A bid to change a holiday caravan site in St Nicholas-at-Wade into a residential site for people over 50 is being recommended for refusal by council planning officers.
Frost Farm owner Keat Farm Ltd is asking for the current restriction to close the site between 1 February and 14 February be removed. A bid to remove the conditions in 2023 was refused.
The farm has been a caravan site since the 1950s and currently has 13 static homes with seven further pitches laid out but vacant. The holiday homes are currently for those aged 40 and over but Keat Farm Ltd plans to raise that to the site being restricted to over 50’s.
A planning document says: “Although the principal of the use of the site as a caravan site has already been permitted and established, our client has been approached by caravan owners at the park who would like to be allowed to use the caravans all year round for residential purposes.
“This will allow the site to become a residential mobile home park to contribute to the council’s housing land supply.”
Keat Farm Ltd says the application provides an opportunity to provide 20 single storey, low-cost homes which have “the ability to address the housing needs of the older generation who might be seeking to downsize and release larger family homes back into the market.”
Planning documents say: “The location of the caravan park means that there is little demand for its current use as a holiday park. Therefore, there is relatively little current economic benefit arising from the restrictive holiday use of the site.
“This proposal will result in new year-round spending by new residents and the creation of jobs in local shops, services and facilities, all of which are in close proximity.
“The ‘construction’ and sales phase of the site will also generate employment for local contractors, agents and suppliers.
“The proposal will result in affordable low-cost market homes which will help support local residents who are unable to afford local bricks-and-mortar housing, but who do not quality for social rented housing.
“In particular, mobile homes as single storey homes similar to, but cheaper than, bungalows, are popular with elderly people, allowing them to free up money for the enhancement of their pensions through the sale of their former bricks and mortar houses, which are in turn freed up for younger expanding families.”
Keat Farms Ltd adds that park home residents are protected with security of tenure by the Mobile Homes Act if the park is registered with a residential caravan site licence. The applicant will register for a site licence.
Keat Farm Ltd has been operating since 1953 and manages 10 parks with some 1,300 pitches.
However, planning officers are recommending refusal, saying the proposal would mean a loss of existing holiday accommodation, would result in isolated homes in the countryside; would cause harm to the character of this part of the countryside; would increase recreational pressure on coastal nature areas and does not contain affordable housing – although there is an offer of a contribution for off-site housing as well as Keat Farm saying at £200k for a two-bed property all the homes are ‘affordable.’
Thanet planning also says the site is an unsustainable location as it is purely car dependent and is a remote location particularly for older people.
The department adds: “The main village is more than 800m walking via the Thanet Way / Shuart Lane (1000m to the village centre) although there is a public right of way across the fields which reduces this to approximately 500m. The site is not served by public transport – nearest bus stops are in the village (infrequent service) or a more regular service on the A28. The nearest service centre is either Birchington or Minster.”
One letter of support and one objecting have been lodged with the council. MP Sir Roger Gale has signalled support for the scheme.
Developer contributions to mitigate impact on services would be:
- Community Learning and Skills – £34.21 per applicable dwelling towards additional equipment and resources for Adult Education Centres and outreach provision serving the development.
- Library, Registrations and Archives Service – £62.63 per applicable dwelling towards additional resources, equipment, and book stock (including reconfiguration of space) at local libraries serving the development, including Birchington, Minster and Westgate.
- Adult Social Care – £180.88 per applicable dwelling towards Specialist Housing Provision in the district, adaptation of community facilities, technology to promote independence, multi-sensory facilities and changing place facilities in the vicinity of the development.
- Waste – £52 per applicable dwelling towards additional capacity at Margate HWRC serving the development.
- The total contribution would be £6,594.40 plus a contribution for affordable housing although there has not been a legal agreement submitted for the housing funds.
The application has been called in to the Planning Committee by Councillor Reece Pugh to consider whether the removal of the conditions would result in an adverse reduction in available holiday accommodation for tourists visiting Thanet.
Keat Farm Ltd says Frost Farm is no longer an attractive site for tourism and leisure uses since the dualling of the A299 and the distance from local attractions and the loss of 20 pitches of possible tourism accommodation at the site would equate to a 2% overall loss out of the total 1,511 holiday caravan pitches available in the surrounding area.
The council’s s Tourism and Leisure Team say Keat Farm Ltd was previously invited to consider an amended proposal to allow year-round occupation but retaining the leisure and tourism use. However the council was informed this was not attractive to intended occupiers.
The application will be discussed by the planning committee on April 23.
“jobs in local shops”…”which are in close proximity.”
Erm, the only shop in St. Nicholas is a small post office/village store, which is unlikely to need extra staff because of a few more residents! If their gonna lie, make it a convincing one.
“However, planning officers are recommending refusal, saying the proposal would mean a loss of existing holiday accommodation”. People still go there on holiday ??? How many hotels, and guest houses have been closed in recent years. Be good to know the exact figures.
I cannot believe the Planning Dept are considering refusing this proposal. It seems an excellent idea.
