Committee Report

Committee Date: 04/10/2017

Item No: 1 Reference: 3150/15 Case Officer: KO

Description of Development: Hybrid application for full planning

permission and outline planning permission – I. Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 655/02 to enable the existing

showground (area outlined in yellow on the submitted plan) to operate between the hours permitted by the Licence granted by the Council on 10 October 2014.

II. Outline planning application for the erection of new building to be used as an indoor children play area (Class D2) on land adjacent to building No24.

III. Retention of erection of a single storey extension to Unit 11 (Class A1); IV. Retention of retail pods (Class A1/A2/B1) located in market square (buildings labelled

‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’, ‘PC7(G’), ‘PC5(E)’, ‘PC4(D)’, ‘PC1,2,3,5,6,7(A,B,C)’ and ‘PC6(F)’ on the submitted plan;

V. Use of land for the stationing of 51 static caravans for holiday use (subject to 28 day occupancy restriction) on land adjacent to west of dog training area (identified as R1 to R51 on the submitted drawing).

VI. Use of land for the stationing of 34 static caravans for holiday use (owner occupied) subject to restriction preventing occupation for one month of the year, on land to west of meerkat enclosure (identified as units 0 to 33 on the submitted plan);

VII. Continued use of land for touring caravans (area outlined in orange on the submitted plan);

VIII. Continued use of land as an extension to the existing showground and/or for use as touring caravan site;

IX. Continued use of land for car boot sales on Sundays (taking place on car park ‘A’, car park ‘B’ or the showground);

X. Repositioning of earth bund on northern side of existing fishing lake No1; XI. Use of land adjacent for the stationing of 76 holiday lodges (owner occupied) subject

to restriction preventing occupation for one month of the year (identified as L01 to L045 and LO57 to LO86on the submitted plan);

XII. Use of land for stationing of 11 holiday lodges for rental subject to 28 day occupancy restriction (lodges L046 to LO56);

XIII. Retention of alterations to existing field shelters to form stables; XIV. Use of land as Car Parks A and B and extension to hardstanding; XV. Retention of alterations and extension to permanent marquee on the showground to

form events barn; XVII Use of land as car wash including stationing of portacabin and canopy; and, XVII. Landscaping.

Location: Stonham Barns, Pettaugh Road, Stonham Aspal, IP14 6AT

Parish: Crowfield / Stonham Aspal

Ward: The Stonhams, Helmingham and Coddenham

Site Area: 44.92ha

Conservation Area: No

Listed Building: Adjacent to Grade II Listed Brambly Hedge (AKA School Farmhouse),

Pettaugh Road.

Received: 02/09/2015 (Valid on 08/06/2016)

Expiry Date: 15/03/2017

Application Type: Small Scale Major

Development Type: Hybrid

Environmental Impact Assessment: No - determined not to be necessary following

screening.

Applicant: Stonham Barns Ltd

Agent: Philip Cobbold Planning Ltd

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION

List of applications supporting documents and reports:

Defined Red Line Plan: The defined Red Line Plan for this application is the site plan (1:15000 scale) received 9th June 2016 only. This drawing is the red line plan that shall be referred to as the defined application site (excluding all references to a Car Wash and development associated with this). Any other drawings approved or refused that may show any alternative red line plan separately or as part of any other submitted document have not been accepted on the basis of defining the application site. Approved Plans and Documents: Amended Masterplan number 0416/051/01 received 20th February 2017(but excluding all

references to new golf course, car wash and alterations to existing access arrangements

during events), Bund Section received 23rd May 2016 and amended Planning Statement

(excluding reference to sections xiv and xvi) received 6th December 2016, together with

details of Events Barn and Extension to Unit 11 received 12th December 2016.

The application, plans and documents submitted by the Applicant can be viewed online.

Alternatively, a copy is available to view at the Mid Suffolk and Babergh District Council

Offices.

SUMMARY

The proposal has been assessed with regard to adopted development plan policies, the

National Planning Policy Framework and all other material considerations. Officers

recommend approval of this application subject to a S106 agreement and confirmation of no

objections from the County Highway Authority.

PART ONE – REASON FOR REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE

1. The application is referred to committee for the following reason: - The Corporate Manager for Sustainable Growth & Planning considers the

application to be of a controversial nature having regard to the location, scale and nature of the application.

PART TWO – APPLICATION BACKGROUND

History

2. The planning history most relevant to the application is listed below. A detailed

assessment of the history including any Planning Appeals will be carried out as

needed in Part Three:

3881/15

Installation of Ground Mounted photovoltaic panels

Approved

1479/07 Use of land for the siting of 56 static twin-unit holiday caravans with the appearance of timber lodges. Erection of replacement toilet and shower block and continued use of field for the stationing of touring caravans.

Withdrawn

0548/06 Use of land for stationing of mobile home for use as unit of residential accommodation.

Granted

0977/03 Construction of fishing lake Granted

0664/02 Use of land and erection of buildings for Redwings Horse Sanctuary

Granted

0612/01 Use of land for stationing of 9 static caravan holiday homes

Granted

0664/00 Retention of Retail Units

Granted

1116/99 Erection of 8 craft units

Granted

0058/98 Use of Land for Touring Caravans Granted

Details of Previous Committee / Resolutions

3. None

Details of Member site visit

4. None

Details of any Pre Application Advice

5. The applications have arisen from extensive discussions with the Enforcement Team

and several meetings with the local community as part of the Stonham Barns

Community Liaison Group.

PART THREE – ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION

Consultations 6. Summary of Consultations 6.1 Stonham Aspal Parish Council: Object to the application, their full comments are

included below: “The plan includes a total of 126 static caravans and lodges. Put in perspective

Stonham Aspal is a village with approximately 226 properties and this would represent an increase of 56% in accommodation. There is no doubt that the potential increase in population (even if transitory or subject to occupancy restrictions) will have a massive impact on the local community of the village and its infrastructure. And the parish council question whether this size of the increase is in keeping with the village environment.

The Parish Council have concerns that the existing infrastructure cannot support the

increased population in terms of onsite utilities, sewerage, and access to water for emergency services. And within the local area in terms of emergency services, and meeting health and social needs.

Road safety is also a major concern. The A1120 is already a busy road with safety

issues associated with narrow pathways properties being fairly close to the road and

children trying to get safely to the school. The increase in traffic will only exacerbate the existing problems which are already proving difficult to control. In addition to volume of traffic the current access on and off the site are straight on / off of a 60mph stretch of road which is a safety issue in itself.

The Parish Council also has concerns over the safety of a golf course so close to a

busy A road where golf balls could stray into the path of traffic travelling at 60mph. It is difficult to see what safety measures could be put in place without impacting on the rural landscape.

Not so much an objection as a concern that the community would like reassurance

on, is how residency restrictions will be policed. As much as the Parish Council appreciate that Starglade are only applying for properties that can only be occupied for 11 months of the year the lodges have been accidentally publicised as 12 month of the year residency. This could potentially create the wrong impression and attracted buyers who are after permanent residences.”

In response to the second consultation, the following comments were received on

17th January confirming their continued objection: “The overpopulation of the development compared to the village's population

provides a severe burden to the area's existing services and infrastructure. The development, particularly with its large events, is also not in keeping with the area's surroundings. The advent of an unsightly car wash presents an environmental issue with the disposal of waste. Agricultural exits are also being used on the occasion of events when it was previously understood that they would not be used on such occasions.”

6.2 Pettaugh Parish Council: Objected in response to the first consultation, their

comments are summarised below:

Although pre-application consultation has occurred, the numbers of caravans keeps increasing and this application exceeds the numbers discussed

How will the 11 month occupancy be enforced, particularly if caravans are sold with 12 month occupancy?

No further comments have been received to the second consultation (deadline now

expired).

6.3 Suffolk County Council - Highway Authority (CHA):

Recommend refusal of the use of the agricultural exits/entrances during events.

They consider that, whilst the layout of these accesses complies with visibility

requirements, the particular circumstances of the road layout in this case would be

unsafe when turning across oncoming lanes. They are also concerned efforts to

mitigate this through signage could be confusing and that there is a higher risk as the

road induces overtaking and a false sense of security among motorists.

The CHA acknowledge that there is local concern about traffic through Stonham

Aspal, but no severe congestion has occurred. The CHA consider that the increase in

trips is not sufficient to warrant refusal. However the additional unconsented uses

are sufficient to warrant mitigation in order to increase the sustainability of the

development in compliance with planning policy. They have indicated verbally that a

pedestrian access strategy secured under a S106 agreement, which proposes to

reduce the speed limit to 50mph under a Traffic Regulation Order and seeks to

provide a footway connection under S106 to Stonham Aspal, may be acceptable.

The applicant is keen for the speed limit to be reduced further, to 30mph, and has

indicated they would be willing to fund this if the Highway Authority were in

agreement. The Highway Authority also request improvements are secured to the

bus stop outside the site, including provision of a bus shelter.

Whilst the Highway Authority did not object to the golf course, they acknowledged the

risk which may be posed to motorists from golf balls and therefore asked for further

information to ascertain if a high fence would be required. The golf course has been

removed from the application.

Further comments are anticipated from the CHA which will remove their objection,

subject to a S106 being drawn up. Any further comments will be reported to

Members.

6.4 Suffolk County Council – Floods & Water (Lead Local Flood Authority): Initially comment that they would like to see a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), but

later confirmed they are satisfied with the submitted FRA. Surface water drainage strategy is requested for development in the indoor children’s play area under conditions. ‘No comments’ were confirmed in relation to the car park overflow area and the changes of use. The smaller elements of development are adequately covered by building regulations legislation.

6.5 Suffolk County Council – Development Contributions: No comments (deadline

expired) 6.6 Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service: Do not object, request condition for fire hydrants. 6.7 Environment Agency: Confirmed they do not wish to make comments.

6.8 Anglian Water: No comments (deadline expired)

6.9 Suffolk Wildlife Trust (SWT): Raise no objections, made the following points - Clarification is requested regarding food court [now indoor children’s play area] and

extension to unit 11 would lead to loss of habitat/impact upon protected species as this is not covered in the ecological survey.

- The hedgerow to the south of the golf lodges should be retained - Land proposed for golf course should be assessed for impact upon habitat of

skylarks - Landscaping should use native species of local provenance to maximise biodiversity

value 6.10 MOD: No objections.

6.11 NHS England: No comments (deadline expired)

6.12 Corporate Manager – Environmental Protection (sustainability):

Encourages energy saving needs to be considered at an early stage.

6.13 Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (noise): Do not object, their

comments are summarised below:

The main noise impacts are amplified sound and music entertainment noise.

For licensing arrangements (preventing public nuisance) a guideline level of 10 dB(A) was agreed.

60 events a year may occur under this licence.

The licencing objective in respect of noise (preventing public nuisance) is different to that of the NPPF (preventing adverse and significant adverse noise impacts).

A 10 dB noise level above background occurring frequently would have a significant adverse impact.

The Noise Assessment reports submitted are informative, but do not make a case for only a 10dB(A) reduction.

Therefore a more stringent 5 dB(A) reduction should be conditioned after 9pm.

[Condition wording was then suggested and has been subsequently amended to the agreement of all parties.]

6.14 Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (land contamination):

No objections.

6.15 Corporate Manager - Economic Development:

Support the application commenting that “the current visitor destination plan

emphasises the need to encourage more overnight stays, and families to visit, and for visitors to come all year round. This development has the potential to help address these areas.

With regard to the condition to restrict the use of the different holiday accommodation

I would recommend a flexible condition is used as detailed below which restricts the use and occupancy to holiday accommodation which is the essential element, without imposing rigid timescales when it can be occupied. Imposing a more rigid condition would be difficult to monitor and enforce effectively, and, will have an impact on the viability of the project, and conflicts with the aim of encouraging visitors to come all year round, and is therefore counter-productive”… [Suggest condition with break period and register of bookings]

..”It is acknowledged that the Stonham Barns complex is an important visitor

destination for the district, attracting a large number of visitors to the area, to visit the large number of businesses located on site, to the various attractions present and also to the Events hosted on site. It is also an important location for small businesses; both long established ones, as well as an opportunity for new businesses to become established. A large number of people are employed, in a range of jobs from across the diverse range of businesses found on site. There is clearly a wider economic benefit to the local area through the supply chain for the local businesses on site.”

6.16 MSDC Tree Officer: Confirm that they raise no objections, however they would

require full details of trees to be retained and their protection as a condition on any

consent.

6.17 Corporate Manager – Heritage & Planning Enforcement:

In respect of Planning Enforcement, initially commented that “The elements of the application encompass all the matters considered to be outstanding by the Enforcement team, with the exception of adverts (which continue to be subject to negotiation with the landowner), and therefore covers the regularisation of unauthorised developments at the site.”

