Agenda item

Application: 2020/1126/COU

Location: Hillam Lane, Hillam, Leeds

Proposal: Change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site for 6 gypsy/traveller families, each with two caravans and an ancillary amenity building, together with the laying of hardstanding and construction of new access

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee at the request of the Head of Planning as the site was located within the Green Belt as defined by the Selby District Local Plan 2005, the application was controversial and there was significant interest in the application. 

Members noted that the application was for change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site for 6 gypsy/traveller families, each with two caravans and an ancillary amenity building, together with the laying of hardstanding and construction of new access.

The Officer Update Note set out a correction to the speed limit on Hillam Lane from 30mph to 60mph, further information from the agent to the application relating to the personal circumstances of the applicants and their families, that it be delegated to the Head of Planning to issue the decision following the expiry of the additional round of publicity in the local paper, and an additional representation received from Councillor J Mackman, Ward Councillor.

In response to a question from the Committee, Officers confirmed that there were no current occupants on the site, and there had not been since February 2021.

Julie Sadler, objector, was invited remotely into the meeting and spoke against the application.

Stuart Vendy of Cunnane Town Planning, on behalf of Hillam Parish Council, was invited remotely into the meeting and spoke against the application.

Members debated the application and acknowledged the Officer’s view that that the amended wording relating to ecological impact as suggested by one of the speakers could be adopted, but that it was better to be non-specific as baseline information was not available.

In accordance with the Officer’s report it was proposed and seconded to REFUSE the application; a vote was taken on the proposal and was carried.

RESOLVED: To

a)    REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1. Green Belt

The proposal is considered to be inappropriate development and harmful to the Green Belt.  It has not been demonstrated that there are any very special circumstances that would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by inappropriateness.  The proposal will have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt visually and spatially along with the level of permanence.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy SP3 of the Core Strategy Local Plan (2013) and paragraphs 133, 134, 143-145 of the NPPF. 

2. Lack of need

The proposal in principle as a Gypsy and Traveller Site is considered to be unacceptable as the Local Planning Authority can demonstrate a 5 year supply and alternative sites that are available and as such there is no unmet need.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy SP11 of the Core Strategy (2013) and the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (DCLG, August 2015).

3. Unsustainable development

The proposal is considered to be unsustainable development as set out by Chapter 2 of the NPPF, in that it does not deliver the overarching objectives as set out by Paragraph 8 of the NPPF by virtue of failing to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of the area.  The proposal would occupy a site which is classified as very good agricultural land and as such will sterilise is future use compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.  The proposal will be wholly reliant on private vehicles to access local facilities to meet the occupiers day to day needs. 

4. Insufficient information – Ecology

Insufficient information has been provided for the Local Planning Authority to properly assess the impact of harm or mitigation required with regards to biodiversity.  The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy SP18 Protecting and Enhancing the Environment of the Core Strategy, saved Policies ENV9 and ENV14 of the Local Plan and paragraphs 175 to 177 of the NPPF.

5. Insufficient information – Highways and amenity

Insufficient information has been provided for the Local Planning Authority to properly assess the impact on highway safety, the impact on the wider transport network and impact on residential amenity.  The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Saved policies ENV1 (1) and ENV2, T1a and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan 2015 and Paragraphs 109 and 127 of the NPPF.

INFORMATIVE

The Local Planning Authority has requested further information form the applicant in order to consider if any Very Special Circumstances can be identified. Despite the efforts no further information has been received. Without further information the development would not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area and therefore does not comprise sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraph 38 of the NPPF.

b)   delegate to the Head of Planning the issuing of the decision following the expiry of the additional round of publicity in the local paper.