Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mark Codona, the applicant. Mr Codona stated that he owns the whole site, currently lives on the site and made the point that it is not Flood Zone 3 but Flood Zone 2 on the actual area where the caravans will be sited. He stated that the application is to extend the existing site providing a transit site for the local area, which will show, especially when the gymkhana is completed later this year, a need for more pitches and transit pitches in the area.

Mr Codona expressed the view that he has satisfied all the issues raised by the Highways Authority and whilst the Parish Council has objected it has only done this in relation to the objections which have been satisfied. He stated that the proposal will be family owned and family run for which they have got 50 years’ experience of running sites and they are a well-known gypsy and traveller family within Fenland, working closely with the Council and locals.

Mr Codona referred to some members being on the committee when the previous application was approved and they have completely transformed the area, it used to be a prolific fly tipping area and it has been made into a nice presentable home. He stated that they are going to continue what they have been doing, having been in this area for 6 years settling well into the local area, with the locals accepting them as part of the community and he feels that rather than there being unauthorised encampments within the area it is going to be key to have an authorised transit site within Fenland which is also gypsy run as opposed to Council run as gypsy and travellers feel more comfortable going on other gypsy run properties rather than local authority ones.

Mr Codona expressed the view that as well as helping their own community they will be helping the local area, wanting to work with the Council and not against them. He hopes it will be successful, having overcome all the objections raised and he is happy to accept conditions so that it is to the Council’s acceptance.

Members asked questions of Mr Codona as follows:

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he visited the site and it was a very bad area for fly tipping and the area has been cleared up. He referred to Elm Parish Council raising an objection as they state the access to the site being of poor quality and not fit for purpose and asked for his comments on this. Mr Codona responded that the site is going to be accessed through the existing site, it is not a new access and is fully acceptable to the Highways Authority, with it having no objection to the condition or location of the access. He made the point that Newbridge Lane is a highway which has been closed off at one end, it is not a farm track that has been created and they have been using this access for 6 years and there has been no incidents or problems. Mr Codona expressed the view that the Parish Council’s objection is irrelevant.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked about the drainage strategy being incomplete. Mr Codona responded that he has worked with a drainage consultant which has satisfied the LLFA and the only parts left to complete is the IDB consent, which would not be applied for until the application is approved. He stated that the LLFA have removed its objection providing the conditions are met, which he assured will be.

·         Councillor Marks asked in relation to usage of the site it is being said it is transient and how often would he expect people to go through this site or would they try to make it a permanent home? Mr Codona responded that he has a permanent approved site at the front, which satisfies the needs of his family and the transit site is going to be operated as such but they are not going to limit how long somebody can stay but it is going to more busier during the Summer months than the Winter months. He made the point that the proposal is for gypsy and travellers coming to the area for work, for weddings, for funerals and the normal gypsy way of life. Mr Codona stated that the Council has an authorised transit site in Wisbech St Mary and this proposal would be operated on a similar sort of scale as this, it could be that some people would come for a couple of days, some for a couple of weeks and he would not think anyone would stay longer than 6-8 weeks at a time.

