Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer for an application for change of use of land to traveller pitch with detached utility block and associated works, retrospective  application for laying out of hardstanding on land off Hollinhurst, Allerton Bywater, WF10 2HY.

 

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer requested North and East Plans Panel to consider the application for a change of use of land to traveller pitch with detached utility block and associated works, retrospective permission for laying out of hardstanding at land off Hollinhurst, Allerton Bywater, WF10 2HY.

 

The presenting officer provided the Panel with additional information as follows:

 

1.  In the recommendation an additional condition requiring the submission of a scheme relating to the re-instatement of the area of Green Belt including how the brick wall is to be dealt with within 28 days of the issuing of any permission and its implementation to be carried out before the end of the first planting season following approval of the scheme to re-instate the land.

2.  Objection in writing received from Ward Councillors for Kippax and Methley; Cllrs. Harland, James Lewis and Wakefield objections relate to the following:

·  Highways – Access and increased number of vehicles to the site

·  Visual Amenity – reference to previous decisions for dwelling house on the site, in particular the Appeal Inspectors Comments regarding the visual impact of the proposals

·  Neighbourhood Amenity – noise from generators and concerns about refuse management

3.  A further objection from a local resident who was not able to attend the meeting had been received on potential abuse of the site through occupation by more than the intended people, crime, anti-social behaviour, devaluation of existing properties and extra pressures on local services such as education and medical services

4.  A further objection from a local resident who had already submitted an objection was received following the publication of the report on the Council’s Web site comments in that objection refer to:

·  Reference to the site plan submitted shows it is clear that it will not allow parking, a day room, 2 caravans and a mobile home without moving the fence and encompassing more land or encroachment onto the green belt

·  Re-asserts that the applicant is selling his safeguarded site to a property developer and that this site is for relatives

·  That the report is full of half truths

·  That the hardcore was put down on 2^nd August 2016 and was witnessed to be being carried out by the applicant and two young men

·  That the refused applications for dwellings were rejected on highway grounds due to traffic increases

·  That there was no equality when proposals for single houses were turned down for caravans and how was that in keeping with the area?

·  Para 4.7 of the submitted report makes the comment that the proposal is small in scale but yet the applicant had found the contact details of the owner of another piece of land and shown an interest in purchasing that

·  That the report referring to the area as low-noise level area is inaccurate and that it is a no noise level area at night and a large generator would cause problems close to existing houses

·  That the report is wrong at 10.19 describing the site as a small discreet site as the caravans and large gates can be seen from Leeds Road, a number of houses including the sheltered complex and it is feet away from the objectors front garden and is adjacent to ancient woodland and wildlife in that woodland

5.  It was noted that confirmation had been received that if the site is allowed it would contribute towards the pitch requirements for Gypsy and Traveller provision within the Core Strategy

6.  Sewerage connection is 30metres from the site and the levels of drainage / runoff should be well within acceptable levels.

7.  An application had been made to Northern Power Grid for a mains connection to the site

8.  It was unknown what the applicant intends to do in regards to Council Tax payment to allow collection of refuse so a suitably worded condition as per the recommendation is suggested

9.  It was also noted that confirmation had been received that the family structure outlined in the submitted report was accurate and with the exception that the baby had now been born.

 

Members had visited the site earlier in the day, photographs and plans were shown at the meeting.

 

Members were advised that the application comprised a change of use of the land to a travellers pitch for a static mobile home, pitches for two touring caravans and a brick built utility building towards the front of the site. It was noted that the application related only to the area of land that lies outside of the Green Belt and not to the whole curtilage owned by the applicant.

 

Members were informed that the static mobile home was for the parents and that the two touring caravans were for the use of family members as bedrooms. The utility block would be used for cooking and toileting and would be connected to the mains services for power and drainage purposes.

 

Members were advised that the applicant did not intend to carry out any business activities from the site and would only use the pitch for residential purposes to settle his family who through personal circumstances had found it necessary to relocate from the South of England.

 

Members noted that hardstanding had already been laid and that fencing and gates had been erected.

