and parties could be held, as facilities such as electricity and water were nearby. The leasing of a nearby field would not compare as a recreational facility to the green spaces currently used by residents.

Other residents spoke in support of the two spokespersons, reiterating the value of the two greens as a recreational space for residents and the adverse impact the proposal would have on the life of residents should the application be granted.

County Councillor Rice was in attendance, speaking on behalf of County Councillor Thornber within whose division the application fell. He spoke in support of the residents, stating that the impact of the loss of the recreational space on the residents would be significant, not only because of the loss of their visual appearance, which would alter the character of the park, but the loss of community open space which was valued by all residents. As such, County Councillor Rice urged the Committee to support the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

In coming to their decision, the Committee had regard to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Model Standards 2008 for Caravan Sites in England and all of the representations made to them.

The Committee considered that Westwood Green and Glendene Green provided real amenity value to the residents of the park, and were key to the physical character of the site. The loss of these green spaces would be significantly detrimental to residents of the park. Members noted that residents used the open spaces for recreational purposes and community events.  The significant reduction of recreational space could have a negative effect on the wellbeing of the elderly residents, and could potentially impact on their mental health.  Many residents would struggle to walk to the nearest open space at 0.7 miles away. Members noted that the footpath to the nearest open space was unlit and often overgrown, and did not consider that it would be practical for elderly residents to access this open space on foot.  Some members also expressed concerns regarding the loss of the visitor car parking spaces which were well used.

Members expressed the view that the amenity value that the two greens offered should be safeguarded for the benefit of residents. Recreational space on the park was already very limited. Whilst the Applicant had suggested that they would seek to mitigate the reduction in on-site recreational space through the leasing of farmland adjacent to the park, no contractual arrangements had been made. It was not guaranteed that the Applicant would secure this additional open space. Even if the adjoining field was made available for use by residents, it was an agricultural field set alongside the park and would not offer the same facilities, convenience and amenity that the current greens provided.

The Committee were unanimous in their support of the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

RESOLVED:

That the application from Haulfryn Group Limited for an increase in the maximum number of caravans which may be sited on the Westwood and Glendene Mobile Home Park be refused,on the following grounds: 

Westwood Green and Glendene Green are of significant amenity value to the residents of the site.  The two greens are used for recreational purposes, and give the park an open feel which enhances the character of the park.  The nearest off-site recreational space is 0.7 miles away (on foot) and involves crossing two busy roads, and it is not practical for elderly residents with reduced mobility to walk this far to access recreational space. 

If park homes are placed on Westwood Green and Glendene Green, the amount of open space on the site will be reduced to approximately 2.6%, which is insufficient on such a large site.