Agenda item

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated to members.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Gavin Booth as District Councillor.

Councillor Booth stated that he spoke to Officers in February and was advised that further reports had been requested regarding provision of traveller pitches and flood risk. He added that looking at the online file these do not appear to have materialised for public viewing and therefore, the justification Officers have given to approve this site after it has been refused twice in the last 3 years, demonstrates a lack of consistency in approach.  He also requested that he was kept informed of progress on the application, sadly this did not happen. 

He stated that the policies in place since the last 2 previous refusals have not changed and he fails to understand why a third application was allowed. He added that it appears to be based on an appeal elsewhere in the District, however, planning appeals do not set precedent as in case law, instead are informative in decision making and different sites will have their own individual characteristics.

Councillor Booth expressed the view that, in his opinion, the appeal site used to bring this third application is completely different in nature to the site in Sealey’s Lane, which is in the open countryside

He stated that the officer report appears to dismiss the previous reasons for refusal even though they have not changed over the last 3 years and in his opinion the report does not make it clear enough that the site has been developed and occupied since October 2019, even though it was refused twice.

Councillor Booth stated that with regard to flood risk, the last correspondence on file from the Environment Agency is dated 3 January 2020 and objects to the proposal.  He questioned why Officers are putting such weight on the agent’s report, when in the past the Environment Agency report would determine the nature of flood risk and is also contrary to previous decisions made regarding caravans and flood risk, given their vulnerable nature.

Councillor Booth expressed the view that with regard to open countryside, it appeared that Officers have now changed their mind on why this is not a consideration citing the nursery at the end of Sealey’s lane as justification. He added that the T junction with Harrold’s Bank has been developed for a considerable number of years with farm buildings, a nursery and property, situated some distance from this proposed development and the site in question is quite visible in the open countryside and different in nature to the site referred to in the appeal at Bevis Lane. 

Councillor Booth expressed the opinion that with regard to traveller status there is no public report on file regarding the provision of traveller sites across the District, however previously it was determined there were sufficient at this time, with some provision needed in the future.  The Parish Council has pointed out that spare capacity exists at Turf Fen site in Murrow; it appears only 2 of the 6 plots are currently occupied there.  He added that the officer report also indicates that traveller status can only be justified for one occupant, so why would they support the second plot, which goes against policy?

Councillor Booth added that since the occupation of the site in October he has received several complaints regarding loss of amenity due to the constant generator noise and light pollution in the open countryside. He stated that the Parish Council strongly objected to the planning application for the change of use, however the report before committee does not address the points raised and does not consider all the policy reasons the Parish Council objected to this and previous applications.

Councillor Booth made reference to various elements of the National Planning Policy Framework and also the Council’s Local Plan which the Parish Council had highlighted.

 Members received a presentation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Dr Sheila Child in objection to the application.

Dr Child outlined to the committee the previous planning application references and letters of objection. She explained that she wrote to the Planning committee on 30th December 2019 to object to this latest application and that despite three previous refusal decisions, the Planning Officer's recommendation is to grant this application.  Dr Child stated that she objects most strongly to that recommendation and she added that in her opinion she believes that the grounds for refusing permission for the previous applications are still very valid and this new application does not address, or even attempt to address, the reasons for the original rejection decisions.

Dr Child expressed the view that contraventions of local planning and policy regulations appear to still apply, as does the unsuitability of the site for dwellings of any nature, evidenced by the site having already having been turned down for social housing development. Dr Child stated that the Councils Enforcement Team must be aware, that the applicants have continued to build and construct elements of this application. Dr Child stated that a number of youths are now living in the caravans and there is a large generator which has been installed and is working day and night.  She stated that the applicants continue to disregard the law and do whatever they want.

Dr Child summarised the main points that she asked the Planning Committee to consider.

1) Sealeys Lane is a very narrow thoroughfare which is not even wide enough for two cars and reverts to single car width at exactly the point where this proposed development is located, which in addition, is a blind comer.

2) The recent extension of the footpath at the Main Road end of Sealeys Lane has further narrowed that section of the Lane. Lorries, trucks and vans frequently have to mount both the pavement and/or the edges of  her property to make their way through. It is not suitable for an increased traffic load and should be subject to a weight limit.

3) There is no street lighting at all at the Harold's Bank end of Sealeys Lane. This means that the travellers will erect high intensity lighting to light their site - just as they have done at the Turf Fen site. Blinding the eyes of motorists in this way is really not a responsible practice and especially not at an already dangerous junction.

4) This plot of land was previously put forward as an exception site for affordable housing. This was rejected, not only on some of the grounds stated above but for reasons of distance from the shops, school and other essential services. Nothing has changed which could possibly make this application now worthy of consideration

5) Evidence from the Turf Fen site, which we can all see for ourselves, suggests that travellers will quickly tum the surrounding area into a scrap metal heap or a rubbish tip. Litter and other unwanted, unsavoury items are left on verges and will find their way into the Lane.

Dr Child concluded by stating that she does not necessarily disagree with traveller sites, provided they are in the right place and well away from residential areas. She added that, in accordance with local plans, there is already sufficient provision for traveller sites within the area and stated that there is no need for any more and certainly not on this site.  She expressed the opinion that the very nature of being a genuine gypsy or traveller is to be free to move on as and when the mood takes you and questioned that should the applicants decide to move on, what and who will replace them.  Dr Child asked the committee to refuse the application and for urgent and legal action to remove these unauthorised residents and their buildings from land they are not entitled to use.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows;

·         Councillor Hay asked officers to clarify whether there are any vacancies for traveller pitches over the area and whether there is a waiting list for any vacant pitches? David Rowen stated that advice has been sought from the Councils Traveller and Diversity Manager who has stated that there are no habitable pitches at the moment at and there is a waiting list for pitches at Council traveller’s sites.

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion that he is in agreement with a great deal of what Councillor Booth and Dr Child have presented. He asked officers to clarify what the difference is between the application before members today and the previous applications that were refused? David Rowen stated the fundamental difference is not to do with the application site or the applications themselves, it is more to do with that there have been several appeal decisions received within the last 6 to 12 months.In particular the appeal decision with the Bevis Lane application which has various similarities to this site, with regard to flood risk, location and settlements in the countryside, which have changed officers thinking and approach on the way they look at this type of application based on the appeal decisions made by Inspectors.

·         Councillor Benney asked for confirmation on how recent the figures are from the Traveller and Diversity Manager with regard to the waiting lists for traveller pitches, as he would expect them to be fluid? David Rowen stated that the information obtained is from within the last couple of weeks which sets out there are no habitable Council pitches available at present. The details of the waiting lists were not able to be provided.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he cannot understand why another traveller site a few miles away should deter from the application before members today. Each application should be considered on its own merits. David Rowen stated that he concurs with Councillor Murphy and agrees all applications should be taken on their own merits, appeal decisions do form part of officers considerations especially when there is an appeal decision which includes fundamental principles on how to approach a particular type of an application. He added that the Bevis Lane application is similar to the application before members today, which would give an indication on how an inspector would perhaps determine an appeal should the application be refused.

·         Councillor Hay stated that the previous applications which are no different to the one before the committee today had numerous reasons for objection. She added that she appreciates that there may be the need for additional traveller sites, but that does not mean that they should be given preferential treatment when granting planning permission. If the proposal was for a dwelling on that site, then in her opinion, the recommendation would be to refuse permission.

·         Councillor Meekins expressed the view that the application has been refused before and the occupants on the site have already started work on the site, and if the application is approved then the Council would be guilty of giving into non-compliance by the occupants of the site.

·         Councillor Benney stated that if the application was for a house it would be refused, it is in flood zone 3 and there is a distance of 450 metres which is unlit linking the site to Parson Drove. He stated there is no ecology report as the site had been cleared before the ecology report could take place. He expressed the view that works have taken place with total disregard for planning. He expressed the opinion, that travellers do have special status in law, and if this application is not passed and goes to appeal, then the Council would lose meaning that the Council would incur costs.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he shares many of the concerns raised by other members, but having sat as an as an observer at a recent planning appeal, in his opinion the committee would be foolish to go against the officers recommendation today.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with comments that other members have made. The Council does not have an adequate supply of traveller pitches and if the application went to appeal it would cost the authority dearly.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that there is also a human element to be considered and travellers do need somewhere to live, however his decision will be made on policy.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that travellers are part of our community, but the way travellers live and work has changed significantly over the years.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Benney and decided that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.