Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 18/00794/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Principal Planning Officer.

Audio recording 1 hour 27 minutes 11 seconds

Change of Use of land to use as a residential caravan site for 8 gypsy families including retention of hardstanding and existing lights.

NB: Councillor Sue Ngwala re-joined the meeting at 8.50pm

Councillor David Levett notified the Committee that as he was named in some of the objections he would not take part in the debate or vote.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report with plans and provided the following updates:

·                Nigel Smith, Strategic Planning Manager was present to answer questions on Appendix 2 – the Matter 25 statement that related to the Local Plan;

·                Chris Braybrooke, Senior Compliance Officer was present to answer questions which might be appropriate on any enforcement matters;

·                An apology was given for the lack of photographs – the case officer was not working at the time and due to time and Covid travel restrictions the Development and Conservation Manager had not been able to travel to the site to take photographs;

·                Appendix 1 showed the Temporary Planning Permission which was granted for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation on this site which had been allowed on appeal against an Enforcement Notice served by the Council. Five year planning permission had been granted by the Inspector to enable the resolution of the issue through the new Local Plan;

·                The Appeal Permission had expired on 8^th March 2017 so from that date this had been an unauthorised development. By 9^th March 2021, the use of land would become lawful, by virtue of the  4 year rule which is well-established in planning law for residential uses;

·                The determination of this planning application had been delayed on the basis that this site would be needed and that the Local Plan would be resolved by March 2021. Recent Local Plan hearings had revealed that the occupiers of this site may not be travellers;

·                The Council was seeking the Inspector’s agreement to modify the plan policy designation as greenbelt. This will allow the Council to regain control of the site and enable the occupants to find alternative accommodation by October 2022;

·                Should Members agree the recommendation, this strategy would negate the need for the Council to rush through an enforcement notice;

·                The alternative of an Enforcement Notice was viewed as unnecessarily adversarial.

Ms Joan Shiach thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 18/00794/FP.

Ms Shiach’s presentation included:

·                The following points contained in a letter from Codicote Parish Council;

·                The Parish Council continued to object to this application especially when the original appeal application allowed a temporary permission for six pitches whereas this application was indicating eight pitches;

·                The standard of living conditions on site could not be established as no site visits had been undertaken for some considerable time and none were planned in the foreseeable future;

·                The Parish Council would not want to see an increase from six to eight pitches nor for the extension period to be 18 months but would advise 12 months by which time the work of the Planning Inspector should be completed;

·                It came to light during the Local Plan hearing sessions that there are in fact currently nine pitches on the site occupied by non-travellers and this therefore calls into question whether additional pitches are in fact required up to 2031;

·                Members were referred to page 25 of the hard copy of the 2018 ORS report, figure 6 – sites and yards visited in North Hertfordshire. Also, on page 78, 4.3.6 the Officer stated that their conclusions were based on a robust evidence base i.e. the ORS report of 2018 – this evidence had now been called into question at the LP hearings.

·                Ms Shiach and her son Alistair also wished to make the following points which are on record from 2018 and stand:

·                There had been breaches of the conditions set out in the Appeal Decision which had not been dealt with, i.e. there were 11 caravans on the site and these were occupied by non-travellers;

·                The Appeal Decision stipulated that following the end of the temporary planning period closure of the site should be enforced. The family who was the subject of this report, and who evidently needed a secure home, had long since moved away so why had four years passed since the temporary permission elapsed with no enforcement taking place to return the site to its original state and why had the planning application not been brought to the Committee before now?

·                In summary, the number of pitches should not be increased from 6 to 8, an extension period of 12 would be more appropriate, and the conditions (notwithstanding type of occupiers) laid down by the original Appeal Decision should apply to the application and be enforced.

The following Member asked a question of clarification:

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

Ms Shaich responded to the question of clarification as follows:

·                It was not known whether the caravans were being used for financial gain or being rented out – this query would be best directed to the applicant.

The Development and Conservation Manager responded to points raised as follows:

·                Although the strategy to await the outcome of the Local Plan may have been mistaken, no-one could have anticipated that the process would have taken as long as it had;

·                The deadline was imminent and there was no time to negotiate conditions such as the numbers of homes on site as the four year rule would come in during this process and make the site permanent;

·                The 18 month timeframe had been suggested as a reasonable amount of time to enable officers to assess the situation, to find out who was occupying the units and, if needed, to decide upon an enforcement strategy;

·                If there were more than 8 homes on the site this would be a breach of the conditions, and granting the planning permission would enable the Council to regain control of the site which at the moment it had no control over and had not been able to access.

The following Member asked questions:

·                Councillor Ruth Brown.

The Development and Conservation Manager responded to the questions as follows:

·                If the Committee wished to restrict the site to travellers this had to be referred to the Secretary of State which would risk not being able to get the planning permission out by the four year deadline of 8 March 2021;

·                Six months would not in his view give a reasonable amount of time to resolve the matter;

·                If Members were minded to grant permission, the site would not be in breach of the land use category. No enforcement action on the use of the land would be applicable until the permission expired;

·                If a compliance notice was needed in future it would only need to be a matter of a few months’ duration as this planning permission was notification that the occupiers would need to look for alternative accommodation;

·                The four year rule would re-start once the new planning permission, if granted, expired as the Council would regain control of the land;

·                If planning permission was not granted, it would be difficult to prepare a legitimate enforcement notice within a few days and there was a risk that it would not be effective and the four year rule would apply.

The following Members took part in the debate:

·                Councillor Mike Rice;

·                Councillor Tony Hunter;

·                Councillor Michael Muir.

The following points were covered in the debate:

·                It was considered that the officer’s recommendation was the right way forward to enable effective enforcement action in the future and to avoid the four year rule coming to into effect.

It was proposed by Councillor Mike Rice, seconded by Councillor Tony Hunter, and upon being put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 18/00794/FP be GRANTED temporary planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Principal Planning Officer.