Agenda item

 

Application Number:			13/01459/COU
Location:	Castle Dream Stud, Mill Lane, Charlton Kings
Proposal:	Change of use of land for the permanent residential occupation by a traveller family, retention of day room, hardstanding, access, fencing, stables and use of associated land for keeping of horses
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Permit
Letters of Rep:		26	Update Report:		Informative

 

WH introduced the application:  the site is currently occupied on a temporary basis by a single gypsy/traveller family.  The officer recommendation is for a personal temporary permission, subject to the conditions set out in the report

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Humphris, local resident

Many residents agree with the officer recommendation for a personal temporary three-year permission, in the name of ‘Mrs Cox’, not ‘a traveller family’.  They would like the original conditions of the Planning Inspector to be adhered to – allowing only two caravans on site, one static, one tourer for a dependant child – legally up to 16 years old, or 16-18 year old in full time education, but not 16-18 years old with spouse or children.  Three large caravans are not needed and could result in unauthorised accommodation and too much intensification of development at the site. 

 

On the matter of drainage, the 2011 Inspector was satisfied with site drainage, but the stable annexe with toilet and washing machine have since been added, and particularly in the summer grey water runs into an open drain in Mill Lane and often into an adjoining field full of sheep.  Three caravans exacerbate this problem, and an ancient pond nearby has been filled with hardcore which adds to the overflow in wet weather. 

 

The brick day room should be the subject of a separate application; questions whether it would still be needed, bearing in mind the stable annexe.  A condition forbidding any further development of building or access to the site and obviating the need for retrospective vexatious applications would be appreciated. The emerging JCS Policy C4 deals with gypsy and traveller sites, and one criterion for their location states that any development is not within area of sensitive landscape.  To date, CBC has maintained and protected the character of the local AONB, and residents urge it to uphold this record by allowing Mrs Cox a temporary permission for three further years and upholding the Inspector’s recommendations and conditions to protect AONB site until the situation regarding gypsy and traveller sites in the JCS area becomes clearer.

 

 

Member debate:

BD:  these comments sum up the problem well.  Concerned that the family are not really ‘travellers’ – if they were, they would stay just a few days and move on – so having trouble in squaring the circle in this respect. 

 

HM:  as a general comment, letters concerning the revised plans were sent out over the Christmas period and didn’t give residents much time to respond.  As it happened, the changes were minor and the drawings more accurate, but it would be good for the planning department to bear this in mind in future – if revisions are received during the Christmas holidays, residents should be allowed extra time in which to comment.

 

PT:  looked at the site on planning view and noted that it is well kept, clean and tidy, but is concerned about the comment regarding sewerage – said Environmental Health should be contacted if this happens again.  Regarding the three caravans, there was talk on planning view about limiting the number of days additional caravans can stay, such as for 30 days over a one-year period. Asked if officers have had any further thoughts about this.

 

BF:  the Inspector made it clear that a temporary permission was all he was prepared to give, due to the sensitivity of the AONB and intrusion onto it.  Is surprised Mrs Cox is applying now when the original permission still has almost a year to run.  At the Appeal, great play was made about the breeding of horses, but suggests that most horses manage perfectly well on their own, and in any case, this site is no longer used as a breeding stud.

 

Having heard on the radio today (Thursday 16^th January) that Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, will be making a statement tomorrow (Friday 17^th January) about traveller sites in Britain and in the AONB, is minded to ask for deferment until his views are known – there is still plenty of time, as the current permission doesn’t expire until September.  This move would be out of fairness to the parish council, neighbours, and the applicants themselves, who have spent a lot of money on the site and want to continue to improve it, and could find themselves having to pay to put it back as it was – replace the pond, remove fencing and the day room etc.  This is a sensitive area, very visible from many points, and must be handled with great care.  Therefore moves to defer until we know where we are going, following Mr Pickles’ speech.

 

MS:  could go along with BF’s move to defer, but if this is lost, feels quite confident with the application and recommendation as stated.  Would only ask that a condition be included requiring the proposed day room to be of similar construction to the stables, to match in with the two buildings making it less of an eyesore from the Cotswold Way.  Also suggests that the siting of the two caravans should be behind the existing stables, not viewable from the top of the hill.  If this can be achieved, people won’t see much more than three wooden buildings when viewing the site from surrounding areas.

 

Members and CBC are between a rock and a hard place with this application, as we are short of additional traveller sites at present.  This may change with the JCS, so a three-year permission is imperative – things can change in that time.   The site is big enough to accommodate what has been applied for, and the work can be done discreetly, with the right conditions.

 

JF:  also agrees with the idea of deferral, and isn’t sure why this application is here now, with a year still to run on the current permission.  Is nervous about granting another temporary permission – what will happen after three years?  Another temporary permission?  We are talking about the AONB, which is very special.  Realises that travellers have got to have somewhere to go, and understands that the site is well run, but has read all the letters of representation for and against and is still uncomfortable with this application – feels it will be back to haunt us again.

 

RG:  asked for the officer to give a response on the speaker’s comments about drainage – it is important to get this matter sorted.  There is talk about allocating land for travellers in a different place, but there are no G7 sites identified in Cheltenham.  This site had been tidied up and is well run, and the applicant is seeking planning permission in the proper way, and is making an application now as her circumstances have changed – as is her right.  Councillors are going to have to choose somewhere in Cheltenham as a traveller site in the future, and wherever that may be, it will cause harm to someone or some landscape.  The recommendation for this application is not for permanent permission as the JCS will have to provide sites and could find somewhere better.  The only issue he would like clarified is the drainage – does not support deferral based on what Eric Pickles might say.  We have our own local plan and an emerging JCS to base decisions on.  Minded to support a temporary use for three years.

 

HM:  Will support BF’s move to defer, as things may change fundamentally in the near future.  Notes that the fencing on Mill Lane is more than 2m in height and therefore needs planning permission – did the applicant apply for permission for this?  Agrees with PT’s suggestion of limiting the number of days additional caravans can remain on site.

 

PJ:  RG stole his thunder – would like to hear from the officer about drainage, and does not support deferral pending any changes which may be announced.  This is an on-balance decision – as MS said, between a rock and a hard place – but suggests that having travellers settled on a site they care about could be more appealing than directing them to go where they want to go.  Said the applicant is a traveller, and on balance supports the application, pending the officer’s comments.

 

PT:  won’t support deferral, agreeing with RG that Members should make up their own minds, rather than wait to hear what Mr Pickles might or might not say.  The situation with this family has changed – they are breeding horses, and have become part of the system.  Horse-breeding is a country pursuit, needing fields and grass – this site is ideal. Regarding the fences referred to by HM, they are not overly intrusive and are covered by a substantial hedge for much of the time, thus not causing a great deal of harm to the AONB.

 

BD:  for clarification, asked if the three-year permission start at the end of the current permission (September) or straight away?  If the proposal is permitted, how can we stop other people from buying properties in the AONB and getting on-going temporary permissions to do work – this is the thin end of the wedge.

 

LG:  as the recommendation is for a temporary permission, took the view that it would run for three years from now, though a cynic’s view is that it could be added on the end making it a four-year permission.  Encourages Members to support the application as it stands, but would like to hear a response from officers to Mr Humphris’s presentation - came to committee certain which way to vote and speak, but he has raised several questions which need answers.  Would be happier voting once he has heard what the officers have to say, as there may be a good case for deferral, depending on what their comments.  Asked for TC to give an update on the JCS position on the selection, allocation and permission for gipsy and traveller sites for Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury, and for Gloucestershire – this would be helpful before moving to the vote.

 

WH, in response:

-          regarding deferral, is not sure what this will achieve.  Regardless of what Mr Pickles might say, policy takes a long time to evolve and be adopted; in addition, the applicant could go to appeal for non-determination.  Officer advice is therefore not to defer;

-          regarding the status of the applicant, confirmed that Mrs Cox has established gipsy status – this is not in question at all;

-          regarding drainage on site, the appeal Inspector felt that drainage provision was adequate for the site; if problems have arisen since, officers are not aware of it, but any issues can be secured via a condition;

-          the number of caravans and the duration of their stay can also be conditioned;

-          to MS’s request that the caravans be sited behind the stable buildings, does not think that this would be physically possible, but can check to be sure;

-          to comments that the site is no longer used as a breeding stud or for horses, the Inspector at the appeal gave permission for temporary residential occupancy for Mrs Cox and her partner at the time – any other use is not relevant to the application;

-          to MS’s comment about the finish on the day room, part of the previous appeal conditioned that facing materials should be render and tar, but this can be conditioned as timber akin to the stables on the site if Members so wish;

-          to concerns about one temporary permission leading straight on to another, it is clear that this temporary permission doesn’t allude to a permanent permission, so Members need not be too concerned about his.  The temporary permission allows time to find more suitable sites.  The Inspector gave great weight to the fact that we have to find a 5-year provision of sites, based on the established need of the district.  This has been done, and we know that we must find two pitches between 2013 and 2031: one site between 2012 and 2017 and a further pitch 2028-31.  So we need to find two pitches, not taking into account the duty to cooperate between districts if a neighbouring district can’t fulfil its needs.  A temporary permission is therefore good, as it gives us time to find other, less harmful sites;

-          HM referred to the height of the fencing, also referred to by the appeal Inspector.  There was already 2m fencing in existence on the site, installed by the previous owner.  This has since been replaced by fencing which is very slightly higher than the original and which should benefit from planning permission, being over 2m in height.   However, as this is only a temporary permission, so the question must be whether the slight increase in height over 2m can be considered harmful to the AONB for the duration of the temporary permission;

-          regarding neighbours’ concerns, Mr Humphris stated that neighbours generally support the officer recommendation, which allows the district time to find less harmful sites.

 

TC, in response:

-          to LG’s comments, said the JCS does two things:  it identifies the quantum of need for gypsy/traveller sites, and establishes the criteria for identifying those sites – the Local Plan will deal with the allocation of the sites.  The JCS won’t do this, unless it becomes part of the strategic allocation; for example, a permanent pitch could be part of the North West Cheltenham development – there is a clear argument for this and it is large enough to accommodate a site – discussions are on-going;

-          this application relates to a particular family which is unusual, but Cheltenham has a very small need for sites and the council knows who it is that requires them.  The council has responsibility to respect the culture of gypsies and travellers and how they choose to live, and to provide sites for them, but Cheltenham is not yet at that stage;

-          regarding BF’s suggestion of deferral, we do not know what Eric Pickles will say tomorrow, but whatever this is, there will be no change in policy within one month.  In addition, in one year’s time, we won’t have the Local Plan in place.  A temporary permission is therefore the right approach; in three years’ time, we should have decided if this is an appropriate site or whether other, more appropriate sites have been identified.

 

BF:  WH didn’t answer the question as to whether the temporary permission would start now or when the current permission expires.

 

WH, in response:

-          confirmed that the three years will commence from the date of the decision.

 

BF:  there have been articles in the press about the removal of traveller status from travellers who don’t travel, and to discount what the Secretary of State may say could be dangerous.  Recalls the decision to allow offices to become residential accommodation – when it happens, it can happen very quickly.

 

LG:  following TC’s comments, asked whether this site with its temporary permission be one of a number of sites to be considered as a permanent site under the JCS?  It might be an assurance to neighbours and Members to know whether we are dealing solely with a temporary period and a permanent site at this location doesn’t come into the equation, or else that it does – local people deserve to know this.

 

TC, in response:

-          all options to accommodate gypsies and travellers will be looked at, including this temporary site.  It will be considered as part of the strategic assessment, alongside normal housing, and each possible site will be weighed up against the others.

 

PJ:  with reference to any potential change in government policy which may be announced tomorrow:  if Members make a decision today and there is a change in policy with a negative outcome, would that come into effect when the temporary permission lapses?

 

MS:  moved to add conditions regarding materials used for construction of the day room and the siting of the caravans, as mentioned previously.

 

WH, in response:

-          repeated earlier comment, confirming that the applicant, Mrs Cox, has established gypsy status;

-          confirmed that if there is any material change in policy, any subsequent application in three years time will be considered against this;

-          to MS, confirmed that there is no problem in conditioning the use of timber for the day room;

-          regarding the siting of the caravans, thinks it will be very difficult to achieve what MS is asking for, and is not sure that we can achieve siting which would cause any less harm to the AONB.  At the moment, the two caravans are parked gable-end on to the road, and it would take a great deal of engineering work to get them behind the stables.  This would cost a lot of money, and as this is only going to be a temporary permission, it would not be reasonable to ask the applicant to do this.  Therefore, cautions Members against this suggestion.

 

CC:  asked BF if he still wanted to move for deferral or to withdraw that move.

 

BF:  had listened to Members’ and officers’ comments, and realised that his proposed move would not be carried.  Said Members should go straight to the vote on the officer recommendation.

 

GB:  said the question of considering the length of time any additional caravans can stay on site hadn’t been answered.  Asked if this is something we can consider.

 

WH, in response:

-          doesn’t know what would be reasonable or normal here, and therefore proposes speaking to the applicant about her preferences, and also looking at other sites in neighbouring districts and asking what they do in those instances, then report back to the Chair and Vice-Chair for their approval.

 

CC:  thinks this is sensible, suggesting the time limit could be anything from 30 days a year to holiday home conditions of 11 out of 12 months.  We should have clarity here before agreeing.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to grant temporary permission for three years, with additional conditions on (a) materials used for day room, and (b) length of stay for additional caravans

11 in support

1 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT