Committee and date Item

North Planning Committee 6 6th December 2011 Public

Development Management Report

Responsible Officer: Stuart Thomas email: stuart.thomas@.gov.uk Tel: 01743 252665 Fax: 01743 252619

Summary of Application

Application Number: 10/02513/COU Parish : And

Proposal : Application under Section 73a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the change of use of land for the siting of 4 chalets and associated parking areas for 4 touring caravans and vehicle parking; erection of washroom/kitchen facilities and creation of new access together with landscaping, car parking and drainage

Site Address : Land Opposite Henlle Park Golf Club Gobowen Shropshire

Applicant : Mr And Mrs J. Berry

Case Officer : Stuart Thomas email : [email protected]

Grid Ref: 330070 - 334747

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Shropshire Council 100049049. 2011 For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made. North Planning Committee – 6th December 2011 – Land opposite Henlle Park Golf Club 10-02513-COU

Recommendation:- Refused subject to the conditions sets out in Appendix 1.

Recommended Reason for refusal 1. The proposed development would introduce a significant amount of new built development, associated infrastructure and domestic paraphernalia into a rural environment. The scale and siting of this development goes beyond the identified needs of the applicant and is not considered acceptable on the basis that it is not located within or adjacent to a recognised named settlement. Accordingly the proposal would lead to isolated and sporadic development that would be of detriment to the wider visual amenities of the locality and erode the rural character of the area. Accordingly the scheme is considered contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS5, CS6 and CS12 together with the associated Housing SPD on Type and Affordability of Housing (March 2011)

2. The proposal is a speculative scheme and, with the exception of the identified applicant, a strong local connection of potential occupiers has not been demonstrated. Such speculative proposals are not in accordance with Shropshire Council Policy as set out in the Housing SPD and the objectives of Core Strategy Policy CS12.

REPORT

1.0 THE PROPOSAL 1.1 The application proposes the siting of 4 chalet bungalows, the erection of a single storey building containing a kitchen, day room, wash room, bathroom, disabled toilet and 3 shower cubicles. Also included is hardstanding areas for the parking of a touring caravan and vehicles associated with each chalet and 5 parking spaces for visitors.

The proposal is part-retrospective as a number of works have already been carried out 1.2 in association with the submitted scheme. It is therefore considered as an application under s73 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION 2.1 The application site is a former landfill site that has been capped. It is located on the western side of Henlle Lane adjacent to the A5, approximately 1km from Gobowen. The site is roughly rectangular in shape, being some 60 metres deep with a roadside frontage of approximately 125 metres. It is relatively flat and covered with crushed stone. The roadside boundary is marked by a natural broadleaf hedge that has been reinforced with fencing. There is another rectangular parcel of rough land on the western side which adjoins the A483 Trunk Road and parcels of grazing land alongside to the north and south. Henlle Park Golf Course is on the opposite side of Henlle Lane.

3.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION 3.1 The application is considered a complex application which, in the opinion of the Development Manager, requires consideration by the Planning Committee.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 6th December 2011 – Land opposite Henlle Park Golf Club 10-02513-COU

4.0 COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Consultee Comments 4.1.1 Selattyn and Gobowen Parish Council – Object for the following reasons; a) Environmental safety- in that the site was for a number of years in the recent past used as an un-controlled tip and various un-specified materials were dumped into the area which may result in the seepage of noxious gases etc which may be harmful to persons residing on the land. Furthermore as stated in the previous comments submitted on this application the Parish Council would request that a full environmental study be carried out to ascertain what was dumped on the site and the current and future environmental risks to the public. b) Traffic safety – in that the traffic route from the site to the A5 involves a dangerous junction with the Gobowen road on the B5009. Whilst it is accepted that this route is well known to local Gobowen residents it posses a greater danger to visitors to the area particularly towing caravans etc. c) Site Safety- in that it is felt that the site borders the busy A5 road and the safety of children on the site will be put at risk. d) Inappropriate application for the immediate area. The area is outside the local development area and will be in conflict with the current use of the site and the surrounding area where there are only two dwelling houses, a golf course and a hotel with leisure facilities. e) Disturbance to public rights of way- in that a public footpath forms one of the boundaries to the site and there a concern that any building on this land will cause disruption and interference with this footpath.

The Parish Council would request that the Planning Committee seriously consider this application and agree with the council’s view that it is inappropriate for the reasons stated above. In addition to this Mr Mennell states in his covering letter that there has been few objections to the application from local residents. The parish council consider this to be a misleading statement as the majority of the objectors to the application reside in Gobowen and these objections clearly show the strength of feeling of the local community in objection to this application. The Parish Council is also concerned that work on the proposed development has continued regardless to the fact that planning permission has not yet been granted and would seek assurance that Shropshire Council will ensure that the applicant carries out no further work on the site until the application is determined.

4.1.2 Environment Agency – Initially objected on the basis of excavation of landfill material. Confirmation has been received from the agent that the proposal would not involve significant excavation of fill material. There may be some minimal excavation in relation to the drainage proposals, however unable to confirm locations of no infill. Advise the submission of a foul drainage assessment and the discharge of effluent to a watercourse will require an Environmental Permit or exemption through the regulations.

4.1.3 Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service – Access for emergency fire services vehicles and water supplies for fire fighting will need to be provided.

4.1.4 Public Protection – In principle has no substantive objections to the proposed end use but raised outstanding issues and requested further clarification on the drainage system, water provision, excavation and treatment of previously excavated material. Also recommends conditions relating to contaminated land, landfill gas and lighting. On receipt of additional information advised no objections to principle of use but there

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 6th December 2011 – Land opposite Henlle Park Golf Club 10-02513-COU

are a number of issues relating to contamination and ground gas, drinking water, foul drainage and the previous landfilled materials that would need final design details before development and hence requested conditions are included.

4.1.5 Ecology – The application has been supported by an Ecological Survey Report by Pearce Environmental Ltd. There were no features for roosting bats on site but it is likely that they are foraging and commuting in the wider area, there are 2 ponds within 250m of the development and existing vegetation has potential for nesting birds. Therefore recommends conditions and informatives.

4.1.6 Rights of Way – initially raised concern that the right of way was being blocked and a formal application would need to be submitted to divert the right of way.

4.1.7 Highways Development Control – Visibility splays of 2.4 by 95 metres will need to be provided and advise that a post and rail fence be erected along the edge of the visibility splay with the hedge planted inside this fence so as to avoid ambiguity. The work will need to be carried out in accordance with current standards. Has reviewed the junction of the lane with the B5009 and the B5009 with the A5 in response to the Parish Council comments and advises that both junctions conform to requirements and as such cannot be classed as dangerous. No objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

4.2 Public Comments 4.2.1 81 letters of representation have been received in relation to this application. The areas of concern raised relate to:

Processes/Validity of Application/Description of Development  The significant amount of additional information that has been requested should be reconsulted upon.  As there are a number of anomalies, and/or errors, and information lacking in the original application, the Council should invite the applicant to withdraw the application.  Works have already commenced on site without intervention of the Planning Authority which would not be tolerated elsewhere.  Have the application forms been amended to correctly show the land owner and the appropriate notices served.  There are discrepancies with the red and blue line edging around the plans.  Land which is being used for the access arrangements has not been included within the application site.  The description of development is inaccurate as not all the development described has been undertaken and is therefore not covered under S73. However as work is continuing during the course of the application the situation keeps changing.  The Design and Access Statement has not been amended to reflect the changes to the application.  Are the alterations particularly with the reduction in height of the facilities block as a result of discussions with Council Officers?  The application form states that the applicants MJ and Mrs M Berry are the owners of the site, however land registry entry shows the land belonging to AR and SS Roberts.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 6th December 2011 – Land opposite Henlle Park Golf Club 10-02513-COU

Principle/policy  The site is in a rural area and therefore unsuitable for residential development.  The Parish Plan and Development Plan for the area do not support this form of development.  The proposal is not supported by National Planning Guidelines.  The site is not identified in policy CS12 or the Site Allocation Management of Development DPD as a site for this form of development.  Policy does make provision for sites of up to 5 pitches however, this application exceeds this. In addition the proposal does not demonstrate the strong local connection as required by policy CS12 and CS2.  The proposal does not comply with CS12 as: the site does not have reasonable access to services and facilities; insufficient information has been provided to show that the design and screening will be appropriate; insufficient details have been submitted to demonstrate that appropriate access, parking and manoeuvring space can be provided; no provision has been made for essential business uses and recreation facilities.  The proposal is contrary to “Saved” policy H19 of the Local Plan and is without merit.  Little has been submitted to demonstrate that basic infrastructure facilities will be provided.  No local need has been demonstrated for the number of proposed pitches.  The site should be cleared and caravans removed to official sites within the county.  Windfall money from the sale of the cattle market should be used to provide a legal and regulated extension to the existing travellers site off Whittington Road, .  The development is out of keeping with the character of the rural area, which has become an area with high quality leisure facilities and a School.  There is insufficient space on each pitch to allow the businesses to continue to operate.  The site is not well screened or easily absorbed into the landscape. The site is an incongruous eyesore in a rural situation.  There is no justification to increase the number of traveller sites in the area. If necessary an extension to the existing site at Park Hall should be considered, which has running water, and adequate drainage facilities.  In view of their behaviour whilst the site is subject to a Stop Notice, there is no guarantee that any planning permission would be complied with.  This application cannot be seen to be an attempt by one family to freely leave an official site and rehome itself on pony paddocks. The provision of six pitches to accommodate 12 caravans with a two storey amenity building must be seen as an attempt to establish a commercial operation in open countryside where normal housing development would be unlikely to gain approval.  Existing successful businesses in the area which employ a number of local people are likely to suffer as a result of the development.  The site is in an unsustainable location as there is no public transport system in this area and therefore any trips would need to be undertaken by private car.  If this permission is granted it would be difficult to prevent further expansion in the future.  Insufficient information has been presented to demonstrate the nature of the businesses proposed for the site. If the business is to be as waste management development and transfer then this should be identified on the application or this use prohibited by specific reference in any planning permission.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 6th December 2011 – Land opposite Henlle Park Golf Club 10-02513-COU

 The applicants state that the proposal is not for residential gain. However, their argument is the need for more residential space.  The applicants state that the proposal is not for a gain in non-residential floorspace. However, the proposal includes a building which is clearly for non-residential use.  The travellers will not contribute to the agricultural or rural use of the area.

Amenity  There are problems with pests entering building adjacent to the site and dogs are being allowed to defecate on the Henlle Park Golf Club.  The proposal will be detrimental to businesses in the area and to the environment.  The erection of boundary fences to replace removed boundary hedgerows will create an urbanised appearance to the site.  The occupiers of the site have a number of dogs which are uncontrolled and have at times proven to be a danger to walkers, joggers, horseriders and cyclists in the area and to users of the golf course. Horses have also been allowed to roam free including onto the highway and the adjacent golf course.  The intimidation experienced will result in the area becoming a no go area for local residents and cause people not to use the leisure facilities in the area.  Nearby residents are experiencing unacceptable problems of loud music, go carts and quad bikes, constantly barking dogs, vandalism, theft, trespass and litter as a result of the occupation of the site.

Traffic/Access  The level of visibility cannot be achieved unless hedgerows are removed which are on land in different ownership. Neither owner will give permission for these to be removed. The Highways Officer confirmed that due to the speed of traffic along this stretch of highway, the requirement would not be reduced.  The added lorry and caravan traffic will cause a danger to other road users.  There is no way that the access can be brought up to an acceptable standard to serve the development.  The current occupiers of the site show no regard for the safety of other road users.  Users of the site are parking on the road affecting the entrance to Henlle Park and to the detriment of highway safety.

Right of Way  A public right of way crosses the site which has been blocked off to the public. No formal application to close the path has been made.  The development will detract from the appearance of the countryside when viewed from the right of way and it will therefore adversely affect the public’s enjoyment of the use of the footpath.

