Ten-pitch traveller site at Land Adj Heathfield Park Bristol Road, Hewish

What was proposed

The application sought ten Gypsy and Traveller pitches, day rooms, caravan hardstanding, car parking, landscaping and a new access track.

“Proposal: Change of use of land from Gypsy pony trotting ring and agricultural land to Gypsy and Traveller site for ten pitches and erection of 10no. day rooms, creation of hard standing for caravans and car parking, landscaping and other associated operational works…”

“Planning permission is sought to develop the site for ten Gypsy / Traveller Pitches. Each pitch would comprise one static caravan, one touring caravan and one day room. The proposal would include landscaping and a new access track connecting the site to the A370.”

Officer report

The site

The site was an elevated agricultural field in open countryside, more than 200 metres south of the A370, near existing traveller pitches.

“The site is an agricultural field situated in flat, open countryside. It is located to the south of the A370, set back from that road by over 200m. The main part of the site is elevated following engineering works approved as part of planning permission ref: 11/P/1937/F. Existing traveller pitches are located to the north and east of the site at Heathfield Park and Moorland Park.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An airport park-and-ride proposal was refused and dismissed on appeal, while earlier engineering works for an equestrian centre were approved.

“Year: 2020 Reference: 20/P/1438/FUL Proposal: Change of use to satellite airport park & ride parking site Decision: Refused and appeal dismissed 2023”

“Year: 2011 Reference: 11/P/1937/F Proposal: Change of use of land and engineering works, to include alterations to the level of the land, to provide an equestrian centre, to include menage, jumping/training areas, trap racing track, paddocks and lake. Decision: Approved March 2013.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because traveller pitch need, limited alternative sites and mitigation outweighed concerns about flooding, sustainability and countryside location.

“Both national policy and the Local Plan state that highly vulnerable uses should not be granted planning permission in flood zone 3a. The location of the site is open countryside at some distance from services would diminish its sustainability in transportation terms whilst the proposal would be contrary to the spatial strategy set out in the adopted Local Plan.”

“Given the housing supply situation, including the supply of traveller pitches, the spatial strategy is considered to have limited weight. The sustainability of the location remains a concern, but this would partly be offset by improved bus access.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The Environment Agency objected because of flood risk, while Natural England accepted the ecological assessment subject to mitigation and the drainage board opposed the scheme in principle.

“The appropriate assessment concludes that your authority is able to ascertain that the proposal will not result in adverse effects on the integrity of any of the sites in question. Having considered the assessment, and the measures proposed to mitigate for all identified adverse effects that could potentially occur as a result of the proposal, Natural England advises that we concur with the assessment conclusions, providing that all mitigation measures are appropriately…”

“The Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk Assessment does not have enough detail to demonstrate how positive drainage from the proposed site will function. The proposal is in an area of recently raised and differing ground levels and it is not clear how drainage will function and how this will impact the existing buildings adjacent to the site.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the application, and the council’s representative presented the report and drew attention to an update sheet.

Members’ debate

Members debated the application, asked questions answered by officers and raised a question about management of the site.

“Members debated the application and asked questions to which officers responded. A question was raised regarding the management of the site.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application contrary to the officer recommendation because of conflicts involving flood risk, transport, drainage, infrastructure and rural countryside policy.

“Proposal: that the application be REFUSED contrary to officer recommendation due to conflict with Policies CS3 (Environmental impacts and flood risk management), CS10 (Transportation and movement) of the North Somerset Core Strategy, Policies DM1 (Flooding and drainage), and DM24 (Safety, traffic and provision of infrastructure, etc.”

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

Minutes