Agenda item

24/01561/F

West Walton: Land SW of The Bungalow, Common Road South, Walton Highway, Norfolk, PE14 7ER: Retrospective change of use of previously developed land to enable standing of a residential static caravan and storage of one touring caravan and ancillary works

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube

The case officer reminded the Committee that determination of the application had been adjourned for a site visit, which had taken place prior to the reconvened meeting.  She introduced the report and outlined where the Committee had been during the site visit.

In response to a question from the Chair regarding planting, the case officer explained the condition applied to all site boundaries and details still needed to come in for that.

Councillor Spikings referred to paragraph five on page 28 of the officer’s report and asked that if it was conditioned, whether there was a timeframe.  The case officer explained the rest of the conditions were within three months and commented that it would be reasonable to time limit that condition to three months as well and to ask for evidence of how it had been complied with.

Councillor Spikings commented that conditions needed to include timeframes and added that Condition 5 should be amended to include a timeframe of within three months.

In response to a further question from Councillor Spikings, the case officer explained that in terms of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) legislation, it would not apply to this site because of the retrospective nature of the application.  She added that in terms of the planning practice guidance ecology survey requirements, they felt that the site did not meet the standard requirement for surveys.

The Chair asked for clarification of what would happen if any further development was proposed along the fields behind the proposed site.  The case officer explained the site itself was GT15 of the new Local Plan meaning it was allocated for one pitch which was a static caravan and a tourer which was controlled via the decision.  She added that if any future development was proposed, this would come under the windfall part of LP32 which would require a full assessment against the requirements of the Local Plan plus the PPTs which would add additional considerations and would therefore require planning permission.

Councillor Spikings commented that Gypsy and Traveller sites normally had a day room and asked whether that would be permitted development or whether that had to apply for that separately.  The case officer confirmed they would have to apply for that separately.

In response to a question from Councillor de Whalley, the case officer confirmed there was no external lighting on the site.

In response to comments from Councillor de Whalley regarding concerns around flood risk, the Planning Policy Manager explained that as part of the Local Plan, there was a bespoke agreement through the strategic flood risk assessment with the Environment Agency.  He added that although there was a flood risk on the site, the need for this type of development outweighed that and the site was acceptable in planning terms.

Councillor Devulapalli asked for clarification around the policies within the report.  The Planning Control Manager advised that the report was written at the time where the Local Plan had not quite been adopted and therefore, they had to reference both sets of policies.  She explained that CS09 was the original core strategy policy which referenced Gypsy and Traveller sites and that LP32 was the most up to date policy and added that other relevant policies within the report were LP19, LP21 and LP25.

Councillor Devulapalli asked whether there was a requirement within the new Local Plan that any Gypsy and Traveller site had to be capable of being serviced by basic utilities and if that was the case, what was the definition of that.  The Senior Planning Policy Officer confirmed they would have to demonstrate that they had connectivity to basic services.  He commented that the site had been picked up through the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessment and that it was specially identified as a site that needed arising in the future which was why it was captured in the Local Plan.  He added that there was a stringent policy in place to capture all of the requirements such as environment, infrastructure and flooding in part two of LP32.

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (6 votes for and 2 abstentions).

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as recommended, subject to amending Condition 5 to include a timeframe of within three months.