Environmental Issues  The site is unsuitable for residential development due to its being an un-monitored tip where hazardous materials were dumped.  It is assumed that the change in the application boundary is due to discussion with the Environment Agency in order to prevent disturbance of the tipped material. Is this the case?  There is the potential for future occupiers to suffer some medical complaint as a result of the contaminated land. The Council if it approves this planning application may be seen to be negligent in not protecting the health of the inhabitants.  The site is close to the A5 and its associated noise levels which are unacceptable

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 6th December 2011 – Land opposite Henlle Park Golf Club 10-02513-COU

for residential development.  No Ecological study has been provided with the application although it is known that there are Great Crested Newts present in Henlle Park.

Drainage  More information is required regarding the foul drainage disposal on an unmonitored landfill site.  There is no suitable watercourse near the site to enable bio-disc units to function correctly. As no discharge point has been identified and the receiving watercourse accepted as being appropriate, the proposed foul drainage cannot be regarded as being satisfactory.  Surface water run-off maybe contaminated, but no oil traps etc have been indicated on the plans. Therefore the River Morlas may become contaminated.  The increased areas of hardstanding will create a more rapid surface water run-off which is likely to end up in the Morlas Brook with or without soakaway provision as stated in the Desk Study Report.

One letter of support has also been received which has raised the following points:  There is an on going requirement for many more traveller sites in Shropshire  Travellers can provide sites at a lower cost than Council provided sites  Will reduce illegal camping on the roadside

THE MAIN ISSUES  Policy & principle of development  Status of applicant  Suitability of proposed site and availability of alternative sites  Layout of site, scale and design of buildings  Impact on local area and neighbours amenities  Access and highway issues  Impact on right of way  Trees and ecology  Drainage  Other matters

6.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL 6.1 Policy & principle of development 6.1.1 This application is to establish a new site for Gypsies and Travellers which are defined by Circular 01/2006 as being:

“Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their or their family’s or dependants’ educational or heath needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently but excluding members of an organised group of travelling show people or circus people travelling together as such”

6.1.2 The development of such sites, by their very nature, are often contentious however local planning authorities are obliged to ensure that the accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers is assessed and addressed through a plan-led process.

6.1.3 Shropshire Council has a specific policy in the recently adopted Core Strategy (Policy CS12). Policy CS12 is supplemented by additional key evidence and supplementary

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 6th December 2011 – Land opposite Henlle Park Golf Club 10-02513-COU

policies namely;

 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment 2008  Circular 01/2006 Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites (2006)  Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites. A Good Practice Guide (2008)  Supplementary Planning Guidance – Type and Affordability of Housing (2010)

6.1.4 It is this framework which provides a basis for consideration of this application and the key issues are:

 Is there are identified need for provision having regard to best practice guidance?  If there is an identified need, how should this need be met?  What is the status of the applicant(s)?  Is the site in a suitable and sustainable location?  Is the site reasonably accessible to services and facilities?  Is suitable access provided?  Are all other relevant planning considerations deemed acceptable?

It is consideration of these issues which forms the basis of this report.

6.2 Need 6.2.1 At a national level Gypsies and Travellers are estimated to make up less that 1% of the population of England, but only a proportion of gypsies and travellers live in caravans. July 2005 Caravan Count figures show that there are around 16,000 gypsy and traveller caravans, with around three quarters of these on authorised sites.

6.2.2 In a Shropshire context accommodation needs have been identified in the sub-regional Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment. Through the Core Strategy Shropshire aims to facilitate the provision of 79 residential pitches up to 2017. It is intended that this new pitch provision should be balanced between pubic and private sites. The wider need is therefore not challenged and case law has established that, for Gypsy and Traveller applications, the balance between rights of the individual and the rights of others has to take into account the difficulties faced by this recognised ethnic group in finding any suitable sites on which to live, that respect their culture. This legal situation means that the identified need for Gypsy and Traveller sites is a material consideration which must be given significant weigh by Committee in reaching any decision.

