HOTLY disputed plans to expand a Whitehill mobile home park were finally approved by the district council last week.

In a debate lasting an hour, the north planning committee at first voted against officers' proposals to use the land at the entrance to Red House Mobile Home Park in Hogmoor Road as an extension to the existing mobile home park.

But when a motion proposing refusal was also defeated after councillors were warned that there was no adequate reason to justify turning down the scheme, members then voted for approval on condition that an access road to the site must be completed before any development can commence.

The applicant currently has a former application lodged at appeal - with the Planning Inspectorate - to use the land for the storage of hardcore and the storage and breaking-up of caravans.

Local councillors were concerned that should this be allowed, the site would become visually unappealing.

If the applicant is successful at appeal, Mr Burridge warned, he would have two choices of which proposal to take up.

EHDC lawyer Sonia Sharpe, however, revealed that if that night's application went through, the applicant would withdraw the appeal.

Committee chairman Patrick Burridge began the debate by urging councillors to "stay on the planning issue".

But members were pushing for the the land to be used for recreational use, claiming that the patch already has planning permission for a recreational area and that it was used as such until 2001.

This, according to officer Ian Ellis, was not a matter for planning.

He said of the application: "There has been no breach of planning requirements, but there may be a problem with the site licence."

Councillors were warned that the recreation-use issue should not be considered as it was not a condition of the original planning permission, but a part of the site licence, and should therefore be dealt with by the environmental health team.

Adam Carew blasted the application as "an appalling mish-mash" and argued that the conditions of the proposal were not being enforced.

Recommending that there should definitely be an access to the park along Hogmoor Road, he said that emergency vehicles, such as ambulances and fire engines, would be severely hindered in their attempts to enter through the existing, and increasingly congested, entrance at Cypress Road.

He also expressed dismay at the fact the site could contain more caravans.

"There is no way you're going to get 178 mobile homes on this site," he said.

Calling for vehicular access "for the whole site, for all residents" to be implemented "immediately" as a condition of the application, he poured scorn on the notion that the applicant would be allowed "years" to implement certain beneficial changes the majority of councillors believe should be conditional to permitting the proposal.

"Why are we saying the site owner has five years to comply with this? It should be done immediately."

He also raised concerns that problems with the sewage system had still to be rectified.

Despite commending the planning officers on "a very difficult case", Zoya Faddy was also adamant that the application be refused.

Echoing Mr Carew's worries, she said that the current single access via Cypress Rd is dangerous and that the previous access off Hogmoor Rd should be re-opened.

She also argued that the loss of a valuable recreation area would be unacceptable and detrimental to the environment.

Mr Ellis argued against all these reasons, pointing out that the Highways Authority had no objection to access via Hogmoor Road, that the applicant was entitled to site recreation facilities anywhere on the site, and that no argument could be made about aggressive extending of the caravan site because it was surrounded by houses.

Mrs Faddy recommended a refusal of the plans and asked that the applicant come back with a more comprehensive approach to the project.

A first vote for the officer's recommendation for permission was rejected 11 to seven against, whereupon Don Mayes suggested imposing the condition that an access along Hogmoor Road be made available to the site before development began.

In tune with her colleague's concern, Helen Walters suggested that wording of the condition specifying when details of the recreation area should be submitted to the Planning Authority should be changed from"before the use" of the site commences, to "before the development" of the site commences.

While Geoffrey Whittle felt "emotion had overtaken practicality" in determining the application, Ferris Cowper said he was "seething" over the perceived lack of democracy that had marked the proceedings.

He argued that planners should be permitted to consider other aspects of the issue, such as the recreational area, which had an impact on the lives of people living on the site.

He recommended the application be refused on grounds of over-development, which, he said, would put a strain on local infrastructure.

Mrs Faddy's proposal for refusal was defeated by 13 votes to four and after more heated debate, it was agreed that the councillors should go for permission with a condition attached. This vote was unanimous, with the exception of Mrs Faddy who abstained.