Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Change of use of land to use as a gypsy/traveller site comprising 11 pitches.  11 static mobile homes for residential purposes shall be stationed alongside seven ancillary touring caravans; provision of internal roadways, parking areas and fencing (part retrospective).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

45.2          This application was for change of use of land to use as a gypsy/traveller site comprising 11 pitches.  11 static mobile homes for residential purposes shall be stationed alongside seven ancillary touring caravans, provision of internal roadways, parking areas and fencing (part retrospective).

45.3          The Senior Planning Officer advised that the site was a parcel of formerly undeveloped agricultural land within the rural area of Southam.  The site was within the Green Belt and beyond any recognised settlement boundary so was within the open countryside for the purposes of planning policy.  The site was bound to the east by the Gloucestershire and Warwickshire Railway and to the west by Kayte Lane.  The development comprised the change of use of agricultural land to a gypsy and traveller site with a total of 11 pitches, each with a static caravan, seven of which with additional touring caravans.  The development also included the provision of internal roadways, parking areas and fencing.  Works were ongoing at the site so planning permission was sought partially in retrospect.  As set out within the Committee report, the development was by definition inappropriate development within the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.  Policy set out that substantial weight must be given to any harm to the Green Belt and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness, as well as any additional harm, was clearly outweighed by other considerations.  The report outlined that the ‘other additional harms’ were: intentional unauthorised development, harm to the character of the countryside, failure to provide safe and suitable access, potential adverse impacts to neighbouring amenity through noise and disturbance; and lack of information pertaining to biodiversity, drainage and trees.  These harms, together with the overarching harm to the Green Belt, must be weighed against the benefits in relation to the unmet need for gypsy and traveller pitches and the personal circumstances of the occupiers.  Although Officers accepted there was an unmet need which, together with the personal circumstances of the occupiers, weighed in favour of the development, Members were advised that this did not outweigh the overall harm.  As such, very special circumstances which would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt did not exist meaning that the development should not be approved.  Therefore, the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application.  She clarified that, although there was an injunction on the land, this was a separate matter which should not be taken into consideration as part of the application or reasons for refusal.

45.4          The Chair invited a representative from Southam Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative indicated that Southam Parish Council had objected to this application, as had the neighbouring Parish Councils of Bishop’s Cleeve and Woodmancote whose parishioners were also impacted.  The level of interest and concern in this application has been extraordinary and whilst the Parish Council understood the need for new traveller sites in Tewkesbury Borough, this application was wrong on many levels and clearly conflicted with the National Planning Policy Framework, Joint Core Strategy, Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.  The site lay within designated Green Belt which maintained a degree of separation between Bishop’s Cleeve and Cheltenham. Its development substantially affected the character and appearance of the area, spoiling the open aspect of the views towards the Cotswold escarpment which was an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The area was not allocated for development in either the Joint Core Strategy or the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework stated that inappropriate development was harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances, and that personal circumstances and unmet need were unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt, or any other harm, so as to establish those very special circumstances.  Traveller sites, whether temporary or permanent, were inappropriate development within the Green Belt and no very special circumstances had been put forward by the applicant or identified in the Committee report.  Planning Policy for Traveller Sites stated that policies should avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services - the scale of this development placed an unacceptable burden on the highway structure in Kayte Lane, and on other services in the immediate locality which were already under pressure - and that, when assessing the suitability of sites, the scale of such sites should not dominate the nearest settled community.  The amenity of the neighbouring properties was adversely impacted by the size and nature of the development, its high fencing, associated noise, light and traffic pollution and increase in population.  Road safety was also a significant concern and the applicant has created unauthorised access to the site which opened onto a blind bend on an unlit lane where the speed limit was 40 mph. The lane was narrow and already supported more traffic than was originally intended. Visibility splays were not acceptable and County Highways had recommended refusal.  There were no pedestrian footpaths for a substantial distance, making walking or cycling to nearest local amenities unsafe; the nearest bus stop was 700m away and services were infrequent.  It was inevitable that the occupants would be reliant on vehicles, hence the site was unsustainable.  A Public Right of Way running along the northern boundary had been fenced off, the path obstructed and the kissing gate onto Kayte Lane damaged. CCTV adjacent to the Public Right of Way made this unwelcome. The development spoilt the open, rural aspect of the area, which previously enjoyed uninterrupted views towards the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and this represented a loss of amenity and vast reduction in the number of local residents using the Public Right of Way network.  The site was subject of a High Court Injunction prohibiting the land from being occupied or developed without the benefit of planning permission and planning policy should count heavily against any retrospective planning application.  The Parish Council was concerned that the applicant would continue to build and occupy the site, regardless of the planning process, and anything other than refusal would set a dreadful precedent.  Finally, the Parish Council representative indicated that the impact on the health and wellbeing of neighbours and loss of privacy could not, and should not, be underestimated.

