Agenda item

Retain use of land as a single Gypsy/Traveller pitch comprising; Retention of 1 No. building for use as Day Room, and siting of 1 No. mobile home and 1.No touring caravan, for residential occupation.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of site location, site history, site location plan, site day room, access shown into the site, the boundary of site, entrance into the yard, and entrance at top of Coles Lane. There was a lack of sites for gypsy and traveller households across the district, and regularising planning permission for sites that are temporary or unauthorised was an accepted route to provide sites. The location was sustainable and within walking distance of Yetminster facilities and services and provision of a permanent pitch would count toward Dorset’s number of pitches. The site resembled a small agricultural farmyard, and the buildings were modest in size, single storey, and existing screening provided by boundary trees and hedges. The fence was restricted to the site entrance, and the application was not out of character with similar agricultural characteristics. In respect of residential amenity there would be sufficient distance from neighbouring dwellings and the vehicle movements associated with 1 pitch had no adverse impact. The site was mapped outside flood risk areas, and the existing yard was permeable with no new buildings.

The landowner was willing to enter in a legal undertaking to ensure that waste collected was disposed of outside of any nutrient catchments. There was a cesspit on the site, and the waste disposal company could facilitate waste to Bristol or Trowbridge plants which were outside of the nutrient catchment area. There would be no disturbance to ecological habitats and the access was safe and the site was well screened.

Public Participation

Ruth Munns (Agent)

The agent highlighted the key issues and there had been no objections from the Council consultees, and the officer report found no conflict with planning policies. There was an identified undisputed high level relatively unmet need for gypsy and traveller pitches in Dorset. The provision of gypsy sites was key to reducing tensions between settled and traveller communities and reducing the inequalities these traveller communities faced. In her view, the site was incredibly well suited to be used as a gypsy, traveller pitch. When assessing the proposal against national policies of traveller sites and was clearly sustainably located. This policy did not prohibit traveller sites, outside of the settlement boundary and instead placed strict limits on development that was away from existing development. This emphasised the importance of providing a settled base from which to access services. The site was very close to Yetminster and access to services and public transport, where the primary school, shop and train station was within walking distance. The ecological impact of the proposal was minimal, and the site was naturally well screened by mature trees and hedgerows. The proposed sighting of the mobile home fitted well within the context of local development. There would be no additional hardstanding or operation development and just change of use was required. She addressed some of the objections that had been raised. The issue to do with water disposal, in which the case office had reiterated that any permission granted would hinge on securing a legal agreement to ensure the system was appropriate and properly maintained. This provided a guarantee that the waste disposal would not impact nutrient levels within the Somerset levels and moors catchment. Objections referring to what may happen in the future such as, more than one family occupying the site - was not an appropriate planning consideration. The principal of development was acceptable and therefore, personal circumstances of the applicant could not be taken into the balance. 

Cllr Perlejewski, (Yetminster and Ryme Intrinseca Parish Council).

He asserted that the conditions proposed by the planning officer were impractical and unenforceable. He explained that it was good to see that the description had been amended to specify a single gypsy traveller pitch and this provided greater clarify. The council also recognised that the reason why the site was being favourably considered stemmed from the County wide shortfall in such accommodation. However, no evidence submitted that the current occupant fell within the definition. Parishioners have known the applicant for over 10 years and during most of that time, he had lived with his family in a brick-and-mortar house within the village. The Council’s gypsy and traveller liaison officer made it clear that they were not familiar with the applicant. Residents also reported that the site was occupied by the applicant and 4 or 5 other people. Given this, how did the Council propose to enforce proposed condition 2 which restricted occupation only to Gypsies and travellers only. How will it be ensured that the occupation levels remained reasonable and compliant. The applicant had scant regard to planning controls to date, and continued to develop and occupy the site without permission. As recently, as last summer, he erected a close border fence and exceeded the 1 metre development limit. Other issues had not been addressed such as, arrangements to the household, business related waste collection, and no plans for areas to store waste. The track was also not readily accessible by refuse vehicles. This was a sensitive site in terms of ecology, landscape and amenity. The site lay on the edge of the village on a narrow single lane which was frequently walked by residents. While the Council acknowledged the need for gypsy and traveller pitches, this was not an appropriate site.

Members questions and comments

• What was the accepted criteria for someone to be a gypsy to be accredited to a site.
• Were there any controls on numbers of people living on the site.
• Who managed the track to the site
• A member commented that they would like to see robust fence for living area.
• Who was going to empty the cesspit and pay for it?

The Planning Area Manager, Hannah Smith responded that an application for a gypsy and traveller plot would have conditions attached and whoever occupied the site would need to meet those conditions and if they did not meet the conditions, it would be an enforcement matter. It was not the norm to restrict the number of people on site, but there would be control on the number of mobile units there. If more than that number, then it would breach conditions. The size of the mobile structures would be dictated by caravan legislation and would breach the condition if bigger.

Planning officer, Cass Worman responded to questions regarding the track which was unadopted and the cesspit was installed around 2014 by the current owner. The cesspit suitability would form part of the overarching legal agreement.

There was a short adjournment to seek legal advice.

The Legal advisor commented that Cllr Taylor had proposed a motion which was seconded by Cllr Ridout. The Chairman indicated that he was going to take a vote and a partial vote had taken place. Once the committee had moved into a vote on an item, this was the end of the debate unless that motion falls. He advised that the Committee should take the vote again and if it succeeds then the motion passes and if it does not pass then the motion fails. 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Taylor, and seconded by Cllr Ridout.

Decision: To grant planning permission with conditions set out in the officer’s report and outlined in the appendix of the minutes.