1. home and garden

Steve Rogers – Head of Planning & Regulatory Services
Kirkbank, English Street, Dumfries, DG1 2HS
Telephone (01387) 260199 - Fax (01387) 260188
Planning Applications Committee Report
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION 1 (THAT NO HOLIDAY STATIC CARAVANS
OR TOURING CARAVANS SHALL BE USED OR OCCUPIED FOR HUMAN
HABITATION EXCEPT DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1 MARCH TO 31 OCTOBER
(INCLUSIVE) OF EACH YEAR) OF PLANNING PERMISSION 98/P/3/0432 TO ALLOW
THE USE OF 10 CARAVANS FOR PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL USE
AT MOUSWALD LODGE PARK, MOUSWALD PLACE, DUMFRIES
Application Type: Full Planning Permission
Applicant: Mr Weatherley - Mouswald Lodge Park
Ltd
Ref. No.: 14/P/3/0604
Recommendation - Refuse
Ward - Annandale South
Hierarchy Type (if applicable) - Local
Case Officer - Andrew Robinson
1
BACKGROUND
1.1 Under the Scheme of Delegation, this application requires to be considered by the
Planning Applications Committee as more than 6 separate, individual and timeously
received third party objections on material planning grounds have been received.
1.2 The application site relates to Mouswald Lodge Park which is a holiday park situated
in the south-western part of the Small Building Group of Mouswald Place. The site is
accessed from the U103(n) road which is a rural single track road leading off from the
A75(T). The site comprises 35 holiday homes (33 used as touring and static pitches and 2
holiday cottages) and 15 residential homes, forming a total of 50 units. A site visit showed
that a number of the touring / static pitches were vacant. Situated in the centre of the site
is a substantial unlisted mansion house. To the south, west and north-west of the site is
open countryside. The village of Mouswald is situated around 1 kilometre to the south.
The site lies within a Non Inventory Designed Landscape. The south-eastern part of the
site, which comprises the residential homes, lies within the Torthorwald Ridge Regional
Scenic Area. The site is also covered by archaeological features.
1.3 The proposal has been submitted (under Section 42 of the Town and Country
Planning (Scotland) Act 1997) to develop land without compliance with conditions
previously attached to planning permission 98/P/30432. This planning permission
approved the alteration to the layout of the caravan site to accommodate 15 residential
caravans and 35 holiday caravans and Condition 1 of this permission required:“That no holiday static caravans or touring caravans shall be used or occupied for human
habitation except during the period from 1 March to 31 October (inclusive) of each year.”
1.4 The application seeks to change 10 of the 33 holiday home pitches to permanent
residential homes. The application has been submitted as a consequence of financial
difficulties that the business is facing as the holiday park has made loses in 5 of the last 6
years. 14 out of 15 of the residential homes have been sold but only 8 out of the 33
holiday static / touring pitches are occupied. Changing 10 of the holiday homes to
permanent residential homes would bring in revenue to fund the conversion of the
Mansion House into 6 flats (which obtained planning permission under reference
11/P/3/0486).
1.5 A supporting information has been submitted with the application in the form of a
planning statement accompanied by a confidential business plan. The planning statement
provides further information for the proposal, where the executive summary states:
 In 2011, planning permission was granted to convert the vacant Mouswald Place
Mansion House into six flats for permanent residential occupation.
 As Mouswald Lodge Holiday Park has made losses in five of the past six years, the
business is not able to implement the conversion of the Mansion House.
 Tourism is a key sector of the Dumfries economy but no touring caravans have visited
Mouswald Lodge Park and sales of holiday homes over the past six years has been
poor, only 25% of the available pitches have been sold.
 The only way this failing business can be turned around and the conversion of the
Mansion House implemented is to change 10 of the holiday home pitches to residential
Park Homes.
 The sale of residential Park Homes over the past six years has been a success and all
consented pitches bar one have been sold.
 A business case has been prepared which shows that if the status quo remains the
business is unsustainable but if a change of 10 holiday home pitches to residential
Park Homes is permitted, the business can be sustained and given a future.
 That would achieve the conversion of the Mansion House into six flats adding much
needed housing to the Dumfries Housing Market.
 Whilst Adopted Local Development Plan policy has a presumption against change of
use of caravans such as holiday homes or residential Park Homes to houses, the
proposed change to secure the long term future of Mouswald Lodge Park is a change
from holiday home to residential Park Homes and is not a change to housing as
residential Park Homes are classed as caravans under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. It
is a change of one type of caravan for another.
 The circumstances of Mouswald Lodge Park are exceptional but there is a planning
precedent of linking development together as a whole which is a material
consideration, in this case the conversion of the Mansion House and the proposed
change of use of caravan pitches within the site that will help to ensure a future for
Mouswald Lodge Park.
 Mouswald Lodge Park is an established site sitting against a backdrop of existing
woodland and is contained by mature trees and a hedge round its boundary so the
visual impact of this change will be negligible particularly as holiday homes and
permanent residential Park Homes are similar in scale and design.
The planning statement, and further correspondence from the agent dated 30 March 2015,
refers to precedents being set by a Court of Appeal decision in 1988, R versus
Westminster Council and the Covent Garden Community Association, and also an
unidentified planning application determined in St Andrews by Fife Council.
Site History
1.6 There are a number of records of planning history relating to the site which can be
summarised as follows:
98/P/3/0432 - Planning permission granted for alteration to caravan site to accommodate
15 residential caravans and 35 holiday caravans (approved 05/01/1999).
04/P/3/0485 - Planning permission granted for change of use from store / garage and
alterations / extensions to form two holiday houses and extension to caravan park (5 static
pitches) (approved 26/01/2005).
11/P/3/0486 – Planning permission granted for alterations and change of use of dwelling
house to form 6 residential flats (approved 24/01/2012).
13/P/3/0209 - Planning permission refused for variation of Condition 1 (that no holiday
static caravans or touring caravans shall be used or occupied for human habitation except
during the period from 1 march to 31 October (inclusive) of each year) of planning
permission 98/P/3/0432 to allow the use of 12 caravans for permanent residential use.
Refused on 18/07/2013 on the following grounds:
“That the removal of Condition 1 would effectively create 12 new permanent and
unrestricted dwellings in the countryside and the siting and design of the caravans is not
such as merit such unrestricted use. Furthermore, it has not been satisfactorily
demonstrated that there is any essential planning need or justification for the removal of
Condition 1. As such, the proposal is contrary to the policy of the Council as stated in
Structure Plan Policy D4 and to national policy as set out in the Scottish Planning Policy
(SPP) which permit the creation of new housing in the countryside only in special
circumstances identified in development plans, and none of these circumstances apply in
this case.”
2
CONSULTATIONS
2.1 Council Roads Officer - No objections.
Parking standards require 2 car parking spaces per plot for residential properties, therefore
an increase in 10 spaces is required (an increase of one per proposed residential
caravan). The applicant has stated that 63 spaces are currently available on site. It would
be appropriate that a plan be provided showing existing and appropriate proposed car
parking provision (which can be obtained under condition).
2.2 Landscape Architect - No objections.
2.3 Environmental Standards - No objections.
3
REPRESENTATIONS
Objection (17):
Thomas Beattie, The Orchard, Mouswald, Dumfries
Patricia Beattie, The Orchard, Mouswald, Dumfries
Moira Forsyth, North Lodge, Mouswald Place, Mouswald, Dumfries
Steven Forsyth, North Lodge, Mouswald, Dumfries
Angus Irving, Green Acre, Mouswald Place, Mouswald, Dumfries
Margaret Irving, Green Acre, Mouswald Place, Mouswald, Dumfries
Ashley Johnstone, The Pines, Mouswald, Dumfries
Barry Johnstone, The Pines, Mouswald, Dumfries
S Marr, South Lodge, Mouswald, Dumfries
J D McKechnie, The Beeches, Mouswald Place, Mouswald, Dumfries
Linda McKechnie, Woodgrove, Mouswald Place, Mouswald, Dumfries
A O McKechnie, Woodgrove, Mouswald Place, Mouswald, Dumfries
Ann C Muir, Cleughbrae Farm, Mouswald, Dumfries
Susan Muir, Cleughbrae Farm, Mouswald, Dumfries
David Muir, Cleughbrae Farm, Mouswald, Dumfries
William J Muir, Cleughbrae Farm, Mouswald, Dumfries
E Thomson, South Lodge, Mouswald, Dumfries
3.1 A total of 17 representations have been received objecting to the application. The
material considerations raised can be summarised as follows:
Principle
 The proposal is contrary to Local Development Plan Policies H3 - Housing in the
Countryside, ED10 – Tourism, H7 - Temporary Residential Development and OP1.
 A similar application was previously rejected in 2013.
Roads
 The park is accessed by single track roads which are not suitable for the sustained
increase in volume of traffic that the development would bring.
Servicing
 The proposal would increase existing sewage and water problems.
 The proposal would result in increase of water onto neighbouring land.
3.2 Detailed comments have also been raised in two representations on the content of the
Planning Statement which can be summarised as follows:


The basis of the planning statement is the failing state of the business followed by
years of trading losses. It is considered that this is as a result of a change from the
owners from a holiday park with owner-occupied static caravans and touring facilities to
offering permanent residential plots, removing all on-site facilities attractive to tourers
and removing all links with the local community who used the site for community
events.
The current lodges have sold for well below the original market value (below £100,000
as opposed to £170,000 originally advertised) and the owners were left to offer second
hand lodges.










The comment that 'no touring caravans have visited the site over the past 6 years'
(para 4.2) is disputed. A brown caravan park sign remains at the junction with the A75
which attracts tents and tourers although they are subsequently turned away as the
company's website clearly states that camping, caravanning and tourers are not
accommodated at the site.
The access to the site was widened by the previous but one owner (approximately
2005) and this allowed easier movement of static caravans as well as wooden lodges
to be transported to the site. Access has therefore not been an issue.
With regard to the comments that 'without the sale of residential park homes the site
would have gone out of business' (Paragraph 4.5), the two previous owners ran
commercially successful holiday businesses from the site and it is believed that the
failures of the business are due to a flawed business model which relies on the sale of
permanent lodges and an ongoing income from ground rental and maintenance
charges for survival.
Market Conditions - Although the caravanning and camping sector is buoyant,
Mouswald Lodge Park offers only owner-occupied accommodation with no facilities
and is poorly marketed to the point of active discouragement. The park took away
facilities including bar, food, laundry and retail sales rather than re-invest, reducing the
site's attractiveness. With the current model, the site would only be able to generate
future income from ground rent charges, which at 25 units at £1750 per unit could not
exceed £43,750 per annum which would not cover the costs of the site.
[NB - These figures have not been verified by any evidence.]
Competition - Other parks, such as Anwoth, offer cheaper site fees for considerably
better facilities. The investment into the mansion, where the ground floor used to
contain a reception area, information on Dumfries and Galloway tourism, a games
room and a small bar and restaurant that was also used by residents from surrounding
villages, would be better spent reinvesting in reinstating and modernising new facilities.
Capital Investment - Taking away facilities has limited options to generate revenue
streams.
The company's website makes no reference to the potential for owner-occupied static
caravans on site or does not list touring pitches, tents, caravans or motorhomes as
available. The only sales offer is owner-occupied lodges. With no facilities for owners
and a ground rental higher than competitor sites who do offer facilities, this is a poor
commercial offer.
It is considered that allowing the business to take away assets from the tourism
economy would be in direct conflict the objective and strategy of the Dumfries &
Galloway Regional Tourism Strategy.
The proposal would have a major detrimental effect on the community of Mouswald,
such as through loss of employment to local people, lack of engagement with
neighbouring properties on a social level and collaboration with local businesses.
It is considered that the development has been driven in the residential direction and
there has been no effort to continue the holiday or touring part of the park.
3.3 The applicant's agent has submitted the following arguments in response to the
comments raised in the representations:
 The proposed residential Park Homes are designated caravans under Section 29(1) of
the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. The pre-application









4
response from the Council dated 7 August 2014 makes it clear that residential park
homes constructed to BS3632 are not dwellinghouses under the Planning Act and a
further email dated 19 August 2014 explains in detail that residential park homes are
classed as caravans under parts (a) and (b) of Section 13(1) of the Caravan Sites Act
1968. Policy H3 is therefore considered not to apply.
With regard to Policies ED10 and H7, Scottish Planning Policy states that the planning
system should support sustainable development and balance the costs and benefits of
a proposal over the longer term. The caravan site is failing financially and the Mansion
House is deteriorating. The only way the business can be turned round and made
sustainable is to change the use of the 10 existing static and touring pitches to
permanent park homes thus generating funding which can be used to convert the
mansion house into 6 permanent flats. This would also contribute to the Dumfries
Housing Market.
The proposal is not considered to be contrary to Policy OP1 as there is no visual
difference between permanent or holiday accommodation and the change of use will
not result in additional impact on the character and amenity of the area. None of the 5
listed issues in part (a) of the policy arise.
The Council's roads service has raised no objections in its response to the proposal
and therefore the development would not raise any roads issues.
The previously refused application did not contain any financial information and no
business plan was submitted.
The letters of objection miss the point of the application, which is to create a
sustainable long term future for the caravan park. The linked development approach
(changing to permanent residential use that would fund the conversion of the Mansion
House) is seen as a solution to overcome the financial difficulties of the caravan park.
The caravan park would still leave 23 pitches for static and touring use on site.
The objectors make financial statements that are inaccurate and misleading and the
confidential business plan demonstrates that the proposed linked development would
achieve a sustainable long term solution.
The website and leaflets advertising Mouswald Park clearly state "holiday homes"
which is consistent with the planning permission for "static and/or touring pitches".
The water supply is a public water supply maintained by Scottish Water and they have
not objected to the application.
REPORT
Relevant development plan policies:Dumfries & Galloway Local Development Plan
OP1 - Development Considerations
ED10 - Tourism
H3 - Housing in the Countryside
H7 - Temporary Residential Development
HE3 - Archaeology
HE6 - Gardens and Designed Landscapes
NE2 - Regional Scenic Areas
IN9 - Waste Water Drainage
Other material considerations include:
National Planning Framework (NPF) 3; and
Scottish Planning Policy (SPP);
4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that:“Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the
development plan, the determination is, unless material considerations indicate otherwise,
to be made in accordance with that plan”.
4.2 When determining applications, the Council is required to consider the overall aims
and objectives of the development plan as well as the above subject policies. The
overarching principle of the Local Development Plan is that all development proposals
should support sustainable development, including the reduction of carbon and other
greenhouse gas emissions. The Local Development Plan has a vision that Dumfries and
Galloway will: Be a viable rural economy
 Have vibrant towns and villages
 Have a successful Regional Capital in Dumfries.
4.3 The determining planning considerations in the assessment of this application are
whether the following issues are acceptable:
 Principle of Development;
 Business Case;
 Land Use Conflict;
 Roads; and
 Archaeology.
Principle of Development
4.4 The proposal is seeking non-compliance with the terms of planning permission
98/P/3/0432 to allow 10 holiday caravan / touring pitches to be used for permanent
residential use. Policy ED10 of the Local Development Plan supports the provision of a
range of tourist accommodation including new groups of chalet, cabin, caravan or camping
sites although it states that in all cases, there will be a presumption against tourism
accommodation being used for permanent residence.
4.5 Policy H7 of the Local Development Plan (Temporary Residential Development)
states that the Council will not normally support proposals for the development of, or
change of use of, caravans, chalets or other temporary structures to houses. In
exceptional circumstances, residential caravans or other suitable forms of temporary
accommodation may be permitted on a site to meet a justified short term need, providing
they can be adequately serviced and would not be visually intrusive. In such cases
occupancy conditions will be imposed. In this instance, the proposal is not for ‘temporary
residential development’ and is not required to justify a short term need. Therefore the
proposal would not meet the requirements of this policy.
4.6 Policy H3 of the Local Development Plan supports housing proposals in the
countryside where the proposal meets one or more of the listed criteria. Although the
residential units would meet the definition of a caravan, the proposal is for their use for
permanent residential purposes and therefore it is considered that Policy H3 is relevant to
the proposal. Whilst Mouswald Place is an identified Small Building Group, the caravan
park is not considered to form part of this group (given that caravans are not buildings).
Instead, the Small Building Group comprises the dwellinghouses to the north-east of the
caravan park that are well related to each other and create a sense of place. The proposal
would not meet any of the other listed criteria and would be contrary to the provisions of
Policy H3.
4.7 The most relevant policy to assess the principle of the proposal against is Policy
ED10. This has a clear presumption against tourism accommodation being used for
permanent residences. Therefore, the principle of the development in itself would not
comply with Policy ED10. Accordingly, unless there are any other material considerations
to indicate otherwise, the application should be refused.
Business Case
4.8 The application has been submitted due to financial difficulties that the business is
facing and the supporting information argues that this should be a material consideration in
the assessment of the proposal. The applicant’s case refers to Scottish Planning Policy
which states the ‘planning system should support economically, environmentally and
socially sustainable places by enabling development that balances the costs and benefits
of a proposal over the longer term’. However, SPP also makes it clear that ‘the aim is to
achieve the right development in the right place; it is not to allow development at any cost’.
4.9 Paragraph 32 of SPP emphasises that the presumption in favour of sustainable
development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting
point for decision-making. Proposals that accord with up-to-date plans should be
considered acceptable in principle and consideration should focus on the detailed matters
arising. For proposals that do not accord with up-to-date development plans, the primacy
of the plan is maintained and Scottish Planning Policy and the presumption in favour of
development that contributes to sustainable development will be material considerations.
4.10 The case put forward in the application relates to the financial difficulties of the
business and supporting information shows that the business has made a loss in 5 of the
last 6 years (2008-2013). The planning statement argues that the poor sales of the
holiday pitches over the 6 year period (8 out of 33) has accounted for the current losses
incurred and only the sales of the park homes have brought in income. A projected
forecast shows that with the current business model, the business would make losses over
9 of the next 10 years (2014-2023). To address the continued projected losses, the
proposal to have 10 park homes for permanent residential use is intended to enable
funding to be secured to undertake the conversion of the Mansion House into 6 residential
flats which would be available for rent. This, in turn, would generate more income for the
business.
4.11 In assessing the case put forward, the submitted information clearly demonstrates
the financial losses incurred by the business. However, although the planning system
aims to encourage rural development that supports prosperous and sustainable
communities and businesses, it is not for the planning system to address deficiencies in
businesses through allowing the development of inappropriate and unsustainable forms of
development that are contrary to the development plan.
4.12 The Council’s policy on allowing new tourist development in the countryside is to
allow new groups of chalet, cabin, caravan or camping sites subject to occupancy
conditions. The business case presented in this instance effectively relies on further
holiday homes sold and used as permanent residencies as opposed to holiday
accommodation to make the business profitable - this would contradicts the aims of the
Council’s tourism policy in the Local Development Plan. It is unclear from the submitted
information why the caravan and touring pitches for holiday accommodation have sold
poorly at the park and there are no plans apparent to address this. Representations have
made reference to the fact that the company's website makes no reference to the potential
for owner-occupied static caravans on site and does not list touring pitches, tents,
caravans or motorhomes as available, which proved to be the case upon viewing its
content. Concerns have also been raised regarding the lack of facilities at the park to what
previously existed in the Mansion House and a site visit showed that no on-site
recreational facilities existed.
4.13 The business case requires the sale of the 10 permanent residential accommodation
units to raise funds for converting the vacant mansion house into flats. However, the
planning permission covering this proposal expired on 24 January 2015 and no longer has
planning permission. Therefore, no weight can be given to it in the assessment of this
application. Notwithstanding this, the flats would be available for rent for permanent
residence and not holiday accommodation, and so would have no direct relationship with
the operations of the holiday park. Whilst the flats would provide income for the park
owners, it is unclear how this money would be reinvested into the business. It is also
unclear how the current problems with selling the existing holiday lodges / touring pitches
would be overcome as a result of the proposal.
