Agenda item

Application Proposal: The erection of 1 No. wooden gypsy lodge, toilet and stables/tackroom (Part Retrospective)

The Area Lead West introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda.  He noted that a site nearby had recently been granted planning permission on appeal, having been refused on highway safety grounds at Committee.  Although the Highway Authority did not support this application because of the nearby substandard road junction, a traffic survey undertaken on behalf of the applicant showed that a reasonable level of traffic used the lane and the impact of one site would not be high.  He noted the Parish Council comments which were listed in the appendix to his report but he did not feel the site would have a significant impact upon the character of the area.  He recommended a further condition to control use of the stables to be personal to the applicant only and said his recommendation was for approval.

In response to questions from Members, the Area Lead Planning Officer advised that:-

·         There was a compost toilet and one building dating from 2008 currently on the site.  Google maps showed that there was nothing on the site in 2006.  The applicant would use the existing building as a day room.  There would be one static and one touring caravan on the site;

·         The quota for traveller pitches in the Local Plan was 23 and so 10 or 11 pitches were still needed to meet this target;

·         The Policy for travellers also took account of travelling permanently;

·         He was satisfied that the applicant had a nomadic lifestyle;

·         The applicant could apply to vary or appeal any unreasonable conditions imposed;

·         There was no doubt that the junction was substandard, the issue was whether it was substandard enough bearing in mind that the application was for only one pitch and it could be visited on a daily basis without the permission;

·         A condition could be added to ensure that no additional buildings could be erected on the site without permission;

·         The need for 23 pitches in the Local Plan was not a maximum target but a minimum target.  There was a need for the pitch and even if the target had been reached his recommendation would still be for approval.

Jonathan Hoskyns, Chair of North Perrott Parish Council addressed the Committee.  His comments included the following:

·         The Parish Council had not considered the proposal for an additional caravan;

·         Concerns over the inaccuracy of the plans;

·         Concerns over road safety.  Photographs had been submitted of skid marks to show the near misses at the junction but had not been included in the report;

·         The report stated that there was no relevant history on the site but this was considered inaccurate. Since 2003 the Parish Council had tried to restrict development in the area.  A previous application had been submitted for residency and a market garden but was refused permission.

The Committee was addressed by Marisa Rowe, Felicity Thorne and Jobey Hughes in support of the application.  Comments raised included the following:

·         Support for the proposal on the basis of need;

·         Impact on the applicant’s health and wellbeing if the application was refused;

·         Concerns in relation to the applicant’s current living conditions;

·         The land would remain as it is and the natural hedging would stay.

The Applicant, Miss Lovie Hughes informed the Committee of her current living arrangements and explained that permission would change her life and give her security and peace of mind.

The Area Lead West advised that there was a wider planning history in the area and that consultation had been undertaken with regard to an additional caravan on site and a traffic survey was also conducted.  He further advised that he was proposing that personal permission would remain and would only last as long as the applicant was on site.

During discussion on the item, some members felt that in this case notwithstanding the needs of the applicant, the site was discreet and out of sight, the proposal was minimal and access was already in place and were therefore content to support the application. Some members raised concerns over the difference in opinion of the highway comments and felt that more weight should be given to the views of the Parish Council.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation outlined in the agenda report subject to the following additional conditions:

·         The stables shall only be for personal use by the applicant

·         No additional buildings to be erected on the site without planning permission

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried 11 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention.