Extraordinary Meeting 30th October 2024

        
Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of Rippingale Parish Council, held in the Village Hall on Wednesday 30th October 2024
Present: Cllr B Ross (Chair), A Creek (vice-chair),  Cllr J Jones, Cllr A Lumb, Cllr Catt and L Davies        (Clerk).
In Attendance: Cllr R Dixon-Warren, J Kimbrey, A Knigton, S Creek, R Everson, I Misselton, S Misselton, J Everson, H Kerr, F Kolokotroni, S Wetherill, J Allarrd, M Ayles, R Ayles,A Birkett, S Birkett, P Read, P Read, J Elliot, M Streval, J Tyler, J Dixon, R Waston, B Laybourne, D Laybourne, T DiMascio, L Broddle, D Sankey, M Exton, J Exton, S Burtt, K Gray, L J Cooke, S Hall, B Charlton, P Ward, Ward, A Rowledge, L Rowledge, G Ireland, M Williams, N Williams, C Caston, P Caston, J Waterson-Zend, G Purring, J Rowntree, D Burrell, I Burrell, G Nolan, T Ray, K Taylor, S Atkinson, S Rowntree,P Watkins, S Watkins, W Savey, L Wisker, L Wisker, C Whisker, K Lumb, C HarrisonR Tudge, I Aiden, F Andrews, Damion, S Creek, A Cliffe and W Grey. There were no Press in attendance.

                                4th November 2024
Chairman’s Opening Statements

1859. Cllr Ross opened the meeting with a welcome to a very large public attendance (circa 120). He felt that some clarification was necessary following some social media comments. Councillors received this application on 15th October 2024 and immediately began considering the options for a response from the Parish Council.  This is the normal procedure followed by Councillors who discuss and consider ALL planning applications.  This application has not been treated any differently to any other. At the monthly Parish Council meeting held on 24th October 2024 attended by many members of the public, there were many  expressions of concern about this planning application. Following an extended public forum at the start of the meeting, Councillors decided to hold a separate extraordinary meeting of the PC (subsequently arranged for 30th October 2024) to discuss this application. The Chairman made clear that the anonymous leaflet that most people had received, had nothing to do with Rippingale Parish Council which had no involvement in its production. Does  not agree with its content, nor its circulation and that it will not be discussed at this meeting  He did advise that its publication had actually been unhelpful in Councillors preparation for this meeting. Cllr Ross reminded al present that all planning applications are available to view by the public on SKDC’s Planning Portal and on RPC’s website and this one was available on 15th October 2024. Finally, the Chairman reminded everyone that any objection to any Planning Application must not be based upon prejudice or discrimination against any group of people and RPC will not support nor condone any objection that may seek to do so. 
Formal Meeting Agenda 
1.    To receive Apologies for Absence and approve Reasons Given.
1860.  None, all councillors present, but there still 2 seats open, if anyone wishes to apply.
2.    To discuss and review the Planning Application S24/1278 
2.1.    Outline of Application:-
1861. This Application is for:- “ Full Planning permission for a Change of use of previously developed land to stand a residential static caravan and a touring caravan for Gypsy /Travellers, works to existing building to convert it to a dayroom and ancillary works on the Land To The Rear Of The Old Surgery at 155 Station Street”.  The Chairman confirmed that the application was made by a Single Family unit.
Cllr Creek summarised the historic timeline associated with this application:
30 Oct 2015 - S11/1091/LDE  [Lawful Development Certificate (Existing?)] – Applicant Mr J Bateman -   Use of land for storage of two vintage tractors and a single lorry | Rear Of Doctors Surgery Station Street Rippingale Bourne PE10 0TA . Sept 2020 S20/1527 -  Planning Application for 3 Bedroom House submitted by Mr S Stables.  Rippingale Parish Council offered no objections. SKDC Planning Officer’s report stated – “The proposal would be development on the edge of a settlement, without clear evidence of substantial support from the local community, it therefore does not therefore accord with Local Plan policies SP3 and SP4.  Furthermore, it would be out of keeping with the existing pattern of development in the area and would extend the village boundaries. There are no overriding material considerations that indicate otherwise and therefore the application is recommended to be refused” 
10    Dec 2020 - Applicant (Mr S Stables) Appeals
9  March 2021 - SKDC provide an Appeal Statement that concluded:-
“It is considered that there are no other local or national planning policies which override these policy conflicts, therefore, for the reasons stated on the decision notice, the local planning authority would respectfully request that the appeal be dismissed.”
26    May 2021 - The Planning Inspectorate dismisses the appeal.
April 2024    - In line with Government National Planning Guidance, SKDC issued a call for traveller sites across the country
24    July 2024 - Planning Application S24/1278 submitted by Mr & Mrs Simms
24  October 2024 - Planning Application Validated and sent to Parish Clerk
15 October 2024  -  Planning Application was posted on RPC website  and Councillors began their considerations of it.
2.2.    1862. Cllr Ross then outlined what the Parish Council believes to be valid reasons to comment on this application. Parish Councillors are of the opinion that, if the residents of the village wished to put in an objection, then, subject to confirmation by residents, it must address proper material planning considerations.  It may be beneficial at this point, to explain what a “material planning consideration” is:- In general, the courts have taken the view that planning is concerned with land use in the public interest, so that the protection of purely private interests such as the impact of a development on the value of a neighbouring property or loss of private rights to light could not be material considerations.”
Possible material planning considerations could be:
2.2.1.    SKCD have advised that it will use its Local Plan, Policy H5 – “Gypsies and Travellers” in its consideration of this application. Policy H5 may be summarised as follows:
•    Acceptable living environment 
•    Safe and adequate access to highways
•    Reasonable access to shops, health services and schools
•    Not identified as an area at risk of flooding
•    Be respectful to the settled community 
SKDC’s refusal of a previous application (S20/1527 stated that the proposed development did not accord with Local Plan policies SP3- Infill Development, nor Policy SP4 - Development on the Edge of Settlements. Furthermore, it would be out of keeping with the existing pattern of development in the area and would extend the village boundaries. The development of this site would extend the pattern of development beyond the existing built form, so Policy SP4 is relevant and has not been complied with.
Rippingale Parish Council do not see that there are any overriding material considerations with this further application, and it is felt that granting the application may set a precedent to further planning considerations in the village.
However, it must be noted that this previous application was for a Dwelling House, whereas this application is for a Traveller Caravan so previous statements may not be relevant.
2.2.2.    There is a evidence that this site could be at a HIGH risk of Flooding.
SKDC Local Plan policy H5 -  paragraph d)  states that proposals could be supported where “the site is not identified as an area at risk of flooding in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment”.  
In that assessment (SFRA), at Appendix B Fig 11, the area is shown to be at level 2 risk of Hydraulic Sewer flooding. 
Government Planning Policy for Traveller Sites states:- “ ....do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional flood plains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans.”
Government long term flood risk data states that “the highest risk of flooding at this location is from surface water” and that the “yearly chance of flooding is HIGH”. 
Additionally, the EA Flood Map shows that the area is at High risk of Surface Water flooding (our experience supports this conclusion), so, at a minimum, a Flood Risk Assessment would be required to accompany this application.
2.2.3.    Other issues – Local facilities, incorrect designation of adjacent property (Doctor’s Surgery/Health Centre), non-touring caravan, Listed building in close proximity.  All of these may be considered to be minor issues and may not therefore be accepted as “material planning considerations” by the Planning Authority.
2.2.4.    The Chairman then stated that, in order to ensure a balanced and informed discussion on this matter, and in response to comments raised on social media and other platforms, the following facts about the Applicant family should be known:
•    Jim and Ann Simms, who purchased the site about a year ago, have been living there for about 5 months with their four children, who all attend local schools and have apparently settled in well.
•    The caravan, which was in place when Mr & Mrs Simms bought the site, had been there for quite a long time and had already been connected to all services, including drainage. 
•    The family is in the process of clearing the site of the scrap, debris and detritus left by the previous owner.  Mr & Mrs Simms have said that the lorry presently on site, is to be removed soon. (actually removed 1st November 2024)
•    They also intend to clean up the access road, which is owned by them, and to tidy the area around the dyke on the verge on Station Street which is also owned by them. Hedge clearing and re-fencing at the rear of the plot is also on their agenda.
•    The Simms family has been seen to be trying hard to settle into our community and wish to continue to do so having already formed a good relationship with their immediate neighbours.
•    The site of this planning application is directly opposite two Grade II listed buildings (North View Farmhouse and House to the East of Gladstone Villas). These buildings are one of 4 historical sites in the village and form the east entrance to our village on Station Street. Our community is hugely proud of Rippingale’s history, celebrates it, and strides to protect and preserve it for its current residents and future generations.

