Members considered the level of support received from residents and the Town Council.
The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedures (minute 19/04 refers) during its deliberations.
David Rowen presented the application to members in respect of 2 dwellings in the open countryside adjacent to the river and in flood zone 3 of which planning permission was previously granted for 2 mobile homes and erection of ancillary buildings in 2015. When considering the 2015 panning application it was considered that the applicants met the definition of gypsies/travellers and the 2015 application was granted on that basis. However later in 2015 the Government published new planning policies on travellers sites, which changed the definition for planning applications and removed the provision regarding gypsies/travellers who have permanently ceased a nomadic way of life, and were in effect excluded from that policy. Consequently this application is to be assessed as an application for housing in the countryside. The principle of which is unacceptable. In addition insufficient evidence has been put forward that the site is sequentially acceptable in terms of flood risk. He concluded by stating that the introduction of 2 permanent dwellings in this location in conjunction with existing development in the area would in effect suburbanise the area and be out of character.
Tim Driver the legal representative clarified the legislation which relates to this application. In 2011 the Equality Act was passed and it established 'the public sector equality duty' as in section 149 of that Act. This Act was a consolidation of all the anti-discrimination legislation starting with the Race Relations Act and covers all in one comprehensive piece of legislation. The specific duty in section 149 was different as it establishes a duty, which in fact the Human Rights Act does not do and what that duty is. There is an awful lot of it and will not go through it all but basically the duty is to have due regard to the need to do 3 things; eliminate discrimination and other prohibited conduct; to advance equality of opportunity; to foster good relations. This applies basically to the consideration of what are called persons who share relevant protected characteristics and those are: range of age, disability, but in this instance race and gypsies in particular are clearly recognised as being a race. The points that Mr Rowen has referred to in planning policy terms of having permanent residence are not relevant as far as this particular duty is concerned. The duty is the aim, taken from a case, to integrate consideration of the advancement of the equality in day to day business and applies to every decision including the decision in this instance. He explained that what the committee has to do is have due regard with the need to, in this instance, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations and that is between persons who share relevant protective characteristics, which on the face of it, the applicants do fall within that as gypsies. He added that the duty does not actually require this committee or any public authority to do anything specific or not to do any specific as long as this committee have due regard as to what has just been said. This means it all has to be done, as it were, in the open as in this committee and to be recorded in the minutes. He also added, although he does not think it is particularly relevant here, but the duty even goes so far (taken from the Race Relations Act) to permit certain types of positive discrimination. The Race Relations Act was one of the items carried forward into this duty and in the Equality Act. He concluded that it was necessary to bring the committees attention to this and it will be recorded in the minutes, whatever the committees outcome in their deliberations, that the committee do need to take this into account.
Members received a presentation in accordance with public participation from Councillor Gavin Booth as a neighbouring District Council and in support of the application.
- Councillor Booth confirmed that he is here today as a neighbouring Ward Councillor and has been asked to come before the committee because one of the applicants lives in his ward in Parson Drove and that this site is on the boundary of Parson Drove and Wisbech St Mary.
- Councillor Booth stated in his opinion that this application should be approved as it has been widely support by neighbours, the Town Council and himself. He added it should be recognised that permission has already been granted for this site last year and already been undertaken as in the report.
- Councillor Booth referred to 4.3 in the report concerning the Environment Agency and they have requested a condition be applied to any planning application that is approved which is on file but they have not raised any concerns regarding sequential test, all they have done is recognised that an application could be passed and indicating the conditions that would be applied which replicate what was agreed in last years application. He added that officers do make reference to the sequential test, however the Environment Agency do not appear to raise this as a concern.
- Councillor Booth stated that there is a flood risk assessment as indicted on page 15 of the report which mentions that this development is within flood zone 3, however in the report it highlights that the flood risk is a 1 in 200 year chance and if this were to happen not only would we be worried about this potential development but also Wisbech and all across the district. It would mean that all the flood defences have actually failed and need to take this into consideration when applying a pragmatic approach to planning applications. He added that the assessments do not actually record what the flood risk would be taking into account the flood defences and there has been a considerable sum spent recently on flood risk defences around the Wisbech area and particularly to the south barrier bank.
- Councillor Booth referred to 8.17 in the report which recognises the development is taking place and he thinks that this is saying that the committee need to give integration to the impact of the development and where it can become somewhat subjective around what impact on the local environment is. He added, in defence of this application this end of the road near Bevis Lane has quite a large amount of development which members would have seen on their site visit. This area has development and he has been told by locals that in Bevis Lane it is not unknown for development taking place and has been for some considerable time.
- Councillor Booth referred to page 18 of the report, in respect of the view and that this development would be seen from the A47, however you can see the other properties along this road from the A47 and that the screening which is being proposed by the applicant would match and be very similar to current screening in the style of a cottage type development. Therefore the actual physical impact would be mitigated. He added that there have been plenty of applications recently in the open countryside.
- Councillor Booth asked members to think about this development and that the same access still applies. He added that based on upon these considerations he urged that members support this application.
Questions for Councillor Booth - there were none.
Members received a presentation in accordance with public participation from Rose Wilson the application supporting.
