Proposal: Change of use of the land to create 4 pitches for an extended Traveller family

Several Committee members voiced frustration at the lack of allocated Traveller sites available in Surrey, the Borough and the rest of the South East and that the Council did not currently have a 5 year supply of Traveller plots. It was noted that Runnymede had an up-to-date local plan that had sort to meet some of this need and was one of the few authorities in Surrey to make progress in this area. However it was recognised that more pitches would be required in the future, and that this would need more engagement with the Traveller community and local residents to reach a favourable outcome for all parties. 

The Head of Planning advised that the future planning policy would need to give due regard to overall need and how/if it could be met. The current local plan had been a significant milestone in identifying provision, and whilst the updated local plan would build on this work it was possible that need could continue to remain unmet as demand for pitches nationally continue to grow, and due to the significant constraints of the Borough including Flood Plain and Green Belt. How future need would be met would be informed by National Policy including the Emerging NPPF and future iterations of the Borough Local Plan, decisions must currently be made in accordance with both current policy and current material circumstances.

In response to questions about the removal of trees, whilst it would be possible to compel the applicant to provide trees for screening and amenity purposes, it would effectively be accepting the retaining wall as a permanent feature if the trees were to remain in perpetuity.

There was concern for the future prospects of the applicants in the event of planning refusal, and the Head of Planning advised that there could be no guarantee that temporary pitches could be found elsewhere in the borough that would be more suitable than this site, any Council alternative might well be “Bricks and Mortar” which is generally not considered ideal by the Travelling community.

A Member felt that provision was being exacerbated by existing pitches not currently being utilised by the correct groups of people, and asked that the site was closely monitored in the event the application was approved.  The Head of Planning emphasised that with monitoring was a fine line between upholding the planning system and not intruding on the applicant’s right to live peacefully and enjoy their home. Given these considerations and the significant local attention to the site, reactive enforcement would most likely remain the most appropriate course of action.

A member sought clarity on the options for the site, and suggested the option for temporary use of the land was increased from three years to five years, this would help align the permission with review of the Local Plan and therefore the picture with regards how the Borough would meet its Traveller provision need was likely to be clearer in five rather than three years’ time, this would also avoid an unnecessary Planning Application to renew the temporary permission where nothing was likely to have significantly changed with regards the circumstances of the applicant or the adoption of new policy. 

Following debate, granting a permanent permission was discounted by the Committee on the basis that such a decision would be made without considering whether or not the decision was consistent with other decisions and without suitable information that such a site is amongst the best options for meeting need.

The committee voted on the proposal to amend condition one to increase the time period from three to five years. Following the amendment of this time period the recommendation was agreed by committee.

Resolved that –

The HoP was authorised to grant planning permission subject to:

                                   i.         Planning conditions 1-7, with an amendment to condition one to extend the time period from three years to five years.

                                  ii.         Addendum notes.

Mr Nigel Eastment, an objector, and Mrs Kelly Rooney, the applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.