Retrospective re-application for change of use of land from agricultural to one family travellers site including stationing of one caravan, shed and ancillary structure.

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 Bailey, a resident of Wigmore, spoke in objection to the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s constitution, Councillor LO Barnett, the local ward member, asked questions and commented on a number of issues, including:

• How many ancillary units were proposed on the site?
• Would all other units be removed?
• How large was the whole field?
• Local people would not be permitted to develop on the site.
• Object to the injustice of the precedent set for traveller applications.
• Affordable housing would not be permitted on the site
• Urge the Committee to refuse the application.

In response to a number of questions raised by the local ward member, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the planning permission was for one caravan, one shed, and one toilet building and that all other units would be removed from the site. He added that there was no restriction on the number of motor vehicles permitted. In response to a question regarding the plot size, he confirmed that the site was 0.2 hectares in total. Finally he advised members that the Council was required to find an additional 83 traveller pitches by 2012.

A member of the Committee opened the debate in support of the application. It was noted that the applicant may have ceased travelling but was still considered a traveller in planning law. Reference was made to the site and the natural screening provided from the public highway. A 99 signature petition was noted and the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that all signatures were from residents of Wigmore.

Other members noted the comments but felt that they could not support the application. Concerns were noted in respect of any anti social behaviour taking place on the site as referred to in the representation submitted by Wigmore Parish Council. Members also noted that the applicant had recently married and clarification was sought as to whether she intended to reside at the home her husband currently resided. Finally members expressed concerns regarding the impact of the application on the visual amenity of the area.

In response to questions, the Head of Development Control 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.

The Head of Development Control 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.

The Locum Lawyer explained the relevance of the policy considerations and commented on the authority’s obligations under the Race Relations and Equality Acts.

In response to a question regarding the appeal information listed in the report the Senior   Planning Officer confirmed that although there had been no appeals in respect of this area of the site there had been appeals on other areas of the plot and therefore the appeal information was relevant.

Councillor Barnett was given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with the Council’s constitution. She reiterated her comments in objection to the application and thanked the Committee for their comments.

RESOLVED

THAT planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.                  The proposal fails to protect the landscape by its very presence and is visually damaging because of its prominence in the countryside. The proposal fails to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty.  Despite the existing and/or potential screening, the development site will have a continued detrimental impact upon the character and visual amenity of the landscape.  As such the proposal is contrary to Planning Policy Statement 7 and the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan policies H12 and LA2.

[Councillors ACR Chappell and GFM Dawe wished it be noted that they voted in support of the application]