Agenda item

 

 

Application Number:			17/00129/FUL
Location:	Castle Dream Stud, Mill Lane, Charlton Kings
Proposal:	Change of use of land for the permanent residential occupation by a traveller family, provision of day room, retention of hardstanding, access, fencing, stables and use of associated land for keeping of horses.
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Permit
Letters of Rep:		21	Update Report:		(i)      Additional representations (ii)     Report update – additional condition (iii)    Appendix to report – previous appeal decision

 

EP introduced this application for planning permission for use of land for permanent occupation of a traveller family, and other provisions, as above.  The land was previously occupied under a temporary permission following an earlier appeal decision, which has now expired.  Previously there were three static caravans at the site; now there is just one.  The application is for a personal consent for the applicant only.  While it is acknowledged that the proposal causes some minor harm to the AONB, the lack of gypsy and traveller sites in Cheltenham, and the needs and human rights of the applicant have to be taken into consideration.  The emerging JCS policy is criteria-based, and there is no straightforward alternative site.  In March 2017, a county-wide assessment identified the need for three pitches in the borough. The continuing need is not likely to be filled by the JCS, and officers therefore feel it appropriate to recommend that permission be granted.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Langdon, on behalf of Save our AONB and neighbours, in objection

Began by reminding Members that Cotswold AONB has the highest status of protection under the National Parks Act 1949, and the NPPF requires local authorities to give great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty – which this proposal will not, as a planning inspector has said at a previous appeal.  Despite this, the inspector permitted a strictly conditioned, personal and temporary permission, until January 2017.  Save our AONB cannot argue with this, but strongly objects to a permanent and unrestricted permission being granted.  The application states that the site is 2.4 hectares, not just the 0.2 hectares covering the south-west corner.  Members could unwittingly have granted permission for C3 land use over the whole site.  They should also know that surface water continues to spill over Mill Lane several times a year, despite claims that drainage isn’t a problem, causing a hazard when icy; the use of the land now is nothing like it was in 2013, and there have been no horses on site for at least three years; another high, close-boarded fence went up on site about a year ago, subdividing a large open field and contrary to the 2016 Cotswold AONB Landscape Strategy; and the septic tank was cleared out this year and is no longer sufficient for a family and business.  Thirdly, this application is attempting to subvert the protection of public interest by pre-empting alternative sites being brought forward through the JCS – one such site could be Arle Nurseries, on green belt land.  The inspector specifically said the previous temporary permission for this land and family was appropriate and reasonable.  Urges Members not to accept the officer recommendation to permit; if this application is allowed it will set a devastating precedent for the AONB – residential occupation of this site should remain temporary.

 

Councillor Babbage, ward councillor, in objection

The main points have all been covered by the previous speaker, so will be brief.  We are extremely fortunate in Cheltenham, with the AONB and Cotswolds on the doorstep making it a wonderful place to live.  The AONB has the highest level of protection, and policy and assessments all indicate that this site is inappropriate for permanent development.  The identification of gypsy and traveller sites is part of the JCS process – granting permanent permission on this site would be premature.  Therefore requests that a temporary permission be granted as previously, with the same conditions, including restriction to named family members.

 

 

Member debate:

PB:  some questions for officers – how will we as a borough satisfy the requirements for three gypsy and traveller pitches going forward?  It seems that the recommendation here is very humanist, and has some sympathy, but it is the wrong recommendation, a knee-jerk reaction to provide gypsy traveller sites in the borough.  If an application for another gypsy traveller site comes in , will it be equally difficult to turn down, if the land is lesser value than this AONB site?  This is a very big site; is there any way, in granting permission as recommended, that the whole site could be used?

 

SW:  the first speaker encapsulated all the objections to this application very well.  Everyone would love to live in the AONB.  Is the borough council member on the Cotswold Conservation Board – this isn’t a prejudicial interest – and keenly aware of the beauty of this area and the special protection it deserves.  Cheltenham borough doesn’t currently have anywhere for gypsies and travellers to stay, but this isn’t a good enough reason to allow this site to become permanent.  Using this site is contrary to what we expect in the AONB; CBC has other sites which could be used instead.  When the JCS is finalised, there could be other places for gypsy and traveller families to go.  Could therefore support a further temporary, personal permission of three or five years for one named family on this site, but fears that development on the site is inching forward, with stables, touring caravan, static caravan, day room and permanent building – it gets worse and worse.

 

LS:  it is absolutely right that CBC should be asked to provide pitches for gypsy and travellers, but not clear from what he has heard or from the officer report that granting this permission is going to increase the number of pitches.  The recommendation is based largely on the GTAA 2017 recommendation for three new pitches to be provided by Cheltenham.  It is misleading the designate this site as a new pitch – it is no such thing, and this would be changing its designation.  Shares the concerns of other members and the speaker – in some ways we would be  encouraging opportunistic encroachment to the AONB at our peril.  The previous report and the 2016 Ryder Report describe this land as pristine AONB, not degraded, and we should be mindful of that fact.  No-one wants to see the current occupant disadvantaged, however, so is happy to support the continuation of the status quo, with a further temporary permission, but not a permanent one.

 

PT:  agrees with the previous speakers.  Has anyone suggested a five-year temporary permission for the named occupant, rather than three? She has done a good job at the site, kept it neat and tidy, and is not encroaching on surrounding land.

 

BF:  agrees with much of what has been said, but goes back to the appeal decision.  The site is currently owned by a single occupant; we haveno control over who uses it.  At present, no other travellers have wanted to occupy it.  The family used to earn their living breeding horses, tarmacking drives etc, but none of this applies now.  The current occupant lives on her own.  There is just one stable block, which only had temporary planning permission.  It is ridiculous that the person who owns the land only has temporary planning permission.  The borough council with the JCS knows that it has a requirement to provide three sites or three pitches?  We have managed to find room for 20,000 houses but not for three gypsy and traveller sites.  It is the council’s responsibility to have sites we can control  to provide the appropriate numbers.  We have no control over this site.  There is just one person living there; it could become a livery stable business.  The site is in the AONB, and doesn’t comply; it was originally illegally occupied. If anything, we should grant temporary permission for three years, not five.  It could then be extended again, if necessary, to keep some degree of control.  If it can’t, there should be conditions in the JCS – the site at Twigworth counts as part of Gloucester’s requirements, not Tewkesbury’s.  Most travellers want a rural setting; they don’t want to be in the middle of a town.  No-one has yet mentioned the major problem is that travellers are transient – there is no provision but there is a need.  We need to look at this and do something about it, rather than ignore it.  This application is making the shoe fit the foot, and isn’t what was originally applied for.  Will move to refuse, giving 12 months to focus people’s minds. 

 

EP, in response:

-       To PB’s question, how are we going to provide three sites as identified in the GTAA, there will be a survey and further investigation.  The stated requirement for three pitches arises from the occupants of this site – there are three caravans, one to be removed, for a teenage dependant in the future;

-       The draft JCS doesn’t propose to allocate sites – it is a criteria-based policy, to be considered when sites come forward;

-       Will this make it difficult to resist other sites? No, it would be easier to resist, as CBC will have fulfilled its requirement;

-       The site area is indicated by a red line on the map, and conditions limit the amount of development within this red line area.  A separate planning application would be required for any further development;

-       A five-year consent could be granted if this is what Members feel to be most appropriate;

-       To BF’s concern that the site could be used for a livery stable business, there is a condition to restrict use of the stable to non-commercial uses.  An additional planning application would be needed to vary that condition.

 

BF:  the temporary permission was based on the fact that the family bred horses as a commercial business.

 

EP, in response:

-       The Inspector did not attach that condition.

