Six caravan pitches at Land North of Girder Bridge, Gay Street Lane, North Heath

What was proposed

The application sought six static caravan pitches for Gypsies and Travellers, with access, parking, drainage, landscaping and biodiversity works.

“Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the land to provide a residential Gypsy and Traveller site comprising six static caravan pitches. Each pitch would accommodate one static caravan together with associated residential amenity space, two vehicle parking spaces, cycle parking and refuse storage.”

“The proposal also includes the formation of internal access roads and hardstanding, installation of package treatment plant drainage infrastructure, biodiversity enhancements, soft landscaping, boundary planting and associated engineering works necessary to facilitate the development. The proposed access would utilise the existing track from Gay Street Lane, with improvements to its surface where required.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal would provide needed pitches and its effects on landscape, amenity, highways, ecology and drainage could be managed.

“The proposal has been assessed against the Development Plan as a whole, the NPPF, the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) and all other material planning considerations. The development would introduce six Gypsy and Traveller pitches onto an undeveloped parcel of countryside and would result in a degree of change to the character and activity of the site.”

“The concerns raised by residents, the Parish Council and the Public Rights of Way Officer have been carefully considered. As set out in the assessment above, the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm in respect of highway safety, residential amenity, landscape character, ecology or drainage. The development is also considered to satisfy the criteria of…”

Officer report

Who spoke

One speaker addressed the committee against the proposal and one spoke in support; the parish council could not attend.

What members debated

Members recognised the need for pitches but questioned access, passing bays, railway noise, drainage, biodiversity, tree loss, enclosure and residential suitability.

“Members acknowledged that there was an identified need for additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches within the district. Issues and concerns were raised regarding, access arrangements to the site, the deliverability of passing bays, the site's proximity to the railway, train noise, drainage, biodiversity impacts, and the loss of trees.”

“Further concerns were raised regarding train noise, the absence of a detailed noise assessment, the impact on future occupiers and neighbouring residents, tree loss, and access arrangements. While the need for additional pitches was recognised, some members remained unconvinced that the site was suitable.”

Minutes

The vote

An alternative motion to refuse was proposed, seconded and carried.

“An alternative motion to refuse the application was proposed and seconded.”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The committee refused permission because railway noise, vehicle movements, the enclosed location and missing railway-related assessments outweighed the proposal’s benefits.

“Officer recommendation overturned and refused for the following reasons: The train noise, including the sounding of horns, in close proximity of the site, will have a significant impact on the residential amenity of future occupiers of the caravans, contrary to Chapter 17, Policy 3 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2026 and Paragraph 13(e) of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2024 and Policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.”

“13(e) of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2024 and Policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 The proposed development, by reason of its location, isolation and physically enclosed boundaries, in particular by the adjoining railway embankment, and degree of enclosure, would be contrary to Paragraph 27 of the Planning Policy for Traveller sites 2024 and contrary to Policy 23(e) of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015, which states there must be…”

Minutes