Agenda item

Site Visit: 12.50pm – 1pm

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the change of use of land to a traveller site including ancillary hardstanding.

A site visit had taken place prior to the commencement of the Planning Committee for Members, for the following reasons:

(i)                  There were particular site factors which were significant in terms of the weight attached to them relative to other factors if they would be difficult to assess in the absence of a site inspection;

(ii)                There were specific site factors and/or significant policy or precedent implications that needed to be carefully addressed; and

(iii)              The proposal was particularly contentious, and the aspects being raised could only be viewed on site.

Councillor J Hall, Balderton Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mrs A Simmonds, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor J Lee, Local Ward Member, spoke against the application.

Members considered the presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.  Members were also informed of an error in the wording of Informative No. 5, which should read “Bullpit Road” and not Great North Road, which would be amended should the Planning Committee be minded to approve the application.

Members considered the application and it was commented that some of the objections raised were valid but that some within the report were unacceptable and not well phrased.  The noise objection was considered hard to accept given the high-speed railway line running parallel to the site, which was loud. Members commented on the need for traveller sites although concern was raised regarding the close proximity to the railway line, especially with children playing and that the site was in the open countryside.  The Highways objection, although technical also raised concern for Members. It was suggested that a footpath be included on the roadside to connect the site with the footpath at the railway crossing.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that this could be achieved through a Grampian condition.  Members further commented that this was not an allocated site and did erode the open break between Newark and Balderton and there was no landscaping as included on the plan.

A Member sought clarification as to whether this application was consistent with the procedure for other applications and whether the application would have been treated differently if not retrospective.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the application would have been treated the same.  Members debated the requirements of Bio-diversity net gain (BNG) and that given that the application was retrospective that did not have to be considered.  Members raised their concerns regarding this rule and felt that the application therefore had not been treated the same.  It was considered that this would encourage further retrospective applications coming forward as this would be a loophole for applicants. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that legislation stated that retrospective applications do not have to provide BNG as the mandatory condition for BNG was a pre-commencement one.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed in response to Members questions that the correct consultation process had been undertaken.  The Highways, technical problems had been addressed through condition.  The cumulative impact for the three sites was, Chestnut Lodge – 19 pitches, Winthorpe – 16 pitches and Appleby – 16 pitches, these were considered small sites given the small number of pitches.  In terms of waste disposal, four plots shared a septic tank, the remaining six plots had their own septic tanks.  The Highways objection maintained that the visibility splays did fall short, however Highways recent comments were that although the splays had been drawn short, the correct visibility could be achieved.  The lack of footpath could be achieved through a Grampian condition and soft landscaping could also been conditioned.

The Planning Committee Chair commented that the site was surround by tall fencing, there was therefore no risk to children wondering onto the railway line, as raised as a concern in the debate.

A vote was taken and lost to defer the application, with 3 votes For and 7 votes Against.

AGREED           (with 6 votes For and 5 votes Against) that Planning Permission be                         approved subject to the conditions, as contained within the report and                      additional conditions including Grampian condition for a footpath and                     sensitive landscaping, the wording of the additional conditions to be                      delegated to the Business Manager – Planning Development.

A recorded vote was moved and seconded as follows:

Councillor M Shakeshaft declared he was pre-determined and left the meeting for the duration of the following item, including the discussion and vote.