Agenda item

Proposal: Application to vary Conditions 2,3,4,6,7,8,9 and 10 of approval 13/04943/FUL to regularise the existing development ; 2 additional touring vans; external lighting; turning and parking area and hardstanding; landscaping schedule;1 additional storage container materials and the substitution of plans.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and highlighted the changes to conditions being sought. He noted there was a change in caravan style but this was acceptable. He also noted there were some issues with the landscaping scheme proposed as part of the existing scheme had been differently planted, and so a revised scheme was being asked to be approved. With reference to government guidance regarding traveller sites, he was of the opinion the landscaping proposed was acceptable.

Mr S Berkieta, addressed members on behalf of Compton Dundon Parish Council. He noted they had unanimously resolved to recommend refusal of the application for the reasons as detailed in the officer report. They did not feel the changes proposed were minor nor did they feel the mobile home met the criteria under the Caravan Act. He also noted that noxious burning had taken place on the site.

Ms A Roberton and Mr K Thomson spoke in objection to the application and comments raised by them included:

·         Local residents strongly objected to flouting of planning approval.

·         Containers on site appear now to be used for storing scrap metal and lorries are frequently on site.

·         Breaking of cars is likely to contaminate the site and smoke causes a nuisance.

·         Question how waste water is managed on site, and fear pollution by seepage.

·         If site tidy with no mess and no burning then will be more acceptable.

Mrs M Smith-Bendell, spoke on behalf of the agent, noting she had visited the site and family, and was so impressed that she felt there was a need to support the application. She noted the site was well fenced and screened and was only visible from the upper windows of a few properties. She also noted that when she had walked the site she could not see any evidence of burning.

Ward member, Councillor Dean Ruddle, commented he had no issue with the domestic use, but the business use proposed was not a minor change. He supported the parish council comments to refuse the application.

Ward member, Councillor Stephen Page, concurred with comments raised about the business use aspect, and he expressed concern regarding the officer recommendation for approval of the application.

The Planning Officer and Area Lead responded to comments made and explained in more detail the changes in business use now proposed.

During discussion several comments were raised including:

·         How is waste water dealt with?

·         Landscaping will be important

·         Unlikely more waste water will be generated by this proposal

·         If this was any other business not related to Gyspy and Travellers then it would be unlikely to be allowed.

·         This will be creep and intensification of use of the site

In response to comments made the Area Lead clarified the existing and proposed business use on the site. He noted the family use was not for an additional pitch and so there were no concerns regarding drainage. He reminded members that they needed to consider if the impact of an additional container and two caravans was so great that support for the application fell away.

The Legal Services Manager acknowledged the general concerns members had about retrospective applications, but stated any applicant was entitled to submit a retrospective application. She advised members that the retrospective nature of the application should not influence a decision. In response to a comment raised during discussion, she drew members’ attention to the previous grant of planning permission on the site, and the need for the committee to make consistent decision unless circumstances were notably different.

At the conclusion of discussion, during which mixed views were raised, it was proposed to refuse the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, on the grounds of it being over intensification of the use of the site, unneighbourly and detrimental to the countryside and local area. On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was carried 7 in favour, 0 against with 2 abstentions.

(Voting: 7 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions)