Agenda item

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/01552/REG3 in respect of replacing 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 play area and sewerage treatment plant are to be located within the site. Four Houses Corner Caravan Site, Reading Road, Ufton Nervet, Reading, Stratfield Mortimer.

2.     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.  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.     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. Mr Butler noted that there had been several late consultations and explained that an issue raised over the lack of the Fire Authority response was not because they had not been consulted. It was also explained that sewage was not to be stored on site, but to be disposed of via the mains.

4.     The Chairman asked Mr Gareth Dowding if he had any observations relating to the application and he did not.

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

Parish Council Representation

6.     Mr Bridgman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The issues raised over, drainage and consultation, at the previous meeting had been addressed.

·         It was never up to the Parish Council to consult residents.

·         The objections raised by Thames Valley Police were late but reflected residents’ concerns.

·         Robust management of the site would be necessary to prevent further criminality.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

7.     Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

8.     Ms Adlam in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Whether there had been any other alternatives considered for the site.

·         The reopening of the site would increase concerns over the welfare of the police.

·         Whether the issues with the entry points been considered.

Member Questions to the Objector

9.     Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Applicant/Agent Representation

10.  Mr Bagnell in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The site needed to balance the potential cost and the need for the site. The Council had to deliver a five-year supply of traveller sites.

·         The previous residents had a legal right to return.

·         There was a public consultation that lasted 6 weeks, along with a public event and the objections raised were not material matters.

·         The site management concerns would be reflected within the tenancy agreements.

·         The drainage concerns had been addressed and agreed upon. The site introduced a attenuation system, which would discharge water at 2.3 litres per second.

·         The AWE DEPZ matters had been resolved with a suitable condition to be applied and were only included, due to the use of caravans.

·         Concerns had been raised over the numbers on the site regarding the DEPZ, however a pre-agreement has stated some occupants will be driven to another area.

·         Those at the site were not convicted of any crime and behaviour had been satisfactory.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

11.  Councillor Poole queried whether other sites had been considered. Mr Bagnall explained that finding a new site would have been difficult and the Council probably would not find another one. It was explained that the need to integrate these sites with society added an extra level of difficulty.

12.  Councillor Cottam asked about the future management of the site. Mr Bagnall explained that it would be carried out by an external contractor with experience of managing similar sites. This contract would be able to be reviewed and the contractor would be made aware of the past issues with the site.

13.  Councillor Geoff Mayes asked whether the single access point to the site was sufficient. Mr Bagnall explained that in previous consultation with the emergency services it was seen as adequate. It was added that it would not be possible to have a second access point as you could not go out of the rear of the site by vehicle and a second access point along the existing road frontagewould raise highways concerns.

14.  Councillor Clive Taylor asked about site security and Mr Bagnall confirmed there would be a weekly visit.

15.  Councillor Jane Langford questioned whether the Council could use different tenants, why there were two caravans per pitch and wanted clarification over the number of pitches. Mr Bagnall explained that the previous tenants had entered into legal contracts, which the Council had to fulfil by allowing for them to return. He added that a pitch was a hard concrete standing for caravans and that there used to be 18 built caravan pitches and that this was to be lowered to 17.

16.  The Chairman added that the principal mobile home would be for living quarters and the other would be used as a touring caravan.

17.  Councillor Paul Kander queried whether a caravan could extend beyond the pitch and Mr Bagnall stated this was not to be the case.

18.  Councillor Poole asked why a second touring caravan could not be covered within a parking space. Mr Bagnall explained that this would need to be covered within tenancy agreements.

Ward Member Representation

19.  Councillor Carter in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Both of the issues brought up in the previous Committee had been addressed.

·         It would be disingenuous to suggest there was an alternative, as it is unlikely you will find a new site.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

20.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

21.  Councillor Mayes asked whether there was a foul drainage solution. Mr Butler explained that the waste would go to a nearby sewage treatment plant and that this had been agreed by Thames Water.

22.  Councillor Poole asked for clarification on the caravan pitches. Mr Butler pointed Councillors to paragraph 1.6 and 1.7 of the report and explained that the planning authority could not control the overall occupation or density of units.Mr Butler added that it would be possible to place one static and one mobile home per pitch, but there would be no more than 17 pitches.

23.  Councillor Poole asked about the definition of a caravan and Mr Butler explained that a caravan was defined in planning legislation.

24.  Councillor Langford asked what the significant need for this site was. Ms Laura Callan explained that the Council had a statutory need to provide a certain number of pitches for travellers within the district and removing this site would increase the need. Mr Butler added that if this site was not to be approved it could lead to less favourable sites being utilised.

25.  Councillor Paul Kander asked whether the road on the site was to not to be adopted it was confirmed the Council as leaseholder would be responsible.

26.  Councillor Kander questioned about the mixed-use status of the application and Mr Butler explained that a mixed commercial and residential use of the site was not being proposed.

27.  Councillor Poole queried the potential for the expansion of the site and The Chairman stated that the applicant would need to submit another planning.

Debate

28.  Councillor Cottam opened the debate by explaining that he sympathised with the situation that surrounded the previous miss management of the site, but this was a different issue from the planning concerns. The Councillor added that if the site was an ordinary mobile home park it would not be refused. The Councillor added that not approving this appeal would allow potential unlawful builds to be granted on the basis that there was need for the sites.

29.  Councillor Somner agreed with Councillor Cottam and explained that although the circumstances around the site were unfortunate, the Committee needed to consider the material factors. The Councillor emphasised the need for a proper management plan.

30.  Councillor Somner proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Cottam.

31.  Councillor Taylor stated that because the issues over drainage and the consultation had been addressed, he saw no way that it could be rejected.

32.  Councillor Poole asked for an amendment to condition 19, which would extend the period to protect nesting birds, to the end of September. This was agreed. She also proposed a condition about the future management of the site.  

33.  Mr Butler explained to the Committee that planning permission was not personal permission and if the site was to be transferred the planning permission still be in place. This meant that the management of the site was not a planning matter.

34.  Councillor Somner proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report with the addition of the note in c19. This was seconded by Councillor Cottam.

35.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Somner, seconded by Councillor Cottam to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Control Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

See the final decision notice on Uniform to be issued.