Agenda item

We considered the application and late correspondence, which was presented for refusal for the three reasons, as outlined in the report.

 

Councillor D.K. Pollitt, Chair of Llantrisant Fawr Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points on behalf of the community council:

 

·         The application does not conform to the Local Development Plan (LDP).

 

·         The site had been the subject of a planning appeal in 2011.  The Planning Inspectorate allowed the appeal on grounds of need so that the applicant could live with her immediate family.  Strict conditions had been applied regarding the number (2) and type of caravans.  The exact siting of those caravans, the names of the occupants of each caravan, the number of permitted vehicles on site (2) and the extent of ground cover allowed. 

 

·         Since that judgement, none of these conditions have been adhered to. The named occupants have never occupied the site, and the site has been largely unoccupied since that time.  This negates the reason for need at the site.

 

·         Immediately after the judgement services were put in place for three, not two caravans.

 

·         The caravans on the site are neither the type permitted nor sited, as required.

 

·         The site was initially covered with hard core.  Following enforcement action some of this was removed but a pile of hard core has been left in one corner of the site.

 

·         During the summer, this site was occupied by five caravans and seven vehicles.

 

·         Some fencing work had been undertaken and the County Council’s Enforcement officer was required to enter the site and ensure the removal of the caravans.

 

·         In view of the past history, the community council considers that it can not be certain how the development of the site will proceed if the application was approved.

 

·         Access to the site is a long and narrow single lane track with no passing places.  The lane is also prone to flooding.

 

·         As there are no public transport services to the site, the increase in traffic of up to 14 vehicles, plus occasional touring vans, will put unnecessary strain on traffic flows and is contrary to Policy NV1.

 

·         Previous attempts to transport caravans to the site have resulted in damage to hedges.

 

·         The site is in open agricultural land and the application is contrary to Policies LC1, LC5 and S1 of the LDP.

 

·         The development will adversely affect the local landscape and will be visible from the A449 and the slip road, especially in autumn and winter.

 

·         The proposed development will cause significant change to the local character of the area.  It is unsympathetically sited and fails to harmonise with the local area.

 

·         The community council is vigorously opposed to the planning application.

 

The applicant, Mr. T. Lee, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chair, outlined the following points:

 

·         The intention of the planning application is for the applicant and his immediate family to live on the site.

 

·         The applicant considers that the application should be approved, as it complies with the adopted Gypsy Sites Policy under development plan H8.

 

·         The 2015 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment establishes a need for at least eight further permanent residential pitches by 2021.  This application would provide 40% of that need.

 

·         The site is a suitable, sustainable location for a Gypsy Site.  The case officer stops short of the relevant part of the previous appeal where the Inspector found that the site’s location was agreed.  Paragraph 26 of the circular which promotes a pragmatic approach to car born journeys in relation to gypsy site uses. 

 

·         In a rural context, the site is not particularly remote from the wide range of services which provide for the town of Usk, which is approximately two kilometres from the site and has a primary school within the town.

 

·         There is also a bus stop within one kilometre of the site which would provide a service to the new secondary school in Monmouth.

 

·         The Highway Authority has not objected to the application and there is no flood risk or other objections.

 

·         There are no issues regarding residential amenity, as the site is separate from the nearest residents.

 

·         The application is supported by a landscape enhancement scheme protected by TDA which provides the landscape visual assessment for the UDP.

 

·         Since the previous appeal, no further site has been permitted which discloses the development plan failure, as the circular expects need to be met through the development plan via the allocation of the land for site and then for individual applications, such as this application.

 

·         No land has been allocated despite the GTAA establishing the need.  This is a matter to which substantial weight should be attached.

 

·         In addition to this need, there is a need for the applicant and his family to be re-united on the same site because he has been unable to live at the Shirenewton site where he was raised.  Since he reached adulthood, the policy on site is that one household can apply for a pitch.  Cardiff also only has a number of caravans per pitch, so he is unable to put his caravan on his mother’s pitch.  The applicant would like to start his own family and as the main earner he has commitments to his existing family.  There is a need for the family to be together as it is their culture and tradition.  The applicant’s family have been travelling in Monmouthshire for generations and considers that they will be an asset to the community.

 

The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Committee that if the Committee were minded to approve the application then he would recommend that Members consider an additional condition that the names of the occupiers, the numbers of caravans on site, the siting, landscaping and the extent of development, as these are issues that are enforceable.  However, the issue that that Committee needs to focus on is whether there is a need for this application. It was clarified that none of the proposed occupiers form part of the need identified via the GTAA.

 

Members expressed sympathy for the applicant.  However, when moving away from the site, the difficulties identified with the site become clear. Taking into account the views of the Inspector at the previous appeal, he was clear that the site was only suitable for the number of caravans as agreed.  This application goes against planning policy.

 

It was noted that officers have tried to speak with the applicant but has had no response.  Therefore total clarity of the situation has not come forward.  Also, there is a conflict between the views expressed by the applicant and the manager of the Cardiff site, as the views of both individuals differ greatly.

 

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, it was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor R.J. Higginson that application DC/2015/01424 be refused for the three reasons, as outlined in the report.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

 

For refusal                   -           13

Against refusal            -           0

Abstentions                 -           0

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DC/2015/01424 be refused for the three reasons, as outlined in the report.