Nine-pitch travellers site at Land Opposite And To East Of The Full Quart, Off Bristol Road (A370), Hewish Puxton

What was proposed

The application sought nine Gypsy and Traveller pitches, each with caravans and a day room, alongside roads, parking, hardstanding and landscaping.

“Proposal: Change of use of equestrian land to Gypsy and Travellers site of 9 pitches with associated development including the erection of dayrooms and creation of hardstanding for each pitch…”

“Full and permanent planning permission is sought to develop the site for nine Gypsy / Traveller Pitches. Each pitch would comprise one static caravan, one touring caravan and one day room. Ground levels would be raised by circa 400 mm to achieve the required finished levels for caravans, and this would be achieved by importing approximately…”

Officer report

The site

The site is a flat agricultural field in open countryside beside the A370, with existing access, nearby homes and a public footpath.

“The site is an agricultural field situated in open countryside. It is located on the south side of the A370, nearly opposite the recently closed Full Quart public house, but about 150 metres to the east. Vehicle access to it is from an existing hard surface driveway entrance onto the A370. This leads to a small courtyard, but most of the site is laid to grass and it is generally flat.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions allowed a timber stable block and equestrian use, and a new access onto the A370.

“Year: 2021 Reference: 20/P/1756/FUL Proposal: Erection of a timber stable block and change of use of agricultural land to equestrian use Decision: Approved May 2021”

“Year: 2017 Reference: 17/P/1028/F Proposal: Construction of a new access leading onto the A370 Decision: Approved August 2017”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered that a significant pitch need, flood mitigation and no known lower-risk alternative sites outweighed the proposal’s disadvantages.

“Regarding the applicant’s flood risk sequential test, the LPA is not currently aware of any sequentially preferable alternative sites with a lower flood risk that could accommodate the proposed development, individually or cumulatively.”

“Taken, in the round, it is considered that the demonstrated need for the caravans; the lack of sequentially preferable alternative sites on land with a lower flood risk; the raising of the land; a flood risk evacuation plan to be secured through a planning condition, together with the option for occupants to vacate the site in a touring caravan, should flooding occur, amounts to a strong case to find the application acceptable in terms of flood risk.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The Environment Agency and drainage board objected over flood risk, while the HSE raised no objection after the layout was amended.

“The Council consulted the HSE because there is a gas pipeline passing through the application site. They advised, based on an amended site layout that they ‘Do not advise against’ the proposal, which means no objection.”

“Object, because the proposed development falls within a flood risk vulnerability category that is inappropriate to the Flood Zone in which the application site is located. The application is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and planning practice guidance (PPG).”

Officer report

Objections and concerns

Twenty-six comments and the parish council raised concerns about flooding, highway safety, utilities, infrastructure, neighbours, wildlife, the footpath and countryside.

“Third Parties: Twenty-six comments have received to date. Various points raised therein reiterate the points raised by Puxton Parish Council.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An agent on behalf of the applicant addressed the committee in support of the application.

The committee debate

Members debated the application and asked questions about site management, flood risk and the council’s commitment to providing traveller sites.

“The Director of Healthy and Sustainable Communities’ representative presented the report and drew members’ attention to the Update Sheet that had been published the previous day.”

“Members debated the application and asked questions to which officers responded. Questions were raised regarding the management of the site, the flood risk, and North Somerset Council’s commitment to providing sites for gypsies and travellers.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application contrary to the officer recommendation because it conflicted with flood-risk policy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

“Proposal: that the application be REFUSED contrary to officer recommendation due to conflict with Policy CS3 (Environmental impacts and flood risk management) of the North Somerset Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.”

“Resolved: that the application be REFUSED contrary to officer recommendation for the reasons stated above.”

Minutes