Agenda item

Aylesbury Gardens Newton Road Swepstone Leicestershire

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

Councillor R Blunt, ward member, addressed the meeting.  He made reference to the previous refusals in respect of a permanent permission and stated that nothing had changed in the last 4 years.  He added that the site was outside the limits to development, was in an unsustainable location and the proposals would harm the character and appearance of the countryside.  He urged members to refuse the application.

Mr C Robinson, parish councillor, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the application should be refused as it was not in accordance with the development plan policies or the policies within the emerging local plan, there had been no real change in circumstances since the previous appeal, the proposals would harm the intrinsic character of the countryside and the site was not in a sustainable location.  He added that the officer had given significant weight to the 2013 needs assessment although this had recently been updated to accommodate the new definition of traveller.  He felt that it was therefore premature to permit this application when the needs assessment was on the cusp of changing.  He also expressed concerns in respect of lack of developer contributions in respect of the River Mease.  He urged members to overturn the recommendation.

Mr M Reece, objector, addressed the meeting.  He pointed out that the temporary permission still had five months to run, and stated that the applicant operated this site commercially and there was no guarantee that the present occupants would be allowed to remain.  He commented that if the site had not been illegally occupied and the planning system manipulated, it seemed that a temporary permission would have never been permitted.  He expressed concerns that the day room was a visually intrusive structure and was overbearing, the caravans could be seen from the roadside, and the site was not sustainable.

Mr A Statham, agent, addressed the meeting.  He highlighted the national shortage of traveller sites.  He commented that this was a good site with all the required facilities and was close to local amenities.  He spoke in support of the family who currently occupied the site.  He urged members to support the application.

Councillor G Jones expressed concerns in respect of the state of the site and that the system was being manipulated.  He moved that the application be refused on the grounds that the site was outside the limits to development, the location was unsustainable, and the proposals would harm the character and appearance of the countryside.

The motion was seconded by Councillor M Specht.

Councillor D Everitt commented that he could see no reason to object to the application.

Councillor N Smith reiterated that the site was outside the limits to development, would cause harm to the countryside, had been repeatedly refused and was in an unsustainable location.  He added that there was objection to the application from the Highway Authority.

In response to a question from Councillor J Bridges, the Head of Planning and Regeneration clarified that the emerging local plan did not include specifically identified sites for gypsies and travellers, and it was expected that the Council would bring forward a specific document to bring forward sites.  He advised that this document had been delayed until next summer at the earliest as set out in the report.  He added that at present there was an unmet need and no sites identified to meet that need.

Councillor J Bridges stated that he would support the proposals as refusal could jeopardise the local plan.

Councillor D Harrison stated that he felt the site was inappropriate and he would support the refusal of the application.  He also expressed concerns about the brick building on the site and that the planning system was being manipulated. 

Councillor M Specht referred to the recent call for sites which had generated no interest from the travelling community, which he found disappointing.  He felt that the application was premature considering the pending review. 

Councillor D J Stevenson highlighted that no complaints had been made in the last 12 months and reminded members that the day building had been previously allowed on appeal. 

A brief discussion ensued to clarify the reasons for refusal of the application. 

Councillor M Specht requested a recorded vote.

The Chairman then put the motion to the vote.  A recorded vote having been requested, the voting was as follows:

For the motion:

Councillors R Boam, R Canny, J Clarke, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, F Fenning, D Harrison, J Hoult, R Johnson, G Jones, N Smith, M Specht and M B Wyatt (13).

Against the motion:

Councillors J Bridges, D Everitt and D J Stevenson (3).

Abstentions:

Councillor R Adams (1).

The motion was therefore declared CARRIED.  It was therefore

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that the site was outside the limits to development, was unsustainable, and the proposals would harm the character and appearance of the countryside.