3.    Public Comments/Forum
1862. The Chairman opened the meeting to take comments from the public and these are summarised below, (in no particular order):-
3.1.    “What is the size of a Gypsy family? – This comment was rejected by Councillors as irrelevant to the reasons for this meeting
3.2.    “What happens if the application is refused?” – Cllr Ross advised that it would probably go to Appeal. He also stated that the applicants’ planning advisor has said that, should this happen, then he was confident of success. However, Cllr Ross reminded everyone that a previous appeal on this site had NOT been successful at appeal.
3.3.    “What about the old cars on the site?” – Councillors advised that the cars were not on the applicants’ land but were on the adjacent land belonging to the occupants of the Doctor’s Surgery and that they are the subject of separate actions by the Parish Council
3.4.    “Why did we not know about this application until 24th October 2024 PC Meeting, when it was sent in on 24th July 2024?” – Cllr Ross advised that SKDC’s validation of the application took until 14th October 2024, when it was sent to RPC Clerk who immediately posted it on RPC’s web-site. It was also noted that the timing of this posting meant that it would have missed inclusion in the Village Newsletter which has a deadline of the 14th of each month for receipt of information.
3.5.    “Previous Change of Use approvals (Drs Surgery) has resulted in the old cars problem. Will this application result in similar negative impact, especially as there are two Listed Buildings opposite the applicants’ site?” – Councillors did not believe that this would be the case and reminded everyone that the “old cars” issue is not relevant here.  However, Councillors agreed that the proximity of the Listed Buildings would be included in its objection should they vote to submit one.
3.6.    “This is for one pitch, could more be placed on the land?” – Clerk advised that other pitches would have to apply for planning, just like this application.
3.7.    “I have met this family and they are just trying to make a life for themselves.  They have already made significant improvement to the site and intend to do more.  I will be supporting this application” – The Chairman thanked the speaker for putting forward a positive opinion.
3.8.    “ I also will be supporting this family as they have not been a problem and are already trying to settle into the community!” – The Chairman again thanked the speaker for helping to keep the discussion balanced
3.9.    Cllr Lumb reminded everyone that the site was opposite two listed buildings and that any development must take this into account. It was agreed that this point would be included in the Parish Council’s submission to SKDC

4.    Actions: 
4.1.    By Rippingale Parish Council 
1863. It was proposed that RPC submit an objection to this application based upon the valid material planning considerations above. Councillors  votes unanimously to submit an objection. 
4.2.    By members of the Public 
1864.    The Chairman reminded everyone that the RPC objection would be counted as ONE objection by SKDC.  If residents of Rippingale wish to lodge an objection or a comment to support the application, then it is up to each individual to examine the available documents and decide if they wish to send in an objection themselves. Any objection MUST be based upon proper material planning considerations, NOT on prejudice or discrimination against any group of people and RPC will not support nor condone any objection that may seek to do so.
1865.    The Meeting was closed

Next meeting: General meeting 11th November 2024 at 7.00pm in Rippingale Village Hall
Laura Davies