Ward: Hampton Court

The senior Planning Officer presented the report of the Head of Planning and Transportation regarding a planning application for the change of use of agricultural land to a traveller site for one family.  The development Control Manager said that the application had been referred to the Committee because the Northern Area Planning Committee was mindful to refuse it contrary to the Council’s planning policies and Officer advice.  The Sub-Committee had concerns about the suitability of the site, its location and the eligibility of the applicant to meet traveller status.  The Sub Committee had also questioned the need for the site because there were vacant pitches on authorised Council sites and the applicant has previously confirmed (in 2006) that there was no need to reside on the site. As such, for these reasons the proposal was in conflict with Policy E15 – (Protection of Green Field Land) of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.  The Sub-Committee was advised that the application needed to be considered under Policy H12 (Gypsies and other Travellers) of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Councillor Brown spoke against the application on behalf of Humber, Stoke Prior & Ford Group Parish Council; Mr Hubbard spoke in objection to the application and Mr Baines spoke in support.

The Development Control Manager said that together with Policy H7, the circumstances, requirements and location regarding the application enabled it to be acceptable.  Councillor KG Grumbley, the Local Ward Member, was of the view that the development was unauthorised and said that it was also the second retrospective application by the occupants.  He said that he could not support the development as he felt there was insufficient need for it. He drew attention to the fact that the existing travellers’ pitches provided in the County by the Council were under-occupied and he said that he was not satisfied that the occupants of the site fulfilled the criteria for travellers.  He therefore proposed that planning permission should be refused as he regarded it as an unnecessary development on green field land; there was no need; it was contrary to ODPM Circular 1/2006; there was more on the site than covered by the application; and that the proposal was contrary to sustainability requirements.

Councillor B Hunt was of the view that no further evidence had been offered which would support the application since it went to the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee. In addition to the points raised by Councillor Grumbley, he was concerned at the lack of conditions in the report in respect of water supply and sewage disposal.  Concerns were also raised about the erosion of the bridleway due to the applicant gaining vehicular access over it to the site; the uses that the land may be put to and why an exception should be made for the benefit of travellers which did not apply to others.  The Senior Planning Officer said that visits to the site by the Officers had not revealed any uses of it other than agriculture and that the bridleway was not a planning issue  The Head of Planning and transportation referred to the planning policies that had already been set out under which the application could be granted.  He reiterated that these were designed to specifically meet the requirements of travellers and gypsies and that the Officers were satisfied that the supporting documents provided by the applicant had confirmed that the applicant had met all the required criteria. He added that the application site also met the requirements for becoming a travellers’ site because it was close enough to relevant amenities.  He also did not feel that ODPM Circular 1/206 was relevant to the application.  The site was relatively small and met the criteria for scale and setting and was well screen and included amenity, work and storage.

The Interim head of Legal and Democratic advised that the Officers had provided a number of grounds and tests for the application to be approved and that the Committee needed to carefully weigh the material planning considerations that needed to be taken into account. Having carefully considered all the facts in respect of the application, the Committee noted the planning policy issues involved but had reservations about a number of matters of concern relating to the application including the number of people occupying the site, access, water supply, sewerage arrangements and overall condition.

RESOLVED

that the application be refused for the following reasons:

(i)                 there is no need for this site:

(a)   the Council has 9 other vacant sites in the County

(b)   the applicant stated that he had no need to further develop the site, particularly for residential use as he was happy with operating it from where he then lived, therefore this is unnecessary development of greenfield land contrary to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policy E15;

(ii)               the application is contrary to ODPM Circular 1/2006 which states that mixed uses are not permitted on exeption sites;

(iii)             the application is invalid as there are or have been more than the applicant, his partner and three children living on the site;

(iv)             permanent permission is contrary to planning policies H11 and H13 in respect of environmental and sustainability aspects; and

(v)               sub-standard amenity levels