But then the Planning Dept approves other plans which to me, seem completely unreasonable. I hope they have a rethink and approval is given.
Over 50s only, with one small village store and the nearest regular bus service over a mile away? No, it should be refused.
Your quite correct , only one village shop , bus stop over a mile away , being isolated like that they are obviously in the dark ages , no internet shopping ,no taxis . ,. Okay for the 11.5 months they can stay there though.
Pensioners who live there full time are unlikely to be able to afford taxis very often.
Do you have something against the elderly wanting to stay in the village? Due to lack of suitable homes? Or should we be forced out ? What happens when other people live in remote villages then with no bus routes or amenities? At least st nicholas has these to offer .
I wonder how the 19 properties in the village who are further away from the bus stop cope .
What happens? They don’t go out much, as a dear elderly widowed friend who lives in Monkton has found to her cost since she was forced by ill-health to give up driving and bus services to Canterbury has been axed.
At a recent meeting of St Nicholas with Sarre parish council , there was a presentation of a proposed application ( now submitted)for 13 luxury homes on the site of At Nicholas camping a stones throw from Frost Farm . When asked the agent for the developers confirmed that the planning department had said that this application would be looked on favourably . This despite the loss of pitches for 10 touring caravans , 5 motorhomes,and 55 tents !! .Is it any wonder that Labour wants to shake up the planning laws . TDC planning seem to make it up as they go along .
That should be refused too.
It won’t be ,money talks as Neil Diamond sang .
Joking aside Peter , Frost Farm is not as isolated as the planning officer indicates ,I know many of the residents there and the majority are in good health and the sense of community there would ensure that anybody in difficulties would be supported by their neighbours .It’s a pity that community spirit is not universal.
Planning has been submitted for houses on the camping and caravan site in the village this is a stones throw away from Frost farm and yet no mention from the council about the lack of holiday spaces there!! Also the disabled homes that were meant to be built in the village on the new build site were subsequently dropped from the planning so where are the elderly and disabled going? Frost farm is
perfect for the ageing population that want to remain in the village freeing up homes for families.
Just looked at the application form for development of the camp site , I find it strange that one planning office finds the loss of 10 tourist accommadation is if concern , but another according to the said application was in favour of 13 new builds (pre- application consultation ) not a word about the loss of 70 tourist pitches .As Littlejohn wold say ,you couldn’t make it up .Mind how you go .
The planning officers are absolute hypocrites, they have recommended so many buildings over the past ten years that have destroyed the entire character of east Kent and brought nothing but traffic congestion and pollution the loss of thousands of acres of farmland overwhelmed our local services Doctors hospital dentist schools, yet turn down a very modest planning application like this one.
What really irks is that the developer granted permission by TDC to build houses in St Nicks , consistently flouted the terms of the permit . Made spurious retrospective applications ( still not decided by TDC ) then went bust to the tune of tens of millions of pounds ,leaving owners in limbo.
Flexed there muscles with this application ,hid behind their desks instead of taking on Sunningdale.
If somebody actually visited they would find zero holiday accommodation there. So for 11.5 months of the year that residents live their they don’t spoil the character of the area, only the 2 weeks which are being applied for!
According to the application, those additional two weeks will lead to “the creation of jobs in local shops, services and facilities”.
The village store will be overwhelmed without additional staff, haha!
Olly.
I have followed this planning application since Dec 2023.Why on earth has it taken so long to come to a decision ? Perhaps it has been forgotten ?
As someone who has friends who have properties at FF I fully support the application for residential status .From a residents perspective whats important for them is not to have to vacate their properties in the debths of winter .A further 2 weeks is all they are asking for as very little else will change.
In my opinion FF may be labelled a holiday site but in truth there is little to afford it that label.All properties are built to residential standard ,have 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms and are equipped to a high and modern standard.Piped gas is an added bonus and for some reason residents pay council tax both of which are unusual to Holiday properties.
I agree with Elboy in what he says about planning decisions needing to be using the same decision making tools and criteria for applications falling into the same category .To date it seems that the committees refusal to grant Residential status to FF holds very little water in terms of consistency when compared to other like applications.
I hope this forthcoming meeting will view all arguments in coming to a final decision .
From what I understand everyone there is living on site 50 weeks a year anyway, no one’s going to stay on holiday there so it may as well be residential and save building houses on yet another field
Common sense really Ian ,hopefully the committee will see past such demeaning reasons, that suggest older residents can’t walk 800 yards and need a car .
Mind how you go you old folks ,Big Brothers looking after you .
Has anyone from planning ever visited Frost Farm ? I very much doubt they have or they would have seen that it is definitely not a tourist park, the people who live there are not allowed to rent out their homes! I cannot see what difference it makes to let them stay for 2 more weeks !nothing will change whatsoever, the people on there are all retired so hardly causing noise or disruption to the surrounding countryside or wildlife.
Well said Olboy, Sorry Elboy!
And the argumenent about “loss of holiday accomodation”is untenable as the properties at FF cannot be sublet .