Baltic Wharf Campsite Update

The appeal is by the CAMC so i assume the planning application was turned down.  Many of the objections seem to be based on the site spoiling the view from the bridge etc. and the risk of flooding.  There are many in support of it  particularly those in the tourist trade.  The Clubs response is also good.   Fingers crossed it will be passed.

I did not get the impression the C&MC had appealed. I am no expert on planning jargon but I thought it was the S of S wanting to see all the documentation regarding the propsal and in addition further clarification to tabled questions. He has appointed an inspector to lead the July enquiry and advise with a target decision sceduled for October 2021.

I think everybody who made representation to the Bristol Council planning officer will get an email asking if they want to make further representation.

No doubt all this will incur further costs to the Club.

peedee

See further back in the thread Peedee, it's with the Secretary of State for the appeal process. If a plan has been rejected the State can review and make a decision if it can't be resolved locally.

It wasn't reject by Bristol Council but was sent to the S of S for a final decision because of Flood plain and Green belt issues which from what I understood the council could make a decisson on. They could only approve the plan in principle which was what they did. If they had chosen to reject it, it would not have gone to the S of S Did the S of S reject the original application?

peedee

Rejected plans can be forwarded to the Secretary of State for appeal but in this case I'm not the expert! 

This from the gov.uk:

The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has the power to take over (‘call in’) planning applications rather than letting the local authority decide. The secretary of state will normally only do this if the application conflicts with national policy in important ways, or is nationally significant.

He or she has to take published government policy into account when deciding whether or not to call in a planning application, and when making the decision. If the secretary of state decides to call in a planning application, an inspector is appointed to carry out an inquiry into the proposal. The secretary of state has to take the inspector’s findings into account when making the decision.

He or she has particularly request information on:

a)The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies for meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change (NPPF Chapter 14);

b)The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies for protecting Green Belt land (NPPF Chapter 13);

c)The extentto which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies for conserving and enhancing the historic environment (NPPF Chapter 16)

;d)The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the development plan for the area; and

e)any other matters the Inspector considers relevant.

peedee

It wasn't reject by Bristol Council but was sent to the S of S for a final decision because of Flood plain and Green belt issues which from what I understood the council could make a decisson on.

Sorry, in my post above this of course should have read the council couldn't make a decission.

peedee

Thank you for your comments and support. We also wanted to give you an update from the Club. Although the planning application was approved by Bristol City Council's Planning Committee, the application has been called in for decision by the Secretary of State by way of a Public Inquiry. The Inquiry will start on 20th July and we will update you when we have further news and information.

In the meantime, whilst we have had notice to vacate Baltic Wharf, we are exploring the possibility to try and extend our occupation on this site due to delays in the Council's plans to redevelop the site. Again we will keep you updated on any developments with this. 

It is difficult to believe an application for what is basically a change of use is encountering so much scrutiny.

peedee

Lockdown boredom led me to look at the reasons and I would imagine the flood zone and the Ashton Court conservation area are sticking points.

It is indeed a change of use but horses in a paddock and related accomodation isn't on the scale of a busy caravan site where proposals to fell trees and add infrastructure is intended.

Anyway I wonder if CAMC will get a longer stay at Baltic Wharf?  Thanks Rowena for the update.