To consider the following application:

17/502338/FULL, Brotherhood Wood, Gate Hill, Dunkirk

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that the application will be considered at this meeting.

Requests to speak on this item must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 25 April 2018.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

The Area Planning Officer reported that the Agent for the application had submitted some information in support of the application, and this was tabled for Members.  The Area Planning Officer outlined the issues that had been raised, in relation to the size of the site, comparison with other sites, and the ethnicity definition of gypsy and travellers.

The Area Planning Officer reminded Members that the current investigations on the site had no material impact on this application.  He drew Members’ attention to conditions (1) and (2) in the report, which were standard conditions, and suggested after seeking legal advice, that these two conditions should be replaced by the condition below:

(1)  No caravan may be stationed on the site otherwise than in accordance with drawing 2549/PL/Sk05 Revision D and the stationing of caravans in the positions shown on this drawing must be begun not later than the expiration of one year beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.

            Reason:         In pursuance of Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Parish Councillor Jeff Tutt, representing Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Philip Brown, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Vice-Chairman in-the-Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded.

The Planning Lawyer addressed the Committee and reminded them of the constitutional requirements relating to membership of the committee and the need for fair and balanced decision making. The need for consideration of all the arguments (both for and against) in reaching a decision based on relevant material planning considerations was stated. Finally, the Committee was reminded that following the Supreme Court ruling in Dover District Council v CPRE Kent that should they be minded to go against the officer recommendations and refuse the application that robust grounds for refusal be clearly included in the motion moved, before any vote is taken and that if the subsequent refusal were to be challenged on appeal, that Members may be required to give evidence at any appeal inquiry.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He stated that there had been a lack of enforcement action on the site, and that the application was opposed to by the local community, and the gypsy and traveller community.  He considered the eastern Europeans on the site were not of gypsy and traveller status, and that 87 units were too much.  The Ward Member quoted Policy DM10 of the Local Plan and considered the site went against many of the requirements of the Policy.

A second Ward Member also spoke against the application and spoke on some of the paragraphs within Policy DM10.  He considered the site did not meet the guidelines set out in the Policy, especially with regard to the impact from the size of the development; consideration of integrated communities, the landscape, safety and amenity, noise disturbance and air quality.

In response to questions, the Area Planning Officer explained that the site was not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), but had significance as a local designated special landscape area.  He stated that the period of time for the layout to be amended as per the new drawing was no later than one year from the date permission was granted, and that the word ‘not’ in condition (5) needed to be deleted.  The Area Planning Officer also clarified ownership issues on the site, and that enforcement action on or adjacent to the site was in relation to planning control, but this action was not dependent on the decision made on the current application.  He further explained that the decision would alter enforcement action on the number and position of the caravans on the site.  The Area Planning Officer showed the approved layout of the site and explained that none of the caravans were in the approved positions, however, this new scheme was more in accordance with Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS).

In response to further questions, the Area Planning Officer explained that the 87 units consisted of 40 each of permanent static and touring caravans, plus seven transit pitches for touring caravans.  There had previously been no room for touring caravans as well, and he explained that the site was now suitable for the travelling lifestyle, as a stop-over site, and also being accessible to the A2.  He also outlined the recent enforcement action that had been carried out on the site with involvement from the Police, Immigration Officers and Swale Borough Council (SBC) officers.  As ownership of the site was unclear, he advised that any enforcement action on the site, would be directed to the Applicant.  Condition (7) in the report controlled the number of caravans permitted to stay on transit pitches on the site.

A Member considered there needed to be a proven need for this site.  The Area Planning Officer referred to paragraphs (3) and (4) of Policy DM10 of the adopted Local Plan in terms of the site’s integration with other communities, and scale.  He explained that the site was reasonably close to other properties, surrounded by woodland, but with easy access over a bridge.  It was not suggested that the site got bigger, as it was utilising land that was already prepared for caravans to be sited there.  There would be 40 families there, instead of 29. 

The Vice-Chairman in-the- Chair reminded Members to be very careful about the decision before them, and that they had heard a statement from the legal team underpinning the recommendation from planning officers.  He stated that the Committee had seen this application before and it was called-in at the last meeting. Members were requested to make a decision based on factual information provided with the agenda, together with officer and legal advice.  He explained that the consequences of the decision could be far-reaching, but Members had an obligation to commit to approval or otherwise, and he would press Members to provide bona fide planning considerations should they be minded to oppose the officers’ recommendation to approve.

Resolved:  That application 17/502338/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (21) (now 20) in the report, with the deletion of the original conditions (1) and (2), and the insertion of condition (1), as minuted, instead.