Change of use of land from agricultural to a one family traveller site including stationing of two mobile homes, 2 touring caravans, treatment plant, sheds and associated parking/turning/hardstanding and new access.

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

(Change of use of land from agricultural to a one family traveller site including stationing of two mobile homes, 2 touring caravans, treatment plant, sheds and associated parking/turning/hardstanding 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 in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

He reported that a further representation had been received outlining a number of points in the report that required correction.  He confirmed that the reference to the river leadon at paragraph 1.2 of the report was incorrect and that a stream ran along the western side of the site; that the site was within Wellington Heath Parish not within Ledbury Town and that the land was settled farmland on river terrace not timbered farmland plateau as it was described at paragraph 1.5.  He added that the Wellington Heath Neighbourhood Development Plan was not at Regulation 15 stage and that no material weight could therefore be given to it.  The corrections did not change the assessment of the application and the recommendation.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr F Rozelaar, of Wellington Heath Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr C Davis, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr P Baines spoke in support on behalf of the applicant.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor EPJ Harvey, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        The applicant’s family were Romany Gypsies.  That was not at issue.  Her concerns about the application related to lifestyle, landscape impact and sustainability.

·        Paragraph 6.8 of the report set out the criteria for policy H4 – traveller sites.  She noted that paragraph 6.12 of the report referred to the definition of “gypsies and travellers” for the purposes of planning policy and the report stated that the applicant’s supporting statement “in principle” addressed the points to be considered in determining whether a person was a “gypsy or traveller”.  She asserted that the applicant needed to satisfy the requirements of the policy in practice not merely in principle.  She detailed the family circumstances and questioned the sustainability of the proposed site, having regard to those circumstances, and whether, also given those circumstances, it was credible that the applicant would return to and sustain a travelling lifestyle and the criteria for policy H4 would be met.

·        She questioned whether the proposal complied with the Department for Communities and Local Government guidance issued in May 2008: designing gypsy and traveller sites – good practice guide.

·        The proposed access while better than the existing access would need considerable work to address changes in ground level.

·        There were many pitches available on gypsy sites in the locality.  The Planning Appeal decision dismissing an appeal against the Committee’s refusal of application 141687 - land at Oakley Cottage, mid summer orchard, Ridgehill had confirmed this position.

·        The site was adjacent to the Malvern Hills AONB and in open countryside.

·        Whilst no weight could be given to the Neighbourhood Development Plan it was clear that the site was not appropriate.  The land was a green buffer between Wellington Heath and Ledbury and maintained the village’s separation from the Town.

·        The proposal, at the entrance to Wellington Heath, was detrimental to the setting of the village

In conclusion, she considered that the proposal was contrary to policies LD1, SD1, and SS6 and that the applicants failed to meet the criteria of policy H4.

In the Committee’s discussion several members expressed support for the views advanced by the local ward member with a number highlighting the practicalities of creating the access given the difference in ground levels.

The Lead Development Manager (LDM) commented that the question of whether the applicant had a need for the development was not a material consideration.  The legal adviser added that each application should be considered equally in the same way regardless of who had made the application. There was no requirement to have need for the Council to able to consider the matter.

The LDM added that DCLG publication was guidance.  However, Members had highlighted material reservations about the application, including the amount of fill needed to create the access, and the landscape impact, noting also that the site adjoined the AONB, and identified relevant policies supporting those reservations.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She had no additional comments.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication based on the Committee’s view that the proposal was contrary to policies LD1, SD1, SS6 and that the applicants failed to meet the criteria of policy H4.