ha2.boroughofpoole.comha2.boroughofpoole.com/akspoole/images/att21345.docx · web viewa decision...

BOROUGH OF POOLE – SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE – 20 MARCH 2014

BOROUGH OF POOLE

SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE

20 MARCH 2014

The Meeting commenced at 9:15am and concluded at 12:30pm

Present:

Councillor Pawlowski (Vice-Chairman in the Chair)Councillors Brown, Mrs Clements, Mrs Le Poidevin (substitute for Councillor Eades), Maiden (substitute for Councillor Wilson), Mrs Pratt (substitute for Councillor Mrs Butt), Parker and Mrs Wilson.

Others in Attendance:

Councillors Butt, Burden, Rampton and Potter

Members of the public present: Approximately 374

PC80.14 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs Butt, Burden, Eades and Wilson.

PC81.14 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest.

Other Non Statutory Interests Members wished to be recorded

All Members declared that they had been lobbied on Plans List Item No’s 1 and 2.

PC82.14 CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTION

The Vice-Chairman welcomed local residents to the Special Meeting of the Planning Committee and explained the format for the morning.

PC83.14 PRE-DETERMINATION, BIAS AND EQUALITIES

Tim Martin, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, reminded Members that it was a fundamental point that decision makers should come to consider matters such as Planning Applications with an open mind. A decision maker should not have pre-determined the decision they were going to make on a particular matter before hearing what was said at the Meeting and considering the relevant information. It was important for Members to come to their decision with a generally open mind.

1


The Head of Legal and Democratic Services continued by stating that the material planning considerations in this matter were outlined in the Report. He added that non planning considerations would include: land ownership, political consideration, general Council policy and non planning constraints on the Site.

Members were advised to put aside any views or opinions they had on the advisability or otherwise of the principle of the use of the Sites as Temporary Stopping Places and to consider the Applications before them for determination in accordance with the Planning Development Framework and material considerations.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services reminded the Meeting that the law required members of the Gypsy and Traveller Community to receive the same treatment as members of other parts of the Community and of their right to pursue their particular way of life. It was unlawful to make comments about groups or individuals which might tend to compare them unfavourably with others, or to promote less favourable treatment, bullying or harassment.

PC84.14 PETITION PRESENTED AT COUNCIL BY CAROL SNELLING

Tim Martin, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, stated that Members had before them a petition relating to the two Planning Applications on the Agenda which was received at full Council on 25 February 2012 which was referred to the Planning Committee for consideration. The Petition sought the Council’s support to extend the Consultation period to allow residents to protest against Marshes End and Broadstone Way being used as Temporary Stopping Places for Gypsies and Travellers. He added that Members would need to consider the Petition and decide whether further consultation periods were necessary. If further consultation was deemed necessary, the Applications would need to be deferred.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services reminded Members that the statutory consultation period for Planning Applications was 21 days. With regard to the two Applications on the Plans List, representations were in effect accepted up to the date of the Committee. In relation to the Safety Drive Application, almost 7 weeks had elapsed between the start of the Consultation period and the date of the Meeting. In relation to the Broadstone Way Application, the period was 6 weeks. He added that the Committee would need to weigh up whether extending the Consultation period was likely to facilitate any further representations that would materially add to the substance of those already received, balanced against the need to determine the Application within a reasonable time and to bring certainty to the matter, whichever way the Application was decided.

Carol Snelling, Petitioner, expressed her views, details included:

Borough of Poole seemed to have lost their common sense

2


Bearing in mind the levels of objection, surprised that Applications had not been withdrawn

Joe Jones, from the Gypsy Council, had informed Officers that he would not put his members on the contaminated Site.

Would you put your children on the Site? The Site was adjacent to a very busy road. Borough of Poole had paid a huge sum of money on a Contamination

Survey, but because it did not say what they wanted it to, another Survey was commissioned in an attempt to “trash” the original report.

£171K and counting to open this piece of contaminated land for roughly 5 months a year.

£35K per annum running costs Council funds should be spent on youth clubs, children, the elderly, bus

routes, road repairs etc. No public consultation Planning consultation was not proper pre-Application public consultation People living close to the Application Site felt vulnerable Negative effect on local businesses Was Poole really “open for business”? Please listen to the people who paid your wages

A Member stated that the majority of the Petitioner’s representation was irrelevant to the subject of the Petition. He added that the 7 weeks and 6 weeks period quoted by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services was far in excess of the 21 days statutory period.

A Member stated that the best way forward was to put the subject to a vote.

Carol Snelling summed up her views, details included:

Represented the residents of Creekmoor Many were not informed about the Application 21 days was not a lot of time

On being put to the vote, the Petitioner’s request to extend the consultation period to allow residents to protest against Marshes End and Broadstone Way being used as Temporary Stopping Sites for Gypsies and Travellers was LOST.

Voting: For – 0 Against – 8 Abstentions – 0

PC85.14 CONTEXTUAL INTRODUCTION

Stephen Thorne, Head of Planning and Regeneration Services, informed Members that he would endeavour to put into context what was a complicated issue.

Unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller Encampments occurred every year and were managed by Environment and Consumer Protection Services (ECPS), a Service Unit of the Council. In some cases these were managed on a one-to-

3


one basis and in others they were referred to the Courts where eviction was required.

If the Borough of Poole required the intervention of the Police to move the trespassers on, then the Council had to provide a suitable site within the administrative area of Poole. A suitable site could either be a Transit Site or a Temporary Stopping Place.

In the past, the Borough had pursued the option of a Transit Site and this piece of work undertaken by Peter Brett Associates, for the whole of Dorset, continued in parallel. A Transit Site was a permanent site that was bricks and mortar and provided facilities of washing, showers, Caretaker and hard standings. A Transit Site would allow 24/7 intervention by the Police if vacancies were available. Site selection was as if it was a housing site and facilities were provided accordingly as the Travellers could be on the site for up to 3 months. Providing education facilities would also be a consideration on these types of sites. The Council had been trying to identify a Transit Site for 6 years to no avail. A 12 week consultation exercise on the Transit Site had not revealed any private or public sites suitable for this use.

The Summer of 2013 proved difficult for ECPS to manage unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller encampments. The Council received representations from the public. On 18 October 2013 the Council held a Seminar with Residents’ Associations and partner organisations. The purpose of the Meeting was to communicate the Council’s policies and procedures for managing unauthorised encampments in Poole and to hear suggestions and ideas about possible improvements. As a result of this Seminar came 6 suggestions, 2 of which were relevant today. Firstly the Council would continue to search for a Transit Site and secondly, the Council would consider searching for Temporary Stopping Sites within Poole. This represented a shift from 24/7 intervention to managing the situation and requesting Police intervention by exception and brought into play the alternative of a Temporary Stopping Place in order to have something in place by the Summer of 2014 when demand would increase.

A Temporary Stopping Place, if available, was a suitable site for the purposes of Police intervention. The intention was that any planning permission granted would authorise the use between Easter Friday and Mid-September, each year, and be closed for the rest of the year. This Site would only be open at the request of ECPS, when the intervention of the Police was required and that ECPS would manage the period of stay to as short a period as possible, therefore, there were two stands of work currently being undertaken; the Permanent Transit Site which was longer term and a Temporary Stopping Place that was less formal and could be removed at a future date if required.

With regard to the second strand of a Temporary Stopping Place, all of the land in the Council’s ownership of a suitable size, had been evaluated against Planning and Environmental Policies (Heathlands, Open Space, Greenbelt etc), plus access and impact. The Sites were then further evaluated against achievability, availability and suitability.

4


The feedback on the 12 week Transit Site consultation exercise was also factored into this piece of work and this brought the Borough of Poole to the 2 Sites being considered by Members today.

PC86.14 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Committee considered the Planning Applications as set out in the Schedule to the Minutes and dealt with therein.

CHAIRMAN

5


APPENDIX

SCHEDULE TO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 20 MARCH 2014

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

ITEM NO 1APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00123/FAPPLICATION TYPE FullSITE ADDRESS Land at Safety Drive, Poole, Dorset, BH17 7FRPROPOSALS Coverage of the land with permeable surfacing to provide

parking for up to 12 caravans and associated cars and commercial vehicles, for traveller and gypsy families. To include security fencing/entrance gates, and associated foul/surface water drainage works. For use from Good Friday to 15th September in any year, intended for managed stay durations of up to 30 days. (as amended by plans received 04.03.14)

REGISTERED 31 January, 2014APPLICANT Borough of PooleWARD CreekmoorCASE OFFICER Clare Spiller

The Application was before the Committee due to the level of public interest and as the Applicant was the Borough of Poole.

