Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Booth, a District Councillor. Councillor Booth stated that he asked for this application to go before committee because this is an existing site that has been in use for over 30 years now and he feels that the replacement dwelling would be an improvement in planning terms to what is there.  He made the point that the applicant has had some integrity issues with the existing property on site and wants to improve the situation.

Councillor Booth explained that he was involved with the previous application on the neighbouring site, which is part of the extended family, and the issues they have in trying to get mobile homes with the safe refuge has been substantial.  He does not feel that this site would ever go back to open countryside, it has a long history of planning and although it is classed as an ‘elsewhere’ location in the Local Plan, in his view, this is one of the older settlement areas in Wisbech St Mary as 100 yards down the road you have Ingham Hall, which is one of the oldest buildings in the Wisbech St Mary parish so to say it is ‘elsewhere’ is disingenuous to the history of Wisbech St Mary.

Councillor Booth pointed out that there is support from Wisbech Town Council and statutory consultees and, in his opinion, it is just one of the technicalities from planning guidance that is saying it should not be supported but he feels it should be a planning gain that should be supported.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alexandra Patrick, the agent read out by Member Services.  Ms Patrick stated that the site is located immediately adjacent to a traditional construction bungalow and 2 mobile home properties, which were both previously approved as 2-storey mobile homes that have an appearance very similar to this proposal and were 2-storey as they have a flood evacuation escape on the first floor.  She made the point that the mobile homes adjacent to the proposal have conditions on them that a person of a gypsy/traveller or living a nomadic lifestyle can only stay on site, whilst Golden View’s mobile home approval states “Use of land for the stationing of a mobile home and erection of a toilet block (part retrospective)”, with the wording of the approval not relating to a direct requirement for a gypsy/traveller to live on site.

Ms Patrick expressed the view that replacement dwelling applications such as this proposal are seen to be appropriate by the Council when considering F/YR14/0609/F (Erection of a 2-storey 4-bed dwelling with detached garage involving removal of residential caravans and existing dwelling), with the former Hazeldene cottage straddling two plots which were separately approved, which was not a clear-cut replacement permanent dwelling for a larger one.  She feels the site was utilised to have two modest permanent dwellings replacing the mobile homes as well as an existing permanent residence.

Ms Patrick stated that whilst the site lies outside the established settlement core it does sit within existing approved properties and, in her view, it could be contended that the scheme would represent an “infill” opportunity, which whilst away from the main settlement core would have a direct relationship with its surroundings.  She made the point that the site is already being used as residential so there is no loss of agricultural land, it retains and respects the natural features of the site where appropriate and does not result in an important open space within the village being lost and, therefore, in her opinion, is compliant with LP12 and LP16.

Ms Patrick asked members to support the application given the nature of the site and its pre-existing location.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mrs Wilson, on behalf of the applicant for the proposal.  Mrs Wilson stated that her father first brought the land in 1987 and has lived at Golden View since 1989, with the mobile homes falling into disrepair over the years and needing replacing, which happened in 1999 and resulted in putting on the current twin unit chalet and this is now at the same point.  She explained that her father did apply for a bungalow dwelling at the time of replacing the old mobile home, and accepted the no given at that time.

Mrs Wilson stated that her father cannot read and write that well and her younger sister was in primary school, her brother in secondary school and she had just started college and he did not understand planning leaving it to the professionals.  She expressed the opinion that her father has not had much luck with the Council and planning, he used to own all the land around the corner at Bevis Lane and at the time did stock car racing, he used to store his cars on the land and was told by the Council that if he did not remove them he would be fined £100 per car per day and was also told that he had to sell the land, with this land now having 5 Gypsy Romany Traveller sites on it, one of which is a local transit site, three executive houses and a bungalow on the corner, which was literally built within months of the land being sold.  She made the point that her father cannot understand the difference between him and them but listened to the Council and did what they asked.

Mrs Wilson stated that the current property has also been investigated by the Council a few years ago to change it into a Gypsy Romany Traveller site, however, he was offered way less than it was valued at and could not find another location to replace it.  She explained that her mum and dad now have long-term health issues, with her mum relying on the care of her and her brother and the rest of the family.

Mrs Wilson expressed the view that the aesthetics of this proposal is of a similar nature to what has been approved next door for her, however, due to the restrictions the Council put on them they are in a catch-22 situation where they now have the permission granted but are unable to implement it as they cannot get a mortgage because the land has to go back to its original state when they leave it.  She made the point that they can get a mortgage as they all have good jobs but are unable to get a mortgage as they are Romany Gypsies and she does not feel that anyone else from any ethnicity would have this issue. 

Mrs Wilson stated that her father could have applied for a day room but it would have to be a two-storey building because of the flood risk and it makes more sense to apply for a chalet bungalow otherwise her father would still have to live in his tourer alongside and would not be able to manage due to his health.  She made the point that the proposal has no objections from consultees and letters of support from all the surrounding neighbours, with no additional burdens on any existing facilities as he has lived in the area the longest out of all the surrounding properties.

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

·         Councillor Benney made the point this is a home for people and reminds him of a replacement house on a site at Guyhirn near Emblings bus garage, which was looked at in a favourable way.  He sees nothing wrong with this application and it will be an improvement to the applicant’s quality of life if they have health problems.  Councillor Benney expressed the view that Councillor Booth did the right thing calling in the application so the committee could look at it.

·         Councillor Topgood echoed the comments of Councillor Benney, with the applicant wanting a permanent location to live with their family, it will help with their health and there has been no objections from Wisbech Town Council or consultees.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she sympathises with the applicant but feels that allowing the application would set a huge precedent for other sites.  She made the point that it is a traveller’s site and if it is replaced with a permanent home it would allow other similar applications in an ‘elsewhere’ location against national policy.

·         Nick Harding stated that Councillor Mrs Davis raises a good point and in addition it will effectively remove a traveller gypsy pitch if the proposal is allowed, but members may feel that the health factors outweigh the relaxation of policy requirements.

·         Alison Hoffman clarified that the consent applicable to Golden View is personal to Mr Cunningham and not explicit in terms of gypsy/traveller status, however, in considering the application for the two adjacent plots they were granted based on gypsy/traveller status and the heritage of the applicants was explored through the documentation supported in that file.  She made the point that if this existing mobile home had been specifically restricted to gypsy and traveller accommodation it would have formed one of the reasons for refusal, but because it is personal rather than gypsy and traveller consent that requirement fell away but the principles are still the same in considering future applications, for instance, the two adjacent plots does undermine the case in replacing the temporary accommodation with permanent dwellings although taking on board Mr Harding’s comments regarding the specific medical needs of the applicant.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that Mrs Wilson commented that they had had the land for around 35 years, he is not likely to sell this property and would continue to live here for the rest of his life.  He recognises the comments of Councillor Mrs Davis but feels he could support it if as they have lived here that long and the applicant has health problems.

·         Councillor Benney reiterated that they have lived at this location for 35 years and made the point that when talking about travellers they have not travelled far.  He feels that there are exceptional circumstances that could be used in this instance, such as Mr Cunningham and his family’s health, and his family also living next door.

·         Councillor Connor echoed the sentiments of Councillor Benney and applauds what Mrs Wilson and her brother are doing to help their parents with their health issues.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that members have previously given permission on special circumstances and from listening to the presentation she feels this is special circumstances.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation, with delegated authority given to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support the refusal of planning permission as they feel that the special circumstances of the applicant’s health outweigh policy.

(Councillor Booth took no part in the discussion and voting on this application as he had made a presentation as part of the public participation procedure and was, therefore, pre-determined)