The report was presented by Chris Purvis which can be found on pages 83 – 100 of the Agenda. Officer’s recommendation was to refuse planning permission as outlined on pages 98 – 99 of the Agenda.

Councillor Rice raised several questions:

If the Committee were mindful to refuse the application, how would travellers be removed from the site?

What would happen if the application was refused and the decision was appealed by the Applicant?

Chris Purvis explained that the temporary planning permission for the site was expiring on 16 July and if the application was refused, then an enforcement notice would be issued to require removal of the occupiers from the site and the cessation of the use. The notice would outline the steps to follow to vacate the land and to restore the land back to its former use. The Council would also liaise with occupiers to see if there was an alternative location they could go to. If an appeal was submitted, then the Council would need to await until the outcome of the appeal before any enforcement action could be taken. The Council could still serve an enforcement notice and the Applicant would have the right to appeal that too. The Planning Inspectorate may consider the enforcement notice and the refusal of planning permission through an appeal. The timeframe for an appeal decision was usually around 12 months from when an appeal is submitted but there may be a backlog due to current lockdown restrictions.

The Vice-Chair felt that the neighbour's objections needed to be taken into consideration because if planning permission was granted then the temporary structures would become permanent. Chris Purvis said that if the Committee were minded to approve, officers would need to look at the reasons given for an approval and whether the structures on site could be permanent.

Referring to page 95, 6.36, Councillor Rice questioned how much weight had been given to unmet need for traveller sites. Indicating to the table on page 96, Chris Purvis said that the table identified the weight applied to the factors promoted as Very Special Circumstances. Unmet need for traveller sites was given significant weight which was consistent with appeal decisions. Paragraphs 6.32 and 6.33 also recognised the need for traveller pitches within the Borough and outlined that this would be addressed as part of the new Local Plan process.

The residents, Mr and Mrs Gunson’s statement of objection was read out by Democratic Services.

The Agent, Brian Woods’ statement of support was read out by Democratic Services.

Agreeing with officer’s recommendation, the Chair said that Ward Members had experienced similar applications in their own wards and sympathised with the neighbours effected. He felt that if the Committee was minded to approve, it could send out the wrong message regarding Green Belt sites. He said that he was aware of the shortage of traveller sites in the Borough but accepted that it would be assessed through the Local Plan process.

The Committee went on to discuss the site being on Green Belt land and the Chair, Councillor Byrne, Councillor Lawrence and Steve Taylor agreed that planning permission should not be granted because of the harm to the Green Belt. The neighbour’s objection was taken into consideration and Councillor Rice suggested a site visit to see what was on the site due to the different views given by the neighbours’ and the Agent’s statements. There was no seconder for a site visit so the site visit was rejected.

The Chair proposed the Officer’s recommendation and was seconded by Councillor Byrne.

FOR: (6)Councillors Tom Kelly, Mike Fletcher, Angela Lawrence, Gary Byrne, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick.

AGAINST: (1) Councillor Gerard Rice.

ABSTAINED: (0)

The application was refused planning permission.