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that it was said that it was a waste of time speaking to the drainage board before approval of the planning application but this is not quite correct and they should be spoken with beforehand. She asked that the flood risk is undertaken properly. Mr Codona responded that he has instructed consultants to deal with all of the drainage issues, they are preparing or have submitted to the IDB details about the drainage discharges and they have drawn up some plans and documents regarding surface water, with everything raised by the LLFA being addressed and dealt with appropriately. Councillor Mrs French asked if there are any drains or ditches around the site? Mr Codona confirmed that there is. Councillor Mrs French stated that it is his responsibility as a riparian owner to keep them clear.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to one of the drawings seemingly indicating that there was a path through the site and extending out of the site and asked if there is a public right of way travelling through the site? Mr Codona responded that there is no public right of way and the whole area is owned by his family and the only access would be by them or people who are going to be using the site.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the previous application and the roadway being full of rubbish and Mr Codona told the committee at that time that he would tidy it up, CCTV was mentioned and a new fence which has now been erected. He commended Mr Codona for doing exactly what he said he was going to do; he visited the site and it is lovely and tidy and he hopes it continues with this proposal if it gets approved.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked where the gypsy and traveller policy is and whilst she notes it is being worked on it has been worked on since 2016, which is 9 years, and she wants a definite answer on when it will be produced. Matthew Leigh responded that to give a definite answer is difficult especially in a changing planning landscape, with the Government changing the definition of gypsy and travellers in December so even the work that had been undertaken recently has to be updated to take into account the changes. He stated that it is progressing but some things are outside the control of the Council. Councillor Mrs French asked this year or next year? Matthew Leigh responded that he would hope this year but he would provide an update outside of the committee.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the TRO which is required to be undertaken separately and asked for an explanation. Gavin Taylor responded that the previous consent that was granted required a TRO, which was to remove access restrictions along Newbridge Lane with there being signage along there which places restrictions on the accesses in this area and the TRO was to update this and amend it to reflect these permissions. He stated that this is still yet to be undertaken he believes and, therefore, the Local Highway Authority have asked that this application also imposes that same condition. Councillor Marks asked if this is to be undertaken by Highways and not by the applicant? Gavin Taylor responded that the applicant would have to undertake an advertising process, with there being some money to pay the Local Highway Authority to enact it.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if the TRO is in or not? Gavin Taylor responded that the TRO was advertised but then he does not believe the process was followed through. Councillor Mrs French made the point that with a TRO there needs to be between 10-12 weeks’ notice and last year there were 32,000 applications for TROs at County Council so there will be a long wait if it has not been undertaken.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that the application should be approved and the family have proved that they will do what they say.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that from what he knows of the site historically and what it looks like today he thinks the application should be approved.

·         Councillor Marks agreed with the comments from the other councillors.

·         David Rowen stated that Condition 1 on further review by officers is felt could be made more precise in terms of its wording and if members support the recommendation of approval officers would ask for delegation that the wording of condition 1 be amended as it does not appear to be clear in terms of numbers as it could be. Councillor Marks asked how officer want to tweak the wording is that just changing numbers? David Rowen responded that they would want to get to a position where there are 2 pitches each of which have got 2 caravans on them yet what the wording currently suggests is that both pitches could have 4 caravans.

·         Councillor Connor asked that the TRO be strengthened? Gavin Taylor responded that this condition is worded exactly the same way as the last permission so in the interest of consistency he feels it should be kept as is. Councillor Connor asked if a time limit could be put on it as it needs to be undertaken sooner rather than later. Gavin Taylor stated the TRO is pre-occupation.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the description being the formation of 8 x caravans pitches consisting of 2 x touring caravans per pitch as it was being referred to as 4 in total as opposed to there being 8. David Rowen responded that this is what officers want to clarify, the inconsistency between the description and the condition needs resolving and if members are satisfied with the principle of the application that is something that can be fine-tuned. Councillor Marks stated that the numbers seem to be askew and he was happy to agree to the 8 and members need to be clear on numbers before committee votes on it.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough expressed the view that committee needs to look at the application as it is presented, it is for 8 caravan pitches and that is what the applicant understood when he paid his money and came here today. She feels it is not fair to now say 4 caravan pitches and requested clarification. David Rowen responded that as he has indicated the application is as was made but the condition does not seem to tie in with this and that is what officers are trying to seek to resolve if members are happy with the principle of the overall development that the wording of that condition is altered to reflect actually what the application is.

·         Councillor Marks stated that members need to be clear on how the condition is going to read. David Rowen responded that the condition would be worded something along the lines of ‘the site should be limited to 8 pitches each containing no more than 2 caravans and no more than 16 caravans across the site in total’. Councillor Marks stated that as long as the condition reflects this he is happy.

·         The Legal Officer clarified that what has been applied for is 8 pitches and that is what is being approved.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to reword Condition 1.