Agenda item

To determine the application.

In the absence of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, it was proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Purser and agreed that Councillor Mrs Mayor chaired the meeting for this item.

Theresa Nicholl presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Joseph Jones, the agent. Mr Jones stated that he has engaged with the Council to put together an application which they hoped would be acceptable and have redesigned the layout of the site after consulting with the Council. He expressed the view that as there is unmet need in the District the consent here would be a positive initiative mitigating against the unmet need.

Mr Jones referred to the NPPF in its policy for travellers’ site which is supportive of gypsy sites in certain circumstances as in this case and is the officer’s recommendation. He feels there are no significant objections locally to the application.

Mr Jones expressed the view that there a number of material considerations when taken separately or together which can outweigh harm, policy issues or other considerations and this case includes primacy of a child which has to be taken into consideration, the applicants are travellers and have gypsy status for planning purposes, there is an unmet need for more pitches in the District and within the region which carries significant weight, the proposed applicants need a place to live and the Council needs to balance its duty of care, the unmet need, targets for pitches in the area and residual obligations carried forward from the Housing Act. He expressed the opinion that the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act are also engaged in the situation and need to be given weight as well as consideration to the necessary five year supply of land for the gypsy/traveller community and if the local authority cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites then the NPPF says consent should be granted, with those targets being reviewed annually but, in his view, at the moment this is a policy failure.

Mr Jones expressed the view that the site is sustainable, any new site in the area is going to be in the open countryside and the application has limited impact and additional screening can be carried out. He stated that there are no objections in policy terms that are not outweighed by the personal circumstances or considerations and planning guidance says that if a condition can address concerns raised by a planning application then consent should be granted with the relevant condition, with the conditions proposed for the application being reasonable and acceptable to the applicant.

Mr Jones concluded that the site is available, deliverable and sustainable and he urged the committee to look favourably on their planning application.

Members asked questions of Mr Jones as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to 5.1 of the officer’s report that says the Parish Council have no objection to the static caravans but object to the 3 touring caravans and asked how often these touring caravans will be back and forwards on the site? Mr Jones responded that the touring caravans are not taken off site very often but to maintain gypsy/traveller status the applicant will be required to travel annually, but when people go off site they do not go off in the morning and come back in the evening, they have to travel for a minimum of 3 months so may only come back a few times so movements for the touring caravan would be minimal.

·       Councillor Marks asked if the touring caravans are owned by the static caravan owners or are they separate families? Mr Jones responded that one pitch is normally regarded as one static and one tourer for one family and sometimes they are used as an additional bedroom for children and when people go travelling they do not always take their wife and children with them.

·       Councillor Marks asked that the applicant is not looking to run 7.5 tonne lorries or anything bigger out of the site as the road and road links in this location are tight. Mr Jones responded that this would not be the case.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that one concern he has is the proposal to plant hedgerow adjacent to the ditch due to its maintenance and it is in the applicant’s own interest to keep that ditch clear as well as the general area. He made the point that the stable is also quite close, and could it be confirmed that the applicant can get by this for maintenance. Mr Jones responded on a personal note he has known this family for in excess of 15-16 years and they are fastidious in their lifestyle and approach to living, they are tidy by nature and he can guarantee they will look after the site as they want to create a nice home for themselves and their children which can be a once in a lifetime event. Councillor Sutton thinks it has been taken on board that the applicant needs to understand the issue of drainage in the area. Mr Jones stated that there is a landscaping plan that will accompany the application and made the point that the hedge will be maintained appropriately, and it would be in no-one’s interest for it to impinge on the drainage ditch. 

Members asked officers questions as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that drainage is a great concern to her and she does sit on the Lead Local Flood Authority at County and five drainage boards across Fenland and with regard to the ditch she presumes it is a riparian dyke and she does not know who owns the other part of it but the County Council after the floods of December 2020 have mapped the whole of March and are doing the rest of the county, with them taking a tough line with the dykes and ditches that have been filled requiring the owners to dig them out and maintain them properly. She asked if officers are satisfied with the requirements on a Flood Zone 3 site? Theresa Nicholl responded that no objections were received from the Environment Agency, and they did not get a response from the drainage board. She stated that there is a landscape condition, which is not primarily aimed at putting landscaping at the bottom of that site along the ditch, but more aimed at the front and the side. Councillor Mrs French stated in relation to the Environment Agency there was a planning training session a few weeks ago and the Environment Agency basically said it was down to the local drainage boards and they were not interested.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that the recommendation is to approve an application for mobile homes, which are the most vulnerable dwellings, in Flood Zone 3 and there are 2 applications later in the agenda for dwellings in Flood Zones 2 and 3 for refusal. He noted that no objections has been received from the Environment Agency, the Inspector overturned the site next door and said Flood Zone 3 was not a problem so asked if officers can understand the frustration of members, the agents, the developers and general public where the committee is potentially going to grant permission for this proposal in Flood Zone 3 and potentially turn down other applications in the same flood zones. He stated that millions of pounds has been spent on the Leam and Ouse Barrier Banks in recent years, the Middle Level has approved raising the bank on Bedford Bank and he feels that Fenland is the most safest area in Cambridgeshire as far as protection is concerned so again reiterated that are officers as frustrated as members that there is this barrier put in front of applications time and again when even the Environment Agency say that because of the defences Fenland has the area is not at risk. Nick Harding responded that you have to compartmentalise what are three different situations:

o   firstly, if you look at the principle of flood risk the Government policy is quite clear in that you should develop in flood risk areas as a last resort

o   secondly in the context of the Wisbech situation the Government acknowledges that there are certain major settlements, such as Boston that are underwater flood risk wise and in that scenario you cannot have a situation whereby no development is allowed in the whole of that town ever again as that would see the ruination of that town and for this same reason officers have taken the approach for the existing urban extent of Wisbech where there is a redevelopment proposal and the fact that it is a redevelopment site and already in the middle of Wisbech then officers are accepting development should take place if appropriate

o   thirdly where you are talking about general residential development outside of a settlement or within a small-scale settlement, officers are following Government policy that says that if it is not a specific allocated site a sequential test is required, which is the policy adopted by this Council as well as being national policy. When it comes to gypsy/traveller sites the Inspector has assessed the difficult position that the local authority is in relating to its out of date GTANA and inability to demonstrate that it has got sites allocated for gypsy/traveller plots plus the flood risk issue and has determined on that previous appeal that, notwithstanding the flood risk situation, in their view the sequential test has been passed.

Nick Harding stated that he recognises that there is an issue of inconsistency, but members need to focus on the fact that the gypsy/traveller position is more unique than the case for general residential development. 

·       Councillor Sutton stated that this response was pretty much what he expected and what he already knows but his question was are officers as frustrated as members? Nick Harding stated that personally he is not frustrated.

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

·     Councillor Topgood stated that once again he thinks the officers have got this recommendation right, it is a nice site, and the families will have a nice place to live, and he wholly supports the proposal.

·     Councillor Mrs French agreed with these comments.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Topgood and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Connor and Mrs Davis declared that they were pre-determined on this application, and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)