PROPOSAL: Change of use of land to private Gypsy/Traveller site.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

68.15        This application was for change of use of land to a private Gypsy/Traveller site.

68.16        The Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) advised that the application was a rectangular parcel of land to the southeast of the B4634 adjoining a larger field traditionally used for grazing which adjoined the M5 motorway to the east.  The site was occupied by two large buildings associated with equestrian use and was located in the Green Belt and Flood Zone 1.  The application sought planning permission for change of use to create a pitch for a single family of Romany Gypsies in order to site a mobile home, a touring caravan and to construct a day room.  Whilst the application site was located within the open countryside and Green Belt, it was deemed to constitute appropriate development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework in that it would entail the redevelopment of previously developed land and would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development as the extent of development on site would be reduced.  There was a significant shortfall of Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople sites and pitches within the borough and the personal circumstances of this family must also be taken into consideration in the planning balance.  Whilst there would be some landscape harm from the proposed development and associated domestication of the site, this would be localised and the harm would reduce over time as the proposed landscaping established.  Matters in respect of drainage, contamination and noise could be adequately addressed by condition.  Attention was drawn to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which set out that two additional further representations had been received since the publication of the Committee report and it was proposed that an additional condition be included in relation to land contamination and, in view of the absence of an ecological assessment at this time, the Officer recommendation had been amended to delegate authority to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application, subject to the receipt and consideration of an appropriate ecological assessment and any additional conditions arising.

68.17        The Chair invited a representative from Staverton Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative indicated that Members would have received an email setting out the concerns of the Parish Council regarding this application and he trusted they had read and digested its contents.  In summary, the Parish Council opposed this application on the grounds of inappropriate development in the Green Belt and questioned whether a Noise Impact Assessment been carried out as required by the Environmental Health consultant; whether the risk of contamination from old agricultural buildings had been assessed as suggested by the Environmental Health consultant; as this site was situated adjacent to the B4634 and 170 metres from the M5 Motorway, if tests had been carried out to test the air quality;  whether foul water and surface water drainage issues had been investigated and evidenced; and, if a wildlife assessment had taken place for the protection of bats, newts and other wildlife and fauna.  There were no amenities such as shops, schools, doctors etc. within two miles of this site, it was not on a bus route and County Highways recommended refusal as the proposal conflicts with several policies.  The Parish Council was not convinced that very special circumstances could be demonstrated as the only issue appeared to be the lack of suitable sites available – that could be addressed by ensuring new housing developments include plots for Gypsies and Travellers.  This application was for a permanent home on a greenfield site and there appeared to be no intention of pursing a nomadic lifestyle, furthermore, the area of land on which the application had been made was not identified for potential development in the Joint Core Strategy or the Strategic Local Plan consultation.

68.18        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that he wished to respond to a number of points made by the Parish Council.  The key point was that the existing buildings would be replaced by structures which would not have a greater impact on the Green Belt. He also pointed out that the much larger Showpeople’s site on the opposite side of the road was permitted on a greenfield site before allocation was made.   There was a need for consistency in decision making and the condition suggested to address noise was similar to the approach taken on the Showpeople’s site which had a similar noise environment.  He indicated that the first request for ecological evidence he had seen since this application was submitted in November 2022 was yesterday; however, they would be happy to carry out the requested survey if Members were able to support the Officer recommendation.  The applicant’s agent indicated that he had been involved in the examination of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and, despite allocations being made in the Green Belt, there was still a significant level of unmet need for Gypsies and Travellers.  The Council had undertaken a considerable exercise in searching for suitable land and the reality was that land for this particular use was in very short supply. The most recent need figure was set out at Page No. 110, Paragraph 8.21 of the Committee report – 29 pitches needed to be found in the next two years which, in his experience, was a very tall order and this was a matter Members should give substantial weight.  The Committee report set out the situation this family found themselves in - one that was very much different from the rest of the population; the family’s current living situation did not provide the space needed and had become untenable.   The Parish Council invited Members to believe they could simply be accommodated in social housing but this rather missed the point - it would be like asking a family who had spent their entire lives living in bricks and mortar to move into caravans. There was a legal obligation for public authorities to facilitate the traditional Gypsy way of life, an integral part of which was living in caravans. Furthermore, the Council was subject to the public sector equality duty and provision of a site for the family caravans would meet that duty.  For all of these reasons, he respectfully invited Members to grant planning permission.

68.19        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application, subject to an additional condition in respect of land contamination and the receipt and consideration of an appropriate ecological assessment and any additional conditions arising, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member indicated that he had a lot of sympathy with the applicant and recognised the personal circumstances of the family but he was not sure this was an appropriate site as any development in the Green Belt was, by definition, inappropriate and harmful.  He drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet and the objection from the Campaign for Protection of Rural England (CPRE) which outlined several issues in relation to this and he could not see any very special circumstances existed to outweigh the harm that would be caused.  In response, the Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) advised that, whilst Green Belt policy defined the construction of new building in the Green Belt as inappropriate, there were exceptions such as limited infilling and redevelopment of previously developed land – Officers considered this to be the latter, therefore, it was not considered to be inappropriate development in that context.  The Member sought clarification as to what the previous development had been and was informed that equestrian use dated back over 30 years.  There were several large buildings on the site which would be removed as part of the application and replaced by a smaller scale mobile unit and touring caravan and construction of a day room which was considered to have a lesser impact as a consequence.  In addition, the Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) explained that the occupants of these type of sites tended to have slightly different needs which were weighed in the planning balance as a whole and, in this case, there were a number of factors in favour of development.  In response to a query as to why Officers considered the land to be previously developed, the Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) advised that equestrian use was included in the definition of previously used land as confirmed by the previous appeal Inspector.

68.20        A Member noted that the plan at Page No. 103 of the Committee report showed two buildings which was not reflected in what was being displayed on the screen and was advised that particular plan was for illustrative purposes to show the site location in the wider context.  The Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) explained there was no condition requiring removal of the existing buildings but it would be difficult for the application to be delivered without their removal; nevertheless, it was possible to add a condition to that effect.  The proposer and seconder of the motion indicated they would be happy for that to be included and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Associate Director: Planning to PERMIT the application subject to additional conditions in respect of land contamination and removal of existing buildings on the site, and the receipt and consideration of an appropriate ecological assessment and any additional conditions arising.