The Application was the subject of a Members’ Site visit on 19 March 2014 which commenced at 9:45am and concluded at 10:15am. Councillors Pawlowski, Mrs Clements, Parker, Miss Wilson, Mrs Pratt, Mrs Le Poidevin and Brown were in attendance.

Members’ attention was drawn to the Addendum Sheet and, in particular:

Report referred to A350, it should read A35 Dates for the Library Exhibition were incorrect, they were 13th/14th and

15th (am). Report referred to comments received from Councillor Mrs Butt, this was

an error, the letter was received from Mr and Mrs Butt (residents). Details of 10 further representations received Details of Twitter comments received Details of a petition received Details of a Contaminated Land Survey dated 12/3/2014 Deletion of Condition No.18 (Contaminated Land) Deletion of Condition No.17 (as covered by Condition No.8) Details of an amendment to Condition No.9 Details of an additional Condition regarding site flooding Details of an Informative Note No.1

Richard Genge, Planning and Regeneration Manager, informed Members that the

6


Proposal was for parking for up to 12 caravans and associated cars and commercial vehicles for Travellers and Gypsy families on a Temporary Stopping Place (TSP).

The Planning and Regeneration Manager continued by explaining what a TSP was as detailed in chapter 9 of the DCLG Good Practice Guide.

The Site would be covered with permeable surfacing, with levels raised to address flooding issues. In addition, security fencing would be constructed, along with entrance gates. Use of the Site would be on a permanent basis, but operationally restricted from Good Friday to 15th September in any year, with a maximum of 28 days stay.

Members noted that of key importance for consideration was:

Compliance with Policy E2, existing employment sites Impact on character and appearance of the area Flood risk Contamination Noise Highway safety and access Impact on health and protected species

Clare Spiller, Senior Planning Officer, reminded Members of the site characteristics and surroundings when, in particular, the culverted stream, the existing access to the Site, the fact the Site was outside of the “Greenbelt” but that it fell within the Environmental Agencies Flood Zone No.3. In addition, the Site was within an area designated by the Core Strategy as an existing employment area.

The Senior Planning Officer summarised the Key planning issues:

The use of the Site for non employment use (TSP) Impact on character and appearance of the area Issues concerning wildlife and SPA Impact (Dorset Heathlands) Impact on Poole Harbour (SPA) Impact on protected species and enhancements

The Planning and Regeneration Manager continued by detailing the flood risk measures, details included:

Site fell within Flood Zone 3 The Proposal was to raise the Site levels to 2.7 metres AOD, the

Environment Agency considered this to be satisfactory for this type of development at this location

Quoted technical guidance on flood risk Sequential test had been submitted to support this Application The NPPG, released after the date of the Officer’s Report, did not change

the Policy requirements, but guidance to comply with the Policy. It considered that, having regard to the sequential test and the exception test, that this Site was suitable for the development proposed.

The Environment Agency, as the Government lead advisors, raised no

7


objections to the Proposals.The Planning and Regeneration Manager continued by detailing the issues of contamination. Members were reminded that a number of objections had been received which stated that the Site was not suitable as the Site was contaminated.

The Site was surveyed in 2002 for which the Applicant submitted a summary of the ground conditions and soil contamination. Since the Site was surveyed, the ground levels had been raised across part of the Site which formed a site compound whilst the neighbouring Fire Station was built in 2006.

Further sampling had been carried out on the current uncovered Site to confirm previous findings and to confirm lack of asbestos. The sampling also included the raised area to verify the depth and type of materials previously brought onto the Site.

Contaminated Land Survey received by the Environmental Consumer Group Limited (EPC), dated 12/3/04. This Report concluded that EPC had robustly demonstrated via additional Qualitative Assessment that additional monitoring was not required. The 800mm granular stone blanket, which would be provided, was not necessary in terms of protection against the gas, but would in fact add an additional layer of protection. Consequently, it would not be necessary to install a gas membrane on the Site. ECPS concurred with these conclusions. Therefore, according to specialist advice, the condition of the Site was not considered to be a constraint to the use of the Site and no conditions were considered necessary to mitigate any harm.

The Senior Planning Officer continued the Presentation by detailing issues regarding the amenity for occupants of the Site and on neighbours, plus arrangements regarding highway safety and access.

In conclusion, the Planning and Regeneration Manager stated that the judgement as to whether to grant planning permission or not was a balanced one. Any development of this nature would always experience tensions between differing policies of the Local Development Framework and have some impact.

It was acknowledged that the Proposal would, to some extent, alter the character of the area and the conditions for any use were not ideal. However, given the requirement of the Authority to provide a site within the administrative area of Poole, in order for the Police to intervene in unlawful encampments within the Borough, the short period of time for any occupier and the existing landscape and proposed planting, the degree of impact was reduced to the point of being acceptable.

It was also acknowledged that the nature of the use had caused some tension, however, it was considered that whatever site was proposed, similar tension would exist. The Council, and the Local Planning Authority, had a duty to provide for the Gypsy and Traveller Community and whilst work continued to provide for a Transit Site, there remained an immediate and evidenced demand for a Temporary Stopping Place.

It was considered that whilst there were impacts, in this particular case they had either been mitigated to the point of acceptance or outweighed by the benefit of the whole Community by being able to deal efficiently with unauthorised encampments

8


on Borough of Poole land and it was therefore recommended that Planning Permission be granted.

Joe Jones, Gypsy Council and Objector, expressed his views, details included:

The Gypsy Council objected to the Proposal Contaminated land Noise pollution Major traffic issues Thanked the Borough of Poole for its consideration, but it was the wrong

site No guarantees re methane gas, people had died from methane poisoning Busy road – 50mph limit Strongly opposed to the Application If approved, a Judicial Review would be imminent

Mr Cobley, Objector, expressed his views, details included:

Worked for Terence O’Rourke, represented Forrell Estates Forell Esates were north of the Site Had written to the Case Officer outlining concerns Unsuitable Site Failed to adhere to planning policies Inadequate submission Report made misleading statements and was factually incorrect Lack of ecological and highway information Conclusion technically unsound Open to challenge Quoted PCS2 – Employment Site Conflicted with policy Departure from the Development Plan No justification to set aside policy Quoted PCS9, 23, 28, 29, 34 and DM9 Contaminated flood risk Site unlikely to have a water supply Highly unsuitable for human occupation Members had no choice but to refuse

Mr Sibbett, Objector, expressed his views, details included:

Sibbett Gregory, Commercial Practice Acted for a number of investors and businesses in Poole Safety Drive was in an employment area, therefore reserved for

employment Proposal conflicted with the Core Strategy UK economy was now improving, employment land was needed Our experience of Poole was that quality enquiries for employment land

were being received. Vital that Poole remained strong to attract new investment Needed to attract new investment

9


Site was a “Prime Gateway” location Well positioned to attract high quality employers Marshes End and Alpha Court, fully occupied There was a shortage of sites such as this Commercial tenants nearby had real concerns The Site, if approved, would result in significant economic negative impact Proposal contrary to all policies

Mr Howlett, Objector, expressed his views, details included:

An employee of Deverill Limited Office was at Marshes End, adjacent to the Application Site All businesses were against the Proposal Deverell Limited were an IT Solutions/training provider with 40 staff on Site Deverell Limited was a successful company Originally chose this Site because it was safe and secure Expensive equipment was on Site No safe pathway to the local amenities Insurers had expressed a concern regarding the “significant risk” Training facility on Site would directly overlook the Caravans Smell would have a negative impact Staff feedback was not good, concerned over personal safety The Office was open from 5am to 10pm, safety of staff was paramount If approved, Deverell Limited would have to consider its future in Poole Deverell’s tenancy ran out in April 2015 Please use this Site for its original intention

Peter Haikin, Applicant, expressed his views, details included:

Regulatory Services Manager Explained the Proposed Temporary Stopping Place within the context of

the Council’s wider ambition of improving the way it dealt with unauthorised encampments

Council obliged by various laws to recognise the historic rights of Travellers

Must also balance the rights of the local settled communities The last 2 years had seen an increase in a number of unauthorised

encampments Considerable concern and alarm from local residents Council resolved to explore a number of remedies One remedy was to provide a Temporary Transit Site by June 2014 In order for the Police to take action, the Council must provide a suitable

site such as a Temporary Stopping Place. In January, Council resolved that ECPS should prepare and submit a

Planning Application for land at Safety Drive to enable provision of a Temporary Stopping Place by the Summer.

The expected duration of a negotiated encampment would be around 2 weeks.

This would be an “alternative” site for use when unauthorised

10


encampments occurred in the Borough.

Ward Councillor Burden expressed his views, details included:

Planning Application – bizarre Selection process for the Site was flawed No due process in Council terms Against the Core Strategy Land designated for employment use Lack of consultation No involvement with Wessex Water or Dorset Fire and Rescue until Ward

Members flagged the matter up Gypsy Council had advised that it would not use the Site Too close to a dangerous road on a contaminated site Thought that the Borough of Poole were a caring Council “Act in haste, repent at your leisure” 19 Conditions – a crude attempt to make it viable Application had never seen true democratic process

Ward Councillor Rampton expressed his views, details included:

No Member or public involvement Residents had no confidence in the process Other sites discarded for no reason Design Management Policies were used to reject sites before any design

had taken place Private sites not considered 2 versions of the Site Selection Document No pre-application consultation Failed PCS9 and DM1 Application would have serious economic impact on local businesses –

failed PCS2 Site next to a fast and busy road – failed DM1, DM8, DM9, PCS9(i) and

PCS15(vii) High traffic noise, street lights and other light pollution, no room for

livestock, failed PCS8, PCS9(ii) No provision for removal of grey water – failed PCS2, PCS32 and PCS34 Local tradesmen disadvantaged, failed PCS2 Site would resemble a prison on a Gateway Site, totally out of character. Also safety issues as only having one point of egress – failed PCS5(ii(a),

PCS5(ii(c), PCS23(a(i), PCS23(a(iv), PCS23(c(11) No Human Rights considerations in the Report The Site was precious employment land. Failed PCS2, PCS4 and PCS9.

Ward Councillor Mrs Butt expressed her views, details included:

Members must rigorously interrogate Case Officer’s Report Must ensure no departure from the Core Strategy 6 show stoppers The Site was employment land

11


Flood risk Fettering the decision of the Planning Committee Ecology Dorset Heathland SPA and CIL Planning Policy for Travellers Sites (PPTS) Objectors had provided all reasons for refusal Refuse planning permission, it was a “no brainer” Do the right thing, using Planning law, refuse the Application

Officers responded to Members’ requests for clarification. Details included:

There was no need to mention animals/pets in the Application The Site gates would be left open when in use, other times of the year the

gates would remain locked. ECPS would liaise with the Police and manage the use of the Site. The site would not be available to anyone on their own. Good Practice Guidelines permit the use of water bowsers as a means of

supplying water on the Site. The first Contamination Report was a general report on the whole site. As

a result of the outcomes of the first Report, ECPS decided to commission a second report from a methane specialist who reviewed the first report and concluded that there was no health risk.

Condition No.4 reflected Best Practice Guidance, limiting a single stay of 28 days in order to ensure it was not a permanent site.

There would be no physical structures on the Site, therefore nothing preventing it being used for employment land in the future.

ECPS Specialist visited the Site and confirmed that there were no protected species on the Site and therefore no survey was required.

Issues regarding insurance, site selection and the cost of the Development were not relevant planning considerations.

Reference was made to Condition No.8 regarding the disposal of dirty water.

Officers had not taken photographs from or visited local businesses who overlooked the site

Play areas were not required as it was a Temporary Stopping Place When in occupation, the Site would not be designated as contaminated There was no statutory requirement to provide a Temporary Stopping

Place.

A Member stated that the loss of employment land was a real concern and it did not give a good message to the business community to create such a Site next to offices. In addition, the Gypsy Council would not recommend sending its members to the Site, plus he had concerns about caravans possibly blocking the entrance to the Fire Station.

A Member shared the concerns of the previous Member, plus she was worried about the safety of young children on the Site and therefore could not support the Officer recommendation.

A Member stated that she understood the need for a Temporary Stopping Place, and

12


supported the good work of ECPS Officers, however, the Proposal was in the wrong place and it was a departure from PCS2 and PCS23.

A Member stated that his main concern was the lack of pre-application consultation and pedestrian access. He added, however, that he was not satisfied with the objections made by local businesses and was undecided whether to support the Application or not.

A Member stated that it was a difficult, finely balanced decision. Her main concern was the fact that Travellers could return one day after the 28 day period and also that the Site could be lost to future employment.

Councillor Mrs Le Poidevin proposed 2 slight amendments to the wording of Conditions attached to the Officer recommendation in order that it would be made clear that visitors to the Temporary Stopping Site stayed for no more than 28 consecutive days in any one year and that the Planning Permission be restricted to a period of 2 years.

Members unanimously agreed with the proposed rewording of the Conditions.

Members continued by discussing the Application and, in particular, the issues surrounding the fact that the Site was designated for employment use.

The Vice-Chairman stated that, in his opinion, the Core Strategy had been incorrectly applied; the Proposal was out of character, especially when it was on a “Gateway Site to Poole”. He added that the Application was seriously flawed and therefore he could not support it.

All Registered Speakers decided not to take up the opportunity to sum up.

On being put to the vote, the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission was LOST.


Members continued by discussing reasons for refusal, details included:

- Loss of Employment land- PCS02- Contamination on Site- Noise pollution- Traffic issues- Site Access / Egress- PCS09

RESOLVED, contrary to Officer recommendation, to REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:

1 The Local Planning Authority are not convinced that the evidence of need and lack of suitable alternative land is of sufficient weight to outweigh the

13


loss of employment land so as to justify the departure from policy PCS02 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted February 2009

2 Due to the existence of contaminants on site, the lack of quality amenity space, no noise attenuation, and the inability to demonstrate robust traffic management to ensure safe access and egress, the proposed use as a temporary stopping place is not considered suitable for this quasi residential purposes and would be likely to result in a poor living environment for the use proposed, contrary to policy PCS9 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted February 2009.

Voting: For – 6 Against – 1 Abstentions - 1__________________________________

ITEM NO 2APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00171/FAPPLICATION TYPE FullSITE ADDRESS Land off Broadstone Way, Poole, BH15 3BZPROPOSALS Creation of a Temporary Stopping Place for up to 4

traveller / gypsy caravans and associated cars / commercial vehicles. Erection of a perimeter palisade fence and construction of new vehicular access. The site will be made available for short duration stays of up to 4 weeks, from Easter to mid September in any year, with access managed by Borough of Poole staff. (as amended by plans received 03/03/14)

REGISTERED 7 February, 2014APPLICANT Borough of PooleWARD OakdaleCASE OFFICER Clare Spiller

The Application was before the Committee due to the level of public interest and the fact that the Applicant was the Borough of Poole.

The Application was the subject of a Members’ Site visit on 19 March 2014 which commenced at 10:20am and concluded at 10:35am. Councillors Pawlowski, Brown, Mrs Clements, Mrs Le Poidevin, Parker, Mrs Pratt and Miss Wilson were in attendance.

Reference was made to the Addendum Sheet and, in particular, details of further representations and proposed changes to Conditions and Informative Notes.

Richard Genge, Planning and Regeneration Manager, outlined the details of the Proposal and the main issues for consideration.

Clare Spiller, Senior Planning Officer, continued by detailing the key planning issues:

Principle of proposed use Impact on character and appearance of the area Issues concerning wildlife and SPA Impact (Dorset Heathlands)

14


Impact on Poole Harbour (SPA) Impact on protected species and enhancements Flood risk measures Amenity for occupants of the Site and on neighbours Highway safety and access Fear of crime

In conclusion, the Planning and Regeneration Manager, stated that the judgement as to whether to grant planning permission or not was a balanced one. Any development of this nature would always experience tensions between different policies of the Local Development Framework and impact.

It was acknowledged that the Proposal would, to some extent, alter the character of the area and the conditions for any user were not ideal. However, given the requirement for the Authority to provide a site within the administrative area of Poole in order for the Police to intervene in unlawful encampments within the Borough, the short period of time for any occupier and the existing landscape and proposed planting, the degree of impact was reduced to the point of being acceptable.

It was also acknowledged that the nature of the use had caused some tension, however, it was considered that wherever the Site was proposed a similar tension would exist. The Council, and the Local Planning Authority, had a duty to provide for the Gypsy and Traveller Community and whilst work continued to provide for a Transit Site, there remained an immediate and evidenced demand for a Temporary Stopping Place.

It was considered that, whilst there were impacts, in this particular case they had either been mitigated to the point of acceptance or outweighed by the benefits of the whole community by being able to deal effectively with unauthorised encampments on Borough of Poole land and it was therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.

Mr Mulvey, Objector, expressed his views, details included:

Manager at the B&Q Warehouse Store on Fleets Lane Store was directly next door to the Application Site Referred to previous comments regarding effect on amenity Had already expressed problems with Travellers in the Store Car Park Adverse effect on customers If approved, problems would become more severe B&Q’s Planning Consultants had previously submitted objections to

Planning and Regeneration Services Planning Application was flawed Flood risk not properly dealt with Site was above a dangerous water main Proposed Site would “spill over” onto the Store Car Park Store Car Park would become a children’s playground Fly-tipping, rubbish, human excrement, oil/fat, hardly conducive to a

customer friendly environment.

15


Peter Haikin, Applicant, expressed his views, details included:

Should be viewed in the context of the Council’s wider ambition of improving the way it dealt with unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller encampments.

Referred to increasing number of unauthorised encampments in the last 2 years.

Quoted resolution from Council Meeting in December For Police to use special powers, the Council must provide a suitable site

such as a Temporary Stopping Place Site was for 4 pitches, including ancillary vehicles Might allow for an overflow from any other larger, Temporary Stopping

Places. Likely that the Site would be infrequently called upon to be used Available from Easter to mid September Expected duration of each site visit would be approximately 2 weeks

Ward Councillor Potter expressed his views, details included:

Acting as substitute for Ward Councillor Adams who was ill Representing residents and fellow Ward Councillors of Oakdale Objected to the Application for a number of reasons Adverse impact on character and appearance of the area The fence was 71 metres long and 2 metres high, very intrusive Wessex Water had stated that it was unsafe for any development within 6

metres of the 18 inch water main Problems regarding highway safety Entry to the Site was only 7 metres wide Very well used cycleway across the entrance Police had stated they had concerns around traffic safety Site was originally rejected by Consultants Site on its own was pointless and was included merely to compliment the

larger site which was refused previously.

Officers responded to Members’ requests for clarification, details included:

6 meter guidance from Wessex Water was not required for a Temporary Stopping Place

The 7 meter wide gate would be open when Travellers arrived Fencing would be erected all around the Site There would be no vehicular access from the Proposed Site to the B&Q

car park Electricity transformer would be fenced in for security/safety purposes The Proposal was for a stand alone Temporary Stopping Place, it was up

to the Applicant to decide whether they wished to use it or not. In order to cater for waste, when in use, a skip would be delivered on Site

A Member stated that he had real concerns over the Application, including traffic/access issues, conflict with the Skate Park and the inevitable use of the B&Q car park as an overspill area.

16


A Member stated that there were no issues surrounding employment land, however, he had real concerns over the possibility of caravans crossing a busy cycle lane.

A Member stated that the Site would suffer from noise pollution and light pollution, especially at night from vehicle headlights.

A Member stated that the Site was too small, portaloos, skips, caravans and associated vehicles on the Site would mean there would be no room to move.

A Member stated that, given the fact that in the past the Site was used as an unauthorised stopping place, it was acceptable, however, she still had concerns regarding traffic.

Members agreed that the wording of Condition No.4 should be slightly amended so as to limit Travellers a stay of 28 continuous days in any one year.

Mr Mulvey summed up his views, details included:

Application was an invitation to Travellers to use B&Q car park Site was dangerous for children Many customers had stated that they would not visit the Store whilst the

Site was in use.

Mr Haikin summed up his views, details included:

When not in use, the gate would be locked. When in use, Gypsy and Travellers would be in control of the gate.

On being put to the vote, the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission was LOST.


Members continued by discussing reasons for refusal, details included:

- Site not big enough- Difficult to manoeuvre vehicles / caravans- Lack of amenity- Noise issues- Traffic issues

RESOLVED, contrary to Officer recommendation, to REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:

1 Due to the restricted size of the site, the restricted areas for manoeuvring caravans and towing vehicles, lack of quality amenity space, no noise attenuation, and the inability to demonstrate robust traffic management to ensure safe access and egress, the proposed use as a temporary stopping place is not considered suitable for quasi residential purposes and would

17


be likely to result in a poor living environment for the use proposed, contrary to policy PCS9 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted February 2009

Voting: For – 5 Against – 1 Abstentions - 2

18

ha2.boroughofpoole.comha2.boroughofpoole.com/akspoole/images/att21345.docx · web viewa decision...

Documents