Change of use of land from agriculture to a one family traveller site, with stationing of one mobile home, one touring caravan, parking and turning area, re-designed access and septic tank.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Change of use of land from agriculture to a one family traveller site, with stationing of one mobile home, one touring caravan, parking and turning area, re-designed access and septic tank.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs K Greenow Clerk to Lower Bulllingham Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs S Glover, a resident, spoke in objection. 

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor P Sinclair-Knipe spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He acknowledged that applications of this type were often contentious.  However, there was a distinction to be drawn between a recent application at Bosbury determined by the Committee (application P141538 – Bosbury – 8 October 2014) which the Committee had approved.  In contrast to that application, the applicant had no local connection.  In addition that application had had only 4 letters of objection. In this case there were 54 letters of objection – virtually the entire local community.

·         The Parish Council and the objector who had spoken at the meeting had asserted that the report contained a flawed interpretation of the legislation and he supported that view.

·         An application for a bungalow on that site by the former owner of the land had been refused.

·         He did not support the application.

In discussion the following principal points were made on the application:

·         Reference was made to the application at Bosbury determined by the Committee on 8 October 2014 (application P141538) which the Committee had approved.  It was suggested that in contrast to that application there was no local connection with the area and no justifiable need.  In addition the site was not in a sustainable location there being no local facilities, no employment opportunities and an infrequent bus service.  The report stated that the lane to the site “is a rather hostile environment for pedestrians”.  Account should be taken of a recent appeal against refusal of permission for a dwelling in the locality near to the application site which had been rejected. 

·         Account needed to be taken of the view of the local community and the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

·         In response to a comment that there were two authorised travellers’ sites in the vicinity the Head of Development Management and Environmental Health commented that there were rarely vacancies at the Watery Lane site and occasionally 1-2 pitches were vacant at the Grafton site.  However, the issue was that the County as a whole had a shortfall of gypsy/traveller sites.

·         The name of the site’s location, Ridge Hill, and of a neighbouring property, Three Counties View, gave an indication as to the nature of the site.  The development would be visible and have a negative impact on neighbours and be dominant in the landscape.  It would have an adverse effect on the countryside.

·         The proposal to have closed board fencing would be out of keeping with the area.

·         It was suggested that the site was not suitable being in an isolated location and difficult to access. 

·         Travelling families were welcome and such sites should be accommodated where possible.  However, there was a strong belief that this would not be a sustainable location and that there was insufficient access to local facilities.

The Development Manager commented that the site was sustainable. Legislation provided that such applications should be treated differently, and national policy was that account had to be taken of the absence of a five-year supply of deliverable gypsy/traveller sites.  He cautioned that if permission were refused, in his view, taking into account previous appeal decisions, the Council would lose an appeal.

The Planning Lawyer supported the comments of the Development Manager.  She referred to paragraphs 6.3 of the report onwards highlighting paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8. She advised that a local connection should not be a focal point in the decision. She emphasised that reasons for refusal based on policy would be required.  In her view the impact on the setting would be very difficult to argue as a ground for refusal and the view that the site was isolated and not sustainable would be difficult to support.  A shortfall in the provision of traveller sites would be highlighted at appeal.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He considered that the possibility of an appeal was not a good ground for supporting the application and the view of the local Community should prevail.

The following grounds for refusal were advanced:  H7, H12, S1, DR2, DR3, LA2 and Paragraph 55 of the NPPF and sections 4 and 11 were also relevant.Particular note was made of the effect on setting, and the unsustainable location, including the isolation of the site, the lack of amenities and the lack of transport links.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused on the grounds set out below and officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication: H7 – Housing in the Countryside outside settlements, H12 – Gypsies and other travellers, S1 – Sustainable development, DR2 – Land use and activity, DR3 - Movement, LA2 – Landscape Character and Areas Least resilient to change and Paragraph 55 of the NPPF and sections 4 and 11.

Informative

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations. However, due to the harms which have been clearly identified within the reasons for the refusal and which are so fundamental to the proposal it is not possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward, and approval has not been possible in this instance.