Agenda item

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

 

The local Member for Llanbadoc, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chair, outlined the following points on behalf of herself and local neighbours.

 

The following points were noted:

 

The residents’ comments:

 

·         Residents have been concerned by the lack of regard shown for all the legislation and procedures that home owners are expected to abide by.

 

·         Having read the Planning Authority’s report, residents support the recommendation for refusal of planning permission.

 

·         The report highlights all of the contraventions of policies and legislation that this application is proposing.

 

·         If the Planning Committee decides to refuse planning permission, residents have requested that the occupants should return the plot to its former state as agricultural land and a timescale be implemented to do so. Residents are concerned that this process might take considerable time.

 

·         Residents are concerned that the occupants might ignore any instruction that the Authority provides and might continue to inhabit the site. Evidence of this has continued for some time that the occupants have had a disregard for planning procedure.

 

·         Residents have asked the following questions:

 

-       Will the Authority insist that the land be returned to its former state?

-       What timescale will be given to complete these works?

-       How will these conditions be policed?

 

The local Member’s Comments:

 

·         This is a retrospective application which does not comply with Monmouthshire’s Local Development Plan.

 

·         It seeks to circumvent the normal development process.

 

·         Regrets the time it has taken to receive an application. 

 

·         What is proposed is inappropriate to Llancayo, an area of unspoilt Monmouthshire landscape.

 

·         Confident that officers have undertaken all of the necessary assessments of circumstances relevant to the application.

·         It is a very comprehensive report.

 

·         If the Planning Committee decides to refuse the application, it is important that conditions are put in place to return the land to its former agricultural condition within an appropriate time scale. Also, to ensure the works are properly undertaken.

 

·         The site is inappropriate for development and askes that the Planning Committee considers refusing the application.

 

Councillor M. Goodwin, representing Gwehelog Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

Gwehelog Community Council recommends that the application be refused on the following grounds:

 

·         Policy LC1 – New build in the open countryside – There is a presumption against new build development in the open countryside unless justified under the national planning policy.

 

·         The planning application is a development in the open countryside which goes against the Local Development Plan.

 

·         Reference point 6.1.2.5 – provides a frame work for assessing proposals for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show People where for permanent, transient or emergency use.  Within that, Policy H8 states that the site should not occupy a prominent location and should be consistent with Local Development Plan Policies for protecting and enhancing the character of the local landscape. 

 

·         Therefore, approval of the application would go against Planning Policies.

 

·         If the application were approved, it would set a precedent for further development within the Local Development Plan.

 

·         The Local Development Plan forms the basis for making rational and consistent planning decisions.

 

·         Gwehelog Community Council had therefore recommended refusal of the application.

 

Ms. A. Morgan-Andrews, representing the applicant, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair, and outlined the following points:

 

·         The Housing Act Wales 2014 puts a duty on local Authorities to both assess Gypsy / Traveller accommodation needs and provide culturally appropriate accommodation.

 

·         The applicants are Gypsy / Travellers.  They have a culture and tradition that is unique to their ethnicity and they are regarded as an ethnic minority under race relations legislation.

 

·         Under this act there are over 300 plots needed throughout the whole of Wales.

 

·         There is a distinct shortage of Gypsy sites in the whole of Wales and the UK.

 

·         The Welsh Government had decided to put an obligation on local authorities to enforce the provision of new sites.

 

·         In 20 years, only one site has been built for Gypsies and Travellers in Wales.

 

·         Conditions could be put onto the application to ensure that the site would meet the criteria that is required.  The flood zone could be left undeveloped and access could be changed. There could a septic tank installed instead of having a cesspit.

 

·         The applicants do not have anywhere culturally to live.

 

·         Due to racial discrimination, it is often difficult or Gypsies and Travellers to find somewhere to live.

 

·         The 2015 GTA & A that was presented by Monmouthshire County Council to the Local Development Plan established a need for at least eight further permanent residential pitches by 2021.  Therefore, there is a need for plots for Gypsies and Travellers in Monmouthshire.

 

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, Members agreed that there was a need to provide sites for Gypsies and Travellers within the County. However, it was noted that there was a need to agree provision and to undergo a process of identifying appropriate sites via the Local Development Plan.  This matter needed to be addressed in the next Local Development Plan.

 

However, with regard to this application, Members considered that the application did not comply with planning policy.  It was therefore proposed by County Councillor A. Wintle and seconded by County Councillor D. Edwards that application DC/2016/00297 be refused for the four reasons, as outlined in the report.

 

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

 

For refusal                 -           10

Against refusal         -           0

Abstentions               -           1

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DC/2016/00297 be refused for the four reasons, as outlined in the report.