 

Councillor Mark Dobson, Garforth and Swillington ward, and Cllr. James Lewis, Kippax and Methley ward were present at the meeting and spoke against the recommendations highlighting the following points:

 

·  There was a need for traveller provision within the site but needed to carefully consider the location

·  Highways issues highlighted for a previous application for a single dwelling bungalow that was refused including concerns on transport grounds

·  The highways issues in relation to increased traffic of 3 generations of family

·  Sheltered housing close by

·  Parking issues

·  Visibility going out on to Leeds Road from site

·  No clear indication of utilities to the site

·  Amenity space within the site

·  Materials to be clarified for fencing etc.

·  Location close to green belt boundary

·  Need clarification in relation to the touring caravans and if they would permanently occupy the site

·  The proximity to residential properties in relation to noise nuisance

·  Noise caused by generator

 

The Panel also heard from the Dr Ruston the applicant’s agent who informed the Members of the following points addressing some of the concerns that had been raised:

·  Highlighted 10.6 of the submitted report saying that Highways had not considered the increase in vehicular movement that a single unit of residential accommodation albeit for an extended family would generate to be materially significant

·  That each application should be addressed on individual merit

·  That the applicant would be subject to and would pay Council Tax for services such as refuse collection

·  Policy H7 in relation to Gypsy /Travellers was quoted and advised that the application met tests in line with Policy H7

·  That the touring caravans were to be used as bedrooms for the extended family members and would during school holidays be absent from the site. The explanation for this was that when traveller families settled their children would attend local schools

·   That the site would not be used for business purposes and that parking of vehicles would be within the site or on the roadside, similar to parking of trades persons’ vehicles outside residential properties.

·  The noise from the generator may seem louder due to the echo caused by the surrounding properties

·  The site would be linked to the mains electric and water supply

·  The constraints of the site did not allow for the layout to be changed or encroachment into the green belt

·  The site was a good location for transport, schools and local amenities

 

The agent also suggested that should the Panel be of a mind to approve the application he said that they could consider a condition under the Site Delivery Scheme which he said would give control to Leeds City Council should the applicant breach the application.

 

Members discussed the following points:

·  Whether the site was suitable in size given that there would be two touring caravans, a static mobile home, utilities building, and vehicles

·  Parking provision for visitors

·  Occupancy levels at the site

·  The height of the fence and the fact that this could cause isolation from the community

·  Highway safety

·  The noise levels of people moving around the site

·  Amenity space within the site

·  Landscaping to soften the frontage of the site

·  External lighting on the site

·  Space in between the caravans and the risk of fire hazard

·  Fuel storage for the generator

·  Access and egress not suitable for touring caravans

·  Encroachment on to green belt

·  The letters of objections

 

Highways informed the Panel that the wall which restricted visibility at the time of their visit was to be removed and re-sited. It was noted that it was a low speed area leading out to the Leeds Road and that no accidents had been recorded in the last 5 years along the access route and at the junction. It was also noted that following the previous refusal at the site which included highway concerns, improvements had been made to road and that the road had now become adopted, and its junction with Leeds Road had been buildouts marked out to improve visibility. Policy changes were also noted with the officer commenting that the traffic impact from the proposal was not considered severe in the context of NPPF.

 

Due to the complexity and sensitivity of the application the Chair suggested that the Panel consider the following options:

a)  Recommend as set out in the submitted report but with amendments to conditions

b)  Defer for 1 cycle in order to gather more information

c)  Overturn the recommendations and refuse the application

 

At the conclusion of the discussions Councillor Nash moved a motion to reject the recommendations as set out in the submitted report, so that the application be refused. The motion was seconded by Councillor Cleasby. On being put to the vote, Councillor Nash’s motion was passed, and it was

 

RESOLVED – Members resolved not to accept the officer recommendation to grant planning permission and that a further report be presented to the next Panel meeting setting out suggested reasons for refusal based on the over-development of the site and that the development failed to provide an adequate level of amenity for the occupiers.