Variation of condition 2 of planning consent DCCW2006/3153/F to allow sale of the property (if necessary) to another travelling family.

Ward: Burghill, Holmer & Lyde

Variation of condition 2 of planning consent DCCW2006/3153/F to allow sale of the property (if necessary) to another travelling family.

The following updates were reported:

·          The Environmental Health and Trading Standards Officer had commented as follows:-

‘I would bring to your attention the Herefordshire Council's draft (15/2/07) Assessment of Accommodation Needs of Gypsies & Travellers in Herefordshire which states that the ‘Herefordshire Council officers who work with gypsy and traveller groups report that families often say that ideally, they would like a plot just for themselves, perhaps including members of an extended family’. This ties in with a quotation from the Cambridge Sub Region Traveller Needs Assessment dated May 2006, paragraph 3.3.4 'The best sites were small and long-stay, occupied by related families.’  The Herefordshire report concludes that 'there is evidence of demand for additional sites' and that 'evidence indicates that smaller sites often work better and that a preferred option for some families would be to have an individual site for their family, possibly on their own land, though this may be difficult to achieve in practice.'

·          A letter of objection had been received from Burghill Scout and Guide Group identifying the problems they had encountered since permission was granted and requesting refusal of the latest planning application.

·          The Sub-Committee was advised that no further progress had been made regarding the highway condition attached to the existing permission pending the outcome of this application.  Monitoring of the site undertaken by the Enforcement Officer did not suggest that there had been more caravans on the site than permitted and whilst the storage of some scrap had been noted, this was not considered to be at a level that warranted formal action.

·          In addition, members had received a letter of objection from Mr Green and Ms Jones of The Rustlings, Burghill, and the Principal Planning Officer reported that their concerns were being addressed. 

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

Councillor SJ Robertson, the Local Ward Member, said that there was merit in the Parish Council’s view that the proposal should be amended to make any planning consent also personal to Mr Jones’s daughter.  In addition, she asked that the site entrance be moved further away from the existing scout hut. 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the planning permission already included Mr Jones’s daughter and that the access issues were being addressed through the planning process. 

Councillor PJ Edwards expressed concern that approval of the application would enable the applicant to sell the land and should not be permitted because in his view, the site should return to agricultural use if the applicant no longer required it.  He felt that this was not in keeping with Policy H12, which he said sought to make provision only for travelling families to live on a particular site, and not to make a profit. 

The Legal Practice Manager emphasised that the proposal would not permit any permanent brick structures to be built on the site and that the application would solely enable the sale of the land through the variation of a condition on the earlier planning permission. 

The Development Control Manager reported that the application complied with the Unitary Development Plan and Policy H12. 

Councillor MAF Hubbard said that the application should be approved on the basis that it was compliant with policy. 

A motion to refuse the application was carried, and the following was resolved:

RESOLVED: That

(i)           The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application, subject to the reason 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.      The proposal would not be in keeping with Policy H12 because it would no longer meet the need of the applicant and his dependants and that in this case the use of the land should revert to agriculture if there was no longer an exceptional personal justification of the site.

2.   Fear of crime.

(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, and might not be defensible if challenged, he was minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services]