In respect of Heritage, initial commented that further details should be sought in

respect of the food court (now indoor children’s play area). It was confirmed that the dimensions of the building would be 22m by 18m, 2.8m to eaves and 5m to ridge to be finished in black stained boarding and pantile roof. Following this, the Heritage Team confirmed that they do not need further details at this stage. Their response suggests that ‘less than substantial harm’ may be caused by the presence of a

building close to the listed property School Farmhouse, but that this can be sufficiently mitigated during the submission of reserved matters.

Representations 7. 22 objections/comments were received in relation to the first consultation and 9 from

the second consultation, these have been summarised as follows:-

The application is for a large number of dwellings and the scale of development is wholly disproportionate to the rural setting and infrastructure.

Conditions suggested by agent for occupancy are not enforceable

Caravans likely to be used for permanent residence

Occupants of caravans should be asked to produce 3 months utility and Council Tax bills

Necessity, if approved for regular enforcement monitoring

Owner occupied lodges will bring little economic benefit to the area or generate employment opportunities

Lack of connections to sustainable settlements; increase in traffic and pollution

Elderly residents in lodges will place a strain upon health infrastructure

Additional exits/accesses onto A1120 will be dangerous

Potential risk of Golf balls hitting passing cars (a high fence erected to prevent this would be unsightly)

Constant flow of traffic through village in summer months

Risks to pedestrians from current levels of traffic, particularly around Primary School in Stonham at start/end of school day

Traffic statement does not seem to address the issue of impact upon the Primary School

Lack of footway in order that villagers can take advantage of facilities on site

Need for speeds on A1120 outside site to be reduced

Additional noise pollution from traffic

Request construction management condition to minimise conflict with school traffic

Current noise levels from events not tolerable

Event noise perceptible upon occasion within dwellings with windows closed

Six weeks of ‘constant’ daytime noise when Circus is on site

Traffic noise from vehicles exiting events late at night

Request condition to ensure ‘marquee’ (Events Barn) is adequately soundproofed

Currently car boot sales are operating from 8am

There should be no extension of events beyond existing times

Possibility of additional light pollution from park homes

Visual impact from A1120 and surrounding landscape

Rural tranquillity of area being harmed by noise and urbanising development

Reduction in height of earth bund

Issues with supply of mains water – borehole insufficient

Lack of mains sewerage, electricity and telecoms infrastructure

Lack of fire hydrants

Potential poor surface water drainage in car park overflow area

Concerned that no Landscape and Visual Assessment has been provided and the layout and location of the development relates poorly to the settlement. Request landscape management condition if approved.

Non-material considerations such as previous/existing breaches of planning control have also been raised. Members should note that a breach of planning control should not of itself form a basis for the refusal of an application.

The Site and Surroundings 8. Stonham Barns is a destination tourist/leisure facility located approximately 160m

east of the settlement boundary for Stonham Aspal. Current facilities provided on the site include Birds of Prey Centre, Restaurant, Fishing Lakes, Garden Centre, Livery Enterprise, Dog Training Centre, Golf, Convenience Store and Post Office.

The site is situated south of the A1120 and includes an area of land to the west

currently in agricultural use. The surrounding landscape is relatively flat, but elements of the site, including the existing black timber clad barns and fishing lodges are visible from the A1120 behind the deciduous hedgerow present on the sites northern boundary.

The site wraps around its closest neighbour, Brambly Hedge (once known as School

Farmhouse), which is grade II listed. There are several residential properties in close proximity to the site on Pettaugh Road, East End Road, Crowfield Road, Church Road and Roman Road including Broad Green Cottage and The Old Schoolhouse (both Grade II listed) which lie opposite the sites north-western corner, Green Farm to the east and Wayside Cottage immediately to the north-east.

9.0 The Proposal Please note details of the proposed development including plans and application documents can be found online. The components of the application have been grouped according to their use, for clarity, as opposed to their listing in the application description. 9.1 Events Uses (i) Variation of condition 2 to planning permission 655/02 (appended in the

bundle for reference) (viii) Continued use of land as extension to existing showground (or touring

caravan site) (area in yellow line on site plan) (xv) Retention of alterations/extension to events barn (ix) Continued use of land for car boot sales on Sundays (carparks A and B)

The first item (i) seeks to vary condition 2 of planning permission 0655/02. Consent was granted for the show ground at appeal and the relevant condition read as follows: “The use of the site as a showground shall only take place between the hours of 08:00 hours and dusk or 21:00 hours, whichever is the later, and at no other

time, save for a maximum of three events per year with at least 28 days separation between each, such events shall not extend beyond 23:00 hours.” The permission also contained controlling conditions which restricted traffic to entering only via the main access onto the A1120 (save in an emergency). It also required the dates and details of any floodlighting, public address/amplified music or sound to be submitted for approval prior to all events. The restrictions on the showground are currently in variance from the premises licence. The licence restricts permits hours of events from 09:00 to 23:00 Sunday to Thurs, midnight Friday and Saturday, with the exception of Christmas Eve and bank holidays (Sat & Sun) where the hours are extended to 00:00 and New Year’s Eve to 01:30. The licence allows innumerable frequency of non-licenced events, but restricts ‘event days’ to 60 per year and restricts the number of events where 5,000 to 7,500 people can attend to 2 per year. The license does not control hours of use. It is proposed under item (viii) to have the existing showground extended into an area of grass to its west. No additional events are proposed to occur as a result of this, but a proportionate increase in visitors might be expected as a result. In order to increase flexibility the application proposes (vii) the area outlined in orange to be available for use by touring caravans. It is proposed (xv) to retain an extension which has been built to the events barn. The events barn building was originally constructed following consent in 2003 (0655/02) and was originally subject to the same controls as all events on the showground. The extension measures approximately 9.5m by 25m, 2.8m to eaves and 4.4 to ridge. The height and form is similar to the existing barn and constructed in matching materials. Under item (ix) it is proposed to regularise the use of the areas marked Car Parks A and B on the map, which were in agricultural use, to be used for car boot sales on Sundays (1st March to 31st October). The sales have operated as permitted development and the area can hold up to 100 stalls, but the frequency of events is now proposed to exceed the permitted development 14 day limit.

9.2 Tourism/Leisure Uses (ii) Outline application for erection of Children’s Play Area Building (v) Retention of 51 (28 day occupancy) static caravans in north-west of site (R1

to R51 on plan west of Dog Training Area) (vi) Retention of 34 (owner occupancy) static caravans in west of site (No. 0 to 33

on plan west of Meerkat enclosure) (vii) Continued use of land for touring caravans on land in centre of site (area in

orange line) (viii) Continued use of land as touring caravan site (or showground use) (area in

yellow line) (xi) Part retention of and proposed 76 (owner occupancy) holiday lodges on land

surrounding fishing lakes, land currently agricultural use and land north of golf course (LO1-LO45 and LO57-LO86 on plan)

(xii) 11 proposed (28 day occupancy) holiday lodges on land currently in agricultural use (LO46 to LO56 on plan)

Permission 0058/98 granted a touring caravan site use for up to 60 caravans on the

land in the west of the site and a further 9 static caravans were granted in 2001 (0612/01). Authorised caravans in this area are limited to 28 day occupancy, with a two month break period for the 9 statics, but the 60 touring plots did not have a break period. Members will recall that at Referrals Committee held 4 March 2009 that the Committee resolved (application 1479/07) to seek a 28 day occupancy restriction and a clear month break in January/ February. This decision was never concluded and the application withdrawn.

In the north-west of the site the proposal (items v and vi) is to increase the overall

numbers of caravans by 16. It is proposed to convert them all to statics and the application proposes that the 28 day restriction be removed for the 51 caravans in the north to allow sale for owner occupancy. The necessity to retain the 28 day restriction in the light of recent case law is discussed further in Section 24 of this Report. Furthermore, the break period is proposed to be reduced for all the use of owner occupied caravans by 4 weeks to 31st January to 1st March. However, in addition, all caravan occupancy going forwards would become subject to a register of bookings, which is not currently a restriction applied to the existing tourers and statics. All caravans would be restricted to holiday use only. `

The applicant has been using the showground area in the south-west and the

grassed area next to it (which is proposed to be the extended show ground) for touring caravans. Under items (vii) and (viii) it is proposed to regularise this use. These caravans would be subject to a 28 day restriction, no break period, but register of bookings and holiday use only.

The applicant has started to build some of the lodges (items xi and xii) around the

fishing lake/golf course and a small number of which have existed for some time. The proposal is to continue the building of these lodges east into the adjacent field along its southern boundary to comprise 80 lodges in total. 7 additional lodges are also proposed in the centre of the site onto the existing Pitch and Putt golf course.

The application proposes in outline form, with all matters reserved, a building for a

indoor children’s play area in the location where the Garden Centre currently displays

goods (immediately south-east of neighbour, Brambly Hedge). It has been indicated

that the building will have a floor area of approximately 280m2; a length of

approximately 22m and a maximum width of approximately 18m. It is also indicated

that the building would be be single storey with an eaves height of

approximately 2.8m and 5m to ridge, finished in black stained weatherboarding under

a pantile roof.

9.3 Retail Uses (iii) Retention of extension to Unit 11 (Class A1) (vi) Retention of Retail Pods comprising the central island in the market square

(as A1/A2/B1 use)

An extension has already been erected to Unit 11 which measures 7m by 13m, 2.4m to eaves and 3.3m to ridge. It has been finished in similar materials to the existing building. The application seeks to retain this extension. In the centre of the ‘market square’ there are 10 retail units which are flat roofed and finished in black timber weatherboard. These are proposed to be regularised and retained for a mixture of A1/A2 and B1 use.

9.4 Equestrian Use (xiii) Retention of existing field shelters to form stables

There are approximately 10 field shelters scattered throughout the land associated with the Livery enterprise, previously Redwings Horse Sanctuary. The land was consented for livery purposes under planning permission reference 0664/01. At this time permission was given for the siting of temporary field shelters, but as these have now been fitted with concrete bases and enclosed to form stabling, they are now development which requires planning permission and the application seeks to regularise this matter. The materials used – black weatherboard, sheet metal roof- remain unchanged.

9.5 Ancillary Development & Car Wash (x) Repositioning of earth bund to screen new fishing lodges (xiv) Use of land for car parks A and B with extension to hardstanding (xvi) Use of land as car wash with porta cabin and canopy (xix) Landscaping

The earth bund which was engineered to screen the fishing lakes under consent reference 0977/03 has been deconstructed in order to facilitate the (presently unauthorised) stationing of fishing lodges. Whilst some of the new bund (item x) is already being reconstructed beyond this, in accordance with the proposed plans, the holiday lodges are still visible from the road and the applicant has agreed to landscape on/around this bund, whilst also supplementary planting to the existing hedgerow to the A1120 once the bunds construction is finished. There is currently a car park in the centre of the site, but on event days and busy periods there is insufficient space for visitors to park. The applicant therefore proposes (xiv) to create a formal hard surfaced car park immediately east of the main access road into the site (within Car Park A on plans) and then use the rest of the field (predominantly Car Park B) as a more informal overspill car park. A change of use was proposed (xvi) for the area previously occupied by the picnic play area for use as a car wash: the applicant has recently requested that the car wash is removed from the application. The applicant has agreed to provide a detailed landscaping and tree protection plan for the site once permission has been granted.

Additional notes:

It was originally proposed to use the existing field accesses (A and B on the plan) during events, and to change the of use of the remaining field north of the proposed fishing lodges to a Golf Course. These elements have both been removed from the application in response to concerns raised by the local community and the County Highway Authority.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 10. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains the Government's

planning policies for England and sets out how these are expected to be applied. Planning law continues to require that applications for planning permission are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The policies contained within the NPPF are a material consideration and should be taken into account for decision-making purposes. Specific references to National Policy are included in the text where particularly relevant.

CORE STRATEGY Focused Review and Development Plan Document 11. FC1 Presumption in favour of sustainable development FC1.1 Mid Suffolk approach to delivering sustainable development CS1 Settlement Hierarchy CS2 Development in the Countryside and Countryside Villages CS3 Reduce contributions to Climate Change CS5 Mid Suffolk’s Environment CS6 Services and Infrastructure CS11 Supply of Employment Land NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 12. None SAVED POLICIES IN THE LOCAL PLAN 13. GP1 Design and Layout of Development HB1 Protection of Historic Buildings H11 Residential Caravans and Mobile Homes H16 Protecting existing residential amenity CL8 Protecting Wildlife habitats E8 Extensions to existing industrial and commercial premises E9 Location of new businesses E12 General Principles for location, design and layout of industrial and commercial

development T2 Minor Highway Improvements T4 Planning Obligations and highways infrastructure T9 Parking Standards T10 Highway Considerations in development

T11 Facilities for pedestrians and cyclists T13 Bus Services RT6 Sport and Recreation Facilities in the Countryside RT16 Tourism Facilities and Visitor Attractions RT18 Touring Caravan and Camping Sites RT19 Static Caravans and Holiday Chalets Main Considerations 14. From an assessment of relevant planning policy and guidance, representations

received, the planning designations and other material issues the main planning considerations considered relevant to this case are set out including the reason/s for the decision, any alternative options considered and rejected. Where a decision is taken under a specific express authorisation, the names of any Member of the Council or local government body who has declared a conflict of interest are recorded.

