Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation set out in the officer’s report considered by the committee on 20^th January 2016 and subject to the additional condition set out in the late observations provided to that committee but with an amended condition in respect of the life of the permission that states “The use hereby permitted shall be for a limited period, being the period of five years from the date of this decision.  If within the five year period of the permission the Council confirms in writing by way of notice served at the site, that in its opinion there is a suitable alternative site then planning permission shall cease within six months of the date of that written notice”.  

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application. 

            The Housing & Planning Solicitor explained that he had received some correspondence from a person who he believed to be a complainant about the development indicating that they intended to write a letter of judicial review of the decision made at the 20^th January 2016 meeting of the Committee.  He had been asked if the application could be deferred until the letter of judicial review was received but as the letter did not indicate why the challenge was being made, the Housing & Planning Solicitor did not feel that a decision on the application should be deferred.  During the meeting today he had been handed some email correspondence which he understood to be from a barrister on behalf of the complainant.  He had not had the opportunity to read the email but said  that if for any reason, following a decision on this application, there was a need to come back to committee with further legal advice arising from the email, he would do so. 

The report before the Committee included two recommendations and the Housing & Planning Solicitor said that at the previous meeting, the decision had been to grant planning permission but Councillor Chris Bithell had asked for a condition relating to the provision of alternative sites earlier than the five years temporary permission that had been granted.  The recommendation at paragraph 7.01 had been put forward as he had found no precedent or reference in the guidance for anything other than a fixed time period  and therefore the Housing & Planning Solicitor felt that to grant permission for five years was the safest option.  However, at 7.02 he had drafted a recommendation that would at least provide certainty that should the Local Planning Authority identify an alternative site then notice could be given by them on this site and within six months of service of the notice, planning permission would come to an end.          

            Councillor Bithell spoke of a phone call that he had received whereby concern had been raised by a resident that material had not been shared with the Committee in relation to access and egress of the site.  The resident had also indicated that lengthy discussions had taken place with the Senior Engineer – Highways Development Control and a dvd had been submitted showing the issue he was referring to.  Councillor Bithell proposed the recommendation at 7.02 which was duly seconded.  Councillor Gareth Roberts said that he had seen some of the footage and commended the individual for providing it.  He felt that the application was for a permanent site but the committee had made the correct decision to extend the temporary permission.  Councillor Roberts agreed that the recommendation at 7.02 was appropriate and suggested that the material that Members had not seen could have been material in their decision making on the application.  He felt that it was not appropriate to refuse the application because there was a risk that permanent permission could have been granted on appeal. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager commented that it had been suggested at the previous meeting that the development plan would sort out this issue of sites, but this was not the case.  He explained that the requirements of the new Housing Act required the authority to carry out an updated Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment.  This was currently ongoing but preliminary findings showed that there was a continuing need for pitches and the Act required the authority to act on that need.  The needs of the Travellers on this site, with it being a temporary permission, were within the study that was ongoing and should be dealt with in a permanent way by an alternative solution.      

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation set out in the officer’s report considered by the committee on 20^th January 2016 and subject to the additional condition set out in the late observations provided to that committee but with an amended condition in respect of the life of the permission that states “The use hereby permitted shall be for a limited period, being the period of five years from the date of this decision.  If within the five year period of the permission the Council confirms in writing by way of notice served at the site, that in its opinion there is a suitable alternative site then planning permission shall cease within six months of the date of that written notice”.