Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use from equestrian to mixed use, comprising equestrian and 1 no. caravan pitch including a day room for Gypsy and Traveller residential use (Retrospective)

Applicant: Mr Gabby Lee

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 201 to 230.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included clarity regarding personal permissions and how this site differed from the decision of the Inspector at “Twin Oaks” to the west of the site.

At this stage of the meeting, Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey proposed that the meeting be extended by up to 30 minutes to a finishing time no later than 11pm. This was seconded by Andrew Mickleburgh, put to a vote, and subsequently carried.

Roger Marshallsay, Finchampstead Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. Roger stated that the proposal was not in accordance with the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan which was now at the examination stage. Roger commented that he had heard conflicting reports (on the evening) of the weight given to the Neighbourhood Plan, and was working on the comment given within the Supplementary Planning Agenda for a previous application whereby the plan was awarded moderate weight. Roger felt it unfortunate that the officer report commented that the Neighbourhood Plan had limited weight, and was not referred to at all subsequently, which Roger felt indicated that the Neighbourhood Plan had been disregarded. Roger stated that section 18 of the officer report noted that additional supply of gypsy and traveller pitches was supported (even when a five year supply of pitches was available) where it provided a safeguard for future supply and was established in previously developed land. Roger felt that in section 18 of the report and subsequent sections made no reference to the Neighbourhood Plan which attracted moderate weight, and was of the opinion that this application was invalid on this basis.

Roland Cundy, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Roland was of the opinion that the site was unsustainable, whilst CP6, CP9 and CP11 set out the core strategies with regards to access to local retail, leisure, medical facilities and the promotion of sustainable transport. Roland added that the local shop, post office and petrol station in the village had been closed for two years, with no other facilities available. Roland stated that CP1 clause 11 required developments to demonstrate how they supported opportunities for reducing the need to travel by private car, which this development failed to demonstrate. Roland felt that more sustainable gypsy and traveller pitches could be found in the extra provision of pitches at land to the rear of 166 Nine Mile Ride, which was why this site was supported for expansion. Roland was of the opinion that this proposal was a form of creeping development, where a stable was previously allowed to be developed which now constituted existing built form on the land. Roland stated that the site was accessed by a public footpath leading to a popular footpath and was crossed on both sides by other public rights of way, which could create conflict with walkers whilst potentially causing further damage to the surface with additional vehicle movements. Roland stated the footpath had no footway, with walkers having to step aside to let vehicles pass. Roland added that various works to the footpath had raised the level, to the extent that a lake now formed at the bottom end of Longwater Lane causing walkers to trespass on neighbouring property to access the footpath. Roland was of the opinion that the further addition of a gypsy and traveller pitch would further spoil the countryside and reduce the rural appearance of the area.

Emily Temple, agent, spoke in support of the application. Emily stated that the application sought a change of use from existing equestrian use to a mixed use development for caravan pitch and equestrian, which was required by the applicant who was local to the area who had been evicted from a different site due to overcrowding. Emily added that the application site comprised of previously developed land, whilst the site was between two neighbouring sites which featured caravan uses. Emily was of the opinion that the site would not encroach further into the countryside than the existing envelope formed by neighbouring sites. Emily stated that the site had been identified in local appeal decisions as being suitably sustainable in terms of its proximity to amenities and facilities. Emily added that a previous Inspector’s decision and the Council’s Highway’s Officer had found the proposal had no adverse impact in terms of highways or pedestrian safety. Emily stated that the applicant had instructed a solicitor to secure the S106 agreement to provide SANG mitigation for this development, whilst the site was subject to a management plan for grazing to the rear. Emily added that the approval of this application would supply a settled base for the applicant, who were local to the area and were currently homeless. The proposal would allow the family to remain with their local GP, facilitate the children to continue to attend their current school, and would contribute to the Council’s long term gypsy and traveller pitch supply. Emily noted that the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan referenced the expansion of existing gypsy and traveller sites, however it was silent on the provision of new sites. Emily asked that the application be approved.

David Cornish stated that he had called in this application on the request of the Parish Council and local residents. David was of the opinion that the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan should carry significant weight now it had progressed to the examination stage. David was sympathetic to the need and local circumstances of the applicant, however felt that there were alternative and more sustainable locations available in the locality. David was of the opinion that a personal permission would be appropriate for the site, and he would have little objection if such a permission was applied. David noted that officers were stating that the Local Plan Update currently carried limited weight, whilst he was advised by officers within the Strategic Planning Team that the Local Plan Update was still the currently consulted plan, which did not include this site. David felt that approving the application as set out would force the Committee to ignore many policies of the Council, the emerging Neighbourhood Plan, the concerns of the Parish Council and residents. David felt that the pragmatic approach to avoid enforcement was not sufficient reason to undermine the rules based system that existed.

Al Neal was of the opinion that the application represented modest development, and stated that he was mined to approve the application.

Andrew Mickleburgh stated that he had been minded to approve this application, however the arguments made in objection had raised issues of significant consequences. Andrew stated his sympathy for the applicant’s situation.

Rebecca Margetts stated that there were issues with the site with regards to access via a mud track and the unsustainable location. Rebecca added that the site could only be accessed via vehicle, whilst flooding was already an issue for the area. Rebecca was of the opinion that the application would have a detrimental impact on the local environment, countryside and out of settlement boundary.

John Kaiser stated that officers were required to engage with applicants to try and find solutions to resolve enforcement cases. John added that this application was as a result of the officer’s professional judgement. Helen Maynard, case officer, stated that the application was not as a result of an enforcement investigation and was instead submitted by the applicant. Helen added that the application had been lodged as the applicant had found themselves homeless and had moved on to the site.

Wayne Smith stated that whilst he did not know the specifics of the applicant’s circumstances, it was a common occurrence for sites to be operated by particular people which could cause friction with some families, leading to evictions.

David Cornish stated that if the Committee were minded to approve the application, condition of a personal permission for the applicant’s family could be appropriate. Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, stated that the application had been deemed acceptable to facilitate a gypsy and traveller caravan pitch for any family, and as such application of a condition for personal permission would not meet the planning tests for reasonableness. The Committee sought verbal confirmation from the agent as to whether the inclusion of personal permission would be acceptable. Emily Temple, agent, confirmed that this would be acceptable for the applicant.

David Cornish proposed that an additional condition be added, requiring the proposal to be subject to personal permission of the applicant’s family. This was seconded by John Kaiser, carried, and added to the list of conditions.

David Cornish proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer recommendation, subject to legal agreement, and subject to the additional condition in relation to personal permission as resolved by the Committee. This was seconded by John Kaiser.

RESOLVED That application number 223021 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 219 to 221, additional condition in relation to personal permission as resolved by the Committee, and subject to legal agreement.