Agenda item
Application No. and Parish: 22/01899/FUL, Enborne Row, Wash Water
Proposal: |
Change of use of land for 2 Gypsy/Traveller pitches comprising the siting od 1 mobile home, 1 touring caravan and the proposed erection of 1 dayroom per pitch. |
Location: |
Land west of pumping station, Enborne Row, Wash Water |
Applicant: |
Mr Charles Doherty |
Recommendation: |
To delegate to the Development Manager to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed. |
Minutes:
1. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 22/01899/FUL in respect of the change of use of land for 2 Gypsy/Traveller pitches comprising the siting of 1 mobile home, 1 touring caravan, and the proposed erection of 1 dayroom per pitch at Land West Of Pumping Station, Enborne Row, Wash Water.
2. Ms Kirby 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 Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.
3. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Chris Garrett, Parish Council representative, Edward Evelegh and Alex Pearce, objectors, Peter Brownjohn, applicant/agent, and Councillor Dennis Benneyworth, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.
Parish/Town Council Representation
4. Mr Garrett addressed the Committee, his full representation can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/fAhQEXtlzgY?t=5821
Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council
5. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following response:
· Mr Garrett had not experienced flooding at the site.
Objector Representation
6. Mr Evelegh and Mr Pearce addressed the Committee, their full representation can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/fAhQEXtlzgY?t=6116
Member Questions to the Objector
7. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following response:
· The Ecological Surveyor for the application only assessed the site on one evening, which was why they did not find anything.
Applicant/Agent Representation
8. Mr Brownjohn addressed the Committee, his full representation can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/fAhQEXtlzgY?t=6647
Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent
9. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following response:
a. The site was outside of settlement boundaries as the cost of land was cheaper outside settlement boundaries and land inside settlement boundaries usually went to housing.
Ward Member Representation
10.Councillor Benneyworth addressed the Committee, his full representation can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/fAhQEXtlzgY?t=7122
Member Questions to the Ward Member
11.Members did not have any questions of clarification.
Member Questions to Officers
12. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:
· Paragraph 5.24 of the report set out the Council’s need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches.
· The Council must maintain a five-year supply of pitches for Gypsies and Travellers.
· Planning Policy had conducted calls for Gypsy and Traveller sites and the sites offered were considered sub-standard.
· The stop notice was temporary, and enforcement would not take place until the application decision had been provided.
· The site in the application was not an allocated site, but policy CS7 stated, where sites fulfilled the relevant criteria for Traveller and Gypsy pitches in the countryside, the application would be considered.
· National policy aimed to avoid sites for Gypsies and Travellers that were secluded for inclusion and sustainability reasons. The application site was not considered isolated based on previous appeal decisions.
· Conditions could be applied to the number of families per pitch; however the Committee would need a planning reason for it and the same for the granting of personal permission.
· Planning Officers believed that there was no need for a contamination condition, however Members could condition the matter.
· The application was retrospective due to the change of use that occurred, but there were proposed works that were to be carried out.
· The two buildings were occupied.
Debate
13.Councillor Woollaston opened the debate by stating he was uneasy with the application due to its retrospective nature, position of the site and the potential for further development.
14.Councillor Vickers believed the ‘system’ did not help Traveller communities, making the acquisition of land difficult. The Councillor expressed that national policy needed to be readdressed.
15.Councillor Hooker expressed distaste for the retrospective nature of the application and stated that the applicant should have applied for planning permission in the first instance.
16.Councillor Amirtharaj sympathised with the applicant stating he felt the Committee may have been too harsh and believed that they should look at the application from the viewpoint of what would be in the best interest for the family. The Councillor sympathised with the Parish Council’s viewpoint but argued that the development would have been lawful if it went through the proper process.
17.Councillor Dick felt the application was cynical but recognised the need for Gypsy and Traveller sites. The Councillor noted the sites’ location outside the settlement boundary, weak enforcement and the need to balance competing interests. Councillor Dick suggested temporary planning approval due to the need for such sites in the short term.
18.Councillor Foot acknowledged the difficult nature of the retrospective planning application, however understood the difficulties facing such communities.
19.Councillor Vickers argued there had been sufficient negotiation from the applicant and that the Committee should go with the application.
20.Councillor Hooker felt that the site was impressive but asked for a condition around land testing.
21.Councillor Vickers argued there was no need for a land testing condition as Officers were satisfied. The Councillor also believed that there were no grounds for a temporary condition.
22.Councillor Woollaston asked for the number of plots to be conditioned and it was confirmed to already be the case.
23.Councillor Gaines offered support for the land testing condition.
24.Councillor Foot proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report, update report and the inclusion of a land contamination test condition. This was seconded by Councillor Vickers
25.The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Foot, seconded by Councillor Vickers to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried
RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions
1. |
Commencement of development Within 3 months of the date of this decision, works shall be completed to bring the development in accordance with the approved plans.
Reason: The existing development on site does not accord with the approved plans, and therefore remedial works are required.
|
2. |
Approved plans The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans/documents: Proposed Site Plan J004098-DD-03 Rev A received 8th August 2022; Proposed Day Room Plans J004098-DD-04 received 8th August 2022; Location Plan J004098-DD-01 Rev A received 8th August 2022; Proposed Section and Levels J004098-DD-05 received 8th August 2022; Supporting Statement received 8th August 2022; Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment received 7th February 2023; Flood Risk Assessment dated May 2023 received 24th May 2023; Surface Water Drainage Strategy received 31st May 2023; Biodiversity Metric received 12th February 2024; Ecological Impact Assessment dated February 2024 received 12th February 2024.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
|
3. |
Materials The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be as specified on the plans and/or the application forms. Where stated that materials shall match the existing, those materials shall match those on the existing development in colour, size and texture.
Reason: To ensure that the external materials respect the character and appearance of the area. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).
|
4. |
Parking Within 3 months of the date of this decision notice the vehicle parking spaces for each pitch shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans (including any surfacing arrangements and marking out). Thereafter the parking shall be kept available for parking and manoeuvring (of private cars and/or private light goods vehicles) at all times.
Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities, in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking that would adversely affect road safety and the flow of traffic. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026.
|
5. |
EA Within 3 months of the date of this decision, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment compiled by Flume Consulting Engineers, referenced 1292, revision 2 and dated May 2023 and the following mitigation measures it details:
- There shall be no development on site in Flood Zone 2 or Flood Zone 3 all in accordance with Figure 3 on page No 5. - There shall be no raising of existing ground levels on site in Flood Zone 2 or Floor Zone 3 all in accordance with paragraph 2 of page No 5.
The measures detailed above shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development.
Reason: In line with the requirements of paragraph 167 of the NPPF, to reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants for the lifetime of the proposed development. To prevent an increase in flood risk elsewhere by ensuring that the flow of flood water is not impeded, and the proposed development does not cause a loss of flood plain storage. To prevent obstruction to the flow and storage of flood water, which would lead to an increase in flood risk elsewhere.
|
6. |
Ecology All further works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details submitted in the ecological impact assessment:
- Section 1.6 Surface water drainage strategy of the Ecological impact assessment (February 2024, DJOGS Limited). - Section 1.7 Landscape and Ecological enhancement scheme of the Ecological impact assessment (February 2024, DJOGS Limited). - Section 5.2 Mitigation measures and residual effects of the Ecological impact assessment (February 2024, DJOGS Limited). - Section 6.2 Recommendations; Essential of the Ecological impact assessment (February 2024, DJOGS Limited). - Section 6.2 Recommendations; Desirable, where applicable, of the Ecological impact assessment (February 2024, DJOGS Limited).
Reason: To avoid adverse impacts to legally protected species during site clearance and construction in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF to minimise impacts on biodiversity.
|
7. |
External lighting No external lighting shall be installed at the site until a lighting strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall include a plan to show the location of any lighting, isolux contour diagram(s), an operation strategy (e.g. details of timed operation), and specifications all lighting to ensure that levels are designed within the limitations of Environmental Lighting Zone 1, as described by the Institute of Lighting Engineers. No external lighting shall be installed at the site except in accordance with the above strategy.
Reason: To ensure the conservation and enhancement of the biodiversity assets of the site. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
|
8. |
Maximum pitches At no time shall more than 2 pitches be provided on the application site.
Reason: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site and maintain good amenity for occupants. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026
|
9. |
Occupation restriction The site hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than by Gypsies and Travellers, as defined in the revised Planning Policy for Traveller Sites of December 2023.
Reason: To comply with policy CS7 in the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and to maintain a supply of pitches.
|
10. |
Day rooms The dayrooms hereby permitted shall only be used for purposes ancillary and/or incidental to the pitches upon which they are sited.
Reason: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site and maintain good amenity for occupants. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
|
11. |
Contamination Within 3 months of the date of this decision*, an investigation into any contaminated land shall be carried out and a report submitted to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for approval. The report shall: (a) Include an investigation and risk assessment. A report of the findings shall: identify the nature and extent of any contamination on the site (irrespective of its origin); include an assessment of the potential risks to human health, property, and the environment; and include an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of preferred option(s). (b) Include a remediation scheme* which ensures that, after remediation, as a minimum, the land shall not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. (c) Include a monitoring and maintenance scheme* to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the proposed remediation, and the provisionof reports on the same that shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. (d) Be prepared by a competent person (a person with a recognised relevant qualification, sufficient experience in dealing with the type(s) of pollution or land instability, and membership of a relevant professional organisation), and conducted in accordance with current best practice.
Thereafter, any approved remediation scheme and/or monitoring and maintenance measures shall be carried out within 3 months* of the date of approval of the scheme/measures, and in accordance with the approved details. Two weeks written notice shall be given to the LPA prior to the commencement of any remediation scheme. Within 4 months of the date of approval of the scheme/measures, a verification report to demonstrate the effectiveness of the remediation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
(* Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA)
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy OVS.5 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
|
Supporting documents:
- 4.2. 22-01899 FUL Land West of Pumping Station, item 3.(2) PDF 390 KB
- 4.2a. 22-01899-FUL Land West Of Pumping Station Map, item 3.(2) PDF 3 MB
- 2. 22-01899-FUL Land At Pumping Station Update Report, item 3.(2) PDF 76 KB