Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full retrospective application for change of use of land for the proposed creation of 4 Gypsy/Traveller pitches, comprising the siting of 4 Mobile Homes, 4 Touring Caravans, and the erection of 4 Dayrooms.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Lisa Botha.  The Committee noted that it was recommended that a personal and temporary permission be granted subject to a legal agreement to secure the necessary mitigation against the impact of the proposal on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The application had been called to Committee as it had received over 10 letter of objection contrary to the officer’s recommendation.  The application was deferred by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 1 March 2023, so that a site visit could be carried out to assess the impact of the proposal on the AONB.  The site visit took place on Monday 27 March 2023.  The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the supplementary late sheets which included some small amendments and an updated policy section which took into account the adoption of the new Local Plan, along with an additional informative and amendments to Informative 1 and Condition 4. 

Lastly, a summary of an appeal decision at Pines Green Lane East had been included as it was particularly relevant to the determination of this application.  In short, the Inspector considered that despite the Council demonstrating that it had a supply of deliverable sites for five years, when set against the local context, none of the sites were yet available.  As such, the occupants of that site, if the appeal had been dismissed were likely to have to resort to a roadside existence or would need to double up on another pitch which would result in issues arising from overcrowding.  In relation to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which establishes a right for the respect for private family life as well as the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act which required a public authority to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic.  Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children was also referenced and required the interests of a child to be a primary consideration.  No other consideration must be regarded as more important or given greater weight in the best interests of any child.  The Inspector took into account the best interests of the children on the site and this provided the very special circumstances that outweighed the harm to the Green Belt when considering whether to grant temporary planning permission.  The Inspector considered that a temporary permission would enable the occupants to either relocate once the pitches were delivered. 

The application site was located close to the border with the Green Belt, Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The site was also located within the 400m to 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The site should not be confused with the adjacent site to the south which had until recently shared the same address.  The application site is under separate ownership.  The site was accessed via the Hog’s Back and used an existing access from the southern end of the main part of the site.  The nearest residential site to the application was located to the south, the south-west and east with a small number of outbuildings closer to the site.  All four pitches would be served via the existing access.  Each pitch would have a central access, with landscaping either side with a mobile home, a touring caravan and a dayroom located towards the northern half of the site.  Additional planting was proposed as part of the proposal across the site.  The urban area of Tongham was about a 15-minute walk along the pavement.  The day rooms would be 5m wide and 3m deep. 

The Council had conducted a full balancing exercise and concluded that full planning permission should not be granted.  In reaching that conclusion, the Council had regard to the Human Rights and Equality duty on the family’s ability to live their traditional way of life as well as the opportunity to access education, health and other services.  However, taking into account the personal circumstances of the occupants onsite and taking into consideration the best interests of the children and the likely outcome of the application if it were to be refused, with the families having to resort to roadside living it was considered that a temporary and personal permission should be granted for five years.  This time period would allow other sites to be authorised.  Therefore, subject to the imposition of conditions, securing a personal and temporary permission and a legal agreement to secure the necessary mitigation against the impact of the proposed development on the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA), the application was recommended for approval.

The Committee discussed the application and noted the public interest in it.  The Committee noted concerns raised that it was a retrospective application that was contrary to policies.  Whilst planning officers were satisfied with the applicant’s personal circumstances, as the decision makers, the Committee also needed to be satisfied and have the evidence before it on pink papers considered in private session.

The Council’s Legal Advisor, James Tong was asked to comment who confirmed that with reference to the appeal decision attached to the report in the agenda papers, the primary consideration was the children on the site and that the residents were part of a protected group which needed to be taken into consideration as well. 

The Committee was also reminded that the application had already been deferred twice and that in fairness to the applicants a decision needed to be made.  The Committee also considered comments that it had sufficient planning information in front of it that enabled it to make a planning decision.  The children on the site were currently attending local educational establishments.  In this situation, where there are insufficient sites available as of now to meet the existing need.  Hopefully there will be sufficient sites in a few years time when the sites in the Local Plan come forward.  It was therefore considered that a temporary and personal permission was correct.

The Committee noted a query regarding the temporary and personal permission being recommended for a period of 5 years when in the appeal decision cited the Inspector felt that 3 years was a justifiable amount of time.  Why was there a difference?  In addition, the Committee was concerned to know the age of the school children and the timing of their requirements for being either at a junior or secondary school. 

The Senior Planning Officer, Lisa Botha confirmed that the five year recommendation had been provided in this case by the planning policy team which was in relation to when the Council was expecting sites to become available.  In terms of the schools, Lisa had contacted them and confirmed that a lot of the children were approaching school age and others were in attendance at a local nursery.  It was also explained that in this particular case, the personal circumstances and the fact that there are children onsite were material considerations.  Planning officers had verified this externally and it could therefore be taken into consideration.  The Council had a duty towards what was revealed in public about personal circumstances and how much should be made public.  People had a right to privacy and planning officers had verified what the applicant had told them.  The legal advisor, Angela Watson confirmed that it was discussed whether it was appropriate with these types of applications to go into private session.  The Council had to be mindful of the equalities duties and the protected characteristics of the applicant.  It was always a fine balance about how much information was provided, fully accepting that the committee members needed to feel they had enough information to make a decision.  However, by going into private session denied the applicant and objectors a further right of reply as they were not privy to what was being discussed.

The Committee queried what would happen if the provision of foul and surface water drainage was not implemented within the specified time period. 

The Senior Planning Officer, Lisa Botha confirmed that the site would have to cease and the caravan structures removed by enforcement.  The surface water drainage systems therefore needed to be implemented within 11 months.  Similarly, any breach of condition would be investigated and appropriate enforcement action taken as appropriate.     

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which was carried.

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to this application, the Committee;

RESOLVED to approve application 22/P/00738 subject to a Section 106 Agreement securing SANG and subject to the following amendments to the conditions as detailed on the supplementary late sheets:

With regard to informative 1:

Omit the word ‘(either)’

With regard to condition 4:

Within the reason section at the end of the sentence add:  and in order to minimise the impact on bats.

Add an additional informative:

With reference to condition 4 and external lighting, it is recommended that the applicant refers to: https://www.bats.org.uk/our-work/buildings-planning-and-development/lighting