BROMHAM PARISH COUNCIL
BROMHAM PARISH MEETING TO DISCUSS THE APPEAL FOR PLANNING APPLICATION14/11270/FUL 1st SEPTEMBER 2015
(Draft Minutes)
PRESENT: 11 Parish Councillors, Mr David Pearce – Planning Consultant, WC Councillors-Anna Cuthbert and Jonathan Seed. Approx. 100 Parishioners
1. Welcome by BPC Chairman Mr Peter Paget: Mr Paget made introductions and welcomed everyone attending. PP said there is enormous strength of feeling in the Parish about this issue. 655 letters of objection were sent in when the original application was lodged. Wiltshire Council Planning Officers refused to grant permission. We maintain our position that the application is in conflict with several parts of the Wiltshire Core Strategy."
2. Mr David Pearce – Planning Consultant: It has been agreed that Mr Pearce would represent the Parish Council at the Appeal, his draft proposal was circulated. DP explained his response based on Wilshire Councils reason for refusal. DP also explained the Appeal procedure, although the date and venue has not yet been set,
when this has been confirmed it will be advertised on the website, all who commented on the application will be informed of the date and venue. DP also informed parishioners that all comment previously made will be sent to the inspectorate, so they do not need to be resent. The Appeal is a public meeting open to all – even just to observe. The Appellant will have a chance to address any new relevant points raised. It is usual that the Appellant has the final comment.
The inspectorate will inspect the site with a planning officer, the Appellant/representative and any others involved.
DP also encouraged parishioners to form groups with a spokesperson to present their comments; comments could be on other concerns raised such as Sustainability, loss of agricultural land, ecology and highway safety, but it is important that all comments are based on Planning grounds.
It was agreed that when the appeal date is confirmed another Parish Meeting would be arranged to co-ordinate responses/groups etc.
DP also commented on the Appellants Access Statement that has been submitted.
3. WC Councillor Anna Cuthbert: Councillor for Bromham, Rowde and Potterne spoke of the need for residents to be heard, saying "This is a complex issue that is not one for a new elected member to cut their teeth on. We are incredibly fortunate that Cllr Jonathon Seed, who was overseeing Bromham prior to me being elected, when the original application was lodged, has agreed to support me at the appeal hearing. We can use his considerable experience in gypsy and traveller planning matters and make sure that the Inspector has the views of all the residents who wish to raise them”
Cllr Jonathon Seed said, "Residents in Bromham have acted with extreme dignity and grace whilst dealing with the original planning application, which was refused due to the harm the development would cause to the landscape. There are substantial other reasons for refusal that will also be presented to the Planning Inspector in order that the original decision can be upheld. I am confident the Inspector will agree with the refusal. Anna and I are available to discuss this matter with local residents”.
AC is very willing to help parishioners with their comments, and very much appreciates JS knowledge.
4. Open Discussion: Some of the many questions asked and then answered by DP are listed below:
· Core Strategy – need across the county for sites to be provided?
· Landscaping impact.
· Former appeals for Gipsy/traveller sites around the country.
· Temporary and permanent permission for sites and their implications.
· This is the First application in the East of the county to be determined by Core Policy 47, the decision was made by councillors and did not go to committee.
· Travellers? – new Government legislation proposals discussed. Travellers will be asked for evidence of travelling. DP quoted the National Guidance for Gipsy/Traveller sites Para. 23.
· Appellants original application was based on a personal need, is there still a need now that Semingtom has been granted extra traveller/gipsy pitches?
· Necessity for a ‘bund’? -In the amendment this was replaced by a hedge. The necessity for any screening was also discussed.
· Existing tracks/access to properties now unfenced, therefore it was felt this application is not sensitive to other settlements. It was felt that it was essential that the Inspector walks these tracks/access.
· Section 6 of the Appellants statement has addressed reasons for refusal, but not any other reasons raised or matters of concern.
· Concern that anyone could apply for a site as a traveller, but applicant must comply with legislation.
· There could be financial elements to an Appeal. If Appellant is unsuccessful they can only go to the High Court if the Inspector has done anything deemed as unlawful.
DP answered every question/query asked very professionally and in detail.
Parishioners were given details of the Inspectorate’s address and also told that the online portal still has a closing date for comments being 27th August, but all comments will be accepted until the 10th September. But this is the deadline – comments received after this date will not be submitted.