6.2.3 The circular advice is clear that local authorities must allocate sufficient sites for gypsies and travellers, in site allocation through a plan-led process. Importantly this process would make an appropriate assessment of alternative sites as it would for housing and employment land allocations. This work is due to commence in early 2012 and will be aligned with the work this Council is doing to promote a “bottom-up” planning strategy in close consultation with town and parish councils. In effect the applicant is asking the authority to consider a part retrospective proposal in advance of this process taking place and this “development management” process does not allow alternatives to be considered; only the scheme in front of the Authority.

6.2.4 Accordingly it could be argued that the development would “jump the gun” before allocations have been considered and adopted thereby potentially prejudicing the fairness and effectiveness of the local development framework process. This view must

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 6th December 2011 – Land opposite Henlle Park Golf Club 10-02513-COU

be carefully balanced in planning terms against the identified need and the weight that must be attached to this issue in the decision making process. If the scheme was considered to be acceptable in planning terms this would be a difficult planning case to argue in isolation. However, as assessed further within this report, the scheme is not considered to comply with adopted planning policy.

6.3 Status of applicant(s) 6.3.1 The supporting statement submitted with the application details the local connection of the applicants, Mr Berry, his wife and 5 children. The family have recently resided on a private site near Oswestry and then at the Council owned site at Park Hall. Mrs Berry was born and brought up at Park Hall and the family have had to move due to overcrowding and a long waiting list. Mr Berry works locally and the children are educated at school in Gobowen. Accordingly the family have shown a clear and very strong local connection and this has been confirmed by the Council Gypsy Liaison Officer.

6.3.2 It is important to stress that only one of the chalets will be occupied by Mr Berry and his family. The other three chalets and associated works are entirely speculative and despite repeated requests to the applicant to identify who would occupy the additional plots no further information has been forthcoming. The analogy should be drawn with the Council’s approach to housing in “exception” locations in that we would consider favourably a single plot where local connections are met but we would not consider favourably speculative proposals. There is nothing in adopted policy or the circular advice to say that Gypsy and Traveller sites should be treated any differently in this respect and Policy CS12 is clear that for sites in open countryside for 5 or less pitches a strong local connection must be demonstrated.

6.3.3 Accordingly officers do not challenge the local connection of Mr Berry or his dependants however adopted planning policies do not make provision for speculative proposals particularly in advance of a proper plan-led process to allocate sites to meet the identified need.

6.4 Suitability of proposed site 6.4.1 In planning terms there can be no doubt that the site is located in open countryside. It is not within an identified settlement and does not relate to the pattern of built development in the area. The Council has an adopted “rural exception site policy” for housing development and Circular 01/2006 is clear that rural exception site policies for gypsies and travellers should operate in the same way as rural exception site policies for housing. Policy CS5 of the adopted Core Strategy is therefore relevant. Policy CS12 is supplemented with the advice contained in the Housing SPD and that set out specifically in Policy CS12.

6.4.2 Each case is treated on its merits however such developments should be within or adjacent to a “recognisable named settlement”. A settlement always comprises a group of houses occupied by households by different families. The group becomes a settlement due to the number and proximity of houses in the group. It is a combination of these two factors that determine whether the dwellings constitute a settlement. Because a settlement is a relationship between different properties, the limits of the settlement are defined by where the relationship peters out and this would vary from settlement to settlement dependant on a number of factors.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 6th December 2011 – Land opposite Henlle Park Golf Club 10-02513-COU

6.4.3 In this particular instance the application site is located between the A5 and Henlle Lane, 1km north of Gobowen and on the opposite side of the minor road to Henlle Golf Club. The site is approximately 350 metre from the road junction which marks the beginning of the development boundary for Gobowen. It is located in a typical rural setting which is not uncommon to Shropshire and there are no dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the site which would constitute a settlement. Whilst Gobowen is in close proximity it could not be said that this site is within Gobowen which has a defined development boundary. Neither is it adjacent to this development boundary and is separated by agricultural land. This is a view supported by the Parish Council which is particularly relevant given the advice contained with paragraph 5.16 of the Housing SPD.

