Retrospective application for change of use from agricultural to a two family traveller site including siting of two mobile homes and a touring caravan for Mr. James Smith and Mr. Jimmy Smith and their respective families.

Retrospective application for change of use from agricultural to a two family traveller site including siting of two mobile homes and a touring caravan for Mr. James Smith and Mr. Jimmy Smith and their respective families.

The following update was reported:

§         Additional comments had been received from the Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager confirming the Gypsy status of the applicants and that they had family and work connections in Herefordshire.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Miss Reynolds spoke on behalf of Burghill Parish Council, Mr. Von Anrep spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Baines spoke in support of the application.

Councillor SJ Robertson, the Local Ward Member, made a number of comments on the application, including:

·          The need for appropriate small sites was recognised, particularly in view of ODPM Circular 01/2006 – Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites, but the impact on the local community had to be considered also.

·          The need for fairness and consistency was noted and attention was drawn to the fact that an application to vary condition no. 2 of planning consent DCCW2006/3153/F to allow sale of the property (if necessary) to another travelling family had been refused in December 2007 [DCCW2007/2057/F refers].

·          Local residents had expressed concerns about conditions on previous planning permissions not being complied with, felt that the development was visually obtrusive and that the land should revert to agricultural use.

·          Based on the representations received and local knowledge, Councillor Robertson moved that planning permission be refused as it would have a detrimental impact on the amenities, settings and surroundings of the locality, particularly given the close proximity to the Scout Hut.  She also considered that it would have a detrimental impact on highway safety, especially if the site was used for mixed residential and business uses which could increase vehicle movements on a stretch of road that already had problems with speeding traffic.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that issues relating to the translocation of the hedge contributed to delays in the moving of the 30mph speed limit and construction of the new access.  He also outlined the policy considerations regarding mixed planning use.

Councillor ACR Chappell noted the concerns of residents about retrospective planning applications, felt that the plans and photographs could have been better, and was disappointed by some of the comments in a letter from the Parish Council to Sub-Committee members.

Councillor GFM Dawe commented on the need for objectivity, noted that none of the trees that had been removed were protected, and reminded the Sub-Committee that the applicants were not responsible for any of the issues arising from the previous occupation of the site.

Councillor PJ Edwards noted that the authority had a good record of supporting traveller families throughout the county but he felt unable to support this proposal.  He also noted that the site had a complicated planning history and had been acquired days after the refusal of the application to vary a condition to allow the sale of the property to another travelling family.

Councillor RI Matthews said that Burghill Parish Council had supported travellers elsewhere in the parish but felt that this site was too close to the Scout Hut and residential properties.  He also felt that activities on the site could have an impact on the adjoining copse.  He concurred with the Local Ward Member that the development would have a detrimental impact on the area and on highway safety.

In response to a question from Councillor AJM Blackshaw, the Principal Planning Officer reported that the Council’s Environmental Health and Trading Standards Officer had confirmed that there was a lack of availability of authorised pitches and was a significant material consideration.

Councillor MAF Hubbard commented on the planning history and questioned the relevance of land ownership issues.  He recognised the concerns of the Local Ward Member but noted the difficulties faced by Gypsies and Travellers and felt that this development was acceptable having regard to the policy considerations detailed in the report.

In response to comments and questions, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

§          It was understood that the Scout Hut was a well-used facility by local community groups.

§          A study in 2006 had revealed that 22 pitches were required in Herefordshire and another study in 2007 had provided evidence of demand for additional sites.

§          The proposal met the criteria of Policy H12 as an exception site as it was adjacent to an identified main village, was small in scale, was well screened and there were adequate levels of amenity and play space for children within the site.

§          Although some trees had been removed, no permission was required and there was still substantial tree coverage.

The Central Team Leader added that planning permission could be granted on a personal basis to the applicants to enable the authority to retain effective control of the site.

In response to further comments about the previously refused application and land ownership issues, the Principal Planning Officer explained the reasons for refusal in relation to planning application DCCW2007/2057/F and re-iterated that this proposal was considered compliant with local and national policies.  The Legal Practice Manager commented on typical conveyancing practice and advised that, through searches, the status of the land would have been abundantly clear to a prudent solicitor acting on behalf of the applicants.

RESOLVED:

That  

(i)      The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reasons for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the applications to the Planning Committee:

1.      Detrimental impact on the amenities, settings and surroundings of the locality.

2.      Detrimental impact on highway safety.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:

Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that, as the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services; it was considered that there were crucial policy issues at stake and the Sub-Committee’s view might not be defensible if challenged.]