Councillors who refused an application for a Travellers' site will be told air quality and local service proximity cannot be reasons for refusal.
Instead, South Kesteven District Council's planning committee will be directed to prioritise noise levels and Section 106 contributions concerning the Foston site at a meeting on Thursday (April 18).
Councillors refused plans for the Meadow View Gypsy and Traveller site in Foston for the second time at a meeting in March.
Despite debate, the application, which included 10 touring and static caravans along with utility buildings and stable blocks, was rejected due to unresolved issues from a previous refusal in 2022.
Opponents, including councillors and residents, raised concerns about noise from the nearby A1, air quality risks, the proximity of local services, and the lack of planning obligations to support education and healthcare services.
Additionally, unauthorised occupation of the site prior to planning permission being granted further fuelled objections.
In a report due before the authority, council officers have advised against citing air quality and service proximity as primary reasons for refusal.
“The suggested reason for refusal relating to air quality cannot be justified by any evidence, particularly given that the council’s environmental protection team has confirmed that they have no objections in respect of air quality,” said an officer’s report.
“As such, maintaining air quality impacts as a reason for refusal would be highly likely to result in costs being awarded against the council for unreasonable behaviour in the event that the applicant appealed against the decision.”
They also added that a previous refusal didn't include proximity to local services as a reason.
“It is the officers' assessment that there has been no material change to the application details, which would justify reaching an alternative conclusion, and therefore, including this as a reason for refusal would also risk the council,” they said.
Officers will instead advise the councillors to focus on noise and financial contributions.
“The previous application was refused on the basis that the applicant has failed to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure necessary financial contributions to education and healthcare.
“During the consultation on the current application, it was confirmed that contributions are no longer required towards education; however, contributions towards healthcare are still required.
“The applicant has failed to enter into a planning obligation to secure the necessary financial contribution.”
Supporters at March’s meeting argued to address the shortage of Traveller sites in the district, with the council identifying a need for 34 pitches between 2021 and 2041.
Despite acknowledging the need, councillors ultimately rejected the proposal, citing the importance of fair treatment for residents and the challenges of finding suitable locations for Traveller sites.
