Agenda item

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the proposed additional five pitches for gypsy/traveller use.

A site visit had taken place prior to the commencement of the Planning Committee, as this was the reason to defer the determination of the application from the Planning Committee on 6 June 2024, to allow Members to view the context of the site.

Members considered the presentation from the Assistant Business Manager - Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A Schedule of Communication was circulated prior to the meeting which detailed correspondence received following publication of the agenda from the agent.

Mr J McArthur, representing Spalford Parish Meeting, spoke against the application in accordance with the views of Spalford Parish Meeting as contained within the report.

Members considered the application and it was commented that Spalford had no services, amenities or bus network.  There were also no footpaths or street lighting around this site and not enough proposed car parking.  The site was also in flood zone 3.  Shady Oaks referred to this site as a caravan park and not a GRT site.   It was felt that the proposal would alter the nature of the hamlet.  It was commented that the Authority had submitted a Draft Review of the Allocations and Development Management DPD in front of the Planning Inspectorate which should afford some weight.  The cumulative impact of the proposal was not good for the hamlet community or for the people who would live on this site.

The Chair commented that the cumulative impact of the population on a small hamlet had never been tested.  The proposed application could increase the population by an additional 36 people against a hamlet of 91 people.

A Member commented that given the location and what had been proposed would not dominate the village itself.  There was a specific policy challenge regarding the GRT sites which was not being met in the district.  The site was not being integrated with the community as it was hiding away behind a tall conifer hedge.  Families would also choose to live here and not forced, the conditions therefore may be better than their current residence. 

The Chair commented that not everyone wanted facilities where they lived, this was a hamlet, with developments around it.  There was a shortfall in the district for GRT sites, however it was commented that we should not make do with bad sites to deal with that issue.  The LA should try and get the best for the GRT community and the local community.

The Business Manager – Planning Development commented that the Review of the Allocations and Development Management DPD was with the Inspector and the examination would take place November 2024.  Limited weight should be attached to this plan review, as the outcome of the plan was unknown at present and there could be changes insisted by the Inspector. The plan would also need to be considered and agreed by Full Council.

A vote was taken and lost to approve the application with 9 votes Against and 1 abstention.

AGREED     Proposer Councillor Freeman and Seconder Councillor Moore[LH1] 

                   (with 8 votes For and 2 Abstentions) that contrary to Officer recommendation Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:

(i)               the status of draft development plan, this site is not an allocated site;

(ii)             additional 5 pitches on hamlet with impact from additional population;

(iii)            development not well planned;

(iv)            does not promote opportunities for healthy lifestyle, e.g. does not include amenity block / amenity areas; and

(v)             the enclosure with existing  soft landscaping  created a sense of isolation.

In accordance with paragraph 13.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against Officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.