The Principal Planning Officer gave an update to advise that Eastchurch Parish Council were unable to attend the meeting as they had their own council meeting at the same time.  The Parish Council had re-iterated their objections to the application.

The Chairman advised that the two speakers had chosen to speak for one three minute slot only, but their comments applied to all eight applications.

Mark Lewis, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Vanessa Clipstone, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Hayden Brawn.

The Chairman reminded Members of the holiday park conditions set out on pages 15 and16 of the report, including the schedule and specifically the wording:  ‘The park operator must….’, which was relevant to all eight applications.  At the same time, Members acknowledged the individuality of all the sites.

The Chairman invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·       There was a condition on the chalet users’ agreement which stipulated that a postal address of their permanent residence was required;

·       these were holiday homes only;

·       clarification sought on what enforcement action had taken place in the past;

·       clarification sought on the costs incurred for housing the residents in the two-month closed season;

·       this issue had been ongoing for years because of a lack of enforcement action;

·       residents should only be staying at the holiday park for a maximum of 10 months;

·       the report was quite clear on why the application should be refused;

·       concerned with the amount of people who could be homeless;

·       sympathised with the chalet users, but they would have been aware of the conditions;

·       noted that in paragraph 5.6 in the report, only 11 users of holiday parks had approached the Housing Options team;

·       surprised that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had not been carried out, due to the cumulative impact of the shift from tourism to permanent residency; and

·       clarification sought on information regarding residents who lived on the site and did originally have a permanent address elsewhere, but for whatever reason did not have it any-more.

The Head of Place advised that temporary accommodation fell under a different Head of Service, so she did not have the average costs to hand.  She offered to source the information and share after the meeting, but noted that temporary accommodation costs were not considered material planning considerations. She explained that enforcement action in the closed season was a complicated process which had to be robust.  Officers made visits to sites, some unannounced, and multiple enforcement notices had been served over time.  All sites were written to annually with a reminder of the obligations.

The Planning Manager (Planning Applications) advised that an EIA was not required in this situation, and he said that officers did not have a breakdown of residents’ previous permanent residences.

Resolved:  That application 25/503385/FULL be refused as per the recommendation in the report.