15. The following are identified as the main considerations in assessing this application Principle of Development Sustainability Highway Considerations Visual and Landscape Impact Surface Water Drainage and Utilities Environmental Impacts Heritage Issues Impact upon Residential Amenity Enforcement of occupancy conditions 16.0 The Principle Of Development 16.1 Paragraph 28 of the NPPF (Page 9) is supportive of rural tourism and leisure

development which benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respects the character of the countryside. This includes the expansion of tourist/visitor facilities where there is not a local service centre close by which can provide them. Paragraph 25 of the NPPF (page 8) is clear that the sequential test for retail development should not be applied to applications for small scale rural development. Members will be aware that the NPPF attaches significant weight to the supporting of sustainable economic growth (para 19).

16.2 Saved Local Plan policies are generally supportive of the expansion of existing

commercial businesses and tourism attractions where they respect the character of their surroundings and do not have a significant adverse impact upon highway safety, residential amenity or protected species.

16.2 Stonham Barns is an established visitor attraction which provides small scale

business opportunities for A1, A2 and B1 use. The site has good connections to the surrounding road network, being located on the A1120 tourist route with close connections to the A140 and A14 beyond. Stonham Aspal is designated a secondary village under Policy CS1 (Settlement Hierarchy) and it contains limited facilities to meet the needs of the local community. The Stonham Barns complex offers essential services on site to meet the needs of the holiday accommodation and

contains a post office and retail/leisure facilities which are within close proximity to Stonham Aspal, provided they accessible to its residents. The overall presumption lies in favour of this development as it complies in principle with the above listed national policies and local development plan policies.

16.3 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF (page 9) states that, for developments which generate

significant amounts of movement, they should be supported by Transport Statements and decision makers should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people. However, applications should only be refused on transport grounds where the “residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe.” The impact of this development is not considered severe.

16.4 The scale of development can only be viewed in terms of its relative impact as the

Local Plan policies offer no support for refusal on the basis of a particular scale alone. If the impacts are acceptable, there would be no justification to refuse this proposal. It should be noted that this is an expansion of the existing enterprise, therefore there are obvious economic reasons why the uses are concentrated on this site and it can be argued it would be particularly desirable for them to remain in the countryside given the potential residential amenity implications of a siting closer to the settlement boundary. Moreover paragraph 19 of NPPF is engaged here and significant weight should be attached to supporting economic growth.

17.0 Sustainability Assessment Of Proposal 17.1 Policy CS3 (Reduce contributions to Climate Change) states that “All non-residential

development proposals over 1,000 square metres will be required to integrate renewable energy technology in order to provide at least 10% of their predicted energy requirements and additional sustainable construction measures.”

17.2 The touring caravans, static caravans and lodges are a restricted C3 residential use

and are not operational development, therefore are not applicable. The events and car park uses are also not operational development and are also not applicable. The proposed buildings (indoor children’s play area, extension to events building, extension to unit 11 and retail pods) would be 925.50m2 in area and would not exceed the 1,000m2 threshold stated. On this basis, having regard for the objections of the Council’s Sustainability Advisor, it is not considered reasonable to require renewable energy technology is integrated into this proposal as the policy does not require it.

17.3 Furthermore, it is noted that the applicant is willing to enter into a Section 106

agreement which will improve the wider sustainability credentials for the whole site, through provision of a footway to Stonham Aspal and bus stop improvements. The agent also points out that a bank of solar panels approved in 2016 will provide 50% of the electricity demand for the whole site. Whilst the solar panels are still to be implemented it is considered likely that it will be delivered.

18.0 Site Access, Parking And Highway Safety Considerations 18.1 In response to highway safety concerns the applicant has omitted the golf course and

additional accesses from the proposal. It is noted that the Inspectorate in 2003 (0655/02) and 1998 (0058/98) sought to limit both tourism and show ground uses to only use the main access. It is not considered appropriate to consider variation to existing access arrangements until the Section 106 proposed for this application has achieved improved pedestrian access to the site overall. The potential for further mitigation of risk must also be fully explored by the applicant/agent, as highways have stated that the pedestrian access improvements alone are unlikely to be sufficient to overcome their objections to altering these access arrangements.

18.2 The highway authority is not concerned in relation to the traffic generated by the

other proposed uses/development provided that this is mitigated from a sustainability perspective through provision of the footway, pedestrian safety improvements and bus stop improvements. They note that there is no apparent congestion in the area and consider traffic would still be able to flow freely given the proposed increase above existing operational levels. They are content with the parking arrangements proposed and do not raise concerns about relationships to the School, nor do they suggest a construction management plan. It is not considered that the transport impacts from this proposal would be severe and there is compliance with national and local policy provided more sustainable modes of transport can be encouraged.

19.0 Visual and Landscape Impact 19.1 It is acknowledged that the existing fishing lodges, with the bund only partially

constructed and those proposed to extend into the field in the west would be visible from the highway. In order to prevent this being intrusive to the countryside character of the area, conditions are proposed which would mitigate this impact. They would require reconstruction of the bund as proposed and an integrated landscape management plan to ensure the hedgerow to the roadside is improved, the bund receives additional planting and the lodges are enclosed by a hedgerow where they extend into the field.

19.2 The current character of the area is rural, but the existing utilitarian appearance of

the Stonham Barns complex is established and it is not considered that the proposed lodges would create a significant adverse impact over and above that already present.

19.3 The surrounding landscape is flat and not the subject of any particular designations

for its quality. There are existing hedgerows around the site which offer screening to the areas where development is proposed. Given the limited visibility of the site in the wider landscape and the existing quality of this landscape it is not considered necessary to insist upon a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and potential impacts are readily discernible. The appearance of the surrounding landscape is characterised by intrusive development from farm buildings and residential dwellings with infrequent hedgerow screening; it is considered that there is capacity within this landscape to adsorb the localised impact of this development without harming the qualities which make this area locally distinctive.

