Agenda item

Application No.201143 - Land Adjacent to 166 Nine Mile Ride, Finchampstead

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Minutes:

Simon Weeks took no part in the discussion or voting for this item.

 

Chris Bowring assumed the Chair for the duration of this item.

 

Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed addition of four pitches to an existing four pitch caravan park for gypsy and travellers, plus reconfiguration of existing site.

 

Applicant: Mr D Reed

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report, set out in agenda pages 165 to 188.

 

The Committee were advised that there were no Members’ Updates.

 

In line with the given deadlines, three public written submissions were received for this item. These submissions were circulated to Members in advance, and noted on the evening. The submissions as provided can be found below.

 

Gordon Veitch, Finchamstead Parish Council, provided the following submission in objection to the application:

 

“We object to this inappropriate overdevelopment of the site. The proposed development would cause issues with privacy for residents of The Dittons due to the close proximity of the static/mobile homes.

 

We believe WBC currently has adequate provisions for gypsy and traveller pitches.

We understand the existing plans appear inaccurate, the layout of existing pitches is incorrect and do not represent the current layout of the site.

 

If WBC is minded to approve this application we ask that conditions are added to any approval:

 

• Siting of mobile homes to be an acceptable distance from adjoining properties.

• Landscaping to offer satisfactory visual protection to existing properties.

• Light pollution, any street lights to be positioned and directed within the site.”

 

Emily Temple, agent, provided the following submission in support of the application:

 

We are pleased to bring forward this site allocated in the draft local plan update, for prospective development.  As Councillors may know, the land at number 166 has been home to an existing gypsy and traveller site since 2008 when two pitches were approved, with expansion to 4 pitches following planning approval in 2014.

 

The site is located immediately adjacent to the Modest Development Location of Finchampstead.  The site is operated by the occupants and owner of 166 Nine Mile Ride; being so close they are able to keep a watchful eye over the running of the site. The development would also use the existing access and hardstanding so there would be no apparent visual change when viewed from the road.

 

The current council need for pitches is identified as 5.5 pitches. Whilst some permissions have been granted they have not yet been implemented. Being an extension of an existing site, the land at number 166 is both suitable for development, available and deliverable immediately. This meets an ongoing need for household expansion as existing Gypsy Traveller children in the area grow up and form their own independent households. A larger site such as proposed is well below the 15 pitch maximum set in Government advice, whilst still accommodating larger single family groups.

 

I am pleased to note there is no objection from statutory consultees such as Highways and Environmental Health.  I can confirm a written response was sent to a Planning Contravention Notice issued to the applicant during the course of the application.  The site is being operated fully in accordance with the existing permission for 4 pitches, and the applicant is committed to complying with the conditional requirements indicated by officers, such as landscaping, and a legal agreement to secure SPA mitigation. 

 

I hope that you are reassured by my comments today. We trust that we have worked well with officers throughout the application process to date, responding to queries as requested.  It’s therefore respectfully requested that your officer’s recommendation be supported today. Thank you.”

 

Simon Weeks, Ward Member, provided the following submission in objection to the application:

 

Residents have expressed significant concern about this proposal to double the number of pitches on this site within a residential area. 4 pitches were allowed on appeal in 2009.

 

The site is constrained as follows:

 

-       a TPO applies to the site;

-       12 established residential houses share a boundary with this site;

-       the site is designated as Countryside;

-       WBC currently has a 9.09 years land supply for gypsy and traveller pitches;

-       the application conflicts with a CP11.

 

Despite the TPO, a number of trees on the site have been lost but as you will see at paragraph 31, it is noted trees are shown illustratively. We should adopt a precautionary approach and secure an Arboricultural Assessment first, to ensure no further harm to the remaining protected trees.

 

Looking at the proposed site layout, you will see that 3 of the new proposed pitches (numbers 5, 6 and 7) are positioned right on the boundary and will impact on the amenity of numbers 8 and 9 The Dittons. I have received repeated complaints over the last few years about burning of plastic waste and noise, so the positioning of additional pitches so close to the boundary is inappropriate and likely to exacerbate this problem.

 

It is possible the site could be re-configured to minimise the potential impact on neighbours. Additionally an appropriate survey of the TPO is required to support this application, so I cannot support this application and would urge the Committee to refuse it in its current form.”

 

Members were asked in turn for any comments or queries on this application. Specific comments or queries are summarised below.

 

Pauline Jorgensen queried how Members could assess the relation of the proposals to the properties at The Dittons if the pitch positions were only indicative. Justin Turvey, Operational Manager – Development Management, stated that it could be conditioned that additional landscaping be provided for screenage, or that pitches not be situated in a certain area of the site.

 

Malcolm Richards queried whether the proposed layout of the pitches was deemed as acceptable to officers. Graham Vaughan, case officer, stated that the proposed layout was acceptable to officers, and demonstrable harm needed to be shown in order for an application to be refused.

 

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether the site could accommodate an additional four caravan pitches whilst maintaining residential amenity, queried whether there were any large trees due to be cut down, asked whether there was any additional planting planned for the outer site to screen neighbouring properties, and queried whether there was there sufficient room on site for non-caravan parking. Graham Vaughan stated that officers were satisfied that the site could accommodate a total of eight caravan pitches without sacrificing residential amenity. Graham stated that if the site damaged any root protection areas of nearby trees, the siting of the caravans could be altered. Graham stated that condition 3 required an approved landscaping scheme to be submitted to the Council prior to development. Judy Kelly stated that there was no specific parking standards for gypsy and traveller sites, however there was sufficient room for parking of vehicles on site.

 

A number of Members were concerned about the separation distances between the proposed and existing pitches. Justin Turvey stated that the nearby Dittons residential properties were terraced, and a clear reason needed to be given as to why those dwellings could be terraced but caravans could not be grouped together.

 

Stephen Conway commented that the proposals were in contrary to CP11, however there were special rulings for gypsy and traveller sites. Justin Turvey stated that officers had accepted that the proposals were contrary to CP11, however TB10 of the MDD anticipated this conflict and therefore officers had deemed the proposals as acceptable.

 

Angus Ross proposed that the application be deferred in order for a site visit, or virtual replacement, to be undertaken to assess whether the proposals conformed to separation distance guidelines as set out in the Borough Design Guide, and to assess whether the proposed layout of pitches was practically workable whilst not causing harm to nearby residential dwellings. This proposal was seconded by Chris Bowring and put to the vote.

 

RESOLVED That application number 201143 be deferred, to allow a site visit or virtual replacement to be undertaken to assess whether the proposals conformed to separation distance guidelines as set out in the Borough Design Guide, and to assess whether the proposed layout of pitches was practically workable whilst not causing harm to nearby residential dwellings.

 

Simon Weeks resumed the Chair.

Supporting documents: