Bradwell caravan site plans thrown out by Great Yarmouth Borough Council

PLANNERS have turned down a bid to re-organise a Bradwell caravan site and questioned why they were debating it in the first place.

The owners of Beaumont Park Caravan Park in Mill Lane Bradwell wanted permission to remove one caravan, add two others and make alterations to the road and parking.

Members of the development control committee met on Tuesday and raised concerns about the effect of the changes on people living in the units as permanent homes. The council had received 21 letters of objection.

They also noted discrepancies on the drawings to do with measurements and scale.

Tim Matthews, spokesman for the park owners, said the permission, if granted, would only be acted upon with the agreement of residents.

Officials, meanwhile, urged members to consider the effect of the changes outside the site above all else, although a borough plan policy told them to weigh it up as they would any other residential development.

George Jermany, however, said it was not a matter for the borough council and questioned the owners’ motives.

Most Read

He said: “The owner is getting this council to do its dirty work for him. The site owner should be talking to the people who live there and dealing with it among themselves. This application should not be here. I have not seen any other site doing this. I think we are being used.”

Graham Plant, whose Bradwell north ward includes the site, said: “Not all is as it seems. If you live in number 25 you will have to park your car where you can in one of six bays with headlights shining into houses. We have just spent �40,000 on Great Yarmouth seafront to stop this happening.

“If this was happening in your street you would want to say something about it.”

A spokesman for the residents’ association said there were at least 10 mistakes on the plans ranging from measurements to the number of homes.

Michael Jeal tagged as “bonkers” that members were being asked to make a decision based on plans that were not to scale.

Senior planning officer Dean Minns, said: “Look purely at the impact outside the site. I appreciate you are trying to support the residents. But the issue is ‘does it have any adverse impact on the houses outside the site?’ And I would have to say no.”

Mr Minns added that the council had been presented with the application because of a condition on the original 1967 permission to do with the layout. The alterations were refused on the basis that they were un-neighbourly with Barry Cunniffe making a reference to the “pigs ear” plans.