Agenda item

Change of use of land to a travellers caravan site.

Public Participation

Cllr Ivan Moody of Winterslow Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Joe Richardson, Senior Planning Officer, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the change of use of land to a travellers caravan site, be delegated to the Director of Planning to approve the application subject to planning conditions and upon the completion of a Legal Agreement to secure the identified biodiversity enhancement measures for the River Test SAC and New Forest SPA.

Using slides (published in supplement 3) to give context, the officer explained that the application was for change of use of land to a traveller site for 4 pitches, on the outskirts of the village of Lopcombe Corner. The site was approximately 0.6 hectares in size to the North of the A30. The site was in the open countryside in planning terms, and there was a Public Right of Way (PROW) to the northwest. There were some residential properties to the east and west of the site. The proposed site layout was shown. Each of the 4 pitches was proposed to have 1 static caravan, a day room, and associated parking. The site had an access track which was currently overgrown, however it was proposed that this be retained as a pathway as there was a bus stop at the end of it on the A30. In addition a new vehicular access would be formed off the A30.

The application was accompanied by a landscape impact assessment, ecological statements and a transport statement, all of which had been assessed by the relevant statutory consultees. All of whom had no objections subject to conditions.

In policy terms the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document (DPD) would be brought to Full Council in due course to seek approval. Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) Core Policy (CP)47 related to meeting the needs of gypsies and travellers, however, was technically considered out of date. Despite this the application had been assessed against the criteria in CP47 as was usual for traveller sites. The National Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2024 (PPTS) was also considered.

In the absence of an adopted DPD, the pitch requirements identified in the 2024 Gypsies and Travellers Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) were considered. This showed that there was an unmet need for additional pitches. Furthermore, appeal decisions had shown that the council could not demonstrate a 5 year supply of sites, which was a significant material consideration. Therefore, paragraph 11d of the National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF) came into play and the ‘tilted balance’ applied where the presumption was in favour of sustainable development.  Hence the recommendation for approval subject to conditions.

In response to technical questions from Members it was stated that the land was agricultural grade 3, but it was not known whether it was grade 3a or 3b. However, the land was not currently being used for farming or any agricultural purposes.

Members highlighted CP47v which stated that sites should be in or near existing settlements within a reasonable distance of a range of local services. The site was located in the open countryside, so was not in or near existing settlements, it was 3 miles from the school in Winterslow and was 8 miles from other facilities and services available in Salisbury. Members queried how this was reasonable and felt that the application did not meet CP47v. In addition, Members asked if the site was supplied with essential services, as specified by CP47iii.

In response, regarding CP47iii, the officer explained that if the applicant got permission, they would have to arrange for services to be provided to the site. It would be on the onus of the applicant following the granting of permission. Drainage was also conditioned for.

Regarding CP47v, officers felt that as there were residential dwellings, commercial buildings and a bus stop in the vicinity of the site it could therefore be considered to be near settlements. The distances involved to travel to facilities were thought to be reasonable, and as such the location was considered sustainable and accessible. This was a matter of judgement for the Committee, but officers highlighted that appeal inspectors usually interpreted these things loosely, and such distances were not unusual.

The Chairman highlighted that he had experience in this area, having led on the GTAA many years ago. Through that work he had developed a good working relationship with the gypsy and traveller community. When speaking to them, they queried where the criteria had come from as they did not align with what they wanted.

Members queried how frequent the bus services were to the bus stop by the site. Officers did not have this information available at the meeting. There was a service which ran past the site; however the frequency of the service was not known.

The Chairman highlighted the figure included in the report (page 191 of the agenda) which gave a pitch requirement of 81, was now out of date. As further permissions for pitches had been granted since then. The Chairman detailed the permissions granted and stated that he believed the pitch requirement was now 66 pitches. The Chairman highlighted that officers needed to ensure that they gave the correct information to planning officers so that the figures in their reports were correct. This had a material impact on the decisions that they made.

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

The unitary division Member, Cllr Rich Rogers (Winterslow & Upper Bourne Valley Division) then spoke in objection to the application. Points raised included, but were not limited to, that pitches should be in sustainable locations with access to essential services without creating additional strain. Whilst the presumption was in favour of development if the criteria in CP47 were met, which the officer had attempted to demonstrate, it was clear in his opinion however that the application did not meet CP47. There was no viable public transport to the site. Whilst there was a bus stop adjacent to the site, this was not served by any buses which went to Salisbury but only by buses which went to Winchester collages, which only ran in term time. In order to reach a bus stop which did have services to Salisbury residents would need to walk half a mile along the A30, which had a 50mph speed limit, no street lighting and no pavement so was totally unsuitable. This was neither reasonable nor sustainable. Residents would be entirely reliant on private vehicles, and it would be dangerous to pull in and out of the access due to the fast road. In relation to services such as electricity, it was highlighted that the area was known for power cuts (which had a knock on effect for water and internet) and any additional demand would create pressure on already struggling services. The remote and isolated nature of the site would not foster community belonging and social inclusion. There had been 36 formal objections based on legitimate planning considerations. CP 48 should also be considered as the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the distinctive character and appearance of Lopcombe Corner, with little design merit in the proposed day rooms. Furthermore, Lopcombe Corner was not a place identified in the emerging DPD for pitches and was not a village with amenities, but rather a small hamlet. There would also be a loss of agricultural land. Cllr Rogers urged the Committee to refuse the application, for the above reasons and as it was contrary to CP47, CP48, CP60 and CP61.

Cllr Richard Britton proposed a motion to refuse the application, based on the reasons given by Cllr Rogers, and as the application was felt to be contrary to CP47, CP48, CP60 and CP61. This was seconded by Cllr Ernie Clark.

A debate followed where Cllr Britton highlighted that this site was not in a reasonable distance of amenities. Cllr Clark stated that the Committee usually approved these applications as the council needed to provide sites for the travelling community. However, this site was metaphorically in the middle of nowhere, with no amenities, no streetlights, no pavements and the bus stop was not served by buses to local amenities. The site did not seem to meet any of the criteria. 

Officers highlighted that the CP47, CP60 and CP61 could be used as reasons for refusal, in terms of location and sustainability. However, CP48 was more about meeting rural needs and the conversion of buildings, so they did not see how this applied and cautioned against using that as a reason. They also highlighted that Gypsy and Traveller considerations were different to conventional housing. CP47 had been written deliberately so that it did not place constraints on where new sites were located, in addition Planning Inspectors tended to interpret the criteria quite loosely. So, they cautioned against refusal at all.

The motion as it was put was not amended, and following a vote it was,

Resolved: 

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

REASON

1.    Notwithstanding the accepted shortfall in gypsy and traveller sites in the housing market area within which the site is located, the Council consider that the adverse impacts of granting permission on this site would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The Council consider that these adverse impacts lie in the failure of the proposal to meet specific criteria set out for gypsy and traveller sites in Core Policy 47 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, which is the development plan for the area, adopted in 2015. The proposal fails to meet criteria ii, in that the site is not served by a safe and convenient pedestrian access; criteria iii, in that the site cannot be supplied with essential services such as water and power and; criteria v, in that the site is not located within a reasonable distance of a range of local services and community facilities; As a consequence, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the criterion requirements of Core Policy 47 (ii, iii and v), Core Policies 48, 60 and 61 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and guidance with the NPPF.