Agenda item

Proposal: Application for change of use of land to provide 2 additional Traveller pitches comprising 2 No mobile homes; 2 No Touring Caravans and associated hardstanding.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda. He updated members with regard to the relevant policy in the Local Plan and the allocations target. It was noted additional drainage would need to be provided, if the application was approved, and this could be provided on the applicants land by condition.

Mr P McKeown, spoke on behalf of Curry Mallet Parish Council, noting they strongly recommended refusal of the application. At the time they considered the application in June they had been unaware that planning conditions were already being flouted. They recognised the special status for Gypsies and Travellers, but had concerns regarding the candour of the applicant.

Ms A Hill, Mr K Hill and Mrs A Hill on behalf of Mr M Hill addressed members in objection to the application and raised a number of comments including:

·         Feel the assessment by the Equalities Officer is obsolete as the definition for Travellers has been revised.

·         Reference to visual amenity and policy HG7 - the proposal should not have an adverse impact on the landscape. Reasons and conditions for the previous application had stated future development would damage the landscape.

·         The required highway visibility splay for the access could not be achieved.

·         The definition for Traveller had changed and the applicants did not have a nomadic lifestyle which was now part of the definition.

·         Planning officers had a duty, and are able, to check that applicants meet the required criteria.

·         The business website for one of the applicants indicated they did not travel.

·         Consistency of reasons for refusal of planning applications in the local area.

·         The site had been unlawfully occupied for some time with no enforcement action taken.

Dr S Ruston, agent, noted that defamatory comments made about the applicants should not be taken into consideration. He also commented that the definitions for Travellers, as referred to in the report, were correct at the time the application was submitted. Few objections had been raised by statutory consultees, and as the proposal was in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework it should be approved.

Ward member, Councillor Sue Steele, remembered the previous application when it was considered and the statements of assurance given by the applicants. She had visited the site, and was of the opinion that business activities were occurring there as portable showers were being washed down, and there was no permission for business use. She did not support the proposal and felt there had been little enforcement.

The Area Lead noted, enforcement issues aside, that the proposal would help meet the need for pitches in the district. A personal permission was not being proposed, and if approved, the usage as Traveller pitches would be for the site and not a named person or family. If the residents of the site did not meet the criteria of Traveller they would be moved on. Requirements for visibility splays and drainage would be covered by conditions.

During discussion, mixed views were expressed with some members minded towards refusing the application and others to defer for more information. Comments raised by members included:

·         Is the water supply adequate and what are the arrangements for foul water and drainage?

·         Defamatory comments are not helpful

·         Should defer for more information about sewerage and drainage, and a site visit.

·         Strong concerns about drainage.

·         Concern that the Authority is not certain about which structures currently on the site have permission.

·         By nature of location and settings the site is unsuitable for two further pitches

·         Concern about impact on the landscape.

In response to other comments made the Area Lead clarified that unauthorised business use on the existing site would be an enforcement issue and not a matter to be considered for this current application. He acknowledged there was some lack of detail regarding drainage provision.

It was proposed to refuse the application due to concerns about landscape impact and the lack of information regarding drainage. On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 8 in favour of refusal, 0 against and 4 abstentions.

Following the formal vote the Area Lead commented that on the basis of the decision, he assumed members wished officers to pursue enforcement. Whilst no formal vote was taken there was a positive indication from members to do so.

(Voting: 8 in favour, 0 against, 4 abstentions)