Agenda item

Public Participation:

·         Mr Philip Cartwight-Hignett spoke in objection to the application.

·         Mr Philip Harcourt spoke in objection to the application.

·         Mr Douglas Brown spoke in objection to the application.

·         Mrs Maggie Smith-Bendell spoke in support of the application.

·         Mr Steven Jones, Southwick Parish Council representative, spoke in objection to the application.

The Area Team leader (Central Hub West) introduced the report which recommended refusal and in doing so explained that the proposal created an unacceptable situation in terms of highway safety due to the limited site lines and lack of pedestrian walkway in a high speed environment but that it was conidered there was no unacceptable impact on the character of the ad appearance of the surrounding area by the proposal and the sustainability of the site had not been considered as an issue.

The Chairman informed the committee that Carolyn Gibson, Core Strategy Principal Planning Officer, was attending the meeting and would be able to answer their questions if required.

In responding to technical questions asked the following was clarified:

·         The applicant did not need to apply for horse grazing rights as this was already on the existing planning permission.

·         The adjoining field to the application site was also in the applicant’s ownership but was to remain for the grazing of horses and was not part of this application.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to speak as detailed above.

Cllr Francis Morland, Unitary Councillor for Southwick, spoke in objection to the application, mentioning the large number of objection from local residents, and invited the committee to consider deferring for a site visit.

During the ensuing debate members of the committee expressed concerns over the level of information available to them, and its reliability, to ascertain the applicant’s planning status.

Members of the committee also expressed their confusion at receiving applications for privately owned land when existing dedicated and approved sites still had some capacity. It was clarified that following an extensive survey over the last summer there had been a clear evidence of needs for additional pitching sites and that in the past a preference had been expressed, both by the settled and travelling communities, for smaller single-family pitching sites.

Members of the committee expressed dissatisfaction at the delay created because potential sites for this type of application were not being identified until the overall provision of need was established; which affected their ability to consider applications like this one with all the necessary information.

Resolved:

That planning permission be REFUSED

For the following reasons:

1       The lack of pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the site and the speed of traffic on the adjacent roads, which are subject to a 60 mph speed limit, would result in unacceptable highway safety hazards for future occupants, in particular children. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DP15 of the Wiltshire Structure Plan 2016, Policy CF12 of the West Wiltshire District Plan 1st Alteration (2004) and Policy H of "Planning Policy for Traveller Sites" : Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2012

2       The additional traffic generated by this proposal would increase vehicular movements through the junctions of Poplar Tree Lane/A361 Frome Road and Poplar Tree Lane/B3019 Bradford Road, to the detriment of road safety due to the sub-standard visibility in the South East direction. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DP15 of the Wiltshire Structure Plan 2016, Policy CF12 of the West Wiltshire District Plan 1st Alteration (2004) and Policy H of "Planning Policy for Traveller Sites" : Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2012

3       Development proposal is contrary to policy C1 of the West Wiltshire District Plan 1^st Alteration (2004) which states that development proposals in the open countryside will not be permitted, other than those which encourage diversification of the rural economy and rural recreation, unless there is an agricultural, forestry or other overriding justification.

Informatives:

1       The applicant is advised that the Committee Members were not convinced about the eligibility of the applicant as a planning gypsy.

2       The applicant is advised that the change of use considered under this application related only to the area not indicated as paddock in the "Proposed Site Layout Plan". In the event of any submission for any alternative or revised proposals on this site the Local Planning Authority should be consulted ahead of time in respect of the extent of delineation of the red-line area on any new plans. In the event that buildings (including agricultural structures) are proposed in a future application, the design should take account of the need to limit impacts as far as possible by measures including appropriate siting and size.