 

MC:  this is a planning application to be refused or permitted.  The question was, can a condition be attached?  The officer has answered that it can.

 

CH:  doesn’t exactly go with the flow of the debate so far.  At county level, it is difficult to find enough gypsy and traveller sites.  Different travellers have different lifestyles and therefore different needs.  This has to be taken into account in all our decision-making – we should be mindful of it.  The applicant has been at this site for some time.  If the existing temporary permission is extended by one, three or five years, she will not be comfortable, with a sense of insecurity – we should be mindful of that too.  This permission seeks to give security for this particular family.  Also, regarding restrictions, has met a lot of travellers who have family members come to stay at different times of the year. It’s been said that traveller families don’t want to live near town centres, but quite a few do set up nearer to towns, for hospital appointments and so on.  The life expectancy of male travellers is very low, and we have a duty to recognise their different lifestyles, which vary greatly.  All things being equal, would like to grant permission for this family to stay on this site however long they want to stay there, to give them a sense of security.  When they no longer want it, we should look again.  Would find it difficult to accept this family being moved on to another site.  We must take into account their human rights, personal circumstances, and the different types of accommodation required.

 

BF:  the Housing Act of 2016 dealt with travellers who no longer travel.  Agrees with CH - we can all live how we like, as long as we comply with the law of the land.

 

GB:  feels Members have discussed this application as much as they can.  PT has proposed a five-year temporary occupancy.  It is up to the Committee to decide on what length of permission is granted, but first they will need to vote on the recommendation to permit permanent occupancy.

 

PB:  with regard to human rights, if we are not providing any alternative traveller sites in the JCS or Local Plan, where are we suggesting this family moves to?  There is nowhere else.  It is an infringement of their human rights if no alternative is provided. 

 

CH:  can a permanent personal permission be granted for this one family?

 

EP, in response:

-       Understands that a lot of Members are concerned about the human rights issue, and any interference in this family’s right to home and family life.  Her interpretation here is that granting a further temporary permission would not be a breach of the Human Rights issue, but eviction would.

 

NJ, in response:

-       Confirms that temporary permission would not be a breach in any way.

 

EP, in response:

-       Depending on how Members vote on the substantive motion, a number of conditions could be added:  (1) personal permanent permission; (2) temporary permission, not personal; (3) both of these.

 

BF:  would remind CH that the proposal on the planning application is for permanent permission – not for the applicant and her family or any other named person.  This may be what the applicant wants, and is what Members should vote on.

 

CH:  if a condition can be put on , would propose the personal permanent option. 

 

EP, in response:

-       For clarification, the inspector’s reason for granting a personal, temporary permission is set out in the officer report, at para 6.2.

 

PT:  one of the conditions refers to non-commercial use of the site, but ‘breeding horses’ implies a commercial use, and that the horses will be sold.  It could be used as a livery stable.  How does this fit with planning?

 

EP, in response:

-       The condition can be strengthened if it is causing concern.  The original inspector felt that this was commercial use, but the condition is trying to prevent livery use. 

 

SW:  the original permission was temporary and personal; we should stick with that.  It should be temporary because there is land in the borough’s ownership which could be used for travellers, which isn’t part of the AONB; when a suitable site comes up, this family can be asked to use it.  As said previously, everyone would like to live in the AONB.

 

Vote on officer recommendation for permanent permission, with wording of conditions altered as above

6 in support

0 in objection

6 abstentions

NOT CARRIED

 

MC:  proposes a five-year personal permission.

 

PT:  has already proposed that.

 

CH:  would rather have a permanent personal permission.

 

BF:  members just voted to refuse the application.  The applicant may not want a temporary permission.  Officers should go back to her and encourage a new application.

 

MC:  the officer has confirmed that members can vote on a temporary permission.

 

GB:  it is valid to vote on this.  The applicant can appeal if not happy with it.

 

Vote on PT’s move for five-year personal permission

7 in support

3 in objection

2 abstentions

CARRIED