Four-pitch traveller site at Five Acre Farm, Great Warley

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought to change agricultural land into four traveller pitches, each with caravans and a dayroom for daytime facilities.

“MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO A MIXED USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND A GYPSY / TRAVELLER SITE, COMPRISING 4 PITCHES.”

“This application seeks retrospective planning consent for a material change of use of the land comprising agricultural land to a Gypsy/Traveller site with four pitches (each consisting of 1 static caravan, 1 touring caravan and 1 dayroom). The dayrooms at each pitch will be used for ancillary accommodation to provide day to day facilities and would not be occupied for overnight accommodation.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The rectangular site lies east of Warley Street, includes a public footpath, and is bordered by roads, homes, open land, trees and fields.

“The application site occupies a rectangular parcel of land located to the east of Warley Street. The site is accessed via an entrance gate with hardstanding and a Public Right of Way (PRoW) runs through the site. The PRoW is positioned in a straight line along the southern boundary of the site in an easterly direction.”

“The site is bounded by Warley Street to the west, a busy section of the B186, Mangrove Cottages and open land to the south, a narrow waterway with banks of dense trees to the east and open fields and residential dwellings fronting Bird Lane…”

Officer report

Earlier applications and enforcement

Earlier stable proposals were withdrawn or refused, a larger traveller site was refused on appeal, and injunction and contempt orders followed breaches.

“19/01546/FUL Change of use of land for the siting of 6 static caravans, 6 tourers, 6 utility buildings (for gypsy/traveller families) with associated hard standings, fencing and landscaping (Retrospective) Refused 14th February 2020 Appeal dismissed 7th February 2023.”

“On 20 th May an injunction was awarded to the Council to prevent further development of the land. Two further applications for committal were made by the Council following breach of the initial injunction and two contempt of court orders were made.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because they considered the site grey belt, the need unmet, and the proposal acceptable subject to conditions.

“Having regard to the above, it is concluded that the site meets the definition of Grey Belt as well as according with the criteria set out within NPPF paragraph 155 and should not be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As…”

“NPPF Update - Introduction of the “grey belt” concept under paragraph 155, which allow for development in the Green Belt under certain exceptions. • Unmet Need – the Council accept that there is no current five-year supply of deliverable gypsy and traveller sites resulting in an unmet need. The lack of deliverable gypsy and traveller sites has also been identified in recent appeal decisions.”

Officer report

Responses from residents and consultees

Residents objected on Green Belt, countryside, infrastructure, noise, safety, privacy and compliance grounds, while highways found the impact acceptable with conditions.

“Overdevelopment of the site with no change to the overall size or it's prominent location in the countryside • Insufficient infrastructure • The consistent pattern of disregard for planning controls offers no confidence that a new permission would be respected.”

“The existing buildings and structures on site are visible from Warley Street and adjacent public right of way; however, their visual impacts would not be considered to result in a major impact which would be considered significant if assessed using the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment methodology. The structures and fences do affect green belt openness however.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning consultant presented the application, an objector spoke for the Great Warley Conservation Society, and the applicant’s representative spoke in support.

What members debated

Members questioned grey belt policy, the ministerial statement, the earlier appeal, unauthorised development, historic character and the proposal’s suitability.

“Cllr Baldock, Ward Councillor, raised concerns including the ambiguity of grey belt policy, the relevance of the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) and Inspector’s Decision on the previous application, and the relevance to the WMS . Cllr Mynott raised concerns around HP10 paragraph B, and G.”

“This site NPFF 143 (A) unrestricted sprawl is greatly increased under the definition of grey belt.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillors voted unanimously for the motion to refuse, with twelve votes for and no votes against or abstentions.

“Following an extensive debate, Cllr Mynott MOVED a motion to REFUSE the application. This was SECONDED by Cllr Baldock.”

“A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The application was refused because members did not consider the site grey belt and found the identified harm outweighed the stated very special circumstances.

“The application was REFUSED UNANIMOUSLY for the following reasons:”

“The Committee does not consider this site to be within the grey belt, and under green belt HP10 paragraphs D, E and G apply. The Committee are giving significant weight to the WMS, and the Appeal Inspector’s report decision and the very special circumstances outlined by the officer do not outweigh the harm as identified.”

Minutes