view - Breckland Council

Other points for consideration:
- The driveway access to the rear of the buildings is confused/misleading.
Currently this is done by a new roadway that has been built to the south of the
shop. We understand the Council preferred this route to the original one,
because it removed the access from going along the side of the children’s play
area behind the cafe. Despite this, the applicant shows the original route as the
access to the new sales site, which is it to be?
- DAS says the proposed area is for limited numbers of caravans and motorhomes.
The area is stated to be 595sqm - the application form says 0.10 ha =
1,000 sqm. What is being applied for At say 10sqm for a typical
caravan/motor home and parked as behind Tesco, the applicant could have
dozens of caravans/motor-homes for sale. The applicant decried the slogan
“Caravan City” – but what have we got, Caravan City!
- The original permission deliberately limited the numbers of lodges (25),
caravans (15) and tents (15) so as to reduce the intrusion into the countryside.
The location of the proposed sales area is overtly intrusive. This is clearly
shown D&AS “Photographic Analysis” bottom photo visible from the B1135
coming out of Dereham and as you enter our village – even if the D&AS
contradicts this by saying there is little or no visibility because of the
buildings. The Applicant’s own photograph gives the game away.
- The use of 2m close-boarded fencing, which the applicant has already started
to be erected without planning permission, is alien and out of keeping with the
open nature of the Tud valley between Dereham and Yaxham. Within the
settlement boundary is one thing – but not in the midst of fields. The fencing
does not even do what it is intended to as the caravans clearly stick out above
it. If the applicant has to have the fence to provide security to sell caravans
and motor-homes, then he should not sell caravans and motor-homes.
- Why motor-homes? If the applicant had said he was going to sell second-hand
motor-vehicles when originally applying for the lodge-park then it must be
seriously doubtful as to whether permission would have been granted. On the
argument that these are ancillary to the main business, presumably the
applicant can then start selling 4x4’s and other vehicles because you need one
of these to tow a touring caravan.
For all these reasons we object to this application and believe it should be dealt with
by the Development Control Committee, rather than by delegated powers.
We would also add that if the Council is minded to permit caravan sales (the
permission should not include motor-vehicles – this is not a commercial site) then in
the light of the reasons for the limited number of caravans in the original permission
the cap of 15 caravans should be retained whether these are for sale or using the
touring caravan pitches.
Yours sincerely,
Ian & Susan Martin