Change of use of land from agricultural to family travellers site, plus retrospective application for construction of barn and new access.

Change of use of land from agricultural to family travellers site, plus retrospective application for construction of barn and new access.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Field spoke on behalf of Bishop Frome Parish Council, Mr. Mann spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Baines spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PM Morgan, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         There were genuine local concerns about the proposal which needed to be taken seriously and in the context of the Unitary Development Plan policies.

·         Referring to policies S1 (Sustainable Development), DR1 (Design) and LA2 (Landscape Character and Area Least Resilient to Change), concerns were expressed about the sustainability of the proposal and its impact upon the appearance and distinctive character of the area.

·         Local residents disputed the comment of the Conservation Manager that ‘…there were limited views into the site from public vantage points…’ and they did not consider that the proposal would safeguard landscape quality and visual amenity.  It was questioned whether the proposed landscaping scheme would adequately screen the structures, particularly in winter.  Landscape quality was described as the county’s most valuable asset and high standards of sustainability and design should be required.

·         Referring to policies H7 (Housing in the Countryside Outside Settlements) and H12 (Gypsy and Other Travellers), Councillor Morgan noted the need for sites to be in sustainable locations, with access to services and facilities.  It was not considered that a case had been made for an exception site in this open countryside location.  She felt that it was likely that the occupants would need to use vehicles given the distance to Bishops Frome and lack of footpaths.

·         Councillor Morgan questioned the comment in the report that ‘Compared to Bosbury, the applicants’ current residence, Bishops Frome offers more services, facilities and is a more sustainable location to be based’.  She compared the two locations and was of the opinion that Bosbury met better the infrastructure considerations identified in Circular 1/2006 (Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites).

·         Councillor Morgan disagreed with the comment in the report that ‘The agricultural building is considered of a size and scale commensurate with the landholding and agricultural activities taking place’ and felt that the dimensions of the barn could conflict with policy E13 (Agricultural and Forestry Development).  It was noted that Circular 1/2006 suggested that consideration be given to separate sites for residential and for business purposes if a mixed site was not practicable.

·         Councillor Morgan felt that the application failed on a number of fronts and was contrary to adopted planning policies, particularly S1, LA2, H12 and E13.

Councillor JD Woodward noted that the site was outside the village settlement boundary and, referring to business case requirements in respect of live/work units, did not consider that the case had been made for this development.  She noted problems with affordability but said that the acquisition of land did not necessarily mean that planning permission would follow.  The sustainability of the agricultural enterprise, particularly if the occupants were employed elsewhere, was questioned.  The ability of the authority to control the occupation of the site was also questioned.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that the proposal had been designed as a small-scale family site and drew attention to recommended condition 16 which set out the restrictions on occupation.  He also advised that Bishops Frome was a main village and, as such, was considered a sustainable location.

Councillor B Hunt made a number of comments, including:

• There were difficulties with this type of application and strong reservations were expressed about national guidance in this area.
• The relevant departments should resolve any problems experienced on Council owned sites.
• It was noted that the Parish Council, local residents and the CPRE had raised numerous objections to the proposal.
• There was concern about the lack of information about access to utility services for the development.
• It was questioned whether the controls to limit the development to two caravans and prevent further expansion were adequate or enforceable. 
• Concern was expressed about the comment in the report that ‘…as with choice based letting in respect of social housing, someone should not be forced to live somewhere because there are vacancies’ given that the high levels of demand for any form of social housing in the county.
• He questioned the employment opportunities available in the immediate vicinity of the site and disagreed that public transport provided regular access between Bishops Frome and the market towns.
• He supported the views of the local ward member that Bosbury was a more sustainable location, despite the main village designation of Bishops Frome, and that the agricultural building was not commensurate with the landholding.
• He felt that the application should be refused as being contrary to policies S1, LA2, H12 and H13.

The Head of Planning and Transportation advised that the committee needed to give appropriate weight to national guidance and local planning policies which gave a degree of priority to traveller sites.  It was for the committee to conclude whether all the other material planning considerations outweighed the policy considerations.  He also emphasised the need to focus on this particular application.

Councillor ACR Chappell felt that there was a need to apologise to the applicants for any perceived prejudice in the comments of others.  Referring to an example in his own ward, he noted that Council owned sites could be problematic and recognised the applicant’s desire to live in the traditional manner.  In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that any covenants on the land were civil and not planning matters and said that the fact that the applicant lived on a Council owned site inferred that the status requirements had been met.  Councillor Chappell noted that there was a long history of travellers in Herefordshire, particularly associated with agricultural activities.  He said that, as in all communities, there was only a small minority of people that behaved anti-socially and there was no reason to believe that this site would result in any problems.  Therefore, he supported the application.

Councillor DW Greenow noted the difficulties associated with identifying suitable pitches in rural locations to enable travellers to live in a traditional manner.  He added that, whether close to a village or more remote, travellers often ran up against the general problem of prejudice against such developments.  Although he supported the principle of the application and felt that this was a suitable site, he did consider that there needed to be proper justification for the size of agricultural building and for appropriate conditions to control its use.

In response to questions, the Head of Planning and Transportation outlined national guidance and criteria considerations and re-iterated that it was for the committee to make a judgement about the acceptability of the application given the material planning considerations.

Councillor PGH Cutter said that the committee could only consider the planning issues relevant to the determination of this application.  Referring to comments about the limited amenities in the village, he noted that the occupants of dwellings in the locality managed despite the issues identified.  He commented on the importance and relevance of the ‘No Prejudice in HEREfordshire’ campaign.  He also commented that, as with any development, the authority expected developers to comply with the conditions on any planning permission granted.

Councillor B Hunt re-iterated his view that the application should be refused.

The Locum Lawyer explained the relevance of the policy considerations and commented on the authority’s obligations under the Race Relations Act.  In response to a comment by Councillor B Hunt, the Locum Lawyer said that there was a duty on the authority to promote good race relations.

Councillor JE Pemberton said that there was a need to respect lifestyle choices and noted that times change for all communities.

Councillor Morgan was given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.  She commented that Bishops Frome had been a significant hop growing area historically and had a long tradition of good relations with travellers.   She emphasised that the concerns of local residents related to the planning policies, including S1, DR1, DR2, H13, LA2 and E13.  Given the concerns about sustainability, landscape impact and access to services and facilities, Councillor Morgan did not consider that the case for an exception site in this location had been made.

A motion to approve the application failed.  Attention was drawn to section 4.8.10.2 of the Council’s Constitution regarding the Further Information Report process.  The Locum Lawyer, representing the Monitoring Officer, said that the policy considerations and recent circulars compelled closer examination and the Head of Planning and Transportation said that the detailed wording of potential reasons for refusal needed to be assessed.  Consequently, a Further Information Report would be required and the determination of the application would have to be deferred until the next meeting of the Planning Committee.

RESOLVED:  

That consideration of planning application DMNE/092262/F be deferred for a Further Information Report.