45.5          The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee. The local resident indicated that she was speaking on behalf of a group of local residents, some of whom lived immediately opposite the application site, who wished to support the Officer recommendation for refusal.  The local resident wanted to impress upon Members the strength of local feeling about the applicants’ deceitful disregard for planning and legal processes that all members of a community, as citizens of equal standing, were required to abide by in law.  This was evident through the occupation of the land by the applicants in full knowledge of the High Court Injunction Order; the carrying out of deliberate unlawful works involving the ripping out of mature hedgerows and trees which formed valuable wildlife habitats and corridors; the importation of many tonnes of hardcore for the laying of extensive hardstanding and roadways; and the erection of a highly visible and overtly urban boundary fence of excessive height.  This once rural field which made a positive contribution to the character of the area was now enclosed and urbanised which jarred with its rural surroundings. Further intentional dishonesty was evident through the submission of this planning application that bore little resemblance to what had taken place on the ground – all of these observations had been made by the Planning Officer in the Committee report.  Putting aside the deceitful intention of the applicant, which was a material planning consideration in this case, it was Members’ job to determine this application on its planning merits. The adverse impacts and benefit from the provision of travellers’ pitches had been comprehensively set out in the Committee report which was wholly supported by local residents. In addition to matters set out in the Committee report, she wished to draw attention to the fact that the site lay within the foreground of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and immediately adjacent to a locally designated Special Landscape Area; as such, she asked that Members strengthen proposed refusal reason 3 with the inclusion of Policy SD7 of the Joint Core Strategy and Policies LAN1 and LAN2 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan - Policy SD7 stated that development close to, but outside of, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty boundary had the potential to have a detrimental impact on its setting through, for example, its impact upon key views, or its impact upon landscape character in and around the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty boundary and that proposals likely to affect the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty must fully consider any potential impacts.  This site was highly visible from Cleeve Hill - one of the most popular and valued walking areas in the county.  In addition, local residents asked that an additional reason for refusal be included in respect of the altered experience of the footpath user; this experience has been completely altered from one of open pastoral surroundings to an experience that was enclosed, narrowed, and urbanised.

45.6          The Chair invited a local Ward Member for the area to address the Committee.  The local Ward Member indicated that access was on a bend and road usage was increasing in Bishop’s Cleeve and Woodmancote as the area was affected by cuts to the local bus service.  He agreed with the comments which had been made regarding the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – the site was highly visible within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and was a popular walking spot within the county so he would support the strengthening of refusal reason 3.  He noted the comments from the Public Right of Way Officer and indicated that he had received correspondence from residents who felt intimidated and so were not using the formerly well-used footpath.  As Flood Warden for Woodmancote, he knew this area well and, whilst he appreciated it was not in Flood Zone 1, flood risk to this land was not the main concern, rather it was the increased risk to neighbouring areas.  There were also questions concerning riparian rights and responsibilities.  He failed to see how increasing impermeable surface area without mitigation could keep the area working as it did naturally in terms of infiltration.  A resident had been keeping watch on traffic movements onto the site and had witnessed hardcore and other materials being taken on site, furthermore, he had concerns about the proposals to deal with foul water, which needed real investigation, as well as loss of trees and hedgerows. Planning Policy for Traveller Sites mentioned the need for environmental enhancements and that sites should not be enclosed as that would foster mistrust and division.

45.7          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and sought a motion from the floor.  A Member noted the request from the public speaker regarding the inclusion of reference to Policy SD7 of the Joint Core Strategy in refusal reason 3 and asked whether the Landscape Officer had considered the application.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that Policy SD7 related to the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - the test was whether the development would conserve the intrinsic beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Officers believed there was no technical conflict with that policy.  With regard to the concerns in relation to the experience of the Public Right of Way, she had asked the Public Right of Way Officer to walk the footpath which they had done – she and the County Highways representative had also done the same – and whilst it was acknowledged that it was a transformed experience, this was not considered to substantiate a reason for refusal on the basis that the Public Right of Way was still available to users and was unobstructed.

45.8          It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to an amendment to include Policy SD7 of the Joint Core Strategy within refusal reason 3.  The Development Management Manager advised that there were seven robust refusal reasons proposed within the Committee report and Members should focus on the quality of reasons as opposed to quantity.  He accepted the point about the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but that had been assessed by relevant Officers and it was felt that the proposed refusal reasons took account of the policy position.  On that basis, the proposer and seconder of the motion confirmed they were happy to remove reference to Policy SD7 and revert to the Officer recommendation.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

Councillors D J Harwood and G M Porter arrived part way through this item and therefore did not take part in the debate or vote.