Agenda item

To consider an application for the change of use of land to residential Gypsy and Traveller site to include 3 semi-detached amenity blocks with associated hardstanding access road and landscaping (copy attached).

 

 

An application was submitted for the change of use of land for residential Gypsy and Traveller site to include 3 semi-detached amenity blocks with associated hardstanding access road and landscaping.

 

Prior to the application being discussed Councillor Emrys Wynne clarified that he did not attend the site visit, then left the chamber for the duration of the debate as he had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item.

 

Public Speakers –

 

Leanne Groves (Against) – thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of her family and the surrounding community. It was stated that each parent wanted the best for their children, however imagine if things were taken away from them, this was the case for the public speaker’s child Izzy who had Pitt Hopkins Syndrome. Due to the syndrome the family chose a house which was located away from urbanisation and sound pollution. When purchasing the property the legal advice was that there was no allocation of development within the LDP as the site was in the open countryside with a strong presumption against any development. With this assurance the family purchased the property. Currently there were 7 people residing at Cwtir lane. A development would affect the rural character of the community as the development was not in keeping with the character of existing buildings. There would also be an adverse impact to nature, the development would affect the wellbeing of current residents. The development would have an adverse affect on Izzy as sounds caused distress which was the medical professionals’ opinions. The application could cause Izzy to live elsewhere. The proposed development would cause an already hazardous route to be more dangerous with the increased traffic.

 

Marc Sorrentino (Against) – the application was for a residential development outside the settlement boundary and the application would need to be discussed on the planning policies. The application did not comply with national policies PPW and with local planning polices RD-1 and BSC-10. The application did not meet policy RD-1, and did not comply with BSC-10 as the outskirt was not defined, the walking distance was through a farm, which was not an adequate entry way. This application was not on the outskirts. The fact that the application did not comply with the policies was a robust enough reason to refuse the application. Much has been made of the provision to the Gypsy and Traveller and sites. The Welsh Government guidance highlighted the amenities should be developed at a suitable location, however the public had been made aware that other sites which were more suitable on policy grounds and within settlements had been discussed prior on the process of allocating a site.

 

Trudy Aspinwall (For) – who was team manager of the travelling ahead project who worked with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families in Wales and thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the family who would live at the proposed development at Cwtir lane. As advocates for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families it was good news that Denbighshire was proposing a development, the news was appreciated especially with the recent hard times for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families as there have been a loss of traditional stopping sites, and Councils have not rushed to develop sites. This would cause the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller, to be moved, evicted and moved again or retreat into bricks and mortar housing, which would lose them family links and culture, these were negative impacts on the families. In 2014 the Welsh Government legally recognised the needs and rights for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families for appropriate accommodation and put the duty on local councils to meet this need. This would allow Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families to live with their extended families, it would also allow access to decent facilities, the family would be as any other tenants within Denbighshire, and they would pay rent, council tax and utility bills. This would allow families to maintain constant education, health care, employment and a permanent base within their community, it was something we would want for all families in Wales. It was highlighted that there was discrimination towards Gypsy, Roma and Travellers which made it hard for local Councillors as there would be a large amount of objections from locals. The proposed development was small and would have little impact on the local community. The duty of the local authority was clear, the decision should not be for a family to prove themselves, however they believed it was important that the committee knew that the family were a Denbighshire family and had been in the community for 46 years. The children attended Denbighshire schools and worked and contributed to the community, they were Welsh speaking. This was the opposite of the image which was portrayed of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families. The family had decided to remain private and stay dignified during the whole process.

 

Paul Luckok (For) – thanked the committee for allowing him to speak, there were many people across North Wales who were supportive of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller culture, and commended Denbighshire County Councillors for bringing this application to this stage, and the officers for all of their hard work with the report. The public speaker believed there were no planning matters on which the application could be refused. Denbighshire County Council assessing the needs for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families was a legal requirement. The public speaker understood some of the concerns and objections raised by local residents within the report, however many of the objections were not based upon planning matters and urged that local residents speak with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families and realise that there were no threats to their ways of life from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller culture. The family which the application was aimed towards were from Denbighshire who had lived in the area for generations and were a part of the community. The public speaker understood the fears of surrounding residents especially for the family with a child with an illness, the family who would move into the proposed development also had family members with illnesses and would understand the needs alongside the existing residents. The speaker urged Denbighshire County Council grant the application.

 

General Debate – the chair queried whether any members who attended the site visit had any comments prior to allowing the local member to discuss the item. Councillor Christine Marston, outlined that whilst on the site visit it was apparent that the proposed area for development was rural, and the access roads to the site were very narrow.

