Agenda item

Application Proposal: Change of use of land to private gypsy site consisting of 4 No. pitches and associated development

The Planning Lead East/West introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application.  The application was for 4 pitches with each pitch containing 1 family unit.  He explained that whilst the Council was making good progress towards meeting its pitch target there was still a need for pitches.  The Highway Authority had assessed the junction and concluded that the visibility at the junction of The Drift with the A30 was acceptable.  There were also no concerns with the increase in traffic.  With regard to access rights, the Planning Lead East/West advised that the applicant would have the same private rights that all other landowners/householders have along The Drift to access their property.  In response to concerns about drainage of the site, the applicant had agreed to install a sewage treatment plant which was preferable to a septic tank.   

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Lead East/West confirmed the following:

·         With regard to other cases, he could not recall a distance of 2km from services being unacceptable.  The Inspectors were satisfied that it was not a reason to refuse on sustainability grounds;

·         The Fire Service had not been consulted on the application as other regulations covered the issue.  There was also government guidance that should be followed on how to set up a site;

·         The advice from the Council’s Environmental Health Officer was that the likely level of water consumption would not be at a level that would require a licence from the Environment Agency;

·         The applicant owned the land;

·         The planning system does accept the principle for different uses/users to be located in the countryside;

·         A condition could be attached to the site with regard to size of vehicle;

·         An ecological survey was not required as there was current use on the site.

The Committee was addressed by C Jarvis and S Webb in objection to the application.  Issues raised by the objectors related to the following:

·         Ownership and rights of way over The Drift and access track;

·         Seven previous applications had all been refused details of which had not been included in the Officer’s report;

·         Inappropriate location for development;

·         Risk of contamination of the water supply;

·         The A30 was a dangerous busy road and Highways had not considered the ingress;

·         Not suitable for additional traffic especially larger vehicles;

·         Questioned whether the spring would provide enough water for the amount of people on the site.

The Senior Legal Executive confirmed that any dispute over the access to the Drift was a private matter and that planning permission could still be granted.

The Committee was then addressed by M Larcombe in support of the application.  He commented that he had known the family for 3 generations.  The family were very hard working and would be an asset to the community and the area.  With regard to vehicles of 3 ½ tonnes accessing the site, he stated that tractors, trailers and horseboxes already using the Drift road without any issues. 

The Applicant’s Agent, M Smith-Bendell commented that the site was very well screened from the public highway and there would be little upheaval in making it a private site.  There were no objections from the statutory organisations.  The site had sufficient parking areas, would not cause any harm and would be well maintained with no animals.  The site was located within Flood Zone 1 and was not at risk of flooding.  She commented that the previous owner had not experienced any problems with the bore hole but if there were problems a mains supply could be brought in as the water mains were ¾ mile down the road.  She highlighted that suitable affordable land was hard to find.

Ward Member, Councillor Andrew Turpin raised concerns over the strain on the water supply, risk of contamination and sustainability of the site.  He felt that further work was required to find out if the access and water supply were acceptable to the Fire Service.  He also felt concerned that no ecological survey had been undertaken and referred to the relevance of the previous refused applications. 

During discussion on the item, members raised a number of concerns with the application as follows:

·         Concern over the water supply and the effect on the residents of The Drift;

·         The A30 was notorious for accidents;

·         The need for an ecological survey;

·         The need for further information on the seven previously refused applications;

·         Concerns over sustainability of the site and there being no footpath.

A proposal was made to approve the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation with an additional condition to limit the size of vehicle/business use.  The proposal was not seconded.

A further proposal was made and seconded to refuse the application on the grounds of the water supply and the issue of sustainability.  The Planning Lead East/West advised Members against refusing the application on sustainability grounds and was concerned that the issue of the private water supply was not a valid planning reason to refuse the application. 

At this point in the proceedings, the meeting was adjourned in order to seek advice from the Senior Legal Executive and Planning Lead East/West.  Upon reconvening, the Senior Legal Executive informed members of the issues discussed during the adjournment.  The reasons put forward for refusal being difficult to substantiate at appeal were discussed as well as the alternative option of referring the application to Regulation Committee for them to make the ultimate decision.  Reference was also made to the Ward Member’s suggestion of a deferral, he was advised if he wished to pursue this further he could withdraw his original proposal and then formally put the new proposal forward.     

The Ward Member agreed to retract his original proposal to refuse the application.  It was then proposed and seconded to defer the application for further investigation of the water supply and effect on supply and also for a full ecology survey.  On being put to the vote, the proposal was approved.  The vote was 5 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention.

(Voting: 5 in favour, 2 against, 1 abstention)