Agenda item

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

The Planning Lead reminded members that the decision on the application was deferred at the October meeting to enable an ecology survey and an assessment of the water supply to be undertaken.  He updated members with the following information:

·         An ecology report had been undertaken.  The survey concluded that the plans were unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on wildlife.  In response to the survey, the Council’s Ecologist had suggested an additional condition regarding external lighting.  The Area Lead confirmed that he would amend Condition 8 to include his suggested condition;

·         A further letter had been received from the agent outlining that they had undertaken a water survey concluding that the spring would supply adequate water for the development and wouldn’t harm third parties supply of water in The Drift and surrounding area;

·         A further letter had been received from one of the neighbours to the development disagreeing that the spring would provide sufficient water and raising concerns over contamination;

·         A letter had also been received from a water specialist on behalf of the neighbour questioning the robustness of the water assessment.  A response to the letter had been received from agent’s consultant stating that as a licence was not required there was no need for further testing;

·         The Council’s Environmental Health Officer accepted that there was sufficient water supply based on the evidence provided.

The Area Lead referred to the key considerations and explained that whilst the Council was making good progress towards meeting its pitch target there was still a need for pitches.  In terms of highway impact the Highway Authority consider that the development will not have a harmful impact 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.  The Landscape Officer considered there to be no significant adverse harm to the landscape.

With regard to previous applications on the site, members noted that four applications for single residential dwellings had all been refused on the grounds of being outside the development area and on highway grounds.

The Senior Legal Executive advised members that water supply was not generally a material consideration.  The dispute arising did not preclude members from granting the application and that legal action could still be taken to resolve the water issue subsequently to permission being granted.  If the application was to be granted and a subsequent problem was to arise, the Council would have discretionary powers to intervene.

In response to a member question, the Planning Lead confirmed that the development would not have an impact on dormice.

The Committee was addressed by R McGuigan, S Webb, and C Jarvis in objection to the application.  Points expressed included the following:

·         Four applications have previously been refused on the site in the past and another two in the 1960’s;

·         Other adjacent land was unsuitable for development;

·         Turning onto the A30 was dangerous due to speed of approaching traffic;

·         Concern over mature trees being previously removed to create the hardstanding;

·         Surprised to see the water survey concluding that the water spring is capable of supplying double the amount of water required for 16 residents;

·         Failure to carry out robust water testing and numbers misleading in the survey;

·         Reference to planning policy for traveller sites;

·         Domination of the settled community;

·         Undue pressure on the local infrastructure;

·         Increased risk of flooding and damage to residential properties along The Drift.

The Committee was then addressed by M Larcombe in support of the application.   He pointed out that there were no detrimental issues arising from the ecological survey or water assessment and there were no legal planning reason to refuse the application.  With regard to the limitation of 3 ½ tonnes on the lane he commented that there were many tractors using the lanes in excess of 3 ½ tonnes.

The Applicant’s Agent, M Smith-Bendell commented that the company that carried out the water survey were experts on boreholes.  Reference was made to the changing of the seasons and the summer now being much wetter and queried why residents had not sought reduced rates if there was such a problem with lack of water.  She also referred to a previous resident who was a pig farmer having no water problems.  She commented that the proposed location met all the requirements for gypsy provision and that other sites were full with waiting lists.

The Area Planning Lead reminded members that conditions to control the business use and limit the size of vehicles had been suggested by members at the October meeting and that he would be content to attach these conditions to the permission.

Ward Member, Cllr. Andrew Turpin expressed concerns over the development having an effect on the existing water supply which was already very limited at certain times. 

During discussion on the application, the following comments were made:

·         The Planning Policy for Traveller Sites relating to domination and infrastructure was aimed at larger sites and not designed for a site of this size;

·         There were no flood risk issues;

·         Nobody owned the water supply and Officers were satisfied that there were no issues;

·         A previous resident had used the water supply for farming purposes without any problems;

·         There were no planning reasons to refuse the application.

A proposal was made to refuse the application on the grounds of the uncertain and inadequate water supply.  The proposal was not seconded.

It was then proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation subject to the following:

·         An amendment to Condition 8 to include the comments of SSDC’s Ecologist to ensure that lighting is sensitive to nocturnal wildlife;

·         An additional condition to limit size of vehicle;

·         An additional condition to control business activities.

On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application subject to conditions was carried by 4 votes in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention.