Agenda item

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/01045/FUL in respect of a retrospective: Change of use of land to a Gypsy/Traveller site comprising the siting of 1 mobile home, 1 touring caravan, the erection of 1 dayroom, (Proposed) alongside the retrospective erection of 1 stable building for private equestrian use.

2.      Cheyanne 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 the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. He noted the following:

·       The existing access to the site was substandard with regard to sight lines to the south. However, the previous use for the site was for a landscape garden business which was likely to have similar, if not more, vehicle usage than the proposed use.

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Adrian Abbs, Parish Council representative and Mr Peter Brownjohn, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

5.      Councillor Adrian Abbs addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 19 February 2025 (22:55)

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

6.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following response:

·       Councillor Abbs clarified that he was speaking on behalf of the Parish Council.

Applicant/Agent Representation

7.      Mr Peter Brownjohn addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 19 February 2025 (26:28)

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

8.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The land was designated as open countryside outside of the settlement boundary.

·       The definition of a traveller was as defined in the PPTS in December 2024. People of nomadic habit regardless of ethnicity.

·       The applicant travelled for nomadic purposes but was also a gypsy traveller.

·       The definition of nomadism was nomadic travel for economic purposes.

·       The retrospective element of the case was due to the fact that the applicant’s wife had significant medical concerns that meant they needed a settled base quickly.

Member Questions to Officers

9.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Paul Goddard advised that the access would have been refused outright had it been a new application over safety concerns. However, as it was an existing access it was difficult to reject.

·       Cheyanne Kirby noted that at the time, the Council was one traveller pitch short of the required number. However, a further 18 would have to be found by 2038.

·       Cheyanne Kirby advised that the kitchen garden wall formed part of the wider Sandleford Park estate that was located on the site. It had been overgrown and hidden, but the clearing undertaken by this application had helped to preserve it.

·       Cheyanne Kirby clarified that biodiversity net gain was implemented the previous year however nutrient neutrality was implemented earlier. Because the application was submitted after nutrient neutrality came into effect but before biodiversity net gain it was subject to the former but not the latter.

·       Paul Goddard noted that the previous usage of the access was based on assumptions about the previous use of the site. The number of employees working for the landscape gardening business could have resulted in six vehicle uses per day. Therefore, a single residential access would likely have less.

·       Paul Goddard felt that the access was not safe, however, reducing the number of vehicle uses meant it would be safer than it was. Crash map data advised that there had been a single personal injury accident along that section of road since January 2019. Considering the number of people that used that road it was likely better than average.

·       Paul Goddard highlighted that the existing usage could come back any time. Because of this he stressed that it was difficult to reject the application on highways grounds.

·       Paul Goddard advised that he had calculated a worst case scenario for both the previous and proposed usages of the access.

·       Cheyanne Kirby advised that the definition of a traveller was “Persons of nomadic habit life, whatever their race or origins, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family or dependants educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently and all other persons with a tradition of nomadism or living in a caravan, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling show people or circus people travelling together as such.” She advised that the planning policy officer assessed that the applicants met the definition.

·       Paul Goddard was not happy with a vehicle towing a trailer entering the site, however, that type of vehicle usage was likely to happen with the existing usage.

Debate

10.   Councillor Denise Gaines opened the debate by referencing section 5.40 noting that local planning authorities should limit traveller site development in open countryside. She expressed concern that this application was not conforming to that. She also highlighted section 5.86 of the report noting the retrospective nature of the application and the failure to get permission before the site was put in place and the lack of explanation as to why. She expressed concern that a precedent was going to be set.

11.   Councillor Adrian Abbs advised that he was particularly concerned about the safety of the road and felt that conditions needed to be explored to limit turning right onto the road out of the existing access. He agreed with Councillor Gaines point regarding precedents and felt that a precedent had been set in October when a site was rejected over similar concerns. He felt that it was important to be consistent.

12.   Councillor Paul Dick advised that the previous application had no bearing on his decision. He felt that this application would result in an improved situation and that the Committee should support officers’ recommendations.

13.   Councillor Nigel Foot felt that whilst it was regrettable that it was a retrospective application he felt the Committee had heard valid reasons as to why this was the case. He noted the concerns around the access and advised that this application was suitable for a Community Infrastructure Levy payment and queried if it was appropriate to add a condition placing road signs to make the access safer.

14.   Councillor Howard Woollaston advised the Hermitage site was rejected based on overlooking and affecting nearby residents. He felt that this was not a factor in this application.

15.   Councillor Martin Colston noted that the Council had a clear duty to supply a traveller site and supported officers’ recommendations.

16.   Debra Inston advised that road signs could not be conditioned outside of the red line of a site.

17.   Councillor Paul Dick proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Nigel Foot.

18.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Dick, seconded by Councillor Foot, 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 conditions listed in the main report and update report.