Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a written presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Jodie Chittock, a supporter, read out by Member Services. Mrs Chittock stated that she is the direct neighbour and only neighbour to 84b, living at 84a, and understands that planning permission keeps getting denied for her neighbours but feels that the impact this is having on her family is not being understood as she suffers from extreme anxiety and panic attacks, with her property being perfect for her as it is out of the way. She explained that her anxiety has been worst this last year and she feels unsettled in her home because if Mr and Mrs Steer are not granted approval they will sell the land and it will come with no planning permission so, in her view, the person who buys it will probably use it as a dumping ground or scrap yard or something undesirable.

Mrs Chittock expressed the view that whoever buys the site will almost certainly not be respectful to her family and will keep going up and down at great speed to get to their land putting her children who play at risk, which is a massive worry to her and her husband, and whoever buys the land is most certainly to use it for their own pleasure and not have any cares for the surrounding properties. She expressed the opinion that it is a lovely family that currently own the land who just want to settle there and have a place to call home, who are respectful and typically park on the road so there is rarely any cars driven past her property so her children can be out the gate playing on their bikes.

Mrs Chittock expressed the view that she cannot ask for better people to be her neighbours, with her children and their children playing together and have become really good friends. She does not think what they are asking for is at all unreasonable so asked that the decision takes her family into consideration because it is affecting them also, with her fully supporting the application as a direct neighbour.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Nat Green, the agent. Mr Green made the point that the committee is here to decide the matter on planning issues only and this application is for the siting of a mobile home for residential use and the siting of an ancillary day room. He referred to the application being recommended for refusal, however, the officer’s report in its recommendation has, in his view, deep flaws, firstly being the dismissal of his clients gypsy status and despite a comprehensive family history and personal circumstances being provided the Local Planning Authority claims that a Barrister’s opinion was sought and it concluded that they were not gypsies, asking where is this Barrister’s opinion as at the very least it should have been released to his clients as if a report was written about you, you would want to see it and further questioned where is report from the Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer.

Mr Green expressed the view that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply of traveller pitches and has a shortfall of five pitches to 2026, therefore, personal circumstances are irrelevant to the application as gypsy pitches are needed and this application is one of them being very sustainable and if it subsequently turns out the residents are not gypsies that is a second order problem as this is an application for the use of the land and not an application about the residents. He referred to the reasons for refusal, one being access and stated that he submitted a 51 page report by the Hurlstone Partnership 10 months ago, which is on the Council’s Planning Portal, and clearly supports their case and the Highway Authority were invited through the Case Officer to comment on it and they refused so that is why there is no reference to it in the officer’s report. He stated that members might wish to read that report, it is one thing to have a professional difference of opinion but another to demonstrate a cavalier dismissal of a thoroughly argued report, which, in his view, amounts to a material consideration that has not been addressed and it would not look good at appeal.

Mr Green referred to the historic environment reason for refusal, which is recommended because it would build across two medieval burgage plots, in his view, that might be a valid reason but last year just 8 doors up 6 houses were approved to be built across the burgage plots and in that application the Case Officer states “the development would result in the loss of the burgage plots in this location which would amount to less than substantial harm to the historic environment, however, the benefits of introducing 6 dwellings in this highly sustainable location which is well connected to the town centre and nearby services and facilities coupled with the improvement the development would make to the area both in terms of visual impacts through the reuse of a currently disused and unkept area of land are considered to outweigh this harm” so he feels that this applies to this development also, again reiterating this would not look good at appeal either. He referred to the third reason for refusal, bin storage, and expressed the opinion that officers want committee to refuse this application because bins would have to be dragged an extra 15 metres beyond the recommended distance of 30 metres but the bins for the application site are already collected by a Council refuse vehicle every week along with everyone else’s as it travels up and down the lane and this was confirmed in an e-mail to the Case Officer on 21 October 2022.

Mr Green stated that it is understandable for committee to generally follow officer’s recommendation but no one has a monopoly over being right and in this instance he feels there are sufficient flaws in the report suggesting that members should approve the application subject to the usual gypsy and traveller site conditions, with his client happy to comply with any reasonable conditions.

Members asked questions of Mr Green as follows:

·       Councillor Booth referred to the gypsy and traveller status and that he has not seen the report but he assumes that evidence was provided as part of the application and was he asked for additional evidence to support the claim? Mr Green responded that they submitted a family history and full personal circumstances to the Case Officer. Councillor Booth asked for clarification on whether additional information was provided or asked for? Mr Green stated that no additional information was requested.

·       Councillor Imafidon asked for clarification that he said that the Council already collects the bin from the property? Mr Green confirmed this to be correct. Councillor Imafidon asked how long the applicants have lived at the property and do they live there already? Mr Green responded that the applicants do live there already but he cannot say precisely how many years but it is some years.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the access, he has looked at it and it is a concern to him, with last week or the week before there being a vehicle that had been hit and there have been at least two other accidents along this stretch of road, whilst he recognises there is nothing that can be done about making the access better which is his concern, he asked how many vehicles will there be on this site? Mr Green responded a maximum of 2. Councillor Marks asked what type of vehicles, would they be vans or a standard car? Mr Green responded that a standard gypsy and traveller condition assuming it was imposed would be a maximum of 3.5 tonnes so this would be nothing more than a transit van. Councillor Marks asked if a business would be run from the site? Mr Green responded that it would not but this could be conditioned too.

·       Councillor Booth stated that he assumes the applicants are using the access as a vehicular access currently so it is not really going to be any increase in vehicles. Mr Green agreed.