20.0 Surface Water Drainage and Utilities 20.1 The County Flood and Water Engineer has requested conditions to secure surface

water drainage strategies for the indoor children’s play area. The precise wording of this condition will be finalised at a later date, but the Engineer appears satisfied that a workable drainage solution can be found for this development. The Engineer has not requested strategies for the overflow Car Parks. A Flood Risk Assessment has been supplied for the site and this is to the satisfaction of the Engineer.

20.2 There are existing drainage arrangements in place to deal with surface water from

the areas where the indoor children’s play area building is proposed and where the static caravans currently lie. Officers are not aware of any existing drainage problems arising from development which has already been implemented (retail units, statics and lodges). There is no planning reason to believe that suitable measures cannot be secured to deal with surface water drainage via pre-commencement or time limited conditions.

20.3 Residents and the Parish council have raised concern that existing utilities are

insufficient to deal with the increased demand from the uses, notably the indoor children’s play area and additional touring caravans and 103 statics/lodges. The applicant offers assurance that a borehole will meet the majority of the water demands for the site and Anglian Water have been consulted and have not objected to this application.

20.4 The applicant is aware of existing issues surrounding the ditch in front of the site.

This ditch is on highway land and has required clearing (which is the responsibility of the Highway Authority), which may explain why residents have observed a degree of surface water in the area, but this does not indicate a fundamental problem with the drainage infrastructure on site and, with conditions, the development is considered to mitigate its own impacts.

20.5 Additional electricity apparatus may be required at the applicant’s expense, but there

is no reason to believe this is not possible and it would not be in the applicant’s interest to pursue development if electricity could not be supplied to it therefore this is self-regulating.

20.6 The applicant and their agent have approached the County Council with regard to

the roll out of broadband to the area, but this is essentially out of their control and would not constitute a reason for refusal in any regard.

21.0 Environmental Impacts - Trees, Ecology And Land Contamination 21.1 As the Golf Course is no longer featuring in the application it is not necessary to

require additional mitigation for skylark habitat because this habitat would remain. A condition can also ensure that the hedgerow to the south of the field is retained. It is not considered necessary to require additional surveys for the area where the indoor children’s play area building is proposed as this is largely comprised of a hard surfaced area used currently in connection with the Garden Centre. Whilst there is a small ditch to the side of this it appears polluted by run off from surrounding roads/car

park and is shaded, therefore unlikely to offer optimal habitat for protected species. Suffolk Wildlife Trust does not object to the proposal.

21.2 The Arboriculture Officer is satisfied that there are not any trees on the site of

particular amenity value to require their retention, but those trees proposed to be retained should be protected under a condition on any consent.

22.0 Heritage Issues 22.1 The key potential Heritage Impact is that of the indoor children’s play area building

upon the setting of Brambly Hedge, also known as School Farmhouse, which is Grade II listed. The Heritage Team raise no objections to the proposal for outline consent provided the scale of the building is modest and materials are appropriate. This can be secured via a condition and therefore Officers do not feel, due to the separation distance and screening from existing trees, that the proposal would cause harm to the setting of this Heritage Asset. If it transpired, as a result of the reserved matters application, that a small amount of less than substantial harm was foreseeable, it should be possible to minimise this harm through design. Therefore mindful of the significant weight attached to supporting economic growth and the public benefit inherent in this it is considered that the proposal is compliant with both the NPPF in the round and saved policy HB1 (Protection of Historic Buildings).

23.0 Impact On Residential Amenity 23.1 There are two key considerations; the noise impact of extended ours and use of the

showground and the general impact of additional noise, disturbance and pollution generated from additional traffic in connection with the proposed/regularised uses upon the amenity of those living in the local road network.

The licensable activities are currently operating with the restriction of 10dB above the background noise levels. The license is complex in how it controls event types, numbers of attendees and hours relative to each licensable activity. It would not be possible to duplicate these in a planning condition in the way the agent has originally suggested, plus there are the following additional considerations:

The ‘tests’ for granting licenses are not the same as granting a planning permission. The license will be granted if there is no statutory noise nuisance, but the planning threshold is lower.

The number of license only controls the licensable activities, which is not the same as the impacts. There is a possibility that noise impacts from non-licensable events may occur or from non-licensable activities.

23.2 PPG Guidance (Para 005, Ref 30-005-20140306) advises that noise is undesirable

which would significantly change behaviour, such as having to keep the windows

closed most of the time, sleep disturbance and avoiding certain activities during

periods where the noise is present. It advises these impacts should be avoided

through planning conditions so that these noise events are less frequent, windows

need only be closed some of the time, there is only occasional sleep disturbance. It

accepts that even when conditions are in place, the acoustic character of the area

may have changed intrusive level of noise at times and a perceived change in the

quality of life of residents. These impacts should also be weighed against the

economic benefits. It is considered that application of the conditions proposed would

ensure that the noise is mitigated to a minimum so that it does not reach significant

and disruptive levels and that the economic benefit of the use does weigh within this

judgement.

23.3 On the above basis, and noting that the planning permission would control all events

and not limit their number or frequency, a reduction in the noise level to 5dB above

background after 9pm is proposed by the Councils Environmental Protection Team.

A precise condition wording has been agreed to this effect with the agent. This more

stringent noise level will also account for the fact that the noise threshold is higher for

a planning permission than a license and the fact that a planning permission cannot

control the frequency and type of events. The noise restriction proposed will ensure

that after 9pm noise from events should not be discernible indoors with windows

closed and only a feint base beat should be discernible outdoors. It is felt unlikely

that this noise will be constant as there are breaks for setting up and disassembling

events and the licence limits the number of ‘event days’ to 60 per year. As licensable

events at present are required to submit an event management plan and in practise

advanced notice is not been given, the proposed planning condition will provide a

single manageable parameter in which to control noise from all showground events

can be judged.

23.4 Noise levels before 9pm were not controlled at all in the 2003 appeal decision,

however it is noted that the application also proposes to extend the area of

showground that can be used and the overall daily hours whereby events can occur

and noise generated. It is noted that the 2003 consent required sound amplification

details to be submitted prior to events, but that this is not happening and the license

does not require it. It is also noted controlling the hours of use for the showground

could be problematic because a touring caravan use is also proposed; the two uses

may not be exclusive and enforcement could be difficult. On that basis it is

reasonable to apply a condition which controls noise levels in the daytime so that the

overall effect of these cumulative changes remains acceptable. The effect of this is

that the new controls move from an emphasis upon hours of use to hours of noise,

controlling noise levels at certain times, not the use explicitly. These changes are

justified on the basis of the interaction of the changes proposed and would still

comply with the applicants request to “enable the existing showground to operate

between the hours permitted by the Licence.”

