Agenda item

Permanent use of the land as a gypsy and traveller caravan site and for the keeping and breeding of horses with associated operational development, including the siting of two mobile homes and a touring caravan, retention of two stable blocks, and the formation of a garden area with the erection of a garden shed, yard and paddock areas, parking spaces, landscaping and fencing (Part retrospective application).

Deferred from North Committee 10 January 2012

Recommendation: Refusal

Prior to officer’s introduction of the application, a petitioner organiser (in support of the application) stated that he would like to address the Committee for a second time and stated that he would like to ask the Chairman (under the Chairman’s discretion) to accept a late petition to enable him to speak about the application. 

The Chairman announced that as the application had previously been considered by the Committee and the petition organiser (who spoke on behalf of the applicant/agent) was aware that the application would be coming back to a future meeting, he saw no extenuating circumstances to allow the petition organiser to speak, given that the petition was received less than 48 hours before the meeting.  As such, the petition organiser’s request to speak on this item was refused.

The Legal Advisor asked the Chairman whether the Committee would be taking the written petition in into account. The Chairman affirmed that the petition would not be taken into account.

The petition was handed back to the petition organiser at the end of the meeting.

In introducing the report, officers reiterated that the application was reported to the North Planning Committee meeting held on 10 January 2012, at which the Committee was addressed by a representative of the applicant/agent (following a receipt of a petition that had been submitted in objection to the application). 

Officers drew Members’ attention to note the changes in the Addendum and advised that at the time the addendum had been published, two further emails had been received in support of the application. 

Officers highlighted that not withstanding the personal circumstances of the applicant and his family; the site had continually been occupied for over 9 years and on balance, the overall duration of harm and the impact on green belt, permission could no longer been extended. 

A Member expressed sympathy for the applicant having occupied the site for 9 years and stated that the two previous planning appeals had been granted by Planning Inspectors for two reasons; firstly, due to the lack of policies (for appropriate site- specific allocations to be made) and secondly due to the compelling personal circumstance of the applicant. The Member highlighted that the balance would be against any harm (the character and appearance of) to the green belt as opposed to the occupying the green belt.

Officers were asked whether consideration could possibly be given to a temporary permission tied up exclusively to the applicant and his family.  Officers responded that temporary permission could be considered but stressed that if temporary permission were to be granted, the buildings would also be temporary, which would then raise the issue of what would happen with the buildings when the applicant was no longer on the site.

Members were advised that in order to take the technical issues into consideration, the Committee could grant a permission which was tied to the site and impose conditions which would require the removal of all buildings on site.

During discussion, Members indicated that granting permission exclusively to the applicant would lead to highly technical complications.

A Member commented that the last Inspector had considered that a 4 year temporary permission had been acceptable, so that at least the harm to the Green Belt could be restricted by a limited time and suggested that the present situation had gone on long enough.

The Legal Advisor advised the Committee to note that the previous Inspector’s decision to grant temporary permission was for two reasons which were due to the special circumstance relating to the individual, and the fact that the Council did not have a strategic plan in place to meet the demand for traveller sites in the Borough. The Inspector had granted the appeal in the hope that policies would have been developed by the Council. Members were informed that it would be possible with the applicant’s agreement to grant a further temporary permission whilst policies were developed.

Officers advised that the Committee could only determine the application that was in front of them, which was for a permanent planning permission. The applicant could submit an application for a temporary permission for the Committee to consider. Members were informed that a number of months had passed since this application was deferred at the meeting in January 2012, during which, an application for temporary permission could have been submitted by the applicant.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report subject to the changes in the Addendum circulated at the meeting.