Five family pitches at Beechcroft Stables, Stroude Road, Egham

“APPLICATION DETAILS 3.1. This is a planning application for an extension to the existing family gypsy/traveller site to provide an additional 5 static caravans for family members, with parking, cycle stores, bin stores, landscaping and associated infrastructure. The proposed mobile homes would be sited to the west and south of the existing cluster of buildings on an area which is in part paddock and in part hardstanding.”

“DETAILS OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS 2.1. The application site lies to the western side of Stroude Road within an existing vehicular access via a track to the north. It is a mixed use site, comprising an equestrian yard and stables with menage and a gypsy/traveller pitch allowed on appeal in 2015 under reference RU.13/1249. The gypsy/traveller pitch is towards the northwest of the site and consists of a large mobile home, second caravan and various outbuildings.”

“Reference Details RU.15/1417 Confirmation of compliance with condition 10 (surface water drainage) of permission RU.13/1249 for the use of the land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for 1 No. gypsy pitches along with the formation of 1 No. utility/dayroom as granted by way of appeal. Approved 14/10/2015. RU.13/1249 Change of use of land to create 1 gypsy pitch including conversion of an existing outbuilding to a day room. Refused 24/02/2014.”

“RU.10/0875 Certificate of existing lawfulness for the siting of a residential mobile home. Refused 2011. RU.99/0837 Erection of stables with grooms residential accommodation above. Refused 1999. RU.95/1050 Retention of block of three stables. Refused 1996. RU.95/1049 Relocation of existing barn onto concrete base some 9 metres to the South-East of the existing location. Refused 1996. RU.95/0464 Erection of stable complex comprising six stables, hay barn and manure stead.”

“CONCLUSIONS 10.1. As set out above the development constitutes appropriate development in the Green Belt. The scheme would also contribute towards meeting the Council’s needs for gypsy and traveller provision. Whilst the layout is “tight” the scheme would provide a residential environment where multi-generational families can reside together and provide a settled based.”

“FORMAL OFFICER RECOMMENDATION The HoP be authorised to grant planning permission subject to satisfactory BNG information and the following planning conditions:”

“Consequently, and having regard to the impact of the development on the openness of the Green Belt it is considered that that whilst the proposal would result in significant harm to the Green Belt it would not result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore appropriate development in the Green Belt under paragraph 154 of the NPPF.”

“Whilst this application is not seeking a personal planning permission, granting permission would, amongst other things, give a fixed and permanent base for the 4 young children. A secure and settled base is clearly most beneficial for access to the educational and health resources that the residents on the site need. In this case the educational and health needs of the children who live / would live on site are a primary consideration.”

“Consultee Comments SCC Highway Authority No objection subject to conditions. RBC Engineering Services (drainage) No objection subject to condition. RBC Environmental Services No comments received. Surrey Wildlife Trust The proposal does not meet the ‘de-minimis’ BNG exemption as the site is significantly larger than 0.25ha. Virgina Water Neighbourhood Forum No comments received.”

“Representations and comments from interested parties. 6.3. 8 neighbouring properties were consulted in addition to being advertised on the Council’s website and a site notice was displayed. No responses have been received.”

“The impact on the openness of the Green Belt was assessed in the report as significant harm to the Green Belt, but not substantial harm to the openness. The proposal was there considered to be appropriate development in the Green Belt.”

“Some members were concerned about the erosion of the Green Belt between Stroude and Egham and the potential precedent set. There was no further scope to control future occupation of the site although in practice sites like this were self-regulating. The Council had not delivered its required number of pitches – addressing the supply side was considered the most effective way to control future development.”

“It was noted that the biodiversity information was still incomplete and the Addendum included an additional officer recommendation that the application could be refused for this reason.”

“Resolved that A) the Head of Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to satisfactory BNG information and conditions 1, 2 (as amended by the Addendum) to 12 set out in Section 11 of the report, and condition 13 set out in the Addendum thereto B) that the Head of Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission should the BNG information not be submitted and/or proceed to his satisfaction on…”