Members asked officers questions as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she has listened to what Mr Green has said and asked for an explanation about the report and why committee has not seen it. She also referred to Planning Policy for Traveller Sites - Policies and Criteria and asked why is there not some kind of information from the Council’s own Gypsy Officer making the point that the issue keeps getting raised about the lack of a policy and asked if the Council is ever going to get one? David Rowen confirmed that the Council still does not have a specific Gypsy and Traveller assessment in place so there is an acknowledged position that the Council has an unknown need for such sites and he is not aware when this assessment is going to be available. He stated that the information submitted with the application around personal circumstances does contain personal information, which raises an issue in terms of confidentiality as there would be in relation to the Barrister’s advice in respect of this but the information submitted with the application has been assessed by the Barrister and their conclusion was that this did not demonstrate that the applicant met the definition. Councillor Mrs French stated that personal circumstances has been raised on previous applications and it has been provided confidentially to members so she is surprised that it has not been provided this time but she is more concerned about not seeing the Barrister document.

·       Councillor Booth referred to the Gypsy and Traveller Housing Needs Assessment and he was told some time ago as part of the Local Plan Working Party it would be available on or around the second public consultation but it is not there and there have been further delays to the Local Plan so it does not seem it is being delivered very quickly. He referred to Councillor Mrs French asking why members have not got the report from the Council’s officer and why did the Council have to go to a Barrister and from reading the report it says there is not sufficient evidence so if there is not sufficient evidence does that mean to say it could be rectified if further evidence was provided? David Rowen responded that the reason that Barrister advice was sought was so that the Council could deal with this in as a robust manner as possible to get a legal opinion to fully address this matter.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point in that David saying robust the application was submitted in 2022 so she does not think 10 months down the line is very robust for determining a planning application. She stated that she does have concerns about this application, she can see both sides and sympathises with the applicant, but members do not have this report and she believes as decision makers committee should have the report and she does have concern with regard to highways and the access and feels the application should be deferred so members can see the confidential information. David Rowen stated that if members wish to defer the application to receive the confidential report that is a course of action that can be taken and he would have to revisit the report and advice received to consider what is or is not disclosable. Councillor Mrs French stated to be fair to the applicant and the committee a deferment is, in her view, the correct course of action as if it is refused the applicant has the right to appeal and that takes months.

·       Councillor Marks asked if it was deferred and the report was provided to committee would it be given in its entirety with the agreement of the applicant as opposed to having a cut document. David Rowen responded that he would not be able to answer this at this point in time. Stephen Turnbull added that this document is legal advice to the Council, it is not an external report which informs the public planning process and there are very sound reasons why normally those are confidential because the Freedom of Information Act recognises that public bodies need to have their own legal advice and not have to go public on that advice every time they obtain such advice. He stated that it may well be that it should not be disclosed other than to members on a confidential basis, with the applicant free to get their own legal advice and they may possibly have done this so it is a matter of confidential legal advice to the Council not a document that is public and the law recognises that such documents should be confidential. Councillor Marks stated that he understands that what is being asked for is the committee only to be able to see this document. Councillor Mrs French stated that she is more concerned that if information has been passed on regarding the gypsy status and that has not been clarified so it would be wrong for committee to make a decision today without having further information and especially from the Council’s own Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer.

·       Councillor Booth added that it is the way the report is worded about sufficient advice and is there further evidence that can be provided that will clarify the situation, it does not appear to be from what has been said that there has been much engagement with the applicant regarding this issue and as Councillor Mrs French has said the Council does have its own officer who should be able to give members an opinion. He expressed concern regarding other matters around the bins and vehicular access which are already in situ but are being used as reasons to refuse so how can these be reasons if the use is already established? David Rowen responded that the issue of the bins would need to be reviewed as he does not have that information to hand to give members any advice on this, however, with regard to the issue of the access if the site is being occupied without planning permission which seems to be the case then it is an unauthorised situation and the advice of the Highway Authority within the application report would be relevant as it would be an intensification of the use of a substandard access, it is a key issue on whether this is already taking place or it is a future occurrence, and whether the lack of visibility is acceptable or not as the Highway Authority do not think it is. 

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that there are other properties as can be seen from the photos in the vicinity and some of them he believes use the same access, if it not an issue for them why should it be an issue for this site? David Rowen responded that as indicated it is the intensification of the use of that access which is a substandard access which has arisen as an historic quirk and whether that can accommodate any further vehicle movements and would having more vehicle movements up and down utilising that substandard visibility poses a risk to highway safety, which the Highway Authority think it would. Councillor Imafidon stated that he understands this but asked what difference it would make if the current users of that access just increase the number of vehicles they have, it will be same result? David Rowen responded that it potentially would but members need to remember that if you then have a third residential unit using this access and those properties also further intensify their own vehicle movements that cumulatively results in intensification to the detriment of safety.

·       Councillor Booth made the point that there is much talk about intensification but members have heard also this site is being used, although without the appropriate consent, for some time so is it intensification if it is currently being used and these are the answers that are needed together with how long the applicant has been on the site, which will give committee a clear indication of, particularly in relation to highway safety, about how much of a risk it poses if they have been living there for quite some time then that would indicate that the risk is probably minimal.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Purser and agreed that the application be DEFERRED for members to receive the information on personal circumstances and the Barrister’s opinion on gypsy status together with a report from the Council’s Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer, whether there is further evidence that substantiates the applicant’s claim, to resolve the issue around the bins, whether there will be intensification of the access and how long the applicant has lived on site to assess potential risk and clarification on where the applicant is currently living on site. 

(Councillor Benney declared, that the applicant is the relative of a fellow member of Chatteris Town Council, and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)