Agenda item

Further to minute 97 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 24^th October 2013, where Panel considered a position statement on proposals for laying out of traveller site, comprising 12 pitches, ancillary buildings, parking and landscaping, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the formal application

(report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the laying out of a traveller site comprising 12 pitches, ancillary buildings, parking and landscaping at lend to the west of Cottingley Springs, Gildersome.

The following issues were highlighted in relation to the application:

• Changes since the application were last considered by City Plans Panel including changes to the site boundary, layout, landscaping, road improvements and visual appraisal
• There were currently 41 pitches at the site on Sites A and B
• Access to the site and the layout of the amenity buildings was highlighted
• Planting that would give some screening with time to the site.
• Changes to the layout to address flood alleviation and a commitment to contribute to off-site beck improvements
• The siting in relation to St Bernard’s Mill to the west which was a waste management facility and subject of a current application and ongoing discussion to improve noise and odour issues
• Children at the site usually attended schools in Morley and Armley and that School transport was provided by GRTAS – part of Children’s Services
• Further correspondence from the Environment Agency and 4 further representations opposing the application were reported
• Further detailed changes were needed to the highway design and an updated cross section if Members resolved to support the application
• It was recommended to refer the application to the Secretary of State.  Members were informed of the weighting being given to the various aspects of the application but that Officers considered there were very special circumstances in this case which outweighed the substantial harm and other harm identified in the report

An objector to the application addressed the Panel.  The following issues were raised:

• This was an inappropriate development on Green belt land and contrary to the Development Plan
• Visual impact of the scheme.
• The proposals were not sustainable.
• Flood risk had not been fully considered.
• The scale of the site was too large – there should be smaller more manageable sites, this site had previously been reduced in size.
• Crime and fear of crime.
• It was disputed that there were no other more suitable sites.
• The harm identified was not outweighed by any very special circumstances and the application should be refused

The Director of Environment and Housing addressed the Panel. He raised the following issues:

• The Council had previously not addressed the requirements for travellers and this had let to a number of unauthorised sites.
• The proposals would site up to 12 families who would normally be situated on unauthorised sites.
• The council had considered 224 other sites, 35 of these in great detail, none of which were felt to be suitable
• Other sites were also needed but the present need was acute
• There was a changing service provision package and this could be better provided for on one site
• The toleration policy on unauthorised sites could well hit problems if no permanent provision was made

In response to Members comments and questions, the following was discussed:

• There was a preference to have permanent sites rather than unauthorised sites.
• There had been improvements in the management of this site since numbers were previously reduced – work was undertaken with the Police, Anti-Social Behaviour team and Environmental Action Teams.
• The site was set out significantly differently to when there were problems in the 1990s.
• This would not be the solution to unauthorised camps across the City.  It would provide a further 12 pitches and it was currently predicted there was another need for 41 across the city by 2028.
• Beck improvements had been requested by the Flood Management and the applicant had agreed to pay for these works.
• Members were informed that should they be minded to refer the application to the Secretary of State then there could be a call-in and subsequent public inquiry.
• Concern regarding the proposals being contrary to NPPF guidelines, and the use of greenbelt land. 
• Local residents were against the proposals as were existing residents of the site and others from the travelling community.
• Concern whether the proposals would meet the very special circumstances of developing on green belt land.
• It was felt that there needed to be smaller sites throughout the city.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Development Plan subject to the receipt of a revised cross section and a detailed highway layout plan, with a recommendation that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and agreement to pay £30,000 towards off site beck improvements given that very special circumstances exist in this case which outweigh the harm caused by inappropriate development in the green belt and the other limited harm identified in the report.  Should the Secretary of State not call in the application for determination, approval of the application to be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer.