Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 6(1))) concerning Planning Application 21/02112/FUL in respect of the change of use to 7 no. Gypsy/Traveller pitches comprising 7 no. static caravans, 7 no. day rooms, 7 no. touring caravans and associated works.

Mr Bob Dray, Planning Officer, introduced the report to Members and highlighted the key points. The Officer recommendation was for refusal and the reasons were set out under section eight of the report.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Simon Pike and Mr Richard Crumly, Town Council representatives, Mr Bernard Clark, Adjacent Parish Council representative and Councillor Lee Dillon, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

·         Mr Simon Pike and Mr Richard Crumly (Thatcham Town Council) in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Pike reported that he was the Chairman of the Highways and Planning Committee of Thatcham Town Council. Thatcham Town Council had objected to the application and its concerns fell in to three categories, including the location of the site; deficiencies in the planning application and community cohesion.

·         The site was outside of the settlement boundary and was outside of the settlement boundary for the proposed local plan. It was within the open countryside, which separated Thatcham and Cold Ash.

·         A planning application for permission in principle had been submitted for land on the opposite side of Lawrences Lane, which might have been prompted by the unauthorised development.

·         The Council had also previously objected to the conversion of livery stables on the adjacent land for residential use.

·         Lawrences Lane was extensively used by walkers and cyclists. The Town Council had supported the Active Travel Proposal for the lane by West Berkshire Council (WBC). Thatcham town Council felt that the lane was unsuitable for motor traffic. The traffic generated by the site if approved would be hazardous to walkers and cyclists. 

·         The improvements required by the West Berkshire Council’s (WBC) Highways Development Control Department to the access to the site, if the application was approved would destroy the rural character of the site and southern end of the lane.

·         The documentation for the application included only site plans and elevations of the proposed buildings. There was no information included on the construction of the buildings, sewerage, surfaces of the driveways or management of surface water. Thatcham Town Council’s Highways and Planning Committee expected to be able to review all of these elements when considering an application. 

·         Thatcham Town Council had declared a climate emergency and therefore it was expected that all developments should be to a high environmental standard. There was no information included in the application so that this could be assessed. 

·         Thatcham Town Council endorsed the view of the Highways Department in that each plot should have a vehicle charging point.

·         Regarding community cohesion, WBC had received nearly 300 letters of objection to the application. Many of these had been prompted due to the contravention of planning laws and regulations during the construction and occupation of the site. Residents were therefore concerned that in future there might be other unlawful activities.

·         Thatcham Town Council urged the Committee to refuse the application.

·         Mr Crumly stated that he was present to support Councillor Pike with any questions that might be raised.

Member Questions to the Parish Council:

There were no questions raised by Members.

Adjacent Parish Council Representation:

Mr Bernard Clark (Cold Ash Parish Council) in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Clark praised and thanked WBC on behalf of Cold Ash Parish Council for its speed and cleverness in responding to the unexpected application.

·         Cold Ash had talked to the Highways Department and others regarding Lawrences Lane and what a joy it could be to the community. The Lane was within the countryside and joined Cold Ash to Thatcham. It was a narrow lane that it was not sensible to drive down as two cars were unable to pass each other.

·         Discussion that had taken place regarding the lane included turning it in to a cycle way or for use by horse riders or ramblers.

·         After crossing a road at the top of the Lawrences Lane, it connected to Bucklebury Common, an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which consisted of 18 miles of magnificent walk ways and bridleways.

·         Mr Clark stressed that the Parish Council’s point was just how positive Lawrences Lane could be for the area. This would however, be completely destroyed if the development was approved. Cold Ash Parish Council felt that Lawrences Lane should be made a non-road area. This would suit the community; the 300 objectors and all the others who enjoyed the countryside.

·         Mr Clark asked the Committee to imagine how the community must have felt when it was discovered that the development was taking place without permission or warning.

·         Mr Clark concluded that Cold Ash strongly objected to the proposal. The Parish Council understood that the Gypsy and Traveller Community needed places to settle however, it was felt that WBC had satisfied this need.

·         Mr Clark felt that it was an opportunity to propose that Lawrences Lane should become pedestrian use only for generations to come.

Members Questions to the Adjacent Parish Council:

There were no questions raised by Members.

Ward Member Representation:

Councillor Lee Dillon in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Councillor Dillon supported the overall recommendation from Officers that the application should be refused.

·         Council Dillon stated that he wished to cover in more detail the principle of development and nature of the lane. He also wished to talk about community cohesion.

·         Councillor Dillon supported all of the concerns raised regarding drainage given the town’s history of flooding.

·         Regarding the principle of development and the nature of Lawrences Lane, the site itself was outside of the settlement boundary and sat on a quiet country lane.

·         Lawrences Lane had recently been consulted on as a new Active Travel Route with one way access. This had been widely supported by the community and importantly predated the application and the development that had taken place on the bank holiday weekend.

·         Any further development on Lawrences Lane would cause too much traffic to make the community supported scheme viable. It would result in the lane having to be opened back up for southern access to the application site, whereas the proposed Active Travel Scheme would close it up and make it one way.

·         As voiced by Mr Pike, the proposal would prevent Lawrences Lane becoming a Rambler’s paradise.

·         Councillor Dillon stated that Members would have noted from the site visit that wet banks had needed to be climbed to move out of the way of vehicles using the lane. He asked the Committee to imagine how much work would be required to make the lane safe. This would change the nature of the lane and the weight of vehicles using the lane would cause further damage.

·         Councillor Dillon stated that it was hoped that local views regarding the lane, prior to the current application, would be taken into account. If the development went ahead the community’s wish would cease.

·         Regarding community cohesion, Councillor Dillon stated that he had looked at the LGA’s guide on building cohesive communities. It talked about the role of Councillors and stated that as leaders of local places they were in the best place to understand local areas, the local challenges and any specific cohesion issues and feed this into the vision for the area. Councillor Dillon stated that this was the role he was undertaking and he was advocating on behalf of his constituents.

·         Since the issue of the application had arisen, Councillor Dillon had been heavily involved in supporting the community through the local Whatsapp group by responding to questions and concerns. In 17 years as a Councillor he had never felt such a large concern from residents over a single planning application.

·         Councillor Dillon noted the number of objections and that no-one had wished to make a representation at the Committee. He queried if this was because there had not been an open and transparent approach when the application was first started.

·         The action WBC had taken through the courts also stressed the concerns over further works and this was because a quiet rural lane was deliberately targeted over a bank holiday weekend to build the site. It was the view of many that this was done because agencies had less ability to respond over a bank holiday. Local residents had been confused, fearful and angry that a country lane had become gridlocked with heavy machinery with work being undertaken late into the night with no consideration given for local residents.

·         Councillor Dillon stated that residents had also asked him to state that it was their belief that the site had not been fin full occupation for any prolonged period of time and it was believed that it was being presented to the Council in this way to improve the chances of approval.

·         Councillor Dillon asked for it to be recorded in the minutes that the response to one resident at the site visit was ‘we can park on his drive way instead’. This did nothing to help community cohesion.

·         The previous actions on the site had left residents very concerned for ongoing community cohesion.

·         In summary Councillor Dillon stated that the proposal was completely inappropriate for the size of the lane, being outside of the settlement boundary. Any highways work would change the lane’s nature. The inaccurate plans and the approach taken by the landowners had resulted in negative community cohesion. He urged the Committee to reject the application.

Member Questions to the Ward Member:

There were no questions raised by Members.

Member Questions to Officers

Councillor Jeremy Cottam raised a number of points/questions for Officers including why did the Highways Authority feel Lawrences Lane was an unsafe access for pedestrians and vehicles; were there concerns about possible contaminants that might be in the materials of the site; would water ‘run-off’ from the site contribute to flooding in the local area including the lane and local neighbourhood; what sanitation was proposed for the site as he had not noted any details on this; the street scene was often considered in the first instance and he was concerned about the fortress style impact of the proposal on the countryside, which would involve fencing the whole way around and finally Councillor Cottam queried if Officers were aware if there was any passing places along Lawrences Lane.

The Chairman asked if Mr Dray could cover the drainage, sanitation and potential contamination issues raised by Councillor Cottam and Mr Gareth Dowding (Principal Engineer) to comment on the Highways issues. Mr Dray reported that in respect to contaminants there was no evidence of pre-existing contamination. Regarding whether contaminations had been found on the site since development had commenced, Officers did not have this information. He expected that this was something that could be covered under conditions if the Committee were minded to grant permission.

Regarding Councillor Cottam’s question on surface water run-off, Mr Dray reported that there were no in principle objections in terms of flood risk. The site was in flood zone one and was not in a critical drainage area. Drainage engineers had suggested that any concerns could be dealt with using conditions. Officers were not comfortable recommending a condition at the current time based on the fact that the application was partly retrospective and it was unknown what changes would be required to the layout of the development. This had formed one of the reasons for refusal in the Officer’s report.

Mr Dray referred to Councillor Cottam’s question regarding services to the site and stated that the information that had been provided was set out on page 64 of the report and detailed that this would be in the form of septic tanks. There was no reason why this could not be achieved and it was an area that was normally dealt with using conditions.

Regarding Councillor Cottam’s question regarding the street scene and the timber fencing, Mr Dray reported that the visual impact had been taken into account when forming the recommendation. 

Mr Dowding provided a response to Councillor Cottam’s question regarding why the Highway’s department considered the highways element of the application to be unsafe. Mr Dowding reported that the lane was very narrow and did not facilitate two vehicles passing in opposite directions. To make the lane safe opportunities for vehicles to pass each other would be required. The lane was also unsafe for pedestrians as there was no secure pedestrian link. Currently pedestrians had to step on to the verge to allow vehicles to pass.

Regarding Councillor Cottam’s question about passing places, Mr Dowding stated that the late information submitted did show a passing place and track plots. The information received had been reviewed and it was not considered to be up to the acceptable standard. Additional work would be required to provide acceptable passing places. It was confirmed that there were no existing passing places along Lawrences Lane.

Councillor Macro noted in the report that it was detailed that for the proposal to be considered acceptable at least one passing place would need to be provided that was 12m long. He queried if 12m would be long enough for a vehicle towing a large touring caravan. Mr Dowding confirmed that 12m was the minimum length for a passing place and it was highlighted in the report that 12m would be the minimum length required. It would need to be ensured that a vehicle towing could pass another vehicle towing in the opposite direction and therefore the passing place might need to be longer than 12m and provide tapers at each end.

Councillor Alan Law drew attention to paragraph 6.85 on page 56 of the report regarding intentional unauthorised development. It was clear from the conclusion that the development was an intentional unauthorised development and the policy was clear that this placed weight against granting planning permission. Councillor Law queried how much weight in the Officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission, had related to this point. Mr Dray confirmed that this would not be a determinative reason on its own; however he had listed four areas within the report where harm had already been caused relating to the policy referred to by Councillor Law. This included the impact on the trees; drainage issues experienced; the absence of an archaeological watching brief proposal and finally the development had undermined community cohesion. These areas had added significant weight in this instance. 

Councillor Law raised a question regarding local need and supply. It was clear from the report that there was a five year land supply for pitches and therefore no further sites required in the short term. Councillor Law however, noted that there was a long term need up until 2038 and 12 further sites were required. He noted that paragraph 6.25 stated that this application would contribute positively to meeting the overall need. Councillor Law queried if Officers were confident that the long term shortfall of 12 sites would be addressed through the Local Plan. Bryan Lyttle reported that the Local Plan was based on an up to date Gypsy and Traveller needs assessment.  The Local Plan Review Regulation 18 clearly stated what the Council’s policy would be going forward. It was recognised that that there would be a shortfall towards the end of the period of the Local Plan and this would be addressed in future Local Plan updates.

Debate:

Councillor Richard Somner stated that he would abstain from voting due to briefings within his portfolio connected to the others aspects. He would take part in the debate on the item but would not take part in the vote.

Councillor Cottam stated that he considered the application to be unsafe, not just for the local community but for those who would live on the site. It was not suitable for children to walk along the lane unaided and it was felt a pavement would be required if the proposal was approved. Towing vehicles would be using the lane and therefore a passing point was required and not just within the southerly section of the lane. Councillor Cottam stated that he avoided using the lane because it was dangerous and there was poor visibility. It had become a rat run for delivery vehicles. Councillor Cottam was concerned for the safety of the community and anyone else using the lane.

Councillor Cottam stated that he was also concerned regarding flooding on the site. He had witnessed the floods in Thatcham and the suffering this had caused. Mitigation and reservoirs had been put in place to prevent this happening again however, the proposal could cause a localised issue for the lane and surrounding properties.

Councillor Law referred to the site visit and felt that it had been interesting to see how rural the lane was. Councillor Law commented that the Officer’s report was very comprehensive and all the points were covered including the positive and negative aspects of the proposal. Councillor Law queried what the reaction would be if the proposal was not for a Gypsy and Traveller site but rather a number of houses and he felt that a number of the reasons for refusal were also very valid in this context, particularly regarding highways and the setting. Councillor Law stated that he was leaning towards supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Macro commended the quality of the Officer’s report. Councillor Macro agreed with the points raised by the Ward Member and Town and Parish Councils. Councillor Macro referred to the point raised by Councillor Law and stated that if that application had been for a normal caravan site, the comments from those objecting to the proposal would have been very similar. Councillor Macro felt that it was an unsuitable site for a caravan site and he was particularly concerned about the effect of caravan’s being towed along a narrow lane with or without a passing place, on pedestrians and cyclists. Councillor Macro was minded to not support the application.

Councillor Cottam confirmed that he supported Councillor Law’s comments. The development had been harmful to the site and this should be a material consideration because both the ecology and environment had been ignored.

Councillor Richard Somner echoed comments regarding the quality of the report and the concerns raised. He referred to a point raised by Councillor Law on within paragraph 6.15 on page 45 of the report, which detailed that the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) and stated that planning authorities should very strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that was away from existing settlements. Councillor Somner stated that proposals outside of the settlement boundary had historically been rejected by the Committee, including well designed applications. The current proposal was noted as ‘outside but close to the settlement boundary’ and in his view it needed to be in the open countryside. He acknowledged that each application should be considered on its own merits however, the current proposal was close to an existing settlement and was not in open countryside.

Councillor Cottam proposed that the recommendation by Officers to refuse planning permission be supported. This was seconded by Councillor Macro. The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Cottam, seconded by Councillor Macro and at the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Service Director – Development & Regulation be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons: