The Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report.

Derek Ashby, an objector spoke against the application.

The Democratic Services Officer read out the Agent’s statement on his behalf, in support of the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Lloyd Bowen.

The Chair invited Members to speak on the application and points raised included:

·         Could not support the application as the Planning Inspectorate had been quite specific in that the occupation of the site was for the applicant and his family and the Council should think very carefully before removing the condition;

·         the Planning Inspectorate had added the condition for specific reasons and concerned that we would be overriding their decision;

·         considered the application should not be to remove conditions (3) and (4) but a new application on the same basis as the original application with the same conditions but attached to the new resident with the economic link;

·         approving the application would be going against a specific ruling of the Planning Inspector; and

·         the Council only had a 1.3-year supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites so not sure the Planning Committee could refuse the application.

In response to a question from a Member, the Planning Officer explained that the reason for the officer recommendation was that the applicant no longer resided at the property, however his dependants did.  She clarified that there would still be a gypsy family living on the site and nothing else on the site had changed.  The agent had confirmed that the equestrian use would continue. 

The Team Leader (Planning Applications) referred to paragraphs 6.12 and 6.13 on page 122 of the report, the latest Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment 2023 (GTAA), and this identified a greater need for 114 pitches of which 80 were required within the five-year period.  He explained that this application was an existing gypsy and traveller site and would help the Council meet that need by allowing the wider gypsy and traveller population to occupy it.  He added that the site had integrated into the local area and did not consider that was only because of the equestrian use.

On being put to the vote the motion to approve the application was lost.

Councillor James Hunt moved the following motion:  That the application be refused as it would result in the loss of the link between the occupant and the equestrian use, that the site was within a remote area and an Important Local Countryside Gap and the benefits of the application in contributing to the five-year supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites did not outweigh the harm to the area.  This was seconded by Councillor Richard Palmer.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 22/503908/FULL be refused as it would result in the loss of the link between the occupant and the equestrian use and the site was within a remote area and an Important Local Countryside Gap and the benefits of the application in contributing to the five-year supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites, did not outweigh the harm to the area.