Threat to Certificated Sites/Locations?

[bobalobs]

Have you seen the On Site Insights column of Caroline Mills in the latest copy (August!!) of PMH.There appears to bea planning issue over Stonehenge Caravan Park which is a certicated location.

If it is a five van site authorised by the Caravan Club I thought planning permission was not required? Seems the locals are objecting to motorvans , caravans,electric hookups and anything in volving camping and it is going to a public inquiry.

It looks like a major challenge to our hobby and if so I hope the two main clubs are giving the site owners every support. Does anyone know any more about this matter and whether certificated sites are at risk?

[Robinhood]

.....but the major issue appears to revolve around the fact that the CC are withdrawing/have withdrawn the site's CL licence (for undefined "transgressions").

 

The planning committee have taken this into account in rejecting further development of the site, as it deems it inappropriate for the future potential use (when it will no longer be authorised under exemption rules to be used for caravans).

 

It looks to me as if the owners have been pushing the boundaries of their exemption, and have been caught out.

 

If this is so, then in this case the major threat to our hobby comes from the site owner, rather than the planning authorities.

 

(The background planning info, including details of the CC withdrawal, is all fully available on the Witshire.gov.uk website).

[bobalobs]

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I thought and hoped there was more to the case than the brief piece in PMH inferred. When searching the site name all references gave a positive image of the site but as there wasreference to camping for the summersolstice I wondered whether this was the cause of the local upset. I would be interested to know the "transgressions" that led to the removal of the Caravan exemption as would not the weeks summersolstice camping be covered under the "28 day rule?

[Robinhood]

The full case notes for one of the applications (there are at least 3) are at:

 

http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/planninganddevelopment/2010/1058/applicationdocumentation.htm

 

The Caravan Club removal of certification is set out in a subset of the above, at:

 

http://southplanning.wiltshire.gov.uk/public-planning-application-documents/00386000/00385983_Letter.pdf

 

Whilst it isn't specific about the transgressions, some of the letters of objection available under the first link above provide some possible clues. I have little doubt that there is an element of NIMBY here, but there is also evidence (if true) of "transgression".

[Tony Jones]

Maybe they were within the 28-day rule, but if there were more than 5 units, and/or any of them weren't Club members, that would still break exemption rules.

Probably most of us have come across CLs and CSs that don't stick closely to these two rules. Personally, I've benefitted from this relaxed attitude by owners on a couple of occasions and I'm sure many others have too. But that doesn't alter the fact that they're endangering their exemption, nad if they lose than they have to apply for full planning permission as camping and caravan sites - which seems to be what's happened here.

[Robinhood]

If I were to summarise things as they appear to me from the documentation:

 

There is a CL.

 

There is an adjacent (tent) campsite which should be subject to the 28 day rule.

 

Previous planning applications in respect of a commercial campsite have been refused.

 

The facilities for the CL have been developed (without planning permission?).

 

The locals state that the 28 day rule on the tent field has been (significantly) breached.

 

The locals state that the objective of the recent development is really to support the tent campsite, and is of a scale not required for (and not cost-effective for) a 5-van CL site.

 

The planning application in train is retrospective (and the locals say it is almost the same as that for the original full commercial application, and is effectively pursuing the same objective by different means, using the CL and facilities as a "trojan horse").

 

Whatever....it would certainly appear that the CC have some concerns, and have withdrawn certification.

 

This simply looks like a genuine planning dispute, rather than one questioning the principles of 5-van exempted sites.

 

 

 

[bobalobs]

I agree it does not appear to be an attack on exempted 5 van sites and it is more than foolish if the owners breached the conditions particularly if their long term aim was a larger licensed site. However as a regular visitor to a 16 pitch site which used to be certificated I am very much in favour of small sites but it seems to be an uphill battle to move from 5 pitch exempt to 6 or more pitch licensed.

[Rosbotham]

To be honest, I don't know. The crux of the matter is that the CC are withdrawing certification (hence planning consent has been rejected because with no CL, there's no need for any of the items for which consent was being sought), and the reasons for this seem unclear. Were you to believe the owner, then you'd put it down to CC being bombarded with complaints from NIMBY neighbours, but there could be more to it than that as the CC letter seems to suggest more.

 

Looking at the site's website, contrary to what the objectors to the planning application say, the facilities don't seem out of kilter for a CL (the shower "block" doesn't seem that large at all and is certainly smaller than many CLs that I stay at). The theme running through a lot of the letters that "modern vans are self-contained so nobody needs/wants facilities hence provision of the showerblock is clearly to support tents on the side" is definitely flawed.

 

Being naive, it had never occurred to me that CL owners had to get planning consent for things like hookups (ok, maybe shower buildings)...I'd erroneously assumed these were similarly covered by the exemption. I guess the legislation was written before modern times of EHUs being the norm.

 

Strikes me that if the owner wants to regain certification, there'd be a logic in turning to C&CC as it would at least remove the "breaking CL regulations because tents are allowed" aspect.