On Monday 9^thAugust at 4pm the Planning committee convened at the South Norfolk District Offices to consider the planning application by Mr and Mrs May to change the use of a piece of agricultural land off Gilderswood Lane, Forncett St Peter,  to a residential site for a gypsy family to include standing for 2 no. standing static caravans, 2 touring caravans, a day block (which is basically to provide kitchen and bathroom facilities including a bath), and associated landscaping and fencing. 

This application was partially retrospective since the May family have been in living in a caravan on the site since the 1^st January 2010 and have already put up fencing.

The SNDC Planning Committee recommended that the  applicaton be refused on the grounds of:

1. Highway Safety,
2. Detrimental to character and appearance of the countryside
3. Probable ground contamination

Enforcement action to remove the caravan and lorry body (already on site) is authorised.

For full details and history look on the SNDC web site 2010/0934

It is understood that Mr May will be appealing this decision.

Details of the meeting.

All parties concerned arrived prior to the meeting. SNDC case officer (a stand-in) ws Stewart Pontin. The Parish Council was represented by John Webster. Forncett Residents objectors group was represented by Linda Henderson. The applicant was represented by Candy Sheridan, North Norfolk District councillor and member of the Gypsy Council.

The Meeting.

SNDC gave an introduction to the site. It should be noted that Stewart Pontin was replacing Chris Trett who was the actual case officer, and had been dealing with this for the last 8 months. Mr Trett is on holiday. Photos and plans of the application were shown, also footpaths were indicated.

The Report.

This followed on the lines of

1. Location appeared adequate
2. Highways concerns outlined.
3. Site impact on area
4. Contamination of site possible
5. Ecology – no objections.

The recommendation of the case officer was to refuse with enforcement to remove caravan and lorry body.

Questions from the Councillors

1. What is the width of the road?  S. Pontin did not know, although resident’s letters and highway report stated that it is no more than 2.6 meters at the widest point.
2. Was Gilderswood Lane adopted or not?. S. Pontin did not know: Councillor Spratt said – it must be as SNDC maintain it.
3. Lack of passing places was noted.
4. Ownership of the loke cannot be ascertained.
5. When were photographs taken? 24^thJune Paul Witham of SNDC that obviously trees are in full leaf at present. Visual impact will increase with more caravans, day block and associated buildings. Winter time will be more obvious as trees are deciduous.

This was followed by the objections from the Parish Council (see separate article)

One or two questions asked by councilors such as

1. Incorrect completion of the application form regarding contamination and hedging/trees on  site.

   2.  Where did the footpath run in relation to the site.

This was followed by the Forncett Residents Group objection (see separate article)

Questions asked regarding

1. Width of road – confirmed as 2.6 metres at widest point
2. How was information on number of site visits obtained?
3. How frequently do agricultural vehicles use the road?
4. Queried the heap of hardcore and its production.

This was followed by the applicant’s statement.

The Gypsy family were represented by Candy Sheridan, NND councillor and Gypsy Council

The representative began by explaining her postiitlon and her qualification to speak on behalf of the applicant. Points raised were:

1. The May family have been roadside Gypsies up to now
2. 2006 document still holds sway
3. This is the least visually intrusive site she has ever know.
4. Utility block has been designed to look like adjacent Llama stable with fencing and gates to blend in
5. .. obtaining a highway report in hopes of improving splay area by boundary treatment. Still awaitingn report. Gypsy family will purchase land to make passing places to make passing places/access.

Questions asked:

1. Use of site – confirmed for use of May family only – no other family member will use it.
2. Denied aggregate lorries and cement mixers were for May’s site
3. Said Council had told them to put in cesspit and bore holes – now done.
4. Discussed use of the grass verges round gilders wood for use as passing places

Councillors then discussed the application.  Some wanted to approve the application but not a majority. Deferment was suggested by the Gypsies to await Highways report.

This was rejected and a vote was taken on the current details available for the site.

Result: To refuse – 5, against refusal 1, abstention 1.

It was there fore agreed that the application should be refused.

The may family can appeal . Enforcement action to remove them was approved . Terms of this to followi in due course.

After the Meeting.

Mr May has since told members of the public that despite his denial of the fact to the committee,  the lorries loaded with aggregate and the cement mixer lorries were all bound for his site – where he has put in hardcore and concrete as standing for the planned caravans.

He is now setting about making an appeal against the decision.

Comments

The whole process is a real roller-coaster ride – one minute one decision, the next another. There is no way to question statements made by delegate spearkers except throught he Charir or by councillors, thus challenges to some answser gvien cannot be made nor clarification on some points obtained.

Human rights considerations apply and it may be over a year before any action will be seen. That is as the application stands and does not take into accounta ny appears or rr-applications that may take place.

It is worth mentioning that the objectors were told that if more people had turned up we could have had up to twenty minutes to ask question and demand answers. It is astonishing and disturbing that we were not given this information prior to the meeting.