- Mrs Wilson stated in January 2015 she applied to Fenland District Council for her parent's property and confirmed that they are Romany Gypsies. She added that the family have lived here all their lives and are part of the local community.
- Mrs Wilson stated that they have done everything that the Council have asked as part of the application but they have hit a stumbling block which is condition 7 of the planning permission which states that the mobile homes had to have a safe refuge. She stated that Billy had already bought his mobile home prior to the planning application and thought that this was ok. However when she contacted the manufacturer on his behalf and showed them the planning permission they refused to build this home because they said it is not made as a refuge and would not support adults and children should a flood occur. She confirmed that they had looked into buying a second hand mobile home because the safety of our families comes first and that condition was put on the planning permission to ensure compliance with policies LP16 and 14. Mr Wilson confirmed that she had contacted the previous planning officer Alison Callaby explaining what had happened and advised her of the emails from the companies and her concerns on safety. She confirmed that Alison Callaby emailed her back and clarified that she could remove the condition, to which Mrs Wilson replied that ly that this puts our families at risk and want to comply with policy LP16 & 14. Mrs Wilson stated that the advice given was to contact Elizabeth Montgomery from the Environment Agency who advised her of the measures needed to be put in place for a new build in the area and that this is why they are at this stage. Mrs Wilson referred to policy LP12, LP3, LP5, LP12 part d and e and that it also states in the policies that applications for mobile homes would be considered in the same way as permanent homes. Mrs Wilson confirmed that Bill had told her to just apply for a day room, however she feels that this is stereotyping that all travellers just live in trailers and have a day room.
- Mrs Wilson confirmed that there are no objections in respect of the current application from the people consulted and no objections from the Town Council. Mrs Wilson stated that they are an established local gypsy/traveller family and have lived nearly all our lives here and being part of the local community. She referred to the statement made by the Town Council referring to recent ground conversions and that the proposal would be enhancement.
- Mrs Wilson stated that there are 3 new developments within 3 miles of the proposed site and it would not be an additional burden on the education or health services as we have lived here all our lives. She added we are not an additional, we are an existing. All our children are in school and my eldest goes to grammar school, which is a first in our families history.
- Mrs Wilson referred to Graham Smith's report and that in her opinion it was in support of what had been done and she feels that they have done everything that Fenland has asked. Mrs Wilson stated that the recommendations for refusal point 1 was because of policy LP12 but in that policy there is also part e which states that applicants are advised to consider permanent. She added that as they already have planning permission for mobile homes and referred to condition 7 which she mentioned earlier, she believed that they could change residence from a mobile to a chalet bungalow.
- Mrs Wilson referred to point 2 of the report which refers to LP14 flood risk and confirmed that they have already demonstrated that they are willing to do work with Fenland and the Environment Agency. She added that they are already residents, it is their home and just want it to be safe.
- Mrs Wilson referred to point 3 of the report which refers to the opinion of the local planner that the addition of 2 houses will increase the urbanisation of the area. She stated that there are two recent conversations next door to them and referred to other newly built close by.
- Mrs Wilson referred to the report which mentions the nomadic way of life and that they were not asked if they were nomadic. She added that Billy and herself both have trailers and both travel to work throughout the year with Billy travelling all over the country for work and stock car racing as this is the gypsy way. She clarified that she works for the travelling community.
Questions for Mrs Wilson - there were none.
Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:
- Councillor Mrs Laws asked officers for clarification on the Environment Agency flood maps as her understanding is that they do not recognise the improvements to south bank area and the Internal Drainage Board pumping station improvements. Nick Harding confirmed that the Environment Agency does not recognise the improvements and that the government policy requires planners to use flood maps as if no defences are in place of operating sequential tests. Nick Harding added that if you were to go onto the Environment Agency website you will see this information, however the same maps where the information is available also show where areas are protected from the defences and this information is not constantly updated.
- Councillor Mrs Davis referred to comments about this development being in open countryside and would make a suburban impact, however she had noted on the site visit that there is a bungalow on one side which is established and could see further dwellings near by. David Rowen confirmed the site is in the Local Plan as being in the open countryside and when you look at the nature of the area, while there are groupings of development in the countryside you have gaps in between those and both visually and in terms of settlement hierarchy it is within the open countryside.
- Councillor Davis asked for clarification on the previous application which was for the mobile homes and referred to ancillary buildings and what these are. David Rowen confirmed that the ancillary buildings were for a garage and store for each plot.
- Councillor Sutton proposed to go with the officers recommendation as no sequential test done, which is required by the policies as agreed recently. Councillor Mrs Hay seconded.
- Councillor Miscandlon asked for a show of hands for those in favour of going with officers recommendation for refusal of this application - 6 in favour, none against but one abstention.
Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs Hay and decided that the application be:
REFUSED as per the officers recommendation.
(Councillor Miscandlon and Councillor Mrs Laws stated that they attend the Whittlsey Town Council planning meetings but take no part in the decision making)
(Councillor Bucknor stated that he attends the Wisbech Town Couoncil planning meetings but takes no part in the decision making)
(Councillor Mrs Hay and Councillor Murphy stated that they attend the Chatteris Town Council planning meetings but take no part in the decision making)