Agenda item

Hoo St Werburgh & High Halstow Ward

Part retrospective application for change of use of land to facilitate the extension of existing Gypsy/Traveller site comprising of an additional 8 pitches.

Councillor Filmer, having already left the meeting for the previous application, remained away for this item and took no part in the discussion or determination of this application.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner presented the application which sought planning consent for the extension of the existing Two Acre Farm gypsy and travellers caravan site towards the rear, to facilitate the provision of an additional eight pitches that would accommodate 12 caravans and a day room. Members’ attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which recommended the inclusion of two additional conditions, 9 and 10, in relation to refuse storage arrangements and foul and surface water drainage.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Crozer addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and raised the following concerns:

·                 Restricted access to the site - Parbrook Road and Ropers Green Lane provided limited access. Parbrook Road was a narrow lane with no formal passing places, and mobile homes had already caused blockages during delivery due to difficult manoeuvring.

·                 Condition of Ropers Green Lane - much of Ropers Green Lane was effectively a dirt track and had received minimal maintenance from the Council. If approved could there be a condition made requiring a full review and repair of the lane (particularly the section behind Sharnal Street).

·                 Lack of waste storage and collection arrangements - current plans made no provision for on site domestic waste storage. Residents currently placed waste at the top of Parbrook Road at a sharp junction, a communal point which regularly became unsanitary, with wildlife scattering rubbish. The area frequently attracted fly tipping and had occurred twice in recent months. If approved, could there be a condition requiring proper on?site waste storage, and could the Council introduce curb side collections for properties on Parbrook Road and Sharnal Street.

·                 Uncertainty over foul water treatment – he noted that the applicant listed the method of foul water disposal as “unknown.” No drainage strategy was provided and approving the application without clarity on sewage handling was a major risk.

·                 Signage – if the application was approved, could the Parbrook Road street sign be amended to include “Leading to Roper’s Green Lane” which would assist delivery drivers and prevent people missing the small connecting section.

The Committee discussed the planning application noting the officer presentation, the report, the supplementary advice sheet and the points raised by the Ward Councillor.

During the discussion some concerns were raised which included: the history of breaches of planning and this being an attempt to regularise and expand unlawful development; site use was inconsistent with the original permission, with evidence that chalets were being advertised for rent, and not a traditional Traveller site; lack of basic infrastructure with the access road being narrow single?track, with damage already having occurred; no sewage facilities, and no provision for waste disposal and allowing further development would worsen public health risks and cause further environmental harm; overdevelopment of the site and whether it was possible to limit further expansion. Concern was also raised that there had been a persistent lack of enforcement by the Council over the years. A query was raised as to why an officer visit was taking place at the site the following week, which the Senior Planner clarified was part of a medway wide audit of Gypsy/Traveller sites rather than anything to do with any assessment of the planning merits of the application.

During the discussion it was also noted that the family had lived there for more than 20 years and that there was a significant shortfall in Gypsy and Traveller pitches in the area, with evidence suggesting the true need was even higher due to undercounts and unmet demand. Therefore windfall sites contributed positively to meeting Medway’s wider equality obligations.

In response to some of the points raised during the discussion the Senior Planner advised that the application would address previous non-compliance with the original consent. He had visited with an enforcement officer which had led to a delay and some changes to the application and was the reason it was in part retrospective. He also advised that he believed the proposed conditions addressed the concerns raised.

The Chief Planning Officer advised that in relation to any concerns as to whether the current or future occupants were genuine Gypsy/Travellers, officers had visited the site and were satisfied that the occupiers met the policy definition. Additionally, Condition 3 legally restricted the site to Gypsy/Traveller occupation, making this an enforceable condition. With reference to enforcement in general, he advised that residents’ concerns had been acted upon, and previous issues on the adjacent site had been regularised. Although part of the current proposal was retrospective, officers had worked closely with the applicants to produce a scheme that was a significant improvement on what currently existed. The application also supported the objective, of meeting Medway’s substantial unmet need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches and the importance of enabling families to expand on or near existing sites to stay together.

With the agreement of the Committee, the Chief Planning Officer undertook to speak to Highways and reference the concerns expressed at the meeting concerning signage at Parbrook Road and Ropers Green Lane.

Decision:      

APPROVED subject to:

a)              conditions 1 to 8 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report; and

b)              the inclusion of two additional conditions, 9 and 10 as set out in the supplementary advice sheet for the reasons stated therein.

Having previously withdrawn from the meeting, Councillor Filmer returned for the remainder of the meeting.