DEVELOPMENT of the Whitewell Caravan Park will take place following a debate over the signage of the park at a meeting on Wednesday (Apr 15).

Cllr Michael Williams said the current signs were unpleasant and added that a condition to amend the signs should be included as part of a number of conditions on the application.

Cllr Bob Kilmister said that he felt uneasy about imposing the condition and when it was put to a vote, members did not support the addition of a signage condition.

The National Park’s Development Management Committee considered plans for the Caravan Park in Penally, Tenby, where the applicant has applied to change the use of one his fields to provide 17 static pitches, 16 touring pitches and ten tent pitches to replace the existing provision.

There have been problems with the site in the past as campers have been allowed to camp on a field adjacent to the proposed site and an enforcement notice had been issued in relation to this matter.

The agent also told his client that this was not acceptable and told the committee that the application was made to rectify the problems.

A neighbour to the site, Mr Joseph, urged the committee to accept the plans saying that the development would solve the issues that neighbours had.

He said: “Both myself and my family have experienced disruption and a loss of amenity due to unlicensed camping taking place in the field opposite our property. When we brought the property we expected some disruption from neighbours and the manner in which the applicant has sought to increase the intensity of the business through unauthorised development over six years has created an imbalanced situation which has adversely affected us. If approved, this application will hopefully remedy these issues. We’re surrounded by land owned by the park and we have a tolerable level of disruption from the existing developments. This proposal offers a balance in that it allows the business to grow in a way that preserves the amenity for our household and will actually enhance the appearance of the area. Overall we support the application and it will solve our issues as neighbours.”

Agent Ken Morgan said: “I have advised my client very early that he had to address these issues concerning neighbours. He is trying to improve his park substantially in both the buildings and by the provision of more camping facilities. The standards of caravans that are now made in this country are far superior to the original ones. This gives the holiday park improved environmental aspects which is enjoyable for the tourists in the park as well as the wider environment. More importantly we can control what used to happen in the front two fields. I have said to my client no caravans in the left hand field. What we have come up with is a good compromise.”

Tenby Councillor Michael Williams said: “Departures do concern me but there are real planning gains to be made with this application. The key here is landscaping because this is critical to the success of this development. I have concerns about road signage and particularly in my view, it looks unpleasant. It has to be particularly well designed to suit the landscaping. I think it is very important that the conditions are complied with and they are enforced. The front two fields, this must never be allowed to happen again. I would like to complement the officer and architect for coming to an agreement on this site which will sort out some of the problems and it shows what can be achieved when architects and officers meet before and come to an agreement.”

Cllr Williams moved approval and also added that the signage should be looked at as part of the conditions.

Cllr Bob Kilmister disagreed saying: “I am really uneasy about that. I don’t think it’s a material part of this planning consideration and I think we are overstepping the mark.”

Cllr Tony Wilcox added: “The original sign has been up for some time and it has not attracted any complaints until today so it seems a bit harsh.”

The plans with Cllr Williams’ added condition of signage were then voted on but it was defeated by nine votes to six. The original recommendation was then put to the vote and that was approved unanimously.