URL: https://democracy.northdevon.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4589

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: The Chair advised the Committee that one of the objectors had requested that photographs of the site be circulated to the Committee.  This was a late submission and a copy had been provided to the applicant. As it was a late submission, little weight could be given to the photographs, these were circulated and the applicant provided with a copy of the photograph pack.   The Committee considered a report by the Lead Officer Development Manager (circulated previously) regarding planning application 81320.   The Lead Officer Development Manager advised that if the application was approved it was recommended that a planning condition be included requiring a foul drainage scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.   The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer read out a statement on behalf Liz Watkins (supporter), Stephen Jupp (objector) and Devon County Councillor Richard Hopley.   Joshua Dunne (supporter), David Barrow (supporter), Paula Roddy (objector), Martin Peake (objector), David Morgan (objector), Gillian Vaux (objector), Howard Tollie (objector), Emily Temple (agent) and Brian Symons (Parish Council representative) addressed the Committee.   In response to questions from the Committee, the Lead Officer Development Manager advised the following:   ·         Exmoor National Park Authority had raised no objections to the application. ·         If a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up-to-date 5 year supply of deliverable sites, the provisions in paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework apply and presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 11(d) was therefore engaged. ·         The Highways Authority had objected to the application on the basis that the county roads providing access to the site were by reason of their inadequate width, horizontal alignment, condition and lack of footway/grass verge provision, unsuitable to accommodate the increase in traffic likely to be generated, with consequent risk of additional danger to all users of that road, and interference with the free flow of traffic.  The objection would also be on the basis of the collision data. A condition was recommended limiting parts of the site which may be used for any business operations. In balancing the issues raised significant weight had been given to the highways impact, however it had been slightly reduced due to the limited overall movements likely from the site and the number of pitches. ·         In balancing the issues, limited to moderate weight had been given to the pressure on local services. The site would allow the applicant to access local services.   Limited to moderate weight had been given to landscape and character impacts as there was not a significant harm and impact on the landscape.  If there was considered to be significant harm, this would be as a result of special characteristics in the landscape which could not be mitigated. In terms of visual impact, due to the site being located on a gently sloping area of topography with well established hedgerows, the wide ranging views were limited. ·         Limited weight would be given to the application being part retrospective. ·         It had not been recommended that a personal condition for the applicant being applied.  Condition 3 had been recommended requiring the site not to be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers.  If the family moved, the two pitches would remain on the site.  It was not best practice to apply a personal condition, however such a condition could be applied.  If condition 3 was approved and the applicant sold the site, the site would be sold at market rate for the provision of two pitches. If a personal condition was approved, should the applicant move, then the site would be restored to its original use. ·         In terms of the location of local services, the village of Brayford was located approximately 1 mile away which had a primary school and village hall.  There was a church located in Charles.  The hospital was located in Barnstaple which was approximately 45 minute drive and the town of South Molton was located approximately 20 minute drive away. ·         A condition requiring a lighting scheme to be submitted and approved would achieve a more sensitive lighting scheme as detailed in Condition 2. The condition would be enforceable. ·         The application was finely balanced. The table provided in paragraph 8.11 was to provide a visual guide. The balancing exercise undertaken was nuanced. ·         The North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, policy ST20 stated that at least 15 pitches for permanent traveller accommodation was required to be delivered during the period 2011-2031. 8 pitches had been delivered to date.  If this application was approved, a further 5 pitches would be required. ·         Showed the location of the existing field gateway to the southwest corner of the site located on the blue plan to be blocked off. ·         Each pitch would consist of one static caravan, one touring caravan and one building to be used for the incidental enjoyment of the pitch. The building would have a grey roof and the touring caravans would be white.  It would be difficult to condition the colour of the touring caravans as they were not classified as buildings. ·         There were generators on the site to provide electricity. The applicant was currently in the process of connecting to the grid. If a condition was imposed requiring connection to the grid, there may be a time where the applicant would be left without electricity.  As the applicant lived on the site, it was in their interest that there was minimal noise.  Environmental Protection has not raised any objections regarding noise.  If there was noise pollution in the future, these can be reported to Environmental Protection who could monitor and serve a noise abatement notice if required. ·         A condition was recommended requiring the submission of detailed drawing in relation to fences, banks and other means of enclosure.  It was proposed that separations would be provided between the two pitches. ·         Conditions were recommended to ensure that the final details were approved by the Local Planning Authority, such as landscape proposals. ·         The application was for the provision of two pitches (two homes).  Each pitch had two caravans.  Due to the nomadic lifestyle, a touring caravan needed to be located on the site.  Therefore there would be a maximum of four caravans on the site. ·         The applicant was a tradesperson, who would travel to and from the site in a van.  No goods were delivered to the site.  Goods were delivered to customers.  A condition was recommended requiring no goods to be stored on the site.  The proposed condition 6 relating to commercial activity including the storage of materials, plant and equipment was appropriate. ·         Recent Planning Inspectorate appeal taken in relation to planning application 78493 whereby the Inspector had included a personal condition and when it was no longer occupied that the residential used permitted shall be discontinued. ·         A Noise Assessment had not been carried out. ·         The sizing of the caravans were within the definition of the 1968 Caravans Act.  The static caravans would remain on site.  The touring caravans would need to be towed.  Two day rooms were proposed as detailed in Condition 4.   In response to questions from the Committee, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:   ·         The provisions in paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework applied and presumption in favour of sustainable development.  However, it would not apply if the site was located in a green belt, a National Landscape, a National Park, designated heritage asset, and areas of risk of flooding.  This site does not fall within any of those designated categories. ·         Officers were not recommending a personal condition.  The agent had divulged complex medical circumstances for the family.  A personal condition could be added limiting the occupation to the applicant and his dependants due to the exceptional personal and medical circumstances. If a personal condition was included, the committee would need to consider whether to also include condition 3.  If condition 3 was not included, and the applicant ceased occupation of the site then the site would be restored to its original use. The personal condition would need to reflect this. ·         Condition 4 provided details of what was included on each pitch. ·         Condition 10 provided details regarding the details of the lighting being provided within 1 month of the decision.    Councillor Bulled, addressed the Committee, in her capacity as Ward Member and had called in the application for determination by the Committee.  She advised that she did not consider that she had predetermined the application however, she had liaised with the applicants, residents and the parish council and accordingly wished to only speak on the matter as a Ward Member and would then will leave the room for the deliberation and vote.  Councillor Bulled then left the room during the consideration of the application.   RESOLVED that it being 11.43 a.m. that the meeting be adjourned for a comfort break and that it be reconvened at 11.49 a.m.   RESOLVED (8 for, 4 against, 0 abstained) that the application be APPROVED as recommended by the Lead Officer Development Manager subject to the following:   (a)  An additional condition being included to tie the occupation of the site to the applicant and his family and that condition 3 be removed; (b)  An additional condition being included requiring a foul drainage scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority; (c)  That the trigger points contained within the landscaping conditions be amended to reflect the correct seasons and timings for planting; (d)  An additional condition being included in relation to the use of the “Day rooms” being for incidental use; (e)  That the drafting of the wording of the conditions be delegated to the Service Manager (Development Management) in consultation with the Chair of the Committee and Ward Member.

Date of Decision: May 6, 2026