Agenda item

Ward: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham

Applicant: Mr Michael Casey (on behalf of site residents)

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for a change of use of land for the stationing of 11 pitches for residential purposes to contain 11 static caravans, 11 touring caravans, 11 dayrooms, parking for associated vehicles, hard standing and associated infrastructure. 

The application site lay in open countryside, it formed the eastern part of the field, and was linked to West Chiltington Lane to the west by a hard surfaced track along the northern field boundary.  The eastern part of the Kingfisher Farm field, which was the part of the field subject to this application, had been developed as a caravan site for use by the gypsy and traveller community.

Since publication of the report Itchingfield Parish Council had submitted a formal objection stating that it considered the District Council should decline to determine this application under Section 70 (c) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and if the Council were minded to determine it, invited the District Council to refuse permission on the basis that: it is outside the built-up area boundary and it had not been demonstrated that it was essential to its countryside location; the development would have an unacceptable impact on the landscape character of the surrounding area; and the application was not supported by adequate evidence to conclude the development preserved the qualities of the listed Pear Tree Farmhouse.

Members were also advised that the Council’s Environmental Health and Compliance officer had visited the site that day and confirmed that seven of the 11 units were provided with the correct specification for drainage.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the application.  A representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the officer’s recommendation to determine the planning application under Section 70 (c) and then the officer’s recommendation on the planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were:

·         The principle of development

·         Effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area

·         Whether the proposal, in combination with other pitches, would dominate the nearest settled community and was reasonably located for schools, shops and other local services and community facilities

·         Whether a need for site provision existed locally

·         If harm arose, whether it was outweighed by other material considerations including the general need for and provision of sites, the availability of alternatives, and any personal circumstances.

Members also gave consideration to the enforcement and planning history of the site.  Members gave consideration that, until a new Gypsy and Traveller policy was adopted by the Council, the Council was unable to demonstrate a five-year land supply of deliverable Gypsy and Traveller pitches.

A Local Member raised concerns regarding the history of the site and considered the proposal to be harmful to the landscape character.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused. The motion was lost.

It was proposed and seconded that the proposal be subject to a temporary consent for two years. The motion was lost.

A Local Member proposed an amendment to regulatory conditions 2, 3 and 4 to reduce the required timescale for these conditions to 4 months instead of 6 months.  The motion was carried.

RESOLVED

That Planning Application DC/19/1205 be granted subject to the amendment to the conditions 2, 3 and 4 to require details / works to be submitted / implemented and completed within 4 months.