23.5 It is not considered that noise levels from traffic; from leaving/attending the events,

tourism or other uses on the site, would reach noticeable and intrusive levels. Traffic

would be dissipated into the surrounding road network so that they were not

significantly above usual levels. Whilst late night events would generate some noise

and traffic, these would be infrequent in number and the impacts slight, whereby they

would not warrant refusal of this application. It is also not considered that the indoor

children’s play area would operate during unsociable hours or cause high levels of

noise which would adversely affect the amenity of neighbour, Brambly Hedge (a.k.a.

School Farmhouse).

24.0 Enforcement of occupancy conditions 24.1 The site has a lengthy planning and enforcement history. There are known to be four

permanent residential caravans on the site: a unit on the showground (granted consent under 655/02), a unit on the existing caravan park (granted consent under 052/92 & 617/99) a unit at the fishing lake (noted in consent 0456/99, but possibly unauthorised yet immune from enforcement action over time), and a unit adjacent to the main driveway (granted consent under 0548/06). The Enforcement Team are in further discussion with the site owner over the caravan unit at the fishing lake.

24.2 Further permanent residential uses are not sought under this permission and

previous breaches of planning control, of themselves, are not material to the consideration of this application. That this application is in part retrospective should not be a consideration and the application judged purely on its own merits.

24.3 The application proposes two different occupancy restrictions for the static

caravan/lodges: 1) a break period, register of bookings and no length of stay restriction 2) no break period but a length of stay restriction (28 days). It is not clear if a register of bookings is proposed in this instance. The application is silent on what restrictions are suggested for the touring caravans.

24.4 Should this permission be granted, Officers suggest that all caravans/lodges, if permitted, should all be subject to the same occupancy restriction. The planning Inspectorate considers a break period (option 1) to be sufficient to prevent permanent residential use and has stated they regard this to be is enforceable and sufficient to prevent permanent residential use (recent appeal decisions APP/W3520/W/16/3148952: Honeypot Farm Caravan Park, Bury Road, Wortham and APP/J3530/A/13/2194211: Run Cottage Caravan Park, Alderton Road, Hollesley read in conjunction with each other clearly demonstrate this to be so). These appeals indicate that a 28 day occupancy condition is not necessary if there is a break period and register of bookings kept. Officers can find no instances where the planning inspectorate has supported a 28 day restriction alone, with no break period, for static caravans/lodges; although sometimes it can be judged sufficient for tourers in conjunction with a register of bookings.

24.5 It is preferable to require a break period for the static caravan and lodge

accommodation as this will ensure the elements which stay on the site all year round are subject to the same controls. Using a break period that applies to all the static

accommodation for a defined calendar period will make it easier to monitor whether occupation is being respected by users and thus identify breaches if they occur. The Inspector in the Wortham decision was clear that the in duration of individual’s stays and who owns the caravans are not sufficient reasons to refuse permission.

24.6 The Inspectorate has been clear that the register of bookings should be sufficient to

control holiday use along with proof of main address as required. Your officers consider that it would be unreasonable, having regard to comparable decisions, to require greater detail such as that which has been suggested in response to publicity.

24.7 Regular Liaison Group meetings coordinated with the Council’s Enforcement Team

are expected to continue post decision in this case. In this way the local community have a conduit through which they can raise relevant concerns from implementation of the decision.

24.8 The applicant would like to continue to allow touring caravans onto the site (in the

area indicated in the orange line: item viii) during the break period and is prepared to accept a standard 28 day condition for these with a register of bookings. It is considered that it will be easy to ascertain whether a certain caravan is still on site after 28 days because the caravans look different. If a caravan is on site after this period it will then be possible to undertake enforcement action.

24.9 In order to achieve clarity over the future position with the caravan site in the west (v

& vi), it is considered necessary to secure an undertaking that this permission has been implemented and may be relied upon under this planning permission for enforcement purposes in future. This is because this area has a previous history of permissions with different occupancy restrictions. Given the history of enforcement investigations it is considered that this will help to deliver certainty for the community over which permissions are being implemented and build trust as to future occupancy in the interests of local amenity. For the similar reasons, an undertaking is sought for the show ground (i) to obtain certainty over which permission is being implemented and which noise restrictions are being observed.

25.0 Planning Obligations / CIL (delete if not applicable) 25.1 S106 contributions are sought as described within the recommendation and are

regarded to fit the criteria, in that they are a) necessary to make the Development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the Development and (c) fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the Development.

25.2 It is not considered that CIL will be applicable to the development as the holiday and

leisure uses are zero rated, and CIL only covers convenience retail uses. 26.0 Details Of Financial Benefits / Implications (S155 Housing and Planning Act

2016) 26.1 There may be a benefit to the Council through acquisition of business rates, but this

is not material to the planning judgement.

PART FOUR – CONCLUSION

Planning Balance 27. When taken as a whole and as a matter of planning judgement, the proposal is

considered to adhere to the development plan, compliant with the policies listed in sections 11 to 13 of this Report, and NPPF and therefore can be considered sustainable development. There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

Statement Required By Article 35 Of The Town And Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015. 28. When determining planning applications The Town and Country Planning

(Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires Local Planning Authorities to explain how, in dealing with the application they have worked with the applicant to resolve any problems or issues arising.

29. In this case the planning authority sought revised plans which correctly represented

the development applied for and provided additional information in relation to it, sought to negotiate appropriate condition wording, secured agreement to S106 mitigation and removal of elements of the application which were not supportable in their originally submitted form.

Identification of any Legal Implications of the decision 30. If this application is refused, enforcement activity may occur to remedy breaches of

planning control currently occurring on the site. 31. The application has been considered in respect of the current development plan

policies and relevant planning legalisation. Other legislation including the following have been considered in respect of the proposed development.

- Human Rights Act 1998 - The Equalities Act 2012 - Town & Country Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 - Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (any rural site) - The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 - Localism Act - Consideration has been given to the provisions of Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, in the assessment of this application but the proposal does not raise any significant issues.

RECOMMENDATION (1) That a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act,

1990, be secured to the satisfaction of the Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning to provide:

A sum to be agreed (estimated to be £75,000) towards the provision of a

footway between the village of Stonham Aspal and the northwest corner of the site and/or a footway through the site.

£20,000 to the County Highway Authority in order to consider and promote a pedestrian access strategy which shall include a Traffic Regulation Order to reduce the speed limit outside the site to 50mph (or 30mph if agreed by the Highway Authority).

£15,000 to improve the two bus stops closest to the site and a shelter (sum to

be waived if applicant has entered into a S278 agreement to provide the works and pay for them by this means).

That, in relation the elements of the application [i] variation of condition 2 to permission 655/02; [v] 51 static caravans; and [vi] 34 static caravans, the owner/applicant undertakes within 14 days of consent being granted to only use the land as permitted by the planning permission granted, and not as permitted by the older planning permissions (655/02 granted by appeal on 23rd October 2003; 0058/98 granted by appeal on 3rd September 1998; & 0612/01 granted 8th September 2001) unless such use falls within what is expressly permitted by the planning permission to be granted (for the avoidance of doubt this is not intended as a revocation or modification , or any other action for which compensation is payable, but will not prejudice the use of the land pursuant to any later planning permission that may be granted).

Such other obligation or amendment the Corporate Manager - Growth &

Sustainable Planning considers appropriate where consistent with the recommendation agreed by members.

(2) That, subject to the completion of the Planning Obligation in Resolution (1) above on terms to the satisfaction of the Corporate Manager - Growth & Sustainable Planning, that he be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the imposition of any conditions that Officers consider appropriate and which may include the following: FULL PLANNING PERMISSION:

1. Listing of approved plans 2. Activities in connection with herein authorised uses to only use main access (unless

in emergency or where a specific pedestrian access has been otherwise agreed with the LPA) (as per 1998 condition for showground)

3. Conditions restricting retail units to A1/A2/B1 uses only 4. Details of any hard surfacing to car parks A and B to be submitted prior to installation 5. No car wash approved –excluded from plans 6. Touring caravan use to only operate within orange line on plan and subject to 28 day

on 28 off restriction with register of bookings.

7. Show ground use to only operate within yellow line on plan 8. Prior to 21.00 hours on any day The LAeqT of the amplified sound or music based

entertainment noise generated within the area within yellow line (as shown on drawing number 0416/051/01 received 20th February 2017 shall not exceed by more than 10 dB(A) the representative background noise LA90 (without entertainment noise) at 1metre from the façade of any neighbouring noise sensitive dwelling or premises and shall not exceed 52 dB LAeqT at the western boundary of the site. Time period T will be 15 minutes.

9. After 21.00hrs in the evening The LAeqT of the amplified sound or music based entertainment noise generated within the area within yellow line (as shown on drawing number 0416/051/01 received 20th February 2017 shall not exceed by more than 5 dB(A) the representative background noise LA90 (without entertainment noise) at 1 metre from the façade of any neighbouring noise sensitive dwelling or premises and shall also not exceed 52dB LAeqT as measured at any point on the western boundary of the site. Time period T will be 15 minutes

10. Amplified sound or music based entertainment noise shall only be generated within the within yellow line (as shown on drawing number 0416/051/01 received 20th February 2017 between 09.00 hours and 23.00 hours daily and there shall be no such noise generated outside of these hours except in the following instances unless otherwise submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:

a. Christmas Eve - the hours of use shall be 08.00am to 00.00am (Midnight) b. Saturday and Sunday of a bank holiday weekend - the hours of use shall be

08.00am to 00.00am (Midnight) c. New Year’s Eve - the hours of use shall be 08.00am to 01.30am.

11. Number and location of static caravans to be sited only be in accordance with plans 12. Number and location of static lodges to be sited to only be in accordance with plans

13. Occupancy of all touring and static caravans and lodges to be limited to holiday use only, not be main or sole residence, with break in use 31st Jan to 1st March and register of bookings to be kept.

14. The use of land for stationing of lodges numbered L01 to L80 and use of land for car boot sales and car parking hereby permitted shall cease and all equipment, lodges and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed within three months of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in (i) to (iv) below:-

i. within six months of the date of this decision a landscaping scheme which confirms retention or replacement of the hedgerow to southern boundary of field, improvements to hedgerow to north of field and Car Parks A and B in order to provide additional visual screening, additional landscape planting to the bund shown on the approved plans and additional landscaping to visually screen lodges LO23 to L80 together with confirmation of proposed ecological mitigation (including location of bird and bat boxes), trees to be retained and their protection in all areas within the site east of the main access road/driving range shall have been submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority and the scheme shall include a timetable for its implementation.

ii. if within 11 months of the date of this decision the local planning authority refuse to approve the scheme or fail to give a decision within the prescribed period an appeal shall have been made to, and accepted as valid by, the Secretary of State.

iii. if an appeal is made in pursuance of (ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State.

iv. the approved scheme shall have been carried out and completed in accordance with the approved timetable.

15. Use of lodges L01 to L80 to cease if within three months of failure to: submit lighting scheme within 6 months of consent, scheme not agreed within 11 months, an appeal being determined or scheme not being carried out in accordance with timetable. [Similar worded condition to no. 15]

16. Use of showground to cease if within three months of failure to: submit floodlighting scheme within 6 months of consent, scheme not agreed within 11 months, an appeal being determined or scheme not being carried out in accordance with details agreed. [Similar worded condition to no. 15]

17. Scheme for provision of fire hydrants to be provided and approved prior to occupation of lodges L01 to L87.

18. Use of showground to cease if within three months of failure to: submit floodlighting scheme within 6 months, scheme not agreed within 11 months, an appeal being determined or scheme not being carried out in accordance with details agreed.

19. Any conditions required by the County Highway Authority 20. Any conditions required by the County Flood & Water Team 21. Landscaping to be maintained / retained for duration that use of site for stationing of

lodges, holding of car boot sales and car parking use occurs. 22. Car boot sales to only occur on Sundays, 1st March to 31st October, not open before

7.30am and cease by dusk. 23. Field north of Lodges to remain in agricultural use unless change permitted by a

planning application.

OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

24. Reserved Matters time limit 25. Standard time limit for implementation 26. Conditions restricting use to D2 and only as children’s indoor play area 27. Condition specifying maximum height/dimensions of indoor children’s play area

building as proposed (unless otherwise agreed in writing) 28. Condition specifying materials for indoor children’s play area building as proposed

(unless otherwise agreed in writing)

(3) That, in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured, the Corporate Manager - Growth & Sustainable Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission, for reason(s) including:

Inadequate provision of infrastructure to mitigate the environmental and social impacts of the development, including sustainable development patterns and highway safety, contrary to Focused Review Policies FC1 and FC1.1, Core Strategy Policy CS6 and saved Local Plan Policies T4, T10, T11 and T13.