6.4.4 In addition to the above Policy CS12 criteria states that sites should be “reasonably accessible to services and facilities”. Guidance on interpretation of this criteria is found in the Housing SPD. This guidance states that sites may be further outside settlements than would normally be allowed for other development in the interests of promoting a peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community. This guidance is a material consideration in the planning judgement which is to be exercised given the individual circumstances of a case. In this case this judgement is finely balanced and a determining factor in this regard is the scale of the proposed development.

6.5 Scale of Development 6.5.1 The proposal would introduce a substantial amount of new built development in this rural setting including the provision of a large amenity building, access gates, associated parking and access provision together with domestic paraphernalia. In essence the applicants are seeking to create a settlement where one does not already exist. A single unit to accommodate the named applicant and his dependants could be better assimilated into the landscape that the scheme currently proposed and would not require the provision of the amenity block or the associated infrastructure works on this scale. Landscaping is proposed however it would take time for this to become an effective “screen” for the site and would not address the fundamental concerns regarding site location and scale. The three existing caravans on the site are currently visible from both roads and the additional works proposed would exacerbate these impacts.

6.5.2 Accordingly it is considered that, on balance, the introduction of development and associated infrastructure would have an adverse impact on the overall character and appearance of the area. In addition the development site itself does not relate well to the existing pattern of development and would result in isolated and sporadic development to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area. Core Strategy Policy, Housing SPD and the Circular advice are all clear that in such circumstances such reasons are grounds to refuse private schemes.

6.6 Access Arrangements 6.6.1 Access to the site is in the south east corner of the site off Henlle Lane and is an existing access. There is space within the site for parking and turning of vehicles, including vehicles towing. The main concern raised by officers is visibility from the access in both directions. The Highway Officer has advised that visibility of 2.4 X 95 metres needs to be provided in both directions. Concerns have been raised by local representations that the level of visibility cannot be achieved unless hedgerows which

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 6th December 2011 – Land opposite Henlle Park Golf Club 10-02513-COU

are on land in different ownership are removed, the added traffic will cause a danger to other road users and users of the site are parking on the road affecting the entrance to Henlle Park and to the detriment of highway safety.

6.6.2 The amended plan shows the work requested by the Highway Officer and further evidence has also been provided regarding the land ownership which confirms that the necessary splays can be achieved on land within control of the applicant or the highway authority. It is therefore officers opinion that the proposed access is acceptable and the use of the site as proposed will not result in unacceptable levels of additional traffic or be detrimental to highway safety. As such the scheme complies with the requirements of CS6 and CS7 on this matter.

6.6.3 The Parish Council have also raised concerns about the junctions from the Gobowen road on the B5009 and the B5009 onto the A5. In response the Highway Officer has undertaken a further site visit and has confirmed that both junctions meet the requirements which were in force at the time of their construction and as such can not be classed as dangerous or substandard. There is no objection on highway grounds subject to the visibility splays, location of the gates and details of the access and drainage being appropriate.

6.6.4 The concerns from local representations relating to the A5 were that children and animals could get onto the trunk road. This is a valid concern but is not specific to this site, any children or animals from properties or farms around the A5 could get onto the road, the risk is not considered to be any greater for this application than for any other use along the road and as such it is not given significant weight by officers in the consideration of the application.

6.7 Impact on local area and neighbours amenities 6.7.1 Substantial objection has been received on the basis of the impact of the proposed development on local amenity. These objections include the impact on the existing businesses at Henlle Park Golf Club and The Lion Quays, the impact from dogs, noise and vehicles and the loss of the existing boundary hedge and its replacement with a close boarded fence.

6.7.2 A number of the objections have arisen as the applicant has moved onto site in touring caravans and is occupying the site with limited site security. It is acknowledged that the site is opposite Henlle Park Golf Club, however there is no reason that the site would not be self contained and secure if permission was forthcoming. The fear of crime is a material consideration but is one given limited weight by officers in this instance.

6.7.3 There are no residential dwellings within close proximity of the site, the nearest buildings are those associated with the golf club and as such the proposed development will not result in any loss of light or overlooking. The Lion Quays, a local hotel and leisure facility is further along the A5 and therefore some way from the application site.

6.8 Other Matters 6.8.1 Contaminated Land With regard to the sites previous use a report was submitted with the application which provided details of the previous use and tests undertaken for gas monitoring. The

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 6th December 2011 – Land opposite Henlle Park Golf Club 10-02513-COU

previous use was as an inert landfill between 1993 and 1999 and restoration works were completed in 2001. PPS23 deals with both applications for potentially polluting developments and for other uses on or near potentially polluting developments and seeks to minimise the risk to human health. The report submitted details that the materials in the landfill are predominately soil, rubble, stone, concrete and small amounts of asbestos, metal, timber and other biodegradable waste, the site was not a general tip and did not include any household waste. The conclusion of the report author is that there is a low to moderate risk to future occupants from the infill materials and gasses and that this risk can be managed and monitored with regard to the use of the permanent building on site and ongoing residential occupation. This report and additional information submitted during the consideration of the application has been assessed by the Council Public Protection Officer and Environment Agency Officers. The advice received is that the principle of the occupation of the site by gypsy chalets and the amenity block is acceptable and that, subject to additional gas monitoring for which Public Protection will be responsible, the site can be occupied in this form.

6.8.2 Impact on right of way Footpath 8Y Selattyn and Gobowen (0310/8Y/2) runs along the outside edge of the north western boundary of the application site then cuts across the site and through the hedge. The footpath was blocked by the applicant and this raised objections from local residents, the Parish Council and rights of way officer. The Parish Council are also concerned that the development will adversely affect the users of the right of way and representations have raised that the development will detract from the appearance of the countryside when viewed from the right of way and it will therefore adversely affect the public’s enjoyment of the use of the footpath.

6.8.3 During the consideration of the application the applicant and agent have met with the rights of way officer and discussed the options. The conclusion is that the right of way is to be reopened in its current position and the applicant will install a gate and style to enable access along the short section that cuts through the site. As such the development will not directly affect the right of way. It is acknowledged that local representations have raised concerns about the future use of the footpath across the site due to the occupation of the site, however this is not considered to be a planning matter.

6.8.4 Trees and ecology The application has been supported by an Ecological Survey Report by Pearce Environmental Ltd. There were no features for roosting bats on site but it is likely that they are foraging and commuting in the wider area, there are 2 ponds within 250m of the development and existing vegetation has potential for nesting birds. The Council Ecologist has advised that the development will not have a direct impact on statutorily protected species, including Great Crested Newts.

6.8.5 Drainage and water supply Surface water drainage from the new buildings and hard standings is proposed to utilise the existing land drainage system, however the amount of surface water runoff could be reduced by the use of permeable surfacing.

6.8.6 Foul drainage is proposed to be dealt with through the installation of a biodisc system. This is the most appropriate form of foul drainage where a connection to the mains is not possible. The nearest mains foul drainage system is at the junction of Henlle Lane

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 6th December 2011 – Land opposite Henlle Park Golf Club 10-02513-COU

and the Gobowen Road and the applicants have assessed the cost and implications of seeking a connection to this main and determined that they would make the scheme unviable. As such a biodisc is proposed. Biodisc systems are the most effective form of private treatment plant and reduce the contamination discharge the most. The proposal is for the outfall from the Biodisc to connect to the existing culvert and this will require an Environmental Permit or exemption from the Environment Agency.

6.8.7 Although local residents have raised concerns about the amount of surface water, they have also raised concerns that the culvert adjacent to the site does not have sufficient water to enable the discharge of the foul drainage system. The surface water drainage system is already in place within the site and it is considered by officers that the level of surface water drainage will not be excessive.

6.8.8 Concerns have also been raised regarding the water supply to the site. The agent has advised that there is a current supply, however the applicants connection to this is currently not lawful and they will need to seek consent from Severn Trent for a formal connection to be made.

6.8.9 Processing of Application Objectors have also raised concerns about the processes, validity of the application and the description of development at 4.2.1. In response to the first bullet point a full re-consultation was undertaken when the application was changed from static caravans to chalets and as such all representatives have had a further opportunity to comment. The second, fourth, fifth and eighth bullet points relate errors and the need for further information, the agent was made aware of all of these issues and additional information has been received. With regard to the land ownership queries, the application form is as submitted and the applicant has signed to state that they own the land. Design changes and highway issues have already been dealt with in this report.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 To conclude the issues in respect of this application are finely balanced. In the wider Shropshire context it is accepted by officers that there is an identified need for site provision for Gypsy and Travellers and this would be given significant weight. It would be desirable for this need to be met through an assessment of sites and suitable alternatives through a proper plan-led process. The identified applicant meets the local connections policy set out within the Core Strategy and Housing SPD. However the speculative nature of the other three plots is not acceptable and would run contrary to planning policy in this regard. In addition to this view the site itself is not considered acceptable on the basis that it is not located within or adjoining a recognised settlement and would give rise to sporadic and isolated development to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area. In forming this view particular regard is had to the scale of proposed development in this location. According the application is recommended for refusal as contrary to the requirements of Policy CS12 and CS5 of the Shropshire Core Strategy and associated Housing SPD.

8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT AND OPPORTUNITIES APPRAISAL 8.1 Risk Management There are two principal risks associated with this recommendation as follows:

 As with any planning decision the applicant has a right of appeal if they disagree with the decision and/or the imposition of conditions. Costs can be awarded

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 6th December 2011 – Land opposite Henlle Park Golf Club 10-02513-COU

irrespective of the mechanism for hearing the appeal - written representations, a hearing or inquiry.

 The decision is challenged by way of a Judicial Review by a third party. The courts become involved when there is a misinterpretation or misapplication of policy or some breach of the rules of procedure or the principles of natural justice. However their role is to review the way the authorities reach decisions, rather than to make a decision on the planning issues themselves, although they will interfere where the decision is so unreasonable as to be irrational or perverse. Therefore they are concerned with the legality of the decision, not its planning merits. A challenge by way of Judicial Review must be a) promptly and b) in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose first arose.

Both of these risks need to be balanced against the risk of not proceeding to determine the application. In this scenario there is also a right of appeal against non- determination for application for which costs can also be awarded.

8.2 Human Rights Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community.

First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact on residents.

This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

The vulnerable position of gypsies as a recognised minority is a material consideration in planning under Human Rights Law. Section 19A of the Race Relations Act prohibits racial discrimination by Local Authorities in carrying out their planning functions, it also actively seeks to eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote good race relations between gypsies and the settled communities. Neither the Human Rights or Race Relations Acts give gypsies the right to have sites which would contravene planning control, however if the proposal complies with planning policy a Local Planning Authority can not refuse the application on the basis of the applicants gypsy status.

8.3 Equalities The concern of planning law is to regulate the use of land in the interests of the public at large, rather than those of any particular group. Equality will be one of a number of ‘relevant considerations’ that need to be weighed in planning committee members’ minds under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1970.

9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 9.1 There are likely financial implications of the decision and/or imposition of conditions is challenged by a planning appeal or judicial review. The costs of defending any decision will be met by the authority and will vary dependant on the scale and nature of the proposal. The financial implications of any decision are not a material planning consideration and should not be "weighed" in planning committee members' mind when reaching a decision.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 6th December 2011 – Land opposite Henlle Park Golf Club 10-02513-COU

10.0 BACKGROUND

Relevant Planning Policies

Central Government Guidance : PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Communities PPS1 – Supplement – Planning and Climate Change PPS3 – Housing PPS23 – Planning and Pollution Control Circular 01/06 (ODPM) – Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites

West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies :

Core Strategy and Saved Policies : CS5 – Countryside and Greenbelt CS6 – Sustainable Design and Development Principles CS7 – Communications and Transport CS12 – Gypsy and Traveller Provision SPD Type and Affordability of Housing

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY :

10/04071/AGR Erection of an agricultural storage building PRRQD 2nd November 2010 SC/MO1993/8368/OS Landfill Waste Disposal Site PERMIT 17th March 1994

11. Additional Information

List of Background Papers (This MUST be completed for all reports, but does not include items containing exempt or confidential information)

Cabinet Member (Portfolio Holder) Cllr M. Price Local Member

Cllr Trevor Davies

Cllr David Lloyd MBE

Appendices

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665