Agenda item

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presents a retrospective planning application for use of land for residential purposes including the siting of one static caravan and one touring caravan on land at Sandgate Stables, Sandgate Terrace, Kippax.

The Chief Planning Officer requested the Plans Panel to consider a retrospective planning application for use of land for residential purposes including the siting of one static caravan and one touring caravan on land at Sandgate Stables, Sandgate Terrace, Kippax.

Slides and photographs were shown throughout the presentation.

The presenting officer informed the Panel of the following points:

·  This application was deferred at the meeting held on 27^th July 2023 with Members requesting more information before it could reach its decision.

·  As an update it was noted that Cllr Lewis had given comment in relation to the application. It was also noted that vegetation had been cut lower making the site more visible.

·  Members were reminded that prior to locating at Sandgate Stables the family had been living roadside, since the move to Sandgate Stables the two youngest children were now in education at the local primary school. It was the view that what was in the best interests of the children in this case should be significant weight.

·  It was recognised that the Council currently has a Gypsy and Traveller 5-year supply position of 2.3 years, this is as a result of lack of planning approval for private sites and funding issues delaying the delivery of public sites. It was noted there are long waiting lists for existing pitches.

·  The Service Manager for the charity Leeds GATE had been able to provide detailed comments in response to the request for further information on the impact the application would have on the children’s education and development. This was in the submitted report at paragraphs 7 to 24.

·  The headteacher of the local primary school where the two youngest children attended had provided comment in the submitted report at paragraphs 25 to 27.

·  Clarification was provided that the area used for grazing ponies was sufficient for two ponies.

·  No further information had been provided to clarify why the family had moved roadside from a pitch at Cottingley Springs.

In response to questions from Members the following information was provided:

·  It was recognised that the reason for the family leaving Cottingley Springs may be pertinent to Members understanding of the context of the application, however, no further information had been provided. In any event, such context could only be given little weight.

·  Therefore, the planning application had to be determine having regard to policy and case law. Although the proposal is contrary to planning policy concerning the designation of the site as local green space, Members should have regard to the fact that the Council has no 5-year supply of Gypsy and Traveller pitches and what is in the best interests of the children.

·  The proposal was for a 3-year permission rather than an indefinite permission. The applicant’s agent had indicated that the 3-year permission would be acceptable to the applicant. The applicant had confirmed that the family would move to a site with the benefit of planning permission should a position become available. At the previous meeting the agent had said there was an altercation and the family had decided to move off the Cottingley Springs site for the safety of the children.

·  Members requested the agent and the Service Manager of the Leeds GATE be invited to the table to answer questions on the children’s education. Given his discretion to do so, the Chair agreed to Members’ requests. It was clarified that the youngest children do attend the local primary school. It was acknowledged that when Gypsy Traveller children reach 11 years old, they often leave the state school system to be home educated. This type of education is sometimes supplemented by charities like Leeds GATE. The service manager was able to clarify that the older children of Gypsy and Traveller families do attend the Leeds GATE for homework club and youth club. It was clarified that the older children of this family were not being electively home educated by the Leeds GATE, but they were accessing Leeds GATE for support.

The Service Manager of Leeds GATE began to address Members regarding the most appropriate terminology to be used to describe the family’s current position (as ‘legally homeless’ or otherwise). A prompt halt was put to this, and Members told to disregard the information / opinion being given in this regard.

Information provided by officers in response to questions from the Panel:

·  Condition can be put on the height of the vegetation surrounding the site.

·  Enforcement do have a case open, but it is currently on hold while the application process is ongoing.

·  The decision to leave the site for the safeguarding of the children had been the decision of the family. Members suggested that the children’s safeguarding was picked up by the relevant service after the meeting.

·  It was recognised that a previous application at Hollinhurst had been on a brownfield site that bordered the Green Belt and this application was on a greenfield site.

·  The Panel were advised that the next Local Pan Review has started, and this includes a call for sites. So, there was a call for land to be put forward for Gypsy and Traveller sites. As a result, Policy Officers had confirmed that there was the possibility of sites coming forward during the 3-year period.

Members comments included:

·  Members were of the view that the application had come no further forward due to lack of information in relation the circumstances that led to the family leaving the previous site.

·  It was the view that not all questions had been answered and the application was contrary to planning requirements.

·  It was the view that the family had used their own choice to move from the site at Cottingley Springs to live roadside. Although, the younger children were currently attending a local primary school, the family could make the choice to move or for the younger children to leave state education and elect to home school, as they had done with the older children. It was recognised that locally there were fears that more of these applications could come forward. The harm that development of this type would bring to the local area was not outweighed by the other surrounding circumstances such that development should be granted.

In summing up Members were advised that should they move a motion not to accept the officer’s recommendation, then a report would need to be brought to Panel to request reasons for refusal.

RESOLVED – Members resolved not to accept the officer recommendation that planning permission be granted and that a further report be brought back to a future Plans Panel setting out suggested reasons for refusal for Members to consider. The reason for refusal relating to the application being contrary to the site’s designation as local green space/green space and that the circumstances presented were not sufficient to outweigh the presumption against the grant of planning permission.

At the conclusion of this item Cllr McKenna made a comment that the Council needed to do something to make more Gypsy and Traveller sites available in Leeds.