4.14 In conclusion, whilst the objective to have a further 10 permanent park homes is
understood to address the financial difficulties of the business, it is not considered that it
provides a sustainable form of residential development. The Council has a policy on new
housing in the countryside (Policy H3) which supports new housing in particular
circumstances and it is not considered that allowing chalets, cabins and caravans to be
used as permanent residencies, by virtue of their siting and design, is a sustainable form
of housing development. It is also not considered that allowing permanent residential
accommodation in holiday parks to address a business deficiency constitutes sustainable
development in the long term. Although the business case has been considered, it is
unclear how the provision of further permanent residential accommodation would address
and sustain the current poor sales of holiday homes currently experienced. It is not
considered that the proposed business case is a material consideration to override
development plan policy in this instance.
4.15 With regard to the comments in the planning statement regarding a planning
precedent being set elsewhere, all planning applications have to be assessed on their
individual merits and the outcome of one planning decision has no bearing on the outcome
of another. In the cases presented (Judicial Review by R v Westminster Council and the
Covent Garden Community Association and an unidentified case determined by Fife
Council), the general principles may have been similar (allowing a form of development to
fund other works, and change from holiday static to permanent residential), but the
circumstances of these cases are not directly relevant to this particular proposal and are
considered to be of limited weight in the consideration of this application.
Land Use Conflict
4.16 The proposal would utilise existing pitches that can be used as residential holiday
accommodation and as the proposal would not result in a change in the actual physical
nature of the development, it is considered that no further land use conflict to adjoining
residential uses would arise. The proposal would comply with LDP Policy OP1a).
Roads
4.17 The Council’s roads officer has raised no objection to the proposal but would require
provision of a further 10 spaces to accommodate the proposal so that each unit had two
car parking spaces. The site is large enough to accommodate this requirement and, were
the development to be otherwise acceptable, this could be required by condition. Although
the concerns from representors regarding extra impact on the local road network are
noted, it is considered that the proposal and nature of the use would not generate any
material increase in traffic on the road network.
Archaeology
4.18 The site contains a few archaeological features, although none exist on the site
subject to this application. Therefore no effect on archaeological features would arise.
Other matters
4.19 Representations have been made in respect of servicing and surface water flooding.
However, the proposal does not involve any operational development and therefore would
not impact upon or worsen the existing situation.
Conclusion
4.20 Taking all of the relevant planning considerations into account, it is considered that
the principle of allowing the current holiday touring and static pitches to become
permanent residential park homes would be contrary to the requirements of Policy ED10 of
the Local Development Plan as well as Policies H3 and H7 and it is not considered that the
business case represents a material consideration of such weight as to override the
provisions of the development plan. As such, the proposal fails to comply with the
provisions of the stated Development Plan Policies and as there are no material
considerations which override the presumption in favour of a determination in accordance
with the terms of the development plan, it is recommended that the application is refused
for the reason set out below.
5
RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Refuse on the following grounds:1.
That the proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policies ED10, H3 and
H7 of the Local Development Plan in that non-compliance with Condition 1
of planning permission 98/P/30432 (restricting the occupation of the
existing holiday accommodation) would be tantamount to the creation of
10 new permanent and unrestricted dwellings in the countryside where
their siting and design would not merit such unrestricted use.
Relevant Drawing Numbers:
Drawing No. 43/001 - Site Location Plan (Received 22 Dec 2014)
Drawing No. 43/002 - Existing Site Plan Showing Planning Permissions Granted
(Received 22 Dec 2014)
Drawing No. 43/003 - Existing Site Plan Showing As Built and Occupied Pitches (Received
22 Dec 2014)
Drawing No. 43/004 - Proposed Change of Holiday Home Pitches to Park Home Pitches
(Date Stamped 22 Dec 2014)
NB - All relevant drawings, and any relevant associated correspondence / reports, are
available on the Council’s ePlanning website (www.dumgal.gov.uk/planning).