WHEN DID PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THANET BECOME VACANT LAND?

With interest on Strife being focused on China Gateway this time last year, I had no time to draw readers' attention to a little application by a Mr R Vanderweele to expand Bradgate Caravan Park at Lydden by using another 1.78 hectares of prime agricultural land in order to add 51 more 'mobile homes' to the 181 already on the site. (See UK Planning and F/TH/08/0892).
.
This application was about to be approved by Planning Officers but was 'called in' to be looked at by Councillors of The Planning Committtee. It was refused. The main points of refusal were that:
1. It ran contrary to TDC policy of developing on prime agricultural land.
2. There were concerns on vehicle movements on narrow roads.
3. Southern Water had concerns that its supply and sewerage at Lydden could not cope.
.
Well it should be no surprise to readers that Mr R Vanderweele is back with another application within 12 months (no extra fee needed!) that is effectively identical! (see F/TH/09/0515).
.
It would now seem that by making a £10,000 s.106 payment of £10,000 to Kent Highways to help put in a 3m? wide cycle way and footpath along Manston Court Road from Lydden up to Haine Road and with Southern Water now saying its sewerage system will be able to cope after all, two of the objections to the original application have been got round!
.
However, as the picture above (courtesy of Bing) shows quite clearly (the land in question is within red boundary), this is yet another slice of prime agricultural land about to be built on. What might surprise readers is that Mr R Vanderweele, in his present application now describes prime agricultural land as 'vacant' land! Is this a cynical redesignation to fool our Councillors? Surely, whether you till prime agricultural land or not, it still remains prime agricultural land? Here is the rejection case for last year's application in regard to agricultural land:
.
'The proposed development would result in a loss of best and most versatile agricultural land and represent unacceptable development within the countryside that would result in an erosion of the openess of the countryside which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the landscape and the applicant has failed to demonstrate an overriding need for the development that would outweigh the requirement to protect the countryside. the proposal is therefore contrary to policies SS8, EN1, EP9 and EP10 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policies CC1, CC2, CC9 and T3 of the Thanet Local Plan."
.
Signed: B. White, Head of Development Services
.
In light of the above from Mr White, it will be interesting to see what a Planning Officer at TDC advises on the present application to Councillors, as presumably the application will be called in again to be decided by The Planning Committtee members? Is not the land the same land?
.
Another thought about a number of our 'caravan' sites around Thanet comes to mind. It is interesting that Bradgate is already larger than the village of Lydden in terms of occupants. The same goes for Quex Park caravan Site and Two Chimneys, which between them take up more space and have more 'residents' than Acol.
.
What I am also worried about is that it is quite clear that a number of 'residents' at some caravan sites are effectively full time residents with no other permanent residence even if they have to leave their mobile home for a few weeks between Jan and Mar each year. Has TDC effectively been checking that 'residents' do have a permanent residence elsewhere or has this little Planning requirement been over-looked and not enforced? It makes a farce of the 'tourism' claims for employment and income if it should transpire that many mobile homes are actually main residences, doesn't it?