Agenda item

Permanent use of the land as gypsy and traveller caravan site.

Recommendation: Refusal

Permanent use of the land as gypsy and traveller caravan site.

This application seeked permanent planning permission for the use of the site as a gypsy and traveller caravan site which had previously been granted twice at appeal, on a temporary basis.

The application site comprises a 0.25ha triangular shaped field located on the southern side  of  Jackets  Lane,  approximately  700m  to  the  south  east  of  its  junction  with Northwood Road. It was located within open countryside which formed part of the Green Belt and a Countryside Conservation Area and also  lies  adjacent  to  a Nature Conservation Site of Metropolitan or Borough Grade 1 Importance.

The two previous Inspectors did not consider that this site was suitable for a permanent gypsy and traveller caravan site, the harm to the character and appearance of the Green Belt and Countryside Conservation Area being too great. They had only been prepared to grant temporary permission, mainly due to the compelling personal circumstances of the applicant and his  family.  The previous Inspectors were  also  concerned  about  the Local Planning Authority's lack of assessment of traveller's needs within the UDP and no alternative site's being available in the vicinity. A temporary permission would enable the Local Planning Authority to progress the LDF and for site-specific allocations to be made.

Although the personal circumstances of  the applicant and,  to a more  limited extent his family, were  still  valid and  there are  still no alternative  sites available,  in  considering  the previous application, the last Inspector considered that the matter was finely balanced so that a 4 year temporary permission was considered acceptable so that at least the harm to the Green Belt could be restricted by limiting the duration of the use, in which time it was hoped the LDF could be progressed. The LDF has been progressed but not to the extent that specific sites have been allocated (if required). To allow a further period would be to extend the duration of the harm so that it is considered that on balance, the other factors,  including  the  personal  circumstances  of  the  applicant  and  his  family would  no longer justify a further extension of time with a continuation of the harm.

Furthermore, although this application was described as being for the permanent use of the land as a gypsy and traveller caravan site and no operational development was described, the submitted plan did not accurately shown existing caravans/mobile homes/ buildings on site.  The  agent  had  been  advised  of  the  apparent  discrepancies  and  requested  to clarify  precisely  what  was  being  sought  but  to  date,  no  such  clarification  had been forthcoming. As such, the Local Planning Authority could not be certain of the full extent and impacts of the works being proposed. Nonetheless, it was clearly evident that the real harm  of  the  proposals  was  greater  than  the  submitted  plans  indicate with  respect  to  the Green Belt and landscape of the Countryside Conservation Area.

The  Environment  Agency  also  objected  to  the  absence  of  an  assessment  dealing  with pollution risks of foul drainage. The  scheme  also  fails  to  demonstrate  that  it  will  contribute  towards  sustainable development. The application was therefore recommended for refusal.

15  responses objecting  to  the  proposal  had  been  received,  together  with  a  petition  with  64  signatories.  2 responses in support had also been received.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. Petitioners were not present and therefore did not address the Committee.

The agent spoke on behalf of the application submitted:

• Mr Joseph Jones stated that the 2 previous applications had been overturned. The Planning Inspectorate had granted planning permission.
• Since the last appeal very little had changed.
• Very special circumstances had been put forward and if the Council refused permission then they would be morally wrong.
• If there was a need for amendments then these could be dealt with by further conditions.
• If further information was required the agent asked that the decision be deferred.
• The agent also stated that the Human Rights Act was engaged and needed to be considered by the Committee when making their decision.
• Mr Alan Masters also spoke on behalf of the applicant.
• Mr Masters pointed out what he felt were clear fundamental mistakes in the officer report.
• The applicant, Mr Cox, had given full plans 3 or 4 weeks ago to the planning department and these had not been included in the report.
• There were several discrepancies in the report which were not clear.
• The site could not be looked at in isolation as the family breed horses on the site.
• He pointed out the Race Relations Act in regard to the comments made in the report by residents in objection to the application.
• There were personal and medical circumstances to consider.

Members asked officers for comments regarding the amended plans the agent spoke about. Officers replied that they wrote to the agent/applicant on 8^th November 2011 and to their knowledge had not received anything from the applicant. Officers had spoken to the relevant planning officer who said no further plans had been submitted.

Members asked officers about horse breeding on the site. Officers had seeked clarification from the agent in an email to ask what exactly the use of the site was. This information had not yet been provided.

Officers stated that the previous appeal inspectorate took into consideration all aspects and concluded that it was not suitable for a permanent application.

The Council’s Legal Officer advised that the inclusion of comments from objectors in the officer report was standard Council practice. In any case, the planning file would details these comments and this was available for public inspection.

Members discussed the options available to them and they felt that they needed further information before they could consider this application for determination.

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

Resolved –

That the application be deferred for officers to obtain correct plans and further information on uses.