A PROPOSAL to build two Gypsy and Traveller pitches as part of a major development in Basingstoke has been thrown out of a planning meeting with one councillor slamming the developer for ‘gaming the system’.

Vistry Homes submitted its planning application to build two Gypsy and Traveller pitches on the junction of Winchester Road and Trenchard Lane in Dummer as part of its Hounsome Fields development of up to 750 homes.

The plan for the Traveller pitches is an obligation set out within the Section 106 agreement attached to the outline planning permission for up to 750 houses.

A previous application submitted by Vistry to build for the Traveller pitches on the same site was refused by the council in May 2023 for various reasons.

READ MORE: Gypsy and traveller pitches for new development criticised for being 'isolated'

In the revised application, the developer introduced a footpath connecting the Traveller pitches site to the settled community at Hounsome Fields.

The developer also proposed the height of the fencing around the land would be reduced from 1.8m to 1.6m to enhance the site’s “integration” with the immediate area.

The new plan received around 70 letters of objections from neighbours.

The planning officers recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

However, a development control committee that met on Wednesday, February 7, rejected the application saying the previous reasons for refusal have not been addressed.

Speaking at the meeting, Dummer parish council chairman Julian Jones strongly objected to the proposal, saying it does not comply with Basingstoke's local plan and policies.

He said: “When the site was granted outline planning permission in 2017, a member of your committee required the inclusion of a Traveller’s pitch. The applicant objected strongly to this requirement at the time and has done very little since to accommodate this requirement.”

Melanie Gill, a resident who spoke at the meeting said the application is essentially the same as the previous one, which was refused in May 2023 as it did not meet the policies.

Another resident, Stafford Napier, who also spoke on behalf of Robert Bowden of Southwood Farm, objected to the plans.

He said: “The statement by the applicant that the proposed development has fully addressed the reasons for refusal is patently non-sense.”

However, Lewis Brewer, a representative for the applicant, said the proposal is compliant with all the policies.

“The principal reason for refusal [of the previous application] was a lack of integration between the Traveller community and the settled community. This application has addressed this by providing a footpath link into the settled community and by reducing the height of the boundary fence to reduce the sense of enclosure while maintaining a safe and secure environment for the Traveller community.”

When asked why the developer decided to fence the area if they wanted to integrate the communities, Mr Brewer said it was to ensure the safety of the Traveller community.

But during the debate, Cllr Paul Miller questioned this and said: “I'm sorry but I raised my eyebrows when I heard that. Safety of who? If you want to integrate them, you don't put the fencing up. The revision of the original application is not acceptable at all.”

Cllr Nick Robinson criticised the developer for the plans, but expressed concerns that refusing the application would affect the borough’s housing land supply.

Cllr Robinson said: “Right from the word go on this, the applicant has been as awkward as possible trying not to put this application in. When I asked on the original outline submission why they didn't include the Traveller provision in, I was told it was economically corrosive to the development which I translated as it'll cost them some money.

“It does concern me that if we refuse this application it will have an effect on our housing land supply because it will stop some of the delivery of the Hounsome Field site. It will be disaster for almost all the rural communities around Basingstoke. So I'm really stuck between a rock and a hard place.”

Cllr Ken Rhatigan initially moved a proposal to approve the application so that the borough would meet its target.

“Putting the a Traveller site on large sites doesn't help the settled community. It doesn't help the new community. And in my discussions with the Traveller community they don't like that either.

“Let's just be blunt. The local plan might well have suggested that we move forward with Traveller sites within our large sites. I genuinely think it's an awful policy. We ought to be looking at individual sites and find the right areas for travellers.

“In all good grace, we have failed the gypsy and Traveller community. We have not delivered what we should have delivered in the local plan as stated in 2016. We haven't delivered the five at Manydown and it's hardly surprising that it is difficult for us to do it.”

However, this proposal was voted down by fellow councillors.

SEE ALSO: Permission given to begin first phase of Bramley development

Debating further, Cllr Paul Basham said he was taken aback when he saw the plans.

“This is clear manipulation of the criteria. It's clearly gaming the system against the BDBC's policies.

"I think this is Traveller-wash. The committee needs to send a strong message to developers that try to play these games.”

Cllr Basham’s proposal to refuse the application was carried with six councillors supporting, two voting against and three abstaining.