Agenda item

To determine the application.

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 Alex Patrick, the agent. Mrs Patrick expressed the view that at present this site is an eyesore to its locals with various rubbish often dumped and left and if this application is approved it would facilitate a much-needed home for Mr Carmen and his family. She feels the scheme would not be dissimilar to its existing surroundings, the adjacent Council owned travellers’ site and various privately owned travellers’ sites.

Mrs Patrick stated that the site has a 9 metre bylaw to the rear which dictates only small development potential such as this proposal. She made the point that they have support from the Gypsy Traveller Liaison Officer, the Highway Authority, along with a place obtained at the local pre-school and a family tree to show the link from the applicant to the local Cunningham family.

Mrs Patrick expressed the opinion that this is a very similar application to the approved F/YR21/0309 at Garden Lane, Wisbech St Mary, F/YR21/1501/F at Wolf Lane, Leverington and F/YR20/1010/F at Sealeys Lane, Parson Drove, which are all small scale in nature, all in Flood Zone 3 and all adjacent existing traveller sites and within 2 miles from this site. In relation to the Flood Zone 3 area, on this occasion if the committee are minded to approve the application, she feels the issue can be addressed by installing an emergency loft window for access to the roof in the event of flooding.

Mrs Patrick referred to the presence of biodiversity and made the point there are no trees on site, it is very sparse and has a drain behind it so, in her view, any Great Crested Newts or bats would not reside in this location but a condition could be placed on an approval to rectify this if it was felt appropriate. Whilst not a planning matter, she stated that Mr Carmen is self-employed, is fully self-sufficient and he will not put a stress on the Council services, temporarily residing with family until this application is decided and although the report mentions half-siblings they are within shared custody with the ex-partner of Mr Carmen and attend schools elsewhere.

Mrs Patrick hoped members would be able to support this application.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Marks referred to there being a shortage of sites and that there are already 21 sites in this vicinity and asked if they were all full week to week? Theresa Nicholl responded that she asked this question of the officer who managed the Council’s Traveller sites on one of her applications that came to committee last month and was told that all of the Council’s sites are full and there is a long waiting list.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to the lobbying e-mail received from Mrs Patrick and that it forwarded a letter from Murrow Pre-School and asked if officers were aware that they have accepted that the child has a place at the school? Theresa Nicholl responded that she is not the Case Officer for the application, but officers have been advised of it. Nick Harding added that he was aware that the letter had been received but it is in relation to a pre-school place and there was no certainty around how long that place was going to be kept for as there was no date on the letter. In his experience if you are applying to a pre-school, they say yes you can attend from term x and then that place is booked as that pre-school would not want to find itself over-subscribed.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed surprise that the Council’s Traveller Officer does not have any up to date information on the requirements of travelling families, there are 22 pitches under the control of the Council and this proposal is for a further one and she really does not see in this area what difference an additional pitch will make bearing in mind the failure of the Council not to have up to date information so it can or cannot be proved there is sufficient land available for travellers. She asked why the Council does not have up to date information? Nick Harding responded that as part of the preparation of the emerging Local Plan a Travellers Needs Assessment was commissioned which was delayed due to Covid as the traveller communities did not want officers to come on site and officers did not want to go on site for fear of spreading the disease but a draft version of the report has now been received and officers are feeding back on this. He made the point that in terms of the recommendation on this proposal officers are not refusing this application on this basis acknowledging that there is not an assessment of need that is up to date, which does count in favour of planning permission but on balance officers have felt that the reasons for refusal outweigh that point.

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

·       Councillor Topgood made the point that traveller applications have been covered by committee quite a lot over the past few months and, in his view, one more permanent caravan would not be detrimental, which would allow the applicant to keep his family together. He would go against the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she would not be supporting the application for refusal as she does not see how this application is different to that approved at the last committee in Wimblington and committee should be consistent.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor sated that she does have slight concern about the drain to the rear of the site and North Level IDB comments to not place any buildings within 9 metres of this drain, which makes the site very tight. She stated that she will support the application though due to the approval at the committee last month.

·       Councillor Clark referred to the rubbish on the site, she travels that area most days and has seen various rubbish dumped on this site, with it being an eyesore.

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that this application should possibly be approved as another pitch is not going to tip the balance of an over-dominance of travellers’ site. He made the point that it is right next door to the Council’s travellers’ site, and he believes buildings can be achieved 9 metres from the drain.

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

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel there is the need for this additional pitch for this family, it would not dominate the nearby settled community, it would not detrimentally impact any protected species and whilst it lies within Flood Zone 3 mitigation measures are proposed.

(Councillor Connor declared that as he had called in this application to be determined by committee, he has been advised that he is pre-determined and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon. Councillor Mrs Davis took the Chair)

(Councillors Connor, Mrs Davis and Sutton declared, under Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)