REPORT OF THE HEAD OF
PLANNING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
SITE INSPECTION – 3
SEPTEMBER 2004
USE
OF LAND AS TEMPORARY CAR PARKING FACILITY, LAND OPPOSITE GORE CEMETERY SOUTH
EAST OF ARRETON CROFT DOWN END ROAD, NEWPORT
To
consider how the local planning authority should respond to the use of the
above site as a temporary car park to serve the Robin Hill music event
(Bestival) for the weekend of 10-12th September 2004.
Members
will be aware of this site which was the subject of a report considered at the
24th August 2004 Development Control Committee meeting with regards
to its use in connection with a launch event in mid-late October 2004. At that meeting Members where mindful of the
absence of any consent relating to this site and resolved to invite an
application to cover the event. The
launch event was the subject of discussions between the local planning
authority and the motocross organisation who are tenants of the site which is
owned by a local farmer. On Wednesday
25th August 2004, the planning office became aware that the site is
to be used as a car parking facility for the three-day bestival.
The
information that I have obtained indicates that the site could accommodate
approximately 5000 cars and that people would be bussed to and from the event
site.
As
Members will recall from the recent report this land carries with it at the
present time no planning permission and by virtue of the engineering works that
have taken place it holds no permitted development rights. Accordingly, it’s use for three days as a
car parking facility would require the formal consent of the local planning
authority.
For
Members information, I have been advised by the licensing officer that he only
became aware of the intention to use this site on Wednesday 25th
August 2004. I have however been
advised by the traffic section in Highways that they have been in discussions
for a number of weeks and that the intended use of this site was brought up
some three to four weeks ago. In their
view this site has certain advantages for the operation of a park and ride
service and the notices have appeared in the County Press which are required to
reduce the national speed limit in front if the site to cover both the intended
motocross event on the 5th September and the three-day
Bestival.
I
have also held a meeting with the landowner and tenant. This has been followed up with a
letter. They indicate that the approach
to use the site came from the event organisers at the suggestion of
Highways. Accordingly they assumed the
necessary consent had been acquired.
They have also pointed out that they do not wish this event to “blight”
their position with the Council and would if necessary withhold consent for the
use of the site.
None
unless a stop notice is served in which case if an appeal were successful then
there could be a claim for costs.
The
site has no extant planning permission and whilst it would normally carry with
it certain permitted development rights, these have been lost due to the
engineering works which give an indication of permanence. I believe Members must consider an immediate
response to the proposed use as a car park and also consider the longer-term
situation.
In
the short term, responding to the use of the site by the Bestival I can only
see two immediate options. These are firstly, to indicate to the landowner that
the site should not be used as a car park. The council could reinforce this
view by the immediate service of an enforcement notice and stop notice. Should
the organisers of the event not find an alternative car parking facility this
may call in to question whether the event takes place at all or alternatively
results in a significant car-parking problem on the local road system.
If
a stop notice were served with a subsequent enforcement notice being appealed
and then allowed, the council would run the risk of a claim for costs.
The
second option is to note the situation but to indicate that the council will
not take any immediate enforcement action against the use of the site over the
weekend of 10-12th September.
In that context, it must be acknowledged that the site does hold certain
benefits in being used as a park & ride facility. The clear benefits of
this option would be that it would remove the concern relating to any
authorised parking on the local road system. Regretfully, this approach would
reinforce the view held by certain parties that the local authority is not
exercising any planning controls over the use of this site.
Neither
of the options outlined above are particularly satisfactory. However, of the
two I am more inclined to give precedence to the concerns relating to highway
safety, and on that basis I will propose that we note the situation but take no
immediate enforcement action against the use of the site over the weekend of
10-12th September (Option 1).
In
the longer term, I believe that Members should consider whether it would be
appropriate to take any measures against the use of this site. At the present time the land reprofiling
that has taken place which has resulted in the formation of the track and the
levelled areas at the south of the track does not have the benefit of planning
consent. Since the International event held in May the site has not be used and
there has been an informal understanding between the local authority and the
developer that the site would not be used before the submission and
determination of the planning application we were expecting. To date the
operator of the motocross has kept to this agreement and Members will be aware
that he is making an application with regards to the motocross launch event
which is to be held in mid-late October. On the basis that the committee have
invited an application for that event I believe there is a certain expectation
that the site in its present form would be available for that use at that
particular time. I would not therefore
suggest that the council proceeds along any course of action that would alter
the site before that date.
Taken
on face value that the information received by the local planning authority is
correct then the current situation with regards to the use of the site in
connection with the Bestival has not been generated by the siteowner or
operator. Members have therefore got to
consider whether these individuals should be penalised in any way for a situation
which developed as a result of an initiative beyond their control. Whilst I
recognise that as the owner of the site there is a certain responsibility on
them ensuring that any proposed use is authorised I believe that the greater
burden must rest on the organisers of the Bestival event itself. It must also be acknowledged that the
Highway Section has encouraged the use of this site.
Notwithstanding
the above the recent situation has highlighted the difficult situation which
the local planning authority now finds itself in.
Meetings have been held with the motocross organisers relating to the submission of a further planning application, which would involve the submission of an environmental impact statement. The latest information we have received indicates that the application would be submitted by mid to late September 2004. Previous indications of a submission date have been made but not materialised. If an application is submitted by mid September as a major proposal, a determination period of 13 weeks would take us through to the first week in January 2005. Any slippage in the submission date would push the determination back accordingly.
Recent
events have indicated that the Local Planning Authority cannot let the
situation persist indefinitely. In that
context, I have identified two options that Members could consider with regard
to actions in the long term. These are
firstly to authorise officers to serve an enforcement notice that would take
effect after the October event or secondly to await the submission of the
planning application and review the matter at the 26 October 2004 Development
Control Committee meeting. Whilst the
service of an enforcement notice would give a strong indication that the
Council is not prepared to let the matter drift, it does have the disadvantage
at the present time of locking the Council into a series of actions, which, if
the application is delayed for any reason, would cause further
complications. Taking this factor into
consideration I believe that, on the basis the site operators have kept to the
informal understanding that it would not be used other than on agreed date, the
Council should wait and review the situation at the end of October, deciding at
that time, if an application is not submitted, how we should respond. Accordingly, I would suggest that Members
also adopt option 3 which is outlined above.
In
coming to this conclusion consideration has been given to the right set out in
Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 1 of the first protocol (right to
peaceful enjoyment of possession) of the European Convention on Human
Rights. The impact of the use of the
land on the surrounding area and other third parties has been carefully
considered. Whilst there would be some
interference with the rights of the landowner, this has to be balanced with the
wider public interest. The proposed recommendations are considered to be a
proportionate response to the unauthorised use of this site.
1. To note the information outlined above
and to recognise that whilst the use of the site as a car park on 10 – 12
September 2004 is a breach of planning control, to resolve not to take any
enforcement action regarding this matter on the basis that a significant
highway safety problem would be likely to result if the site were not used.
3. To report back to the Planning
Committee at the 26 October 2004 Development Control Committee meeting on the
situation regarding the anticipated submission of the planning application and
if not received, to consider how the Local Planning Authority should respond to
the situation.
Contact Point:
S Cornwell, Enforcement Team Leader
Tel: (01983)
823592
ANDREW
ASHCROFT
Head
of Planning Services