Agenda item

(At 16:03 Councillor Woodman leaves the meeting and does not return to the meeting.)

2 Public Speakers

Mr Ray Salter, Objector

Vicki Wood, the Agent

Change of use from agricultural to recreational for the purpose of providing a campsite for 60 consecutive days per calendar year. This application affects a Public Right of Way and is in CIL Zone 5 (Zero Rated) as other development.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report with updates. After the public speaker statements had been read out by the Committee Manager the Chair invited the Principal Planning Officer back to address any points raised from those statements. The officer confirmed that all points raised by the objector had been covered within the report, he confirmed there was an ongoing Enforcement Appeal taking place, and reminded members that the application was for 60 consecutive days a year only.   

The recommendation was then proposed by Councillor Partridge and seconded by Councillor Wallsgrove.

During debate the following concerns and points were raised, one member was particularly concerned that the site would not be used ‘only’ for 60 days a year, she stated her opinion that the council was ‘not very good at enforcement’, she continued to make comments in relation to behaviour and incidents involving the Police and stated that so far, all the council enforcement attempts had so far been ignored. The Chair intervened and reminded the committee that it should avoid commenting on any current legal proceedings outside of the planning process, he then allowed the member back to speak where they stated that until the current legal action had been resolved the application should be deferred.

The Group Head of Planning was then invited by the Chair to address the committee, where he strongly reminded members that any action or behaviour of any applicant was irrelevant in respect of members ‘believing’ they would adhere to any conditions outlined within an application. The council could not remedy any ‘potential issues’ before they happen, only after the fact.

As discussion continued, further comments were made where it was highlighted that current action by the applicant was in direct contravention of previous applications that had been refused. There were additional comments made where it was highlighted that there was little faith that there would be adherence to the ‘60 consecutive day’ operating timeframe and what would the council do to manage, measure and enforce this. The Principal Planning Officer referred members to Condition 9, where it detailed the time period as a maximum of 60 consecutive days from 31 March to 31 August and if the site was found to be in operation outside of these dates and a complaint was made it would be fully investigated. It was then queried if the applicant could choose any day to start their ’60 consecutive day’ use of the site within the timeframe (31 March – 31 Aug), this was confirmed, it was then asked if there was any way to tighten up the dated timeframe, only giving a 60 consecutive day option e.g. May to June. The Group Head of Planning referred members to page 92 of the agenda pack, ‘Other Material Considerations’ section where it was detailed that anyone can run a campsite, for 60 days a year in any location under permitted development rights, the only obligation on the individual is to notify the Council that it was happening.

Members continued to discuss their concerns, with various reductions in the operating timeframe being made and clarity sought on exactly when, if the applicant was approved the 60 consecutive days would start and additional comments highlighting their level of discomfort regarding the current enforcement proceedings that were ongoing. Permitted Development (PD) rights changes were queried, it was confirmed by officers that PD rights had not had any changes made to them.

As no formal amendment was proposed, the recommendation to approve conditionally subject to a s106 agreement was requested to be put to the vote, upon the vote being taken the recommendation FELL.

It was then recommended to members that a deferral would be a preferred decision for officers to enable them to seek further legal advice on the matter. Officers advised that any refusal reasoning without this consultation could result in members making a decision that may result in challenge.

It was then proposed by Councillor Bower and seconded by Councillor Lury that the application be deferred so officers could obtain further legal advice on what would meet a legal refusal reason.

Upon the vote being taken it was unanimous, those voting for deferral were Councillors Blanchard-Cooper, Bower, Hamilton, Kelly, Lury, McDougal, Northeast, Partridge and Wallsgrove.

The Committee

                     RESOLVED

That the application be DEFERRED SO OFFICERS CAN OBTIAN FUTHER LEGAL ADVICE ON WHAT WOULD MEET A LEGAL REFUSAL REASON.