 

Councillor Peter Scott (Local Member) – thanked the chair for the opportunity to speak. It was raised that there was a need for Gypsy and Traveller sites within Denbighshire, however the proposed location was not suitable for the application which was being discussed. Historically there had been developments proposed for the site, however none were granted planning permission. Councillor Scott stated that if the application was permitted it would cause a precedent as it was contrary to planning policy BSC10, ‘Use of greenfield sites for development should be strongly avoided or strictly controlled, in favour of brownfield or previously developed sites’. The site would be developed on an open field outside of the boundary for St. Asaph, which would cause the loss of hedgerows due to landscaping work. The development would be in contradiction to Local Development Plan Policy RD 1, ‘requires development to protect and where possible to enhance the local natural and historic environment’. Safety concerns were also raised with the roads to the proposed development site, which were not suitable as the road was narrow, had no street lighting and the speed limit was 60 miles per hour. Lastly the local member highlighted the overwhelming amount of objections which were received by locals in the area, there were also multiple objections from local businesses and the business park.

 

Councillor Meirick Lloyd Davies (Trefnant Ward) ran through the report highlighting areas, it was queried why there was no additional information within the report highlighting previous developments at the site being discussed. Within the report with regards to the road connecting to the proposed development site it stated in the report that there were sufficient passing places, the local member disagreed with this conclusion. The local member highlighted, that he was aware of a local resident who had carried out extensive research in the area in regards to development, the conclusion of which was the land had little chance of development.

 

Councillor Richard Mainon (Bodelwyddan Ward) thanked the chair for the opportunity to speak however highlighted a personal interest in the matter as he was a cabinet member. It was stated that the matter being discussed was one of the earliest items which the new Council needed to deal with, and he outlined that there was a genuine need for Gypsy and Traveller sites in Denbighshire. However the process had been slow, and the proposed site was not appropriate. He stated that he believed it would be beneficial for the matter to be resubmitted into the Local Development Plan which would involve all members and a solution would be found.

 

Officers initially responded to the local members, advising that the site had been assessed thoroughly through the adopted development plan, the most appropriate planning policy to the matter was BSC 10.

 

Members discussed that as they had responsibilities to listen to the concerns which had been raised by the local community and local businesses. It was understood that there was a need for a gypsy and traveller site within Denbighshire however the suggested site was not the best suited. Members queried the definition of outskirts which was stated in the report. Members disagreed with the definition as they felt that the proposed development was outside boundary for St. Asaph, and was in open countryside. Concerns with the road to the site was reiterated as it was a narrow road and would be a risk to anyone who used it, especially with the increased traffic which would be caused by the development. It was also raised following recent weather

 

Proposal – Councillor Andrew Thomas proposed that the application be refused, as the application was a development on a greenfield site in the open countryside. Seconded by Councillor Merfyn Parry.

 

Members queried how many people would live at the site, and what the capacity of the proposed development would be, it was also queried how the site would be monitored.

 

Officers responded stating that the proposed site would be managed no different to any other housing tenancy agreement and would be monitored by the housing team within the Council. The housing team would also deal with the capacity aspect of the development as it was not a planning matter. The application was for a local family, which was 11 people who would live at the site, with 6 pitching areas for caravans. It was clarified that some of the objections which were received were not material planning considerations.

 

Members queried whether there had been correspondence with the traveller family to ensure that the application site was best for them. It was also queried whether there had been enough work carried out with TAN 20 and consideration given to the Welsh Language.

 

The committee were informed that there had been substantial discussions with the family, the family were local and Welsh speaking. The traffic assessment with the road found that roads to the site were acceptable, the increased traffic would have amount to roughly eight cars using the road each hour. There would be more passing places added to the route as part of the proposal. The accident statistics for the road for the past five years also indicated that there had been no accidents recorded.

 

The Head of Legal, HR and Democratic Services stated that at least one sixth of the Members’ present would have to be in agreement for a recorded vote to be held.  More than one sixth of those present stood in agreement to the recorded vote.

 

In favour of officer recommendation to grant – Councillors Mabon Ap Gwynfor and Alan James.

 

Against officer recommendation to grant – Councillors Ann Davies, Peter Evans, Brian Jones, Tina Jones, Christine Marston, Melvyn Mile, Bob Murray, Merfyn Parry, Pete Prendergast, Andrew Thomas, Tony Thomas, and Joe Welch.

 

Abstain – Councillor Mark Young.

 

In favour – 2

Abstain – 1

Against – 12

 

RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED contrary to officer recommendation on the grounds that the development would be contrary to planning policy BS 10.2 with the development taking place on a greenfield site in the open countryside.

 

At this juncture (11.10 a.m.) there was a 20 minute break.

 

The meeting reconvened at 11.30 a.m.