Agenda item

Change of use of land to provide a Gypsy site, consisting of four pitches and associated hardstanding, landscaping and a commercial barn.

Public Participation

Ben Pearce spoke in objection to the application

Claire Speed spoke in objection to the application

Marc Willis spoke in support of the application

Cllr Alastair Fairgrieve from Brinkworth Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Victoria Davis, Principal Planning Officer, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the change of use of land to provide a Gypsy site, consisting of four pitches and associated hardstanding, landscaping and a commercial barn, be approved subject to conditions. Key details were stated to include the principle of development as well as the highway, heritage, ecological and visual impacts.

The officer highlighted that a typo on page 279 of the agenda pack incorrectly stated that the proposed barn was intended to be used by the applicant’s storage business, when the applicant actually ran a landscaping business.

Attention was drawn to the location of the site outside of the defined limits of development, in open countryside between Royal Wootton Bassett and Lyneham. However, as the application was for specialist accommodation provision, as defined under the exception policies within the Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS), it was considered to comply with Core Policy (CP) 47 (Meeting the needs of Gypsies and Travellers).

A condition would be applied to the development, if approved, to restrict occupation of the four proposed pitches to the applicant’s family and their dependants. As such, the proposal was likely to be more sustainable than a development occupied by multiple families as it was expected to require fewer vehicle journeys.

The officer explained that since her report had been drafted, the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2024 had been published which superseded the requirements for the number of pitches as set out in CP 47. Although the applicant’s family were not identified in the 2024 needs assessment, Wiltshire Council’s Spatial Planning Team had confirmed that the four pitches would contribute towards the revised target, even with a personal permission.

It was considered by the officer that, subject to conditions, there were no barriers to the development in relation to flood risk, ground stability or contamination. Wiltshire Council’s Public Protection Team had raised no objections to the application. A flood risk assessment undertaken on behalf of the applicant had been assessed by Wiltshire Council’s Drainage Team and the Environment Agency. It had been assessed that the four pitches were at low risk, being in Flood Zone 1. A condition had been added to prevent the storage of caravans in the barn and to ensure it was designed in such a way as not to impede flood flow. 

In addition to the conditions outlined in the report, the officer recommended specifying that the proposed development was not bought in to use until a scheme for the supply of water and electricity was in place. This extra condition was to ensure that the proposed development, if approved, would be satisfactory and habitable.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Questions were asked about the conditions limiting the use of the proposed barn. It was confirmed that, if approved, the barn could only be used for the applicant’s landscaping business and/or to manage the surrounding agricultural land in their ownership.

It was explained that the Environment Agency had provided a design specification for the proposed barn, which the applicant had replicated in their plans. The officer also confirmed that it would be reasonable to impose a condition restricting the use of generators on site.

In response to questions about the occupancy restrictions in the conditions, it was confirmed that a new application to vary the conditions would be required if the family wanted to create an additional pitch, or pitches, on the site. There would not be a requirement to vary the permission if some of the pitches were unoccupied, as long as one of the named individuals under Condition 11, or their dependents, resided at the site.

Details were also provided about how nearby sites that had been granted permission on appeal compared to the subject application.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Elizabeth Threlfall (Brinkworth Division), then spoke in opposition to the application. Issues raised included flooding at the site; concerns regarding screening as new planting would take years to establish; Greatwood (adjacent to the site) had recently been acquired by the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust as a nature reserve; that the site would alter the character and appearance of the area; it was inappropriate in terms of scale; the application was contrary to criteria (v) within CP47; concerns regarding enforcing conditions and concerns regarding the distance of the site from services, such as schools and health care.

In response to the points raised by the public and Unitary Division Member, the officer reiterated that recent appeal decisions were material considerations. Although an application was refused on the site of the subject application in in 2021 (PL/2021/05660), there were significant differences in design between it and the application before the Committee. The current application was better designed than the 2021 application, which had proposed to clad the day room in UPVC, rather than reconstituted stone.

The officer also confirmed that development would not commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping had been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Cllr Threlfall, seconded by Cllr Richard Britton, proposed that the application be refused contrary to officer recommendation. The Committee then discussed the reasons for refusal and sought officer advice.

The officer advised that it was open to the Committee to conclude that the proposed development was contrary to WCS CP 47 (v and viii). Furthermore, the Committee could decide that the impact on landscape of the proposed development meant that it would not accord with the provisions of WCS CP 47 (vi and viii), CP 51 (ii and vi) and CP 57.

The officer recommended that access to sustainable transport options was not included amongst the reasons for refusal, as a recent appeal decision relating to an application at Clack Hill Yard had distinguished between sustainable transport options and distance to services.

Following advice from the officer, the proposer and seconder were happy to accept those as the reasons for refusal. At the conclusion of the debate, it was:

Resolved

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

REASONS

1.    The site is not considered to be within reasonable distance of services and facilities, in particular schools and essential health services, and is therefore contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 47 (v and viii).

2.    The proposed development fails to integrate effectively into its surroundings, to conserve and/or enhance landscape character, or relate positively to its landscape setting. The development therefore fails to accord with the provision of Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 47 (vi and viii), Core Policy 51 (ii and vi) and Core Policy 57.