Agenda item

Change of use of land to a residential caravan site for one family, involving the siting of one static and one touring caravan, with associated parking for two vehicles, water treatment plant, hardstanding and landscaping works (Part retrospective application).

Recommendation: Refusal

Change of use of land to a residential caravan site for one Gypsy family, involving the siting of one static and one touring caravan, with associated parking for two vehicles, water treatment plant, hardstanding and landscaping works (Part retrospective application).

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the changes as set out in the Public Addendum. Unusually, this item also had a Part 2 Addendum which contained a medical submission. The Chairman asked that this was read by the Committee before Officers provided their formal presentation. It was noted that since the agenda had been published, a petition in support of the application had been received.

In accordance with the Constitution, a representative of the petition in support of the application addressed the Committee. The following points were raised:

·         Officers had not conducted a site visit and so were not conversant with the site.

·         A proper consultation had not taken place.

·         The flood risk assessment had not been considered by Officers.

·         The Environment Agency had requested that the item be deferred.

·         The Health Statement submitted by the applicant had been ignored.

·         Very special circumstances existed which had been ignored by Officers.

·         There was an unmet need for a traveller pitch in the area.

·         Contrary to Officer's observations, the site was sustainable.

·         The site was located in a semi-rural location and any impact on the Green Belt could be overcome by adding screening.

·         Article 8 of the Human Rights Act entitled persons to the right of family life.

·         The applicant needed a place to live to so that they could access consistent health care.

·         Given the high level of rainfall, it had not flooded in the area where the permission was sought.

In discussing the application, the Committee requested further information on whether there were any special circumstances present, the implications of the Human Rights Act, communication between the applicant and the Planning Department and the Flood Risk Assessment.

In response, Officers explained that the National Planning Policy Framework and Government's policy for traveller sites, March 2012 advised that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy was to prevent urban sprawl. Officers explained that paragraph 87 stated that unless special circumstances were deemed to exist, development was considered to be inappropriate and harmful and should not be approved. In this case, Paragraph 14, specifically in relation to Green Belts stated that 'Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development'.

With regards to the Human Rights Act, Officers explained that Section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010 required the Council to have regard to these provisions to eliminate discrimination. In relation to planning decisions, the Committee were required to make a judgement as to whether a planning decision would affect human rights and any decision it took would need to be proportionate and achieve a fair balance between private interests and the public interest.

Addressing the petitioners' point about an alleged lack of communication between the applicant and the Planning Department, Officers confirmed that  there had not been a site meeting in this case. Officers explained that a site visit had been proposed by Officers but at the time, the agent had been unwell. In this case, as no date was agreed upon, Officers had proceeded with processing the application. In relation to the Flood Risk Assessment, Officers explained that this had been submitted late and such a substantial document could not be considered less than 5 working days ahead of the meeting.

Having considered the evidence presented to it, the Committee agreed that special circumstances did not exist and the application should be refused as per the Officer recommendation.

It was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote agreed that delegated Authority be granted to the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture to refuse the application. 

Resolved -

That Delegated Authority be granted to the Head of Planning, Culture and Green Spaces to refuse the application following consideration of the submitted FRA as set out in the addendum sheet.