Agenda item

Proposal: It is proposed to replace the existing permanent 18 pitch Gypsy caravan site with a new 17 permanent pitch Gypsy caravan site. Each pitch is to consist of a hard standing area large enough for two twin axle caravans, car parking for two vehicles and a 30 sq m amenity building consisting of a kitchen/dayroom, bathroom, separate WC and utility area. In addition to the amenity buildings a recycle storage facility, children play area and sewerage treatment plant are to be located within the site.
Location: Four Houses Corner Caravan Site, Reading Road, Ufton Nervet, Reading
Applicant: West Berkshire Council
Recommendation: Grant planning permission

 

Item starts at 7 minutes into the recording.

1.     Mr Simon Till introduced the item by stating that West Berkshire Council (the Council) and its officers fully recognised the tragic events surrounding the death of PC Harper in 2019. Mr Till expressed, on behalf of the Council, the deepest sympathy with all those effected by this tragedy.

2.     He explained that while objections had been raised on the application as a result of this tragedy, the purpose of the item was to only consider the planning merits of the application.

3.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/01552/REG3 in respect of the proposal to replace the existing permanent 18 pitch Gypsy caravan site with a new 17 permanent pitch Gypsy caravan site. Each pitch was to consist of a hard standing area large enough for two twin axle caravans, car parking for two vehicles and a 30 sq. m amenity building consisting of a kitchen/dayroom, bathroom, separate WC, and utility area. In addition to the amenity buildings a recycle storage facility, children’s play area and sewerage treatment plant were to be located within the site.

4.     Mr Michael Butler introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Control Manager be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

5.     Ms Cheryl Willett explained that the Council had to maintain a five-year supply of caravan pitches for travellers and that this site would contribute to the legally required number of pitches. If the Council did not meet the required plots, they could be forced to accept a planning application for a less favourable site.

6.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Graham Bridgman, Parish Council representative, Ms Margaret Baxter, adjacent Parish Council representative, Ms Deborah Adlam, objector, Mr Bill Bagnall, applicant, and Councillor Nick Carter, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

7.     Mr Graham Bridgman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The Council had not followed policy in properly consulting the local community, and it was stressed that as the site was remote, so too was the site notice.

·         Mr Bridgman questioned how many individuals the site could house, as although there were 17 pitches, these would home multiple residents.

·         That the application had not had a full sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) consultation and that the site was an area that struggled with flooding.

·         That the site could benefit from CCTV.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

8.     Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Adjacent Parish Council Representation

9.     Ms Margaret Baxter in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         That it was a controversial application.

·         Due process had not been followed, as there had been no consultation.

·         There was confusion over how many residents could be on the site, and this needed to be clarified, due to concerns that there could be more residents.

·         It was incorrect to suggest that the site had no history of flooding.

·         There were questions over how the site would be managed going forward, would access to the site be via vehicle only, what preparations were there for sewage and waste disposal, and what would be the extent of light pollution?

Member Questions to the Adjacent Parish Council

10.  In response to Members’ questions, Ms Baxter advised that:

·         It was the District Council’s responsibility to consult the residents.

·         The increase in the number of people on site could impact the Detailed Emergency Planning Zone (DEPZ).

·         Flooding of the area happened regularly and to a considerable level.

Objector Representation

11.  Ms Deborah Adlam in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         That the community was haunted by the events surrounding PC Harper’s death and his memory should be protected.

·         The residents should know who would be staying at the site.

·         The site was supposed to be just women and children, and this was not the case.

·         There was a history of damaged property around the site.

·         There was a history of misbehaviour at the site and that there were concerns over the safety of Police Officers who would have to police the site.

Member Questions to the Objector

12.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Applicant Representation

13.  Mr Bill Bagnall in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         That the site had been established for 14 years.

·         In 2016 the site was seen as run-down and no longer fit for purpose.

·         The site satisfied the UK Health Security Agency requirements.

·         The access to the site and turning circle met highways requirements.

·         The road network would not have street lighting and was limited to the access bell mouth and for the waste/recycling area. 

·         Flooding was addressed by formal drainage proposals that were not previously addressed on the site.

·         Occupation numbers would be limited by the physical space and the single utilities hookup provided with each plot.

·         The Council would formally manage the site.

Member Questions to the Applicant

14.  In response to Members’ questions, Mr Bagnall advised that:

·         A maximum number of residents could not be provided as it would require going into confidential information.

·         There was a meeting in 2018 with the emergency services, where the access to the site was discussed and it was found to be agreeable, however, it was noted that the one entrance into the site was not ideal.

·         The lease agreements were related to adults and dependants on the site. 

·         The plots would be based on top of raised hardstanding and a sub-base of crushed hardcore. The design of the site would result in extreme levels of water being directed off-site.

·         The Housing Team were in regular dialogue with the traveller community.

·         The Council would have to improve the path between Burghfield Common and the site.

·         There would be lighting at the entrance and in the bin store area, but the site itself would be dark.

Ward Member Representation

15.  Councillor Nick Carter in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Government guidance suggested that local authorities should encourage closer integration of travellers with the wider community.

·         The Ward Member sympathised with the family of PC Harper.

·         The individuals responsible for PC Harper’s death did not live on the site.

·         That the site was appropriate for the suggested use and any other suggested site would ultimately fail.

·         Residents of the site were consulted on the application and did not suggest they needed a foot path.

·         That the Parish Council could have conducted its own consultation and that Ward Members had done their own form of consultation.

·         The design of the site was in line with others around the country.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

16.  In response to Members’ questions, Councillor Carter advised that:

·         The Parish Council were informed of the application but did not consult residents, however the Ward Member agreed the consultation still needed to take place.

·         The Design and Access statement stated that it was intended to undertake a consultation, but this did not happen.

·         Former residents of the site had been consulted.

Member Questions to Officers

17.  In response to Members’ questions, officers clarified the following points:

·         That Policy C1 referenced housing development, and the application was not for a housing development.

·         That there would be a betterment of SuDS in any event, as the site would be on a gravel plateau and was within flood zone one.

·         That planning officers would not overrule other officers; however, decisions were made on balance. The Drainage Officer did give his opinion, but planning officers must use their judgement and deploy a proactive approach when resolving outstanding matters that the Council must fulfil. It was further noted that the Drainage Officer had control within the condition.

·         That even though a consultation process may not have been followed it was important to focus on the planning merits of the case. Developers did not always follow the planning process thoroughly, although this was disappointing, it was not a reason to refuse the application.

·         If permission was granted, the applicant would have to consult the SuDS officer and development of the site would not be able to commence until the officer was satisfied.

·         Planning officers could have recommended a maximum occupancy; however, it would have been difficult to provide an appropriate number and to enforce. There was also nothing to suggest there should be a maximum limit put in place. 

Debate

18.  Councillor Somner opened the debate by highlighting that he understood the personal aspect of the application, but that this should have no bearing on the decision. The Councillor expressed that the policies raised came down to interpretation and the SuDS had been detailed clearly within the report pack. Finally, Councillor Somner recognised that the lack of consultation was less than optimal, however he was unsure whether it had not happened at all and whether a consultation would be of any value to the Committee.

19.  Councillor Poole argued that the surface water from the site made the road particularly dangerous but was particularly concerned that she did not fully understand the impact of the SuDS.

20.  Councillor Jeremy Cottam echoed concerns over the flooding. The Councillor also believed that an upper limit of residents could be applied as the DEPZ controls would have limits for the shelters.

21.  Councillor Mackinnon commented on the emotional nature of the site and emphasised that this added to the need for proper consultation with the public.

22.  Councillor Clive Taylor agreed that the application needed a full consultation with residents.

23.  Councillor Poole proposed to defer the application until there had been a full consultation and a full review by the SuDS Officer. This was seconded by Councillor Mackinnon

24.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Poole, seconded by Councillor Mackinnon to defer the application. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the item be deferred until there had been a full SuDS review and full public consultation by the applicant, not the LPA.