Agenda item

Land Adjacent To 81 Shortheath Road Moira Swadlincote Derby DE12 6AP

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to Members.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor J Legrys and seconded by Councillor M Specht.

Councillor M Specht stated that he had seconded the application with reluctance and he felt that the report made interesting reading. He highlighted that it was thought that the site would lead to a 160% increase in traffic volume however this had not been picked up by Highways. He drew Members attention to the statement that the District had a shortfall of 27 pitches and by supporting the application it would help to alleviate the issue and help a minority group integrate into the area. He expressed concerns that some of the letters of objection could be seen as discrimination and suggested that they be forwarded to the Police.

Councillor R Johnson felt that the authority required a Traveller Liaison Officer to oversee the need and development of traveller sites.

Councillor J Bridges stated that a proposal similar to this had been put forward at the Local Plan Advisory Committee for consideration.

Councillor G Jones stated that he was unhappy that a previous application for two dwellings on the site had been refused and sought an explanation as to how the nomadic lifestyle of the occupants would impact on council tax and the local schools

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised Members that council tax and valuation were not planning matters and that due to the scale and specific circumstances of the proposal, given that only one family member was of school age it was not considered to have a significant impact on the local schools.

Councillor J Legrys stated that quite a long discussion had taken place on understanding the application as he had found the report difficult to read and comprehend and he sought clarification on how the statement  not ceased nomadic lifestyle had been tested and why potential space on private sites within or outside the District had not been considered.

The Planning and Development Team Manager advised that in relation to refusal on Policy S3 advice had been taken from the County Traveller Sites and Liaison Officer that some of the family worked away using touring caravans, that were stored on a separate site, and a permanent base was required for the other members of the family. In relation to space at other sites within the District he advised that this had not been tested, but in dealing with previous appeals for gypsy and traveller sites the Planning Inspector would only ask for evidence of what Local Authority sites were available. It was also taken into consideration that the application in front of Members would allow the existing family to provide additional accommodation for their growing family together and this was acceptable.

Councillor J Legrys raised concerns over how the site could be considered for static homes when the report clearly stated that proposed occupants had not ceased their nomadic lifestyle.

In response to Councillor J Legrys, the Planning and Development Team Manager stated the proposed static caravans fell within the statutory definition of a caravan found in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 as supplemented by sec. 13 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and that following the discussions with the County Liaison Officer it had been noted that pitches were not always guaranteed on private sites and the application before them was to be used by extended family only.

Councillor J Legrys stated that as a Member of the Local Plan Advisory Committee the application exemplified the need for a municipal site to overcome the need. He accepted that the Authority by law needed to make sites available for minority groups, however the local communities found it difficult to understand that. He advised that he felt the Committee had no option but to approve, and therefore he would reluctantly be voting in favour of the application, but felt that there needed to be a better understanding of the rules when a permanent house could be refused but static mobile homes could be permitted.

Councillor V Richchi felt that the inconsistency in permitting applications was why the Planning Committee had so much criticism and that he found it hard to understand why a dwelling was refused and a traveller’s site could be permitted.

Councillor J Bridges reminded Members that the rules on approval of applications were not made up by the Local Planning Authority but was legislation that had been passed by Government.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the previous application for the existing static homes had originally been refused by the Committee and allowed at appeal.

Councillor J Bridges requested a recorded vote.

A recorded vote having been requested, the voting was a follows:

For the motion:

Councillors R Adams, R Boam, R Canny, J G Coxon, D Everitt, D Harrison, R Johnson, J Legrys, and M Specht(9).

Against the motion:

Councillors G A Allman, J Bridges, J Cotterill J Hoult, G Jones, V Richichi, N Smith and M B Wyatt(8).

Abstentions:

None(0).

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.