Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
ITEM 7
APPLICATION NO. 09/02695/FULLS APPLICATION TYPE FULL APPLICATION - SOUTH REGISTERED 04.01.2010 APPLICANT Mr And Mrs Powell And Castle SITE Land East Of Steplake Cottage, Wellow Wood Road, West Wellow, WELLOW PROPOSAL Use of land as 2no private gypsy plots AMENDMENTS None CASE OFFICER Mrs Georgina Wright/Katherine Fitzherbert-Green
Background paper (Local Government Act 1972 Section 100D)
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This application is referred to Planning Control Committee (PCC) because the Southern Area Planning Committee (SAPC) concluded the application should be refused for a reason that the Officers advised could not be properly substantiated and would likely result in a risk of an award of costs against the Council if the applicant should lodge an appeal. The application was previously withdrawn from the Agenda of the Planning Control Meeting on the 6 April 2010.
1.2 A viewing panel for the Planning Control Committee took place on Thursday 1st April 2010. It was attended by Councillor’s Kerley, Brooks, Whiteley; Collier. Councillors Guy, Tupper, Dowden, Bundy, Southern and Mrs Whitely all sent their apologies.
1.3 A copy of the Officer’s report and update sheet to the 8th March 2009 SAPC are attached at Appendix A and Appendix B respectively.
2.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 2.1 Since the presentation of the application to the Southern Area Planning Committee on the 8th March 2010, additional information has been submitted to address the gypsy status of the applicants. This comprises a statutory declaration by Mr Powell and supporting letters, to include a letter from the HCC Assistant Gypsy Liaison Officer. A summary of this additional information is detailed below:
1. Statutory Statutory Declaration by Mr G Powell states (in summary): Declaration Mr Powell is not, but his wife is, an ethnic gypsy; Mrs Powell lived at no.1 Plaitford Green next to Mr Powell’s nephew, Terry Castle; Tommy Castle from Treetops, The Frenches is also Mrs Powell’s cousin, with his gypsy status confirmed at appeal;
9 Page 1 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
Mr and Mrs Powell have been searching for their own pitch for a number of years; Mr and Mrs Powell have always travelled for work for part of the year, travelling with Mrs Powell’s brother, Mr Castle and his wife to Wiltshire, Somerset and the Midlands; Travelling occurs for approximately 8 weeks each year, being the maximum amount allowed to prevent Mr Castle losing his pitch at Bury Brickfields; A Notice to Quit land in Winchester is submitted served by Hampshire County Council in May 2009; Travel to all the horse fairs each year (e.g. Appleby, Towerford, Stow-on-the-Wold and Southall, with trips lasting a couple of weeks as trading is done before and after the fairs; Economic income is from landscaping and horse trading; Confirms intentions to not use the land at West Wellow for any business purposes except horse breeding and agriculture; Unaware of any authorised sites that may have vacancies; Experience of southern Hampshire is that the need for gypsy sites exceeds supply; Harassment was received from neighbours when living in New Milton, especially about their son who was excluded from school. Their son has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder with symptoms having improved since living in the caravan; Affidavit is supported by a letter from a Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service at Ashurst which indicates that the current living arrangements are beneficial to the son.
2. Assistant Letter states (in summary) Gypsy Liaison Mr and Mrs Castle are currently resident at the Hampshire Officer County Council Gypsy Site since 2004 at 6 Bury (letter - 06/05/10) Brickfields Park, Marchwood Road, Totton; Confirms that Mr and Mrs Castle do have true Romany Gypsy ethnicity and status; Under the site licence, Mr and Mrs Castle are able to travel for eight weeks of every calendar year and take advantage of this to do so.
10 Page 2 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
3. Twelve letters In summary from a wide Mr and Mrs Castle and Mr and Mrs Powell have stayed on locality to include land at Chapmanslade, Westbury whilst doing hedge Westbury, trimming; Blackmoor, Mrs Powell and brother are known for selling at various Frome, horse fairs (e.g. Applebury, Stow-on-the-Wold, Kenilworth, Crewkerne, Pretty); Trowbridge, Mr Powell and Mr Castle have carried out heavy Solihol, Netley gardening work such as extensive hedge cutting, tree Abbey, Nursling, lopping and digging, being efficient, hard working, Radstock, conscientious and personable; Sholing, Confirm that Mr Castle and his family and Mrs Powell (nee Bramshaw, Castle) are of gypsy origin; No objection to permission being granted to Mr and Mrs Powell subject to tree screening; Families stayed on land at the Donkey Sanctuary, Frome for approx 3 years; Numerous business has been done with both families with D.I Williams Plant Hire and Sales, finding them reliable, trustworthy and respectable; Mr and Mrs Castle are from Romany descent and are well known in the gypsy community, attending gypsy weddings, funerals and horse fairs; Like many Romany families, travelling the roads in the traditional way is almost impossible in England, being moved on by the Police and the Council; If a Romany way of life is to be kept for future generations, then they must be allowed to settle in their own way; Castle family are active New Forest Commoners; Mr and Mrs Castle were born and brought up in the area; Mr Powell has toured in his caravan in Crewkerne area with his family, undertaking work such as renewing a driveway and laying a patio to a good standard and reasonably priced; Mr and Mrs Powell and Mr Castle and family have resided at Fairfield Farm, Trowbridge over the past 10 years, helping to maintain the farm and are welcome back anytime; Mr & Mrs Powell and family and Mr Castle have stayed at Lincoln Farm Truckstop for two to three weeks at a time over the last ten to twelve years.
11 Page 3 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
4. Letter from Confirms that Mrs Powell and her son Michael are Abbey Mead registered with the practice; Surgery, Romsey Michael is under Ashurst Children’s Psychiatry Service and is currently being hope tutored, having previously been excluded from Arnewoods School; Family have felt Michael has improved since living in Wellow, no longer being in contact with ‘previous friends’; He is better outside, occupied with livestock and other family members are local and can assist.
5. Letter from the Mrs Powell, herself a Castle by birth and Jeffery Castle Rector of St are among the most frequent visitors to St Leonard’s Leonards Churchyard at Sherfield English to tend to Castle family Church, Sherfield graves; English These graves are the most frequently visited and best kept graves in this churchyard.
2.2 The supporting information also contained two bundles of photographs of family members, their horses and caravans, however these have been given little weight being unlabelled nor annotated.
3.0 CONSULTATIONS 3.1 The consultation responses are set out in paragraph 5.0 of the Officer’s report to SAPC (Appendix A) with additional responses received following completion of the deferred Planning Control report outlined below:
Planning Policy Additional comments and Transport A request is made to add a further highways condition to (Highways) any permission granted to require an area be provided for on site parking and turning for the number and size of vehicles that the agent has confirmed are owned by the applicants and will visit the site on a regular basis. This area is contained within the area shown as ‘caravan and parking hard standing’ on the site plan; The Highways Officer is aware from photographs displayed at SAPC that one of the applicant’s owns a small lorry and although he has an operators licence for this vehicle to be stored at a location outside Test Valley, it is reasonable to expect it to access this site occasionally.
HCC Ecology No objection.
Legal Services Evidence submitted in support of gypsy status has been considered; The evidence satisfies that Mrs Powell is an ethnic gypsy and that she and her family travel for the purposes of work, albeit for a limited part of the year; Unless there is persuasive evidence to the contrary, the family is properly to be treated as having gypsy status.
12 Page 4 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
Gypsy Liaison Notes that previous comment has been provided on the Officer Gypsy and Traveller ethnic origin and planning states relating to Mr and Mrs Castle who are both resident on the HCC Bury Brickfields site; A Notice to Quit produced in relation to an Unauthorised Encampment on the Northington Chipping Depot – no evidence on file to attribute this directly to the Powell/Castle families. Records show that there were named persons together with ‘persons unknown’ but no direct link to the Powell and Castle families; Concludes due to her relationship to Mr Castle, Mrs Powell (nee Castle) can be defined as being of Gypsy and Traveller ethnic origin; There is evidence of a nomadic lifestyle, with documents (authenticity not verified), indicating Mrs Powell’s status as a ‘person of nomadic habit of life’ and therefore complies with national guidance contained in Circular 01/2006.
Planning Policy The SE Plan omits the issue of Gypsy and Travellers and Transport which is subject to separate Partial Review to allocate (Policy) pitches for Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople; Examination of this Partial Review was held in February 2010 and the Inspectors Report is awaited. It is assumed that, if the SE Plan is abolished, then this element would also be removed; The Circular guidance for Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople requires LPAs to allocate sites to meet the pitch requirements within the SE Plan. In the absence of this, it is reasonable to resort to the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) as a guide to pitch requirement. This is backed by Circular 01/2006; The Hants GTAA identified a requirement for 7 pitches. Since the GTAA was carried out, 5 pitches have been approved leaving a shortfall of 2 gypsy/traveller pitches for Test Valley.
4.0 REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Wellow Parish Objection on the grounds that Mr Powell is not of gypsy Council status and the development is inappropriate in the countryside.
13 Page 5 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
4.2 28 letters from Objections on the following grounds (in summary): A policy document refers to the transit needs of Bridgefoot Farm, applicants. History indicates that sites in Wellow and Sherfield English Sherfield English become permanent and increase Road. housing density; 1 Bridgefoot The Inspector’s report refers to ‘robust monitoring’; Cottages, The Local Plan for gypsy sites is not approved; Sherfield English Regional Development plans are to abolished with Road greater powers and flexibility handed to local authorities. Bank Cottage, The Council should wait for new guidance before taking Spouts Lane decisions on soon to be obsolete and unapproved regional development plans in consultation; Bowles Farm, Notes that Circular 01/2006 intends to recognise and Plaitford protect and facilitate the traditional way of life of gypsies St Brelades, Mill and travellers whilst respecting the interests of the Lane settled community and provides for the definition of Dandys Ford, gypsies; Dandy’s Ford Notes that a dismissed appeal decision near Winchester Lane acknowledged an ethnic gypsy background, however with little evidence of travelling whilst living in a council Elmleigh, Cooks house, the Inspector concluded that the applicants did Lane, Totton not fall within the definition of gypsies and travellers. Meadow There was no justification for granting permission for Cottage, Plaitford non-gypsies to live in caravans; Parallels exist between the Winchester case and at Steplake Lodge, Wellow Wood Road for the same reason of Mr and Mrs Salisbury Road Powell failing to meet the definition of a gypsy in Circular Fielders Farm 01/2006; House, Sherfield The interpretation and scrutiny applied by Test Valley is English Lane failing the local community; New Lodge, Who will prevent any disregard for planning conditions; Sherfield English TVBC has to be non-discriminative and meet targets; Lane (x2) If the application is allowed, then TVBC will be discriminating against the other land owners in the area New Lodge who represent the majority of the people concerned; Garden Wing, Strong rules against siting new homes in the countryside Sherfield English should not be brushed aside to improve statistics; Lane Test Valley is locally renowned for being a difficult area Afton House, to gain permission for any new development but there is Sherfield English a higher proportion of gypsy sites than other areas; Lane Lack of consistency in planning law. Hazelwood Farm, Flowers Retrospective nature of application Lane, Plaitford Retrospective applications should be dealt with in a standard way and this should be established as firm Pound Hill policy now and for future applications with any person Cottage, Pound first seeking permission; Lane, Plaitford
14 Page 6 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
Sinderkins Farm, Persons bringing retrospective applications should be Wellow Drove made to leave if resident on the land, with any The Coach alterations to the land removed and restored to its House, Sherfield original state with planning permission then applied for; English Lane Retrospective applications should not be accepted to save time and taxpayers money; Yew Tree Farm The retrospective nature of the application often means bungalow, that it will be allowed; Sherfield English Object to the organised operation at Christmas or Easter Lane when offices are closed and no Enforcement Officer is Sinds Cottage, available; Wellow Drove Inhabitants have pre-empted the regulations; Plaitford House, Enforcement should seek immediate removal of the Pound Lane residential static units; The Agent was fully aware of the proposal and did The Old Orchard, nothing about it, and at worst colluded in it. Spouts Lane Woodpeckers, Location Wellow Wood Wellow Wood is deep countryside and should be Road respected for having characteristics people want when walking the lanes; Yew Tree Farm, Bringing children so far out into the countryside will Sherfield English deprive them of sensible social interaction; Lane The site should be within easy reach of schools and Greylands, medical facilities; Wellow Wood Location is outside the development area and within an Road important fringe to the New Forest National Park. It is Wellow Wood not an area where residential properties would normally Cottage, Wellow be considered; Wood Road Loss of good quality agricultural land and back up grazing to the New Forest; Ivy Cottage, Located on greenbelt land; Wellow Wood Loss of amenity being spoiled by unsightly development Road (with being visible from Wellow Wood Road, Steplake Lane accompanying and the public footpath; Briefing Note) The area is of great natural beauty and the footpath is Manor Farm, well used; Church Lane Significant detrimental impact on the immediate One letter of environment from works already undertaken; unknown Further encroachment of deleterious gypsy address encampments into an important farming area with many environmentally sensitive features; Concerns regarding sewage;
Possible damage to the roots of larger trees;
Jays Orchard is an eyesore and an additional gypsy site will be unsightly and spoil the area being clearly visible from Wellow Wood Road.
15 Page 7 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
Community effect In any truly rural area, an influx of gypsy families with their insular way of life will not have an affect on the local community; There is an effect of creating communities of same groups (as similar in inner cities) and common sense would suggest that if they are to be part of the community they must not dynamically increase in numbers in relation to the established population; The density of sites in that part of Wellow is that there is the appearance that Officers have decided that gypsy sites there will satisfy Government pressure, giving local people little chance to be part of the planning process; Additional information is totally irrelevant. Local concern is with maintaining the village as a quiet, safe, family friendly environment; Similar plots elsewhere suggest that there is a massive impact on the overall community and safety and the right to peace in general; True Romany’s should be found sites. The continuing growth of such sites in this area is becoming overloaded and hard for the local community; Although children attend local schools, there is little mixing within the community or participation in local events; Additional sites are likely to increase the splitting of the community and increase segregation of the village; Other similar families living in static homes tried to get separate planning permission and have been refused; Applicants with special status have targeted this area and is in danger of changing from agricultural to an area of traveller and gypsy sites; Less than 1% of England’s population are gypsies and travellers but only a proportion live in caravans. Wellow Wood contains 9 houses and estimated 17 residents and if The Orchard and the current application are taken into account, the proportion of gypsies in Wellow Wood would be close to 40% of the population; More gypsy and traveller sites in and around Wellow with the level of influx not being sustainable; The site has a gate to Steplake Lane and there is concern that the application site will develop into something else by stealth; In reality, no travelling takes place at The Orchard with a skip business in operation for over a year with material brought onto site and illegally burned; Concerns regarding the use of the field to the rear with fears not migrated by conditions;
16 Page 8 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
Harmonious relationships with the settled community have to be taken into account – Wellow Wood Road has 9 houses and one travellers site, with others nearby.
Residential Amenity Noise of the generator and applicant’s outdoor lifestyle will be indefensible to the neighbours; Affecting enjoyment of properties including the difficulty in being able to sell in the future; Site is located immediately adjacent to Steplake Cottage.
Gypsy status The ODPM Circular 01/94 defines a gypsy traveller being ‘a person who has a traditional cultural preference for living in caravans but has ceased nomadic travelling’ and the Hants/IOW study of 2006 notes a lack of data on ethnicity reflecting gypsy and travellers as a separate ethnic group; Plaitford/Wellow Wood area has had a gypsy population for many years, mainly Castles and it is possible that they are related; The gypsies have lived in caravans and now static homes that have never moved and the families lived as part of the community; Under the definition of Circular 01/2006, Mr Powell nor Mr Castle meet the definition of a gypsy; Gypsy status has not been satisfactorily established; The Castles already have a place on the Brickfields site and do not have a need for a new place; The GLO accepts that Mr Castle is of gypsy ethnic origin but no evidence provided to support a nomadic lifestyle for the purpose of making a living; Agent indicates that Mr and Mrs Castle travel for approx 6 months of the year in Somerset undertaking gardening jobs although Mr Castle runs a skip/recycling business in Southampton; In the absence of any evidence to verify that Mr castle has a nomadic habit is difficult to reconcile with someone who runs a skip/recycling business; An inspector indicated that truths in these matters are judged on the ‘balance of probabilities’ therefore in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, Mr and Mrs Castle do not fall within the definition of gypsies; Letter from the Assistant Gypsy Liaison Officer (GLO) does not establish Mr and Mrs Castle meet the definition of a gypsy. It is reported that Mr Castle is away from the site for 8 weeks but she cannot know where he is or what he is doing;
17 Page 9 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
The Assistant GLO states that Mr Castle has been resident at Marchwood since 2004 and the Agent states the length of occupancy to be 3 years. Both cannot be true; Letters of support are anecdotal and hearsay, and do not provide evidence that Mr Powell or Mr Castle travel for an economic purpose; The Castle family misled others at to the purpose of assistance by storing materials used for the construction of the site; Many members of the Castle family are permanently housed in Hampshire and the New Forest with little evidence of seasonal travelling for work; Discrepancy about the length of time spent travelling suggesting that the Castles will loose their place if away for more than 8 weeks; It is accepted that Brenda Powell (nee Castle) is from a gypsy family having lived on a static site. The Powells have chosen to sell their house and buy the field; Dispute that the additional information which confirms the ethnic gypsy status of Mr Powell. It provides character references but goes no further than this; Mr Powell’s reasons for moving from the house and home for 9 years are now different; Mr Powell claims his wife and brother-in-law are ethnic gypsies. This is not accepted and if true, ethnicity alone does not qualify someone to be a gypsy as per Circular 01/2006 and in an appeal case; The wellbeing of Mr Powell’s son is irrelevant with the doctor’s letter based on Mrs Powell’s commentary; No weight can be placed upon the Notice to Quit to link it with Mr Powell; Mr Glyn Darren Powell of Bailey Cross, New Milton is a company director and it would be surprising if there were two Glyn Darren Powells living in this road. It is difficult to reconcile the life style of a company director with a nomadic lifestyle; The co-director for the company is Mr Powell’s father who has lived in New Milton since 1987; Body of evidence suggests that Mr Powell is/has not travelled for a living; Information suggests an intention to reside permanently on the site irrespective of ethnicity; The persons involved are no different from anyone else, they have jobs or run businesses; Commoning rights apply to land and not people unless they own other land with such rights. No disclosure as to whether the applicant’s own additional land;
18 Page 10 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
Ethnic minorities have preferential treatment above the rest of society, omitting democracy and equal planning law. Status should have nothing to do with gaining any planning advantage; New facts are being concocted purely to achieve acceptance of the application, irrespective of the accuracy; No direct evidence of travelling for the purpose of seeking Mr Powell’s livelihood is provided; Original application indicates Mr Powell travels to Wales for 14 weeks per year although the new information suggests that 8 weeks are spent in Somerset and a further 8 weeks at horse fairs – a large commitment of time would be difficult to forget if all statements were true and accurate at the outset; Are the businesses tarmacing or gardening? Implying an intention to travel for work/nomadic lifestyle is incompatible with a wish to remain on site to settle children and undertaken animal husbandary. Settling in Wellow with livestock would be outside of the gypsy definition; Little, if any market for tarmac driveways (as suggested to be a travelling trade), hence the desire of gypsy’s to seek other trades; The report to SAPC accepted the gypsy status of Mr Castle based on the GLO report who confirmed Mr Castle is of gypsy ethnic origin; The GLO indicated that he was aware of Mr Castle and family being resident at Bury Brickfields; The GLO states that he was not aware of the particular Powell family but notes that there are large ‘Powell’ families in the Gypsy and Traveller community. The GLO has not endorsed the Powell family as being gypsies; The advice of the GLO has been ignored re the Powell family, accepting the submission by the agent about the Powell family status; Level of scrutiny is not good enough – the purpose of the GLO is to confirm or otherwise gypsy status; Mr Powell lives in New Milton (since 2001) and the property changing hands in early 2010 with no mortgage on the property.
Local need Policy ESN13 states that to override policy SET03, there must be demonstrated need for the facility; Accepting the need in the absence of any alternative site, without scrutiny, is staggering;
19 Page 11 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
No demonstrated need for the facility to be located in the Borough; Area is in danger of being overrun to its detriment. Whilst there is an obvious need to provide space for those with an alternative lifestyle, it should not be congregated into one small area of the countryside; No overriding need for the facility in Wellow Wood Road; There is no obligation on Test Valley to provide for persons who are not gypsies; The Council have been under pressure to find sites for Gypsy families; but preference to live on an individual site does not equate to overriding need. The family is already on a site; Mr Castle is happy to live at the existing site and gets on well with other families; Both appeals at the Orchard site confirmed the development was harmful to the character and amenity of the area; Not disrupting the children’s education at the Orchard site carried more weight than harm caused to the countryside. Without personal need, the enforcement appeal would have been dismissed – the Orchard decision should be seen as a precedent for refusal as the families are not entrenched and the children are home tutored; The Orchard site granted a personal permission and not, as in the current application to the site.
Traffic Proposed use of the land for a skip hire business resulting in the lane becoming very noisy during early hours; Steplake Lane/Sherfield English Road cannot cope with large traffic on a regular basis, and not skip lorries; Additional traffic on narrow lanes will be hazardous; Dogs frequently rush out of Jays Orchard being dangerous and traumatic for horses; The footpath from Jay’s Orchard is virtually unusable with dogs running free and turnings into it blocked by various sizes of vehicles; Recent increases in traffic in Wellow Wood and surrounding roads, in particular Mill Lane, including in amount of traffic generated by the expansion of the fruit farm; The nature of gypsies’ businesses (scrap metal, gardening, trees surgery etc) means large numbers of vehicle movements (at speed) in single width roads;
20 Page 12 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
More vehicles means more wear and tear, increased noise and associated effect on local residents enjoyment of their homes; All members of the community should be able to walk, ride, cycle in the area without hindrance; Erosion of verges and drainage ditches at near collapse; Problems with parking on the highway and of passing large vehicles at narrow places; The addition of two more gypsy caravan plots will take the capacity of the road to a critical state.
Misc The application is flawed by including a map of a town; The Council should have the responsibility for rigorously verifying the validity/accuracy of any claims so that at least only the genuine needy are assisted rather than agents assisting applicants; Appears that true gypsy status allows anyone with legal expertise to work an application so that the onus of actually finding out the truth is left to local residents; Agents and applicants should be prosecuted for providing untruthful statements; Contradictory statements made between the original application and later submissions. New evidence is misleading, unhelpful and the accuracy is questioned; Fundamental inequity in the process which should require judicial review of Officers actions and internal review of competency, mindset and approach; Another application in the area seeking to create sustainable farming and environmental benefit has been manhandled and treated with zero flexibility; Concerns re further development of the land as it joins Steplake Lane with a new gateway and access created; The agricultural field has been regularly cropped and should not be lost given the changing world, global warming and increase in cost/decrease in supply of fuel – there will be need to grow more food; Properties in Plaitford are unaffordable and people would love to live in a mobile home in a green field area; Young local people have difficultly establishing homes in their own locality and makes it more reprehensible then the planning system is exploited; The land was sold in a private deal and not on the open market. Mr and Mrs Powell have made themselves homeless and have funds to buy again as there was no mortgage on the property; There is no need to live in a portacabin as gypsies;
21 Page 13 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
The use of the land for an inappropriate purpose, not in keeping with the rest of the community and what any other person would be allowed to do with similar land; Seek fairness that concerns are properly considered and that any applicant is treated fairly and in the same manner; Appears that gypsies and travellers can set up home anywhere once land is purchased; Opening of floodgates for all and sundry to buy land and do the same; Anyone with a preference for living in caravans and able to show distant ancestry to Irish or romany travellers can site mobile homes on their land making a mockery of the planning system to which the rest of the population are bound; Could any person getting testament to good character be exempted from following proper planning procedure; Building regulations require new housing to minimise CO2 emissions – will caravans/mobile homes have to meet this standard; A real gypsy travels and lives in a caravan. If a paddock is purchased, then it should be used for grazing animals and building land should be used for building a dwelling to the regulations; The backhanded inappropriate development is unfair, unjust and makes a mockery of planning procedures; Piecemeal erosion of the countryside in a sensitive area is tragic and disgraceful; The Orchard, Wellow Wood Road was refused by TVBC and a planning inspector but TVBC did not issue an enforcement notice in time allowing the applicant to become entrenched on site and bolster a claim in respect of need on the grounds of health and education; Application refused at Southern Area Planning Committee; Strict interpretation of policies, in particular Policy ESN13 is essential to protect the countryside; SAPC report does not give proper weight to local concerns with land incorrectly described in terms of its use and quality; The Copse to the rear of the land subject to planning for an oak barn noted that the copse was designated as a SINC; The SAPC report gives willing acceptance and professionals have a duty to robustly scrutinize, seek and test evidence and not to do so is a disservice to residents and to genuine gypsies; TVBC are a soft target and successes achieved is opening flood gates.
22 Page 14 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
5.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 The purpose of this report is to address the conclusions of the Southern Area Planning Committee, having regard to the policies of the Local Plan. Members of SAPC resolved to refuse planning permission contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, considering that the need for the proposed pitches in this location was not fully justified and therefore constituted unnecessary development in the countryside. Members further concluded that to grant permission would result in a detrimental impact on the countryside location with adverse harm to the visual amenity, the local environment and landscape character, with vehicular movements generated from the site also resulting in harm to highway safety along the local highway network.
5.2 The main planning considerations to this application comprise the principle of the development; the gypsy status of the families involved; the need for such sites in the district; the availability of more suitable alternative sites; impact on the visual amenities of the area, the public right of way, neighbouring amenities and the wider community and highway implications. These were all discussed in the officer report to SAPC which is attached at Appendix A, with the SAPC Update also attached Appendix B.
5.3 Attention is drawn to paragraph 2.1 of the Officer’s report to the Southern Area Planning Committee which incorrectly described land that separates the site from the nearest neighbour, Steplake Cottage, as ‘an area of scrub’. This description should actually state that this land is meadow associated with the dwelling, Steplake Cottage, but which sits outside of the residential curtilage and does not form part of the formal garden for the property.
Demonstration of need 5.4 Members of SAPC expressed concern that the demonstrated need to support the application was not so overriding as to allow for the grant of permission. The reason for refusal from SAPC first refers to Policy SET03 of the Local Plan which seeks restraint of development in the countryside. This requirement however has to be read in context, with Policy SET03 stating that development will be permitted if there is an overriding need or (Officer’s emphasis) if ‘it is of a type appropriate in the countryside’ as set out in further stated policies. Such stated policies include Policy ESN13 (Gypsies and Travellers) therefore giving support – in principle – to the provision of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in the countryside.
5.5 Policy ESN13 itself requires a ‘demonstrable need for the facility to be located in the Borough’ with no distinction made within the policy as to whether this qualifies a ‘need’ to meet an identified shortfall in the provision of plots in the Borough or if the ‘need’ is to be judged on personnel circumstances. The debate at SAPC focused on the personal circumstances of the occupiers, and inferred that the ‘need’ was driven by a desire to reside on private plots in a countryside location, rather than remaining within their former accommodation (as in the case of Mr and Mrs Powell) or at an existing site (as in the case of Mr and Mrs Castle) outside of Test Valley. Furthermore, Members also considered that the case to justify a special consideration (e.g. against reasons of health, education or accommodation) was not sufficient or overriding in this instance to allow the proposed development in the Test Valley countryside, in line with Policy SET03 and ESN13.
23 Page 15 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
5.6 Since SAPC, further information has been provided to support the case for residing in Wellow based on the medical and education needs of the families, in particular in support of Mr and Mrs Powell, with the site providing a more suitable base for the family and, in particular, their son. The case submitted addressing personal need is consistent with commentary within the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment 2007 (GTAA) (as endorsed by TVBC) and guidance within Circular 01/2006 which acknowledges that there is national evidence of increasing numbers of gypsies and travellers seeking a permanent base in order to access services such as education and health. By seeking pitches within Wellow, the applicants would additionally be located closer to family and friends for which the GTAA notes to be the main reason for gypsy and traveller families across Hampshire wanting to move sites. The case submitted for personal need to reside in Test Valley is therefore not considered unreasonable or unacceptable.
5.7 The report to SAPC (paragraph 8.10) outlines that there is an identified need for additional gypsy/traveller plots in Test Valley to meet a current shortfall, with no requirement for gypsy and traveller plots to be distributed across the Borough. Since SAPC in March, there has been a change in position regarding the numerical requirements for pitches in Test Valley. Firstly, there has been the intention expressed by the Secretary of State for the South East Plan to be abolished with the instruction that ‘decisions on housing supply (including the provision of travellers sites) will rest with Local Planning Authorities without the framework of regional numbers and plans’. In the absence of specific reference to the provision of ‘gypsy’ sites (as a separate ethnic group), it is considered appropriate to revert to the GTAA which formed the first assessment of need within Test Valley. Within the GTAA, a ‘need’ for 7 pitches to 2011 was identified, with a total of 5 pitches now, rather than the 4 previously reported, having received permanent permission up to 28 April 2010. The current application for two pitches would fulfil the outstanding ‘need’ reported in the GTAA in the absence of TVBC being in the position to identify any suitable alternative site.
Gypsy status 5.8 The case presented to SAPC (see paragraphs 8.4 – 8.7) accepted that the families qualify for gypsy status in accordance with guidance contained in Circular 01/2006 and had sufficient personal circumstances to constitute a need for occupying the site. Since SAPC, further supporting information has been submitted to qualify the gypsy status as detailed within Section 2.0 which has been accepted by the Council’s Legal Officer, the HCC Gypsy Liaison Officer and also supported by the HCC Assistant Gypsy Liaison Officer. The submission confirms that Mr and Mrs Castle are of gypsy ethnic origin and that Mrs Powell (nee Castle) is also of the same family descent. Numerous representations question the fact that Mr Powell is not of gypsy ethnic origin, which is not disputed. However, Mr Powell has married into an established gypsy family and it would therefore be unreasonable not to allow Mr Powell to reside with his wife and son as a single household.
24 Page 16 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
5.9 Representations received additionally dispute the extent of travelling undertaken to qualify the applicants as having a nomadic lifestyle compliant with the definition (see paragraph 8.4 of the SAPC report) of a gypsy. It has been submitted that the applicants travel for a means of gaining income across Hampshire, Wiltshire and Somerset and also frequent established horse fairs for the purposes of horse trading. In the absence of firm evidence to the contrary, it remains that, on the balance of probability, the extent of travel is sufficient in order to meet the requirements of Circular 01/2006 which makes no stipulation as to the minimal number of weeks to be spent travelling, or the level of income that should be derived from a ‘nomadic habit of life’. Again, reference is made to the GTAA which indicates that, whilst the nomadic habit forms part of the cultural identity for gypsy and traveller households, gypsies and travellers are living increasingly settled lifestyles, travelling only for short periods. The ability to travel is apparently influenced by the lack of available transit sites and stopping places, conditions of any tenancy (as in the case at HCC Bury Brickfields site) and the ability to take children out of school. On the basis of the information, it remains that the families are of gypsy status.
Impact upon the countryside location Visual amenity and landscape character 5.10 The reason for refusal proposed by SAPC places weight upon the potential impact the development would have on the countryside location, with the debate citing the views from Wellow Wood Road and a nearby Right of Way in particular. As the report to SAPC indicates (paragraphs 8.30-8.32), the site does benefit from an existing hedge/tree boundary to Wellow Wood Road, with the eastern boundary comprising a post and rail fence and the site being open to the north. As such, the site is currently apparent from public vantage points and this is acknowledged by the applicant who has indicated a willingness to undertake landscaping to provide screening where none currently exists and to fill gaps in the boundary to Wellow Wood Road.
5.11 The approach to provide additional landscaping is consistent with advice contained within Circular 01/2006 which highlights that ‘landscaping and planting with appropriate trees and shrubs can help sites blend into their surroundings, give structure and privacy, and maintain visual amenity’. Notably, no objection has been raised from the Council’s Landscape Officer, subject to appropriate planning conditions as detailed within the report to SAPC (e.g. Conditions 4 and 5). These conditions seek to provide landscaping details, a schedule of landscape maintenance as well as details of implementation.
5.12 Subsequent to the SAPC meeting, the Landscape Officer has advised that the schedule of maintenance as required under Condition 5 could extend to a period of 10 years given the length of time required for new landscaping to mature. This is not considered to be an unusual, nor unreasonable request. Further conditions (e.g. conditions 12 and 13) have also been added to the recommendation to SAPC to ensure that existing trees would not be adversely affected by the development, as to result in the site being opened up in the future to new views. It is therefore concluded that sufficient means exist to address any harm that could otherwise arise within this rural landscape, thereby protecting the character of the area and visual amenity.
25 Page 17 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
The proposal therefore accords with Policy ESN13 (criteria h) which seeks to ensure that ‘landscaping in keeping within the character of the area is provided’.
Environmental impact 5.13 Members debated the effect of the proposed development upon the local environment, with specific regard to the relationship of the site to the River Blackwater and Sack Copse, which is locally designated as a Site of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINC). Concern was raised that this development would result in harm to these areas of the natural environment contrary to Criteria b) of ESN13 which requires that the siting of gypsy caravans to have ‘no detrimental impact upon the immediate environment or areas of significant, landscape, conservation or strategic/local value’.
5.14 Circular 01/2006 (para 53) specifically advises that ‘local landscape and local nature conservation designations should not be used in themselves to refuse planning permission for gypsy and traveller sites’. The application site in Wellow Wood Road is not located within any area designated for its landscape, conservation or strategic/local value, nor is the site located within any Green Belt or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty as to make the location more sensitive or unacceptable. Land in the applicant’s ownership abuts the River Blackwater to its northern edge, but the actual application site as defined by the red edge is sited approximately 170m to the south. The application site is also 225m (approx) south of the boundary to the Sack Copse SINC. In the event of no objection from the HCC Ecologist, it is considered that a reason for refusal on the grounds of adverse impact upon the local environment against TVBLP policy ESN13 would not be sustainable.
Highway network 5.15 Debate was held at SAPC regarding the highway impact of this development on Wellow Wood Road (for vehicles, pedestrians and horse riders), with the highway forming a local route for vehicles serving the area, as well as being used by residents and visitors to the Equestrian Centre. SAPC raised concern that the highway was of an insufficient width for the number and nature of vehicles attributed to this development, with particular regard to the passing of vehicles in transit or parked outside the site. It was considered that demonstrable harm would arise contrary to Policy TRA09 which indicates that development will not be permitted that has an adverse impact on the function, safety and character of the highway network.
5.16 Circular 01/2006 (para 66) requires local planning authorities to have regard to vehicular movements from such sites, stating that ‘proposals should not be rejected if they would give rise to modest additional daily vehicle movements and/or the impact on minor roads would not be significant’.
26 Page 18 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
As the report to SAPC indicates (para.8.35 – 8.38), a section of each plot will be surfaced to provide for the on site parking, manoeuvring and storage for the caravan/mobile home, a touring caravan, 2 cars and a van that each family intend to bring on to the site, with the surfacing being subject to a planning condition. The use is therefore considered to generate a level of vehicular movement commensurate with a typical residential use and will only occur for part of the year when the families are not away travelling. As such, there is no technical objection from the Highways Officer given the modest level of vehicular movements and lack of any demonstrable harm to highway safety likely to arise. As such, it is considered that a reference to highway grounds within the reason for refusal against Policy TRA09 (Impact on the Highway Network) can not be substantiated.
Other matters Retrospective nature of the application 5.17 Concern was raised at SAPC, and also through representations received regarding the retrospective nature of the application. Members are directed to paragraph 8.42 of the Southern Area Planning Committee, although to reiterate, the Town and Country Planning Act makes provision for the submission of retrospective planning applications. Whilst applying retrospectively is not encouraged, it is not an offence to carry out development and the later seek to regularise the situation with the subsequent application considered on its merits and against the adopted development plan.
Local Community 5.18 Many of the representations received raise concern regarding the number of gypsy and traveller sites within the locality to Wellow Wood and the effect this has on the settled community. Whilst there is no requirement to distribute sites across the Borough, Circular 01/2006 stipulates that ‘sites should respect the scale of, and not dominate the nearest settled community’. No definition is provided as to the extent of the ‘nearest settled community’ and of the 13 gypsy pitches within Test Valley, only one other is already sited within Wellow Wood Road and therefore does not numerically dominate the number of existing properties. Furthermore, the extent of land (0.10ha) given over to the proposed two pitches is not disproportionate in size in relation to existing curtilages of neighbouring properties.
5.19 Within the wider settled community of West Wellow, which extends south towards Salisbury Road (A36), there is only one further gypsy site located at Scallows Lane that contains a total of 5 pitches. Again, given the total number of properties in this wider area, the total of 7 pitches on three sites, is not considered disproportionate to, or to dominate the settled community.
27 Page 19 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
6.0 CONCLUSION 6.1 The application seeks the provision of two plots to be occupied by persons meeting genuine gypsy status, whether this being the persons identified in the application, or any other such families. The application has identified a personal need for the site and also refers to a Borough wide need for permanent pitches for gypsies and travellers in Test Valley. With no alternative provision identified or allocated by the Borough, no overriding harm to highway safety, nor long term adverse impact to visual amenity and landscape character, the site is deemed appropriate for the proposed use complying with policies ESN13 (Sites for Gypsies and Travellers), SET03 (Development in the Countryside) and TRA09.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION OF SOUTHERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 7.1 REFUSE for the reason: 1. It is not considered that there is a demonstrable need for the proposed development in the countryside, which is likely to result in a detrimental impact on nearby visual amenities; environmental and landscape character of the area; and the local highway network. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to Test Valley Borough Local Plan policies SET03, ESN13 and TRA09.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION OF HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING PERMISSION subject to: 1. This permission does not authorise use of the land as a caravan site by any other persons other than gypsies, as defined n paragraph 15 of Circular 01/2006. Reason: to ensure that the site will meet some of the identified need for such uses in the borough in accordance with Partial Review of The Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East Policy H7 and Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006) policy ESN13 (Sites for Gypsies & Travellers). 2. Only one mobile home and one touring caravan per pitch hereby approved shall be stationed on the land at any time and no further caravans or mobile homes shall be introduced without the approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the landscape, residential and visual amenities of the area in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006) policies SET03 (Development in the Countryside), DES01 (Landscape Character), AME01 (Privacy & Private Open Space), and AME04 (Noise & Disturbance). 3. No external lighting shall be installed at the site without the prior written approval of a scheme by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the landscape, residential and visual amenities of the area in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006) policies SET03 (Development in the Countryside), DES01 (Landscape Character), and AME03 (Artificial Light Intrusion).
28 Page 20 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
4. Notwithstanding the details submitted to date, within 1 month of the date of this permission, full details of all hard and soft landscape works including planting plans; written specifications (stating cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities and an implementation programme for the northern, eastern and southern boundaries of the site including the site access, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall also include; proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure and hard surfacing materials (where appropriate). The landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed implementation programme. Reason: To improve the appearance of the site and enhance the character of the development in the interest of visual amenity and contribute to the character of the local area in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policy DES10. 5. Within 1 months of the date of this permission, a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of 10 years shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule. Reason: To ensure that the works undertaken maintain the appearance of the site and enhance the character of the development in the interest of visual amenity and contribute to the character of the local area in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policy DES10. 6. Any gates shall be set back at least 4.5 metres from the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining highway and the access shall be splayed at an angle of 45 degrees from this point to the edge of the highway. Reason: In the interest of highway safety in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policies TRA05 and TRA09. 7. At least the first 4.5 metres of the access track measured from the nearside edge of carriageway of the adjacent highway shall be surfaced in a non-migratory material prior to the use of the access commencing and retained as such at all times. Reason: In the interest of highway safety in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policies TRA05 and TRA09. 8. No further occupation of the site shall take place until space has been laid out and provided for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles to enable them to enter and leave the site in a forward gear in accordance with the approved plan and this space shall thereafter be reserved for such purposes at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policies TRA05, TRA09, TRA02.
29 Page 21 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
9. Within 1 month of the date of this permission, a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to any further occupation of the site. Reason: To prevent pollution of existing water sources and protect nearby conservation designations in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006) policies ENV01, ENV04, ENV09, ENV10 and TRA30. 10. There shall be no storage of any hazardous substances on site, including LPG cylinders, without prior written approval from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: to ensure the safe storage of hazardous substances in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006) policy HAZ05. 11. No generators shall be used on the site until details including numbers, location, hours of use and noise attenuation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any such generator use shall be used in accordance with these approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006) policy AME04 (Noise & Vibration). 12. No formal kerbs shall be installed around, nor other excavation work take place in association with, the new access without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the avoidance of damage to existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan policy DES08. 13. All service routes, drain runs, soakaways or excavations in connection with the same shall remain wholly outside a distance equating to twelve times the diameter of any tree's trunk as measured at 1.5m above ground level without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the avoidance of damage to existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan policy Des 08. 14. Within 1 month from the date of this permission, space shall be laid out and provided for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles to enable them to enter and leave the site in a forward gear in accordance with the area as since shown hatched on the approved plan and this space shall thereafter be reserved for such purposes at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policies TRA05, TRA09, TRA02.
30 Page 22 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
Note(s) to applicant: 1. The following policies in the Development Plans are relevant to this decision: Circular 01/2006 – Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites; PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS3 - Housing; and PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; Partial Review of The Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East – Provision for Gypsies, Travellers & Travelling Showpeople, Policy H7; and Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006) policies SET03 (Development in the Countryside); HAZ03 (Pollution); HAZ04 (Land Contamination); ESN13 (Sites for Gypsies & Travellers); ESN30 (Infrastructure Provision with New Development); TRA01 (Travel Generating Development); TRA02 (Parking Standards); TRA05 (Safe Access); TRA08 (Public Rights Of Way); TRA09 (Impact on Highway Safety); DES01 (Landscape Character); DES02 (Settlement Character); DES05 (Layout & Siting); DES06 (Scale, Height & Massing); DES07 (Appearance, Details & Materials); DES08 (Trees & Hedgerows); DES10 (New Landscaping); AME01 (Privacy & Private Open Space); AME02 (Daylight & Sunlight); AME03 (Artificial Light Intrusion); AME04 (Noise & Vibration); AME05 (Unpleasant Emissions). 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed strictly in accordance with the submitted plans, specifications and written particulars for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority. 3. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken because the development is in accordance with the development plan and would have no significant impact on the character and appearance of the area or the residential amenities of the occupants of adjacent dwellings. This informative is only intended as a summary of the reason for the grant of planning permission. For further details on the decision please see the application report which is available from the Planning Service. 4. Permission is required under the Highway Act 1980 to construct a vehicular access. Please contact the Chief Engineer, Hampshire County Council, Jacobs Gutter Lane, Hounsdown, Totton, SOUTHAMPTON, SO40 9TQ (02380 427000) at least 6 weeks prior to the works commencing for detail of the procedure. 5. Attention is drawn to the content and requirements of the completed and agreed Unilateral agreement that was submitted as part of the application and affects this development.
31 Page 23 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
APPENDIX A
Officer’s Report to Southern Area Planning Committee – 8th March 2010
APPLICATION NO. 09/02695/FULLS APPLICATION TYPE FULL APPLICATION - SOUTH REGISTERED 04.01.2010 APPLICANT Mr And Mrs Powell And Castle SITE Land East Of Steplake Cottage, Wellow Wood Road, West Wellow, WELLOW PROPOSAL Use of land as 2no private gypsy plots AMENDMENTS Amended site plan and layout plans CASE OFFICER Mrs Georgina Wright
Background paper (Local Government Act 1972 Section 100D)
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This application was withdrawn from the last SAPC agenda at the request of the Head of Planning & Building Services due to an administration error with committee notification.
2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2.1 The 0.21 hectare site is situated in the countryside as defined by the Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006) (TVBLP). It is surrounded on all sides by open countryside/paddocks and is accessed directly off Wellow Wood Road which bounds the southern boundary of the site. A post and rail fence currently divides the site from the paddock to the east, whilst the site is currently open to the field to the rear (north, which is also within the applicant’s ownership). To the west, a hedge/tree belt and area of scrub land separates the site from the nearest residential neighbour (Steplake Cottage).
2.2 Approximately 100 metres away to the north, a public right of way (footpath Number 28) runs parallel to the northern boundary (within the aforementioned field that is also within the applicant’s ownership). Approximately 170 metres away from the site’s northern boundary, the River Blackwater also runs parallel to the site boundary. This feature is within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3 but the site is only within Flood Zone 1. Approximately 170 metres away to the east, further along Wellow Wood Road, a site that was recently granted permanent permission (ref: 09/01344/FULLS) for a single gypsy plot exists (Jays Orchard). The site is not situated in, or adjacent to any special landscape designation and none of the trees on the site are protected by Tree Preservation Order (TPO).
32 Page 24 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
2.3 Until fairly recently, the site consisted of open fields (as per the remaining part of the applicant’s field to the north). A new vehicular access has been created in the hedgerow boundary along Wellow Wood Road and currently, two portacabins (used as a single mobile home) and a portaloo have been positioned on the western half of the site, whilst a single caravan has been situated on the eastern half of the site, immediately behind the frontage hedgerow. The site is slightly higher than the adjacent road but is otherwise flat. From the northern boundary, the land rises away from the site in a westerly direction so that from the nearby public footpath it appears to be in a dip.
3.0 PROPOSAL 3.1 This is a full, and part retrospective application proposing the change of use of the site for use as two plots for gypsy families. The submitted plans identify that the new central access will be used to serve both plots. The remainder of the site is to be divided in two, with the Western half being utilised by a family known as Powell and the eastern half being utilised by a family known as Castle. A new septic tank is proposed in the eastern half of the site to serve both plots and new native planting is proposed along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site with screen planting also being proposed at the site access. A section of each plot will be hard surfaced to provide the parking and storage area for the caravan/mobile home, touring caravan, 2 cars and van that each family intends to bring on to the site.
3.2 The application is accompanied by supporting documentation regarding need, and a covering letter setting out the proposals (a Design & Access Statement). During the course of the application, amended plans have been submitted which have slightly altered the site area and provided an altered site layout for the two plots. Additional information regarding the applicants’ machinery/vehicles and potential traffic generation has also been received as well as a Unilateral Agreement (UA) to secure the required public open space and highway contributions from the two new plots.
4.0 HISTORY 4.1 None relevant.
5.0 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Policy No objection subject to financial contributions. The application sites lies within the countryside, as such Policy SET03 is relevant. There is a general policy of restraint against development in the countryside unless there is an overriding need for such a location or it is a type that is considered appropriate. Proposals for Gypsy sites are considered one that would be appropriate subject to meeting the criteria of policy ESN13. ESN13 criterion a) relates to whether there is an overriding need for the facility to be located within the Borough.
33 Page 25 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
Local Planning Authorities within Hampshire commissioned a combined Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment (2006). The results of which were endorsed by TVBC Executive 27.07.07. This document made an assessment of the need for pitches within each LPA. It concluded that there was a need for 7 new permanent pitches in TV up to 2011. This evidence from the GTAA was used to inform the SEEPB partial review of the SE Plan in relation to Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. The partial review will set district based targets for pitch provision. Following consultation the SEEPB are of the opinion that TVBC’s requirement should be 18 additional permanent pitches up to 2016. TVBC have objected to this figure on the basis of the methodology used. The EiP on this issue is due to commence its hearing session on 01.02.10. Whilst TVBC object to the inflated figure there is a recognised need - as evidenced by the GTAA. Since the GTAA the following Gypsy sites have been permitted:- - 09/01938/FULLS - Land adjacent to Love Acre, Newtown Road, Awbridge - one pitch - Decision 18.12.09. - 09/01344/FULLS - The Orchard, Wellow Wood Rd, West Wellow - one pitch - Decision 07.09.09. - 09/00596/FULLN - Beechcroft, Andover Rd, Weyhill - one pitch - Decision 27.04.09. - 09/02469/FULLN - The Stables, Salisbury Road, Lopcombe - one pitch – Decision 28.01.2010.
Whether the application complies with criteria b) - h) of ESN13 will need to be assessed by the relevant officer. Criterion g) refers to the site being well related to local community facilities. The site whilst in a rural location can access both facilities at Sherfield English to the north (garage/ shop/ post office) and the facilities in West Wellow to the south. I am mindful of Inspectors decision (ref Planning 15.01.10 pg 20) which considers facilities between 2km (primary school) and 4km (surgery) as acceptable. Comparable facilities (and good bus routes) are available at this approximate distance. Public Open Space contributions required as per ESN22. Other pertinent policies are DES/TRA/AME.
34 Page 26 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
5.2 Landscape No objection subject to conditions. Note trees along front boundary with Wellow Wood Road which could be affected by position and construction of new access and septic tanks. This could be an issue to resolve with Trees section. New native hedgerow planting along north and east boundary should be secured by condition. This site is in landscape character type 4. 5.3 Trees No Objection subject to conditions. Work has already been done. Access created and hard surface laid - tree damage likely to already have been done. Large Oaks on frontage, one to either side of access with other smaller trees within frontage hedge. Also a large Ash near mid point of western boundary. None of the trees are TPO'd and are not worthy of such protection. Access close enough to trees for works to have occurred within required root protection area - the extent of any damage will depend upon the extent of any excavation associated with laying the access, but these trees are/were not TPOs and there is nothing to be gained by ripping it out now. Potential for further damage - if kerbs were installed or other "improvements" to access implemented. Minimal impact to tree as result of placement of porter cabin. Potential for conflict if excavations undertaken in this area , for example if drains are laid or services trenched in. 5.4 Highways Original Response 18/01/10 Objection. Proposed development is likely to lead to an increase in traffic on the local highway network which is inadequate in its present form to take this type and amount of traffic. Contrary to TRA09 (Impact on Highway Safety) and TRA01 (Travel Generating Development). Revised Response after receipt of additional information about likely traffic generation 26/01/10 No Objection subject to conditions and financial contributions. With the level of traffic being small in both size and number, I withdraw my earlier objection. 5.5 Environmental No objection subject to conditions. Protection
35 Page 27 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
5.6 HCC Rights of Objection. Way Notwithstanding a similar site exists 100 yards along the lane, a site which received planning permission under apparently exceptional circumstances, this particular site being in a countryside setting is not suitable for gypsy plots. Such a site would have an adverse impact on the enjoyment of the public footpath to the north. Despite what is said on the application form, the site is visible from the public right of way. The proposed caravan, tourer and 2 cars and 1 van exceeds the normal provision of vehicles expected for such families. 5.7 HCC Gypsy No Objection. Liaison Officer On Friday 28th August 2009 I made enquiries at The Orchard, Wellow Wood Road where I spoke to Mr Jacob Castle and his wife Sandra and also met their eight year old son Jamie. In my opinion Mr Castle can be defined as of Gypsy ethnic origin and status in compliance with the national guidance contained within Circular 01/2006. With regards to the latter application 09/02695/FULLS by the Castle and Powell families, in the near vicinity to the above. I am aware of a Jeffrey Castle who lives with his wife Bridget and children Susan and Shane at Plot 6 on the Bury Brickfields site, a Hampshire County council owned permanent residential site for the Gypsy and Traveller community. I can confirm that both Mr Castle and his wife are of Gypsy ethnic origin and status in compliance with the national guidance contained within Circular 01/2006. They are both still resident on the site. The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment for the Local Authorities in Hampshire identified that Travellers would prefer to be on small family sites with limited pitches and not to be living on large 'Council' owned sites. There is an identified accommodation need as a result of the Hampshire Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment and this family’s residential development contributes to satisfying that need in the TVBC area. I am not aware of this particular Powell family however I am given to understand that there are large 'Powell' families within the Gypsy and Traveller community. There was a Powell family living on Plot 8 at Bury Brickfields in 2007 but the details do not match those you have provided.
36 Page 28 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
5.8 Ramblers Objection. no point objecting because Mr Castle has been very successful on other sites. applicant constantly defies enforcement actions and TVBC never enforce. HCC has made poor attempts to provide alternative sites. This will result in strip development, and an unnecessary urban expansion of precious farming land. This type of development would never been granted for a local resident even if they were a relative of existing residents as in this case. 5.9 Legal Unilateral agreement was submitted and completed on 12th February 2010.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired 08.02.2010 6.1 Wellow PC Objection. Highway safety. There are enough gypsies in Wellow. Will be an eyesore. Lots of local opposition. Will constitute a change of use from agricultural to residential cartilage. 6.2 Plaitford PC Objection. Clearly visible from Steplake Lane, Wellow Wood Road and the public footpath. Especially in winter and early years before the new vegetation has established. For the consideration of the Orchard appeal, the Inspector said 1 was detrimental. 3 gypsy sites is therefore worse.
Contrary to ESN13 (Sites for Gypsies & Travellers) which states it must have no detriment. No information provided about what the families will do for a living fro the rest of the year when at Wellow Wood Road. Sealed tank is not acceptable. Already lots of gypsies at Plaitford Green and the Orchard.
37 Page 29 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
6.3 Letters 13 letters of objection received from the residents of Willow House, Wellow Wood Cottage, Wood Peckers, Steplake Cottage, Ivy Cottage, Greylands, & Wellow Wood Thatch, Wellow Wood Road; New Lodge, Fielders Farm House, Afton House & Meadow Cottage, Sherfield English Lane; Windgates, Plaitford Green; and 2 Dunwood Manor Cottages, Dunwood Hill. The following comments made: Inappropriate in this area and on Green Belt land. Inaccuracies in the application. Works have already started shouldn’t get it as default of carrying out unauthorised works. It appears to be a foregone conclusion. The EA website says site is at risk of flooding. Trees have already been felled to create the new access. The site is very visible from Wellow Wood Road and the nearby footpath as well as the riding school and private land in the area – unsightly. New access on to Wellow Wood Road is inappropriate and will represent a risk to livestock and their owners. Access causes issues for walkers, riders and church goers. Increase traffic in the area. Represents infill which is prohibited in this area. Reduce value of neighbouring properties. No consistency of treatment between gypsies and non gypsies. Do they comply for gypsy status? No evidence that they are genuine gypsies. Noise from generator. Precedent for other agricultural land. Contrary to SET03 (Development in the Countryside) as it is not essential. PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) says we should protect the countryside for its intrinsic character and beauty. PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) resists new development in countryside away from settlements or areas not allocated in development plans. Loss of high quality agricultural land – used for grazing and silage production. Adjacent Orchard site was only allowed because of the personal circumstances of the family/very special circumstance – going through a divorce, children needed settled school life. None of these apply in this instance. Should not set a precedent. Character of lane will change to that of a gypsy encampment.
38 Page 30 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
Limited local facilities nearby. No local need/need for these plots. 2 other sites identified in the SHOG report where they could move to – Micheldever and little Testwood. Number of vans/caravans exceeds the number permitted on this size of plot. 2 suitably controlled dwellings would be acceptable here, not 2 gypsy plots. Contrary to CP3.4 of the New Forest Park Plan re back up grazing. Contrary to Local Development Core Strategy which states that Local Planning Authorities have a duty to protect such fringe areas that could affect the national park. Contrary to C1a (The New Forest National Park) of draft South East Plan which says should protect the New Forest communing activity. Already very intimidating using the footpath as its passes through the Orchard site. This will be worsened by this proposal.
7.0 POLICY 7.1 Government Guidance: Circular 01/2006 – Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites; PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS3 - Housing; and PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.
7.2 South East Plan: Partial Review of The Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East – Provision for Gypsies, Travellers & Travelling Showpeople, Policy H7.
7.3 Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006): SET03 (Development in the Countryside); HAZ03 (Pollution); HAZ04 (Land Contamination); ESN13 (Sites for Gypsies & Travellers); ESN30 (Infrastructure Provision with New Development); TRA01 (Travel Generating Development); TRA02 (Parking Standards); TRA05 (Safe Access); TRA08 (Public Rights Of Way); TRA09 (Impact on Highway Safety); DES01 (Landscape Character); DES02 (Settlement Character); DES05 (Layout & Siting); DES06 (Scale, Height & Massing); DES07 (Appearance, Details & Materials); DES08 (Trees & Hedgerows); DES10 (New Landscaping); AME01 (Privacy & Private Open Space); AME02 (Daylight & Sunlight); AME03 (Artificial Light Intrusion); AME04 (Noise & Vibration); AME05 (Unpleasant Emissions).
8.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 8.1 The main planning considerations are the principle of the use; gypsy status of the families involved; the need for such sites in the district; the availability of more suitable alternative sites; impact on the visual amenities of the area; impact on the public right of way; neighbouring amenities; and highway implications.
39 Page 31 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
Principle 8.2 The site is situated in the countryside, where as per PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) and TVBLP policy SET03 (Development in the Countryside), there is a presumption against new development unless there is an overriding need for it, or it is of a type appropriate for a countryside location. Despite local concern stating that the development should not therefore be allowed in this location, both Circular 01/2006 and TVBLP policy SET03 (Development in the Countryside) identifies that gypsy and traveller sites are one such policy exception where unlike other residential uses, the use of the site as a gypsy site might be considered acceptable in the countryside. The criteria for consideration of such applications is therefore provided in TVBLP policy ESN13 (Sites for Gypsies & Travellers) and should be considered accordingly.
8.3 TVBLP policy ESN13 (Sites for Gypsies & Travellers) permits the principle of single or groups of gypsy caravans. This general acceptance is however provided that the following criteria are met: there must be a demonstrable need for the facility to be located in the Borough; there will be no detrimental impact on the immediate environment or areas of significant landscape conservation or value; it will not result in the loss of high quality agricultural land; there is no undue impact on the character and visual amenity of the area; the site would have appropriate parking and turning facilities; it would not result in inappropriate activities that would harm the surrounding environment; it is well related to community facilities; and that any new landscaping is in keeping with the character of the area.
Gypsy Status of the Two Families 8.4 In order for TVBLP policy ESN13 (Sites for Gypsies & Travellers) to apply, it needs to be first established if the applicant’s qualify for Gypsy status. Circular 01/2006, which specifically deals with the provision of Gypsy and Travellers, provides guidance to Local Planning Authorities about how to consider planning applications for Gypsy sites. It also provides a definition as to who qualifies for Gypsy status as follows: ‘Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own family’s or dependent’s educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling show people or circus people travelling together as such’
8.5 Some local doubt has been cast as to whether the two families qualify for this gypsy status. The County’s Gypsy Liaison officer has confirmed that Mr & Mrs Castle are a legitimate gypsy family and are of Gypsy ethnic origin and status in compliance with the national guidance contained within Circular 01/2006. They currently reside at a County owned gypsy site in Marchwood but feel it is in the family’s best interest to move to a smaller plot, which is concurrent with the conclusions of the recent Gypsy and Traveller’s Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) which found that such families prefer to live on small family sites with limited pitches rather than large 'Council' owned estate like sites. The Castle family have two children, which are home tutored and they travel for approximately 6 months of the year to undertake gardening jobs in neighbouring counties. They wish to have a settled base where their children can receive constant education.
40 Page 32 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
8.6 The County’s Gypsy Liaison Officer is not personally aware of this particular Mr & Mrs Powell in the gypsy community and cannot therefore confirm their status. However the submitted documentation, accompanying the application, confirms that Mrs Powell is cousins with Mr Castle (the other applicant) and was a Castle at birth. Therefore it is considered that she is of legitimate Gypsy ethnic origin for the purposes of the Circular. Mr & Mrs Powell have one son who is also home tutored and they travel for approximately 14 weeks each year in South Wales undertaking driveway works. They also wish to have a settled base where their children can receive constant education.
8.7 Both families are therefore considered to satisfy the definition of a gypsy family as per the definition set out in the relevant circular and this application therefore needs to be considered accordingly.
Need Personal Need 8.8 As the status of the family is considered to be confirmed, the next consideration is one of need. Mr & Mrs Powell are currently listed as not having any alternative site to live on and therefore their need is accepted. Whilst Mr & Mrs Castle are currently residing on an alternative site, as it is discussed above, the GTAA has confirmed that the existing site is one that is not an ideal solution for such families and smaller sites are required to meet their individual needs. The personal need of the families has been put forward in the submission of the application and given their status, identified above, it is accepted that they have a genuine need for sites.
General Need in TVBC 8.9 With regard the need in TVBC, a recent study (The GTAA), which was commissioned by the Strategic Housing Officers Group (SHOG), a group made up of housing officers from all authorities within Hampshire (including TVBC) with input from planning officers, identified a current need in the borough for 7 additional gypsy and traveller pitches until 2011. The findings of this assessment have fed into the draft policies currently being considered as part of the South East Plan Partial Review, where it has been identified by the South East England Partnership Board (SEEPB) that there is a need for a minimum of 18 pitches in the Test Valley Borough up until 2016. Whilst the latter covers a longer time period than the local assessment, and TVBC are currently objecting and disputing the South East Plan’s figure, the two documents confirm and clearly identify that there is a need in the borough for new Gypsy and Traveller sites, to which these two plots would contribute if permitted.
8.10 Since the original GTAA took place identifying a need for 7 such plots in the borough until 2011, 4 permanent plots have been approved by TVBC, which include the site nearby further along Wellow Wood Road (The Orchard, Ref: 09/01344/FULLS). This means that there is still an outstanding need for at least 3 (according to the GTAA) or 14 (According to SEEPB) plots in the TVBC area. There is therefore still considered to be a need for such sites and the principle of the provision of these two plots on this site is therefore accepted in line with part a) of TVBLP policy ESN13 (Sites for Gypsies & Travellers).
41 Page 33 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
Alternative Sites 8.11 The Local Planning Authority is not currently in a position to identify or offer an alternative site/s for these two families to move onto. Furthermore, it is unlikely that any suitable sites will be identified or allocated until the Area Action Plan stage of the Council’s Local Development Framework (LDF) programme. This stage is not expected to be subject to an Examination in Public until at least 2012 and 2013. Furthermore, the identification of appropriate sites is unlikely to progress very far until the final figure of need (and dispute between the GTAA and SEEPB figures of need) is resolved. The Examination in Public for SEEPB’s Partial Review document only occurred on 1st February 2010 and therefore this SEEPB figure is unlikely to be finalised until later in the year/early 2011. As a result of this timeframe it is therefore unlikely that any alternatives will be identified in the Council’s policy documents for at least another 3 years.
8.12 Local comment has suggested that the SHOG report identified two suitable and available sites for gypsies, which thereby means that there is no need at this site for the proposed pitches and the families should instead be looking at those alternative sites for their permanent plots. However, the two sites identified in this report are at Micheldever and Little Testwood, which are not in Test Valley. The various documents relating to need clearly demonstrate that there is a need in Test Valley for new sites and therefore these two sites would not constitute legitimate alternatives that TVBC could identify for such allocations in order to meet our identified need or that could be used therefore to refuse this current application for two plots in this borough.
8.13 Local Planning Authorities have a right to consider granting temporary permission for such sites that come forward outside of the Local Development Framework timetable if it is felt that there is a need but that this need may be better met by imminent alternative site allocations. As will be discussed in more detail below, for the scheme at the Orchard, further along Wellow Wood Road, the Inspector at the appeal pertaining to that application in 2006, considered that a temporary permission should be granted in the first instance. However this was because there were intrinsic issues with that site which it was considered made it unsuitable in other planning respects but which were outweighed by the identified need for such sites. These included the fact that a public footpath bisected that site and it was not possible to fully screen the development in the landscape from this close public vantage point. That site also had a closer relationship with neighbouring residential properties than the site now before the Council for consideration.
8.14 In this particular instance, the application proposes two permanent plots. If a temporary permission was instead granted, in the above LDF timeframe set out for identifying alternative sites, the 2 families will have settled on to the site, it is likely that their children will have settled into the local schools (as per their intention), and they will have invested a significant capital outlay in order to use the site in this way, such as providing the necessary landscaping etc (discussed below). More importantly however, contrary to the merits of the adjacent site, this site is considered to be more suitable for such a purpose in all other planning respects (as will be discussed below) or can be made so by appropriate mitigating measures being secured by condition. It is not therefore considered to be necessary or reasonable in this instance to only allow a temporary permission for this proposed use of the site.
42 Page 34 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
History of Adjacent Site 8.15 A lot of discussion has been made by both the supporting documents submitted as part of this application and local representation received about this application regarding the planning history for the Orchard site. There appears to be a slight contradiction between the two about how the Inspector considered this adjacent site and what ultimately led to it receiving planning permission. Whilst it is considered that the history of this nearby site is irrelevant to the determination of this current application at this different site, because all applications should be considered on their own merits, given the comments that have been made and possible confusion that has ensued, it is considered necessary at this point to set out for Members the situation and considerations that lead to, in the first instance, a temporary permission and then a permanent permission at this nearby site. The history for this adjacent site is therefore as follows:
8.16 TVS.10154 Erection of polytunnel. Permission - 16.01.2004.
8.17 TVS.10154/1 Retrospective application for stationing of mobile home and trailer. Refused - 08.02.2005. Planning Appeal Dismissed – November 2005. Enforcement appeal allowed – May 2006. Temporary Permission given until May 2009.
8.18 TVS.10154/2 Retrospective application for the creation of access road. Refused - 08.02.2005. Planning Appeal Dismissed – November 2005. Enforcement Appeal Dismissed – May 2006.
8.19 06/02154/FULLS Retention of existing access. Refused - 08.09.2006.
8.20 06/03373/FULLS Retention and reduction of existing access and erection of gates. Permission - 12.03.2007.
8.21 09/01344/FULLS Continuation of mixed use of land for agriculture and stationing of one mobile home and one touring caravan for residential purposes. Permission – 07.09.2009.
8.22 As can be seen from the above list, the most relevant and important applications for the nearby site were therefore TVS.10154/1, which was refused by the Local Planning Authority, dismissed at a planning appeal, but then the subsequent enforcement notice was appealed and at this point the development was given temporary planning permission by the planning Inspectorate; and 09/01344/FULLS which then granted a permanent permission for the use of the plot by a gypsy family.
First Planning Appeal 8.23 The former application however seems to be the one that is causing the most confusion about this site’s status and how planning permission was granted.
43 Page 35 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
This application involved a retrospective proposal to site one mobile home and one touring caravan on a permanent hard base for use by Mr Castle and his family, who described themselves as Romany gypsies. The case officer at the time recommended permission of the application but the application was refused by the Local Planning Authority on 8th February 2005.
8.24 The applicant lodged an appeal against the Local Planning Authority’s decision with the Planning Inspectorate in April 2005. It was heard concurrent with another refusal appeal for the access (TVS.10154/2) at a hearing and both applications were dismissed on 24th November 2005.
8.25 The reasons provided by the Inspector for the decision were that the development would be in countryside where there was an aim to preserve the countryside for its own sake and for its beauty and wildlife; whilst a hedgerow could be successful at screening long distance views it would be an unrealistic solution to disguising the alien and unattractive appearance when seen at close quarters from the public footpath; the use and caravan storage was considered to detract from the otherwise undeveloped rural character and attractive landscape; the access driveway was considered to be unnecessarily wide and was out of character with the area; whilst the Inspector accepted Mr Castle’s gypsy status, as his wife was not a gypsy and they owned a house that until recently had been lived in by the family, the Inspector was not convinced that a permanent caravan site was required by the family; there was no documentary evidence that the children had had a disrupted education or health care as a result of their lifestyle to date, especially given their recent base in a permanent dwelling; the Inspector considered that the site was unsustainable and no issue of need had been adequately demonstrated that would outweigh this concern. Overall therefore the Inspector concluded that the appellant’s own specific needs were not so great as to outweigh the serious harm that the development would have on the character and appearance of the countryside and enjoyment of the public footpath.
8.26 It should however be noted at this point that this decision predated both the adopted Test Valley Borough Local Plan (which was adopted in June 2006), and the most relevant current government advice regarding gypsy applications (Circular 01/2006) which was issued in February 2006.
Second Enforcement Appeal 8.27 In the meantime, and in response to the Council’s decision to refuse the retrospective applications for the use of the site and new access in February 2005, the Council issued an enforcement notice on the applicant. This was issued on 3 August 2005 and the applicant subsequently appealed this enforcement action on 25 August 2005. The enforcement appeal was considered separately/after the planning appeal and in May 2006, the Inspectorate decided to allow the first appeal regarding the use of the site but dismissed the application regarding the access. It was this enforcement appeal decision that ultimately gave temporary permission for the use of the nearby Orchard site to be used for a gypsy plot. The access was later granted separate planning permission by the Local Planning Authority (ref: 06/03373/FULLS).
44 Page 36 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
8.28 The reason for the Inspector’s decision at the enforcement appeal, which effectively overturned the previous Inspector’s decision regarding the planning appeal, was the change in circumstance and legislation that had taken place since the first Inspector’s decision in November 2005. The enforcement Inspector agreed with his colleague that the buildings would harm the appearance of the countryside and detract from an otherwise undeveloped rural character and landscape of the area, especially when viewed from the public footpath; they also agreed that the caravan and mobile home were intrusive features whose retention would conflict with the aims of the national policies seeking to protect the countryside; and he also acknowledged that the development caused a level of impact on the neighbouring amenities of the resident’s of Greylands. However he considered the whole family to be of gypsy status as a result of Mr Castle’s gypsy origin; and unlike his colleague, considered that Mr Castle’s aversion to living in a house, despite having done so in the recent past, was a material consideration that should be given due weight. This Inspector also put weight to the educational needs and stability of the Castle’s children. The Inspector in this enforcement case at the Orchard site therefore concluded that despite the development having a harmful impact on the countryside and residential amenity, the needs of the family and lack of alternative sites outweighed this potential impact and as such the appeal was allowed.
8.29 It is therefore considered that the weight that the Inspector in this latter appeal case gave to some of the personal circumstances of the family and need in the area have to be carefully considered in the determination of this current and any planning application before the Local Planning Authority for consideration regarding gypsy proposals/development. It is clear from this planning history for the nearby site that the current planning policy, legislation and Inspectorate’s considerations of such applications all consider such ‘need’ to be an important factor that can, in some instances overcome or outweigh other factors that may otherwise make the scheme unacceptable.
Character & Visual Amenities 8.30 The site is currently visible in the landscape, both from Wellow Wood Road and the nearby public footpath. Local concern has therefore been raised about its suitability and potential for impact on the landscape character of the area and enjoyment of the footpath. There is existing tree/hedge planting along the Wellow Wood Road frontage which provides some screening of the site from this vantage point but, particularly in winter, this screening is gappy in places and due to the open post and rail boundary treatment along the eastern boundary of the site, can be clearly seen from views further along the Road and at the access point. The site currently being open to the northern boundary is also very apparent from the public footpath, despite the 100 metre intervening distance.
45 Page 37 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
8.31 However the submitted plans identify proposals to implement a new planting scheme both along the northern and eastern boundaries. This mitigation can be secured by planning condition which will enable these longer distance views to be better screened and thus reduce the potential visual harm of the proposals on the landscape character of the area. Further planting is proposed at the site access and it is considered that additional planting along the immediate Wellow Wood Road boundary will also be necessary but once implemented the proposals will have very little impact on the visual amenities of the area or landscape character as a whole.
8.32 Despite suggestions to the contrary, the site is not situated in a Green Belt or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and is not in any particularly sensitive landscape designation that would make the development more sensitive or unacceptable. The land is also not identified as being of particularly prime quality agricultural land. The development of it for such a purpose is therefore considered to be compliant with criteria b), c), d) and h) of TVBLP policy ESN13 (Sites for Gypsies & Travellers).
Neighbouring Amenities 8.33 Unlike the nearby site at the Orchard, further along Wellow Wood Road, this site does not have such a close relationship with, and is not in such close proximity to neighbouring residential properties. The nearest neighbours to the site are those at Steplake Cottage on the corner of Wellow Wood Road and Steplake Lane. The boundary treatment along the intervening western boundary of the site is however fairly dense with mature trees and hedgerows demarking it. There is also an intervening piece of land between the site and this neighbour’s residential artilage which provides an appropriate level of separation between the two units. Indeed the site is approximately 65 metres away from this neighbour’s boundary and 85 metres away from the facing wall of this dwelling. It is not therefore considered that the proposed use will have a significant or unacceptable impact on the amenities of the residents in this property in terms of overlooking, loss of light or shadow.
8.34 The supporting information accompanying the application identifies the amount and type of vehicles and items that the two families intend to bring on to the site. These are considered to be reasonable in terms of a typical gypsy use and any further items or uses at the site can be carefully controlled either by planning condition on this permission or by alternative Environmental Health legislation. It is not therefore considered that the activities at the site are likely to create any particular issue for noise or disturbance either and is therefore compliant with criterion f) of TVBLP policy ESN13 (Sites for Gypsies & Travellers). The Council’s Environment & Health team have suggested a number of conditions to be attached to the permission, however some of these are not considered to be particularly necessary or reasonable for gypsy uses as they seem to relate more to Travelling Showpeople activities such as maintaining rides, which are not normally associated with gypsies. Furthermore, such conditions have not been used in the past for such permissions for other gypsy sites in the borough either by the Local Planning Authority or Inspectors at appeal. It is therefore not considered that these meet the tests for conditions or should be imposed on this recommendation.
46 Page 38 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
Highway Implications 8.35 The Highway Authority originally raised concern about the application and its likely traffic generation given the narrowness and inadequacies of the local road network that serve the site. However the Applicant’s Agent has provided further clarification about the type and number of vehicles that are to be brought on to the site and has indicated the likely traffic generation that would result from these two families. Given this information, which clarifies that each family will have a mobile home, a touring caravan, two cars and a van and the families will generate a maximum of the normal amount of traffic associated with a typical residential use (6-8 movements per day), for only part of the year (when they are not away travelling), the Highway Authority has now withdrawn its original objection.
8.36 The two plots are considered to be large enough to accommodate all of the vehicles and caravans that both families intend to bring on to the site (which as discussed above can also be controlled by condition) and there is also considered to be sufficient turning and parking provision for such vehicles. The proposals are therefore considered to be compliant with TVBLP policies TRA02 (Parking Standards) and criterion e) of ESN13 (Sites for Gypsies & Travellers).
8.37 Another criterion that needs to be considered with regard this type of use, is its location in relation to local services and amenities, as per criterion g) of the relevant policy. Such sustainability issues have also been questioned by local representations. Whilst the site is in the countryside and rural in character, it is considered to be in close proximity to a number of such services in both Sherfield English and Wellow. Furthermore, the other gypsy plot nearby was also considered to be acceptable from a sustainability point of view and in a recent appeal decision for Travelling Showpeople (rather than gypsy’s) at the nearby Plaitford Green site, the Inspector, despite refusing the application overall, also considered the area to be sustainable. In her decision for this other site, the Inspector stated that ‘whilst it is likely that most journeys would be made by car, the fact that the site is within a reasonable walking or cycling distance is nevertheless indicative of its proximity to those services…In my view, taking all relevant factors into account…the site is reasonably close to facilities and this is a sustainable location for a travelling showpeople’s site’. Given these two previous assessments, it is therefore considered that this site is equally sustainable and satisfies the requirements of part g) of this policy.
8.38 Local concern has been raised about the new access that has been created into the site from Wellow Wood Road. However as the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the scheme it is not considered that this represents a concern in terms of highway safety or can be used to refuse the current scheme.
47 Page 39 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
Financial Contributions 8.39 As the proposals involve a net gain in the number of households in the area, contributions are required towards public open space provision and non car modes of transport as per TVBLP policies ESN22 (Public Recreational Open Space Provision) and TRA04 (Financial Contributions to Transport Infrastructure) respectively. These contributions are normally secured by means of a Section 106 Agreement (S106) but as has been discussed above, in this instance the applicant has submitted a Unilateral Agreement (UA). The Council’s legal team have scrutinised the document and have since confirmed that the submitted UA is acceptable.
Other Issues Land Values 8.40 Local concern has also been raised about the likely impact of the development on property/land values in the area and impact on private views from nearby, higher fields and stables. However both of these issues are not planning matters that can be considered in the determination of this application.
Flooding 8.41 Local concern has also been raised about the possibility of the site flooding, given its proximity to the River Blackwater. However the site is not within Flood Zones 2 or 3 and the site area does not exceed 1 hectare. According to the Environment Agency’s standing advice regarding flooding, there is therefore no requirement for a flood risk assessment to be submitted and any potential for flooding is considered to be low risk.
Retrospective Nature of Application 8.42 Much local concern has also been raised about the fact that this application is retrospective and therefore the applicant will be granted planning permission by default. However this is not considered to be the case. There is provision within the Planning Act for people to apply retrospectively for planning permission without penalty for development and such applications therefore need to be considered accordingly. There is nothing within the act to state that the works that have been undertaken to date at this site are unlawful or criminal in act and as such the application has to be determined accordingly on its own merits. If the scheme were deemed to be unacceptable in planning terms, the Local Planning Authority could use its enforcement powers to take action against the development that has occurred to date but would be acting unreasonably to do so before giving proper consideration to the proposals and works that have occurred. Having due regard to all of the issues relating to this type of development, and as is discussed above, it is considered that the works that have taken place and which are proposed at this site are acceptable in planning terms and as such it is recommended that permission should be granted for the development. It is not therefore considered to be reasonable or expedient for any further enforcement action, in addition to what has occurred to date, to be taken against this development at this site.
48 Page 40 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
Back Up Grazing Land 8.43 Finally local concern has been raised that the development of this site, which is on the fringe of the New Forest National Park is contrary to policy CP3.4 of the New Forest Park Plan, the Local Development Core Strategy; and emerging South East Plan regarding backup grazing land and communing activities. However other than the now adopted South East Plan, none of the other policy documents referred to are relevant to the determination of planning applications in Test Valley. The New Forest Park Plan does not relate to land in Test Valley and the Core Strategy has been withdrawn. The now adopted South East Plan policy C1 (The New Forest National Park) states that ‘High priority will be given to conserving and enhancing land and its specific character within the New Forest National Park. The Local Planning Authority (New Forest) and other partners (TVBC) should also develop supportive sustainable land management policies, both inside the National Park and within the zone of ‘New Forest communing activity’, including protection of grazing land outside the National Park…’. However this policy suggests that the detail of such policies should be developed at the local level by the relevant Local Planning Authority. TVBC has not as yet developed any such policy and there is no such policy in the adopted TVBLP regarding this issue. As such there is not considered to be any adopted policy reason that would warrant this application refusable on these grounds.
9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 There is still considered to be both an individual and borough wide need for permanent pitches for gypsies and travellers in Test Valley. No alternative, more suitable sites in the borough have been identified or allocated and the Local Planning Authority is a few years off being in a position to identify any alternative sites. In any event with additional landscaping being secured by condition, the site is also considered to be a suitable site for such a purpose as it is unlikely to result in any harm or detriment to surrounding amenities and will accord with TVBLP policy ESN13 (Sites for Gypsies & Travellers). As such the application is thus recommended for permission.
10.0 RECOMMENDATION PERMISSION subject to: 1. This permission does not authorise use of the land as a caravan site by any other persons other than gypsies, as defined in paragraph 15 of Circular 01/2006. Reason: to ensure that the site will meet some of the identified need for such uses in the borough in accordance with Partial Review of The Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East Policy H7 and Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006) policy ESN13 (Sites for Gypsies & Travellers). 2. Only one mobile home and one touring caravan per pitch hereby approved shall be stationed on the land at any time and no further caravans or mobile homes shall be introduced without the approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the landscape, residential and visual amenities of the area in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006) policies SET03 (Development in the Countryside), DES01 (Landscape Character), AME01 (Privacy & Private Open Space), and AME04 (Noise & Disturbance).
49 Page 41 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
3. No external lighting shall be installed at the site without the prior written approval of a scheme by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the landscape, residential and visual amenities of the area in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006) policies SET03 (Development in the Countryside), DES01 (Landscape Character), and AME03 (Artificial Light Intrusion). 4. Notwithstanding the details submitted to date, within 1 month of the date of this permission, full details of all hard and soft landscape works including planting plans; written specifications (stating cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities and an implementation programme for the northern, eastern and southern boundaries of the site including the site access, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall also include; proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure and hard surfacing materials (where appropriate). The landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed implementation programme. Reason: To improve the appearance of the site and enhance the character of the development in the interest of visual amenity and contribute to the character of the local area in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policy DES10. 5. Within 1 month of the date of this permission, a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule. Reason: To ensure that the works undertaken maintain the appearance of the site and enhance the character of the development in the interest of visual amenity and contribute to the character of the local area in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policy DES10. 6. Any gates shall be set back at least 4.5 metres from the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining highway and the access shall be splayed at an angle of 45 degrees from this point to the edge of the highway. Reason: In the interest of highway safety in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policies TRA05 and TRA09. 7. At least the first 4.5 metres of the access track measured from the nearside edge of carriageway of the adjacent highway shall be surfaced in a non-migratory material prior to the use of the access commencing and retained as such at all times. Reason: In the interest of highway safety in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policies TRA05 and TRA09.
50 Page 42 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
8. No further occupation of the site shall take place until space has been laid out and provided for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles to enable them to enter and leave the site in a forward gear in accordance with the approved plan and this space shall thereafter be reserved for such purposes at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policies TRA05, TRA09, TRA02. 9. Within 1 month of the date of this permission, a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to any further occupation of the site. Reason: To prevent pollution of existing water sources and protect nearby conservation designations in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006) policies ENV01, ENV04, ENV09, ENV10 and TRA30. 10. There shall be no storage of any hazardous substances on site, including LPG cylinders, without prior written approval from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: to ensure the safe storage of hazardous substances in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006) policy HAZ05. 11. No generators shall be used on the site until details including numbers, location, hours of use and noise attenuation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any such generator use shall be used in accordance with these approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006) policy AME04 (Noise & Vibration). 12. No formal kerbs shall be installed around, nor other excavation work take place in association with, the new access without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the avoidance of damage to existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan policy DES08. 13. All service routes, drain runs, soakaways or excavations in connection with the same shall remain wholly outside a distance equating to twelve times the diameter of any tree's trunk as measured at 1.5m above ground level without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the avoidance of damage to existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan policy Des 08.
51 Page 43 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
Note(s) to applicant: 1. The following policies in the Development Plans are relevant to this decision: Circular 01/2006 – Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites; PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS3 - Housing; and PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; Partial Review of The Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East – Provision for Gypsies, Travellers & Travelling Showpeople, Policy H7; and Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006) policies SET03 (Development in the Countryside); HAZ03 (Pollution); HAZ04 (Land Contamination); ESN13 (Sites for Gypsies & Travellers); ESN30 (Infrastructure Provision with New Development); TRA01 (Travel Generating Development); TRA02 (Parking Standards); TRA05 (Safe Access); TRA08 (Public Rights Of Way); TRA09 (Impact on Highway Safety); DES01 (Landscape Character); DES02 (Settlement Character); DES05 (Layout & Siting); DES06 (Scale, Height & Massing); DES07 (Appearance, Details & Materials); DES08 (Trees & Hedgerows); DES10 (New Landscaping); AME01 (Privacy & Private Open Space); AME02 (Daylight & Sunlight); AME03 (Artificial Light Intrusion); AME04 (Noise & Vibration); AME05 (Unpleasant Emissions). 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed strictly in accordance with the submitted plans, specifications and written particulars for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority. 3. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken because the development is in accordance with the development plan and would have no significant impact on the character and appearance of the area or the residential amenities of the occupants of adjacent dwellings. This informative is only intended as a summary of the reason for the grant of planning permission. For further details on the decision please see the application report which is available from the Planning Service. 4. Permission is required under the Highway Act 1980 to construct a vehicular access. Please contact the Chief Engineer, Hampshire County Council, Jacobs Gutter Lane, Hounsdown, Totton, SOUTHAMPTON, SO40 9TQ (02380 427000) at least 6 weeks prior to the works commencing for detail of the procedure. 5. Attention is drawn to the content and requirements of the completed and agreed Unilateral agreement that was submitted as part of the application and affects this development.
52 Page 44 of 45 Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Control Committee – 28 June 2010
APPENDIX B
Update Report to Southern Area Planning Committee – 8 March 2010
______
APPLICATION NO. 09/02695/FULLS SITE Land East of Steplake Cottage, Wellow Wood Road, West Wellow, WELLOW ITEM NO. 9 PAGE NO. 112 - 136 ______
1.0 VIEWING PANEL 1.1 A viewing panel took place on Friday 5 March 2010. It was attended by Councillor’s Whiteley; Leach; Ward; Nokes; Anderdon; and Cooper. Councillors Dunleavey; Finlay; Hibberd; Guy; Bailey; and Collier all sent their apologies.
2.0 CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS 2.1 Plaitford PC Not happy with how previous comments were summarised. The non acceptability of a sealed tank was not judgement of the PC but of TVBC’s environmental Health Officer who did not include it in his list of acceptable methods of sewerage disposal. Did not say there are already lots of gypsies at Plaitford Green & The Orchard but that there were several families (gypsy) at Plaitford Green plus one at Jays Orchard and to add 2 more families in this small area could be a serious challenge to social cohesion.
3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 With regard the first point of the parish council’s, clarified above, the plans submitted with the planning application identify a proposed septic tank to serve the two plots. This is listed as an acceptable choice in the Environmental Health Officer’s comments and is therefore accepted.
3.2 With regard the second point, the clarification is noted. However there is no policy limit or basis for limiting the number of such families in any one area. The relevant policy (TVBLP policy ENV13) does not suggest that there should not be other such families/plots in the area/immediate area or that there is a limit/percentage of the amount acceptable in any one street/ward/area. Therefore just because there are other families in the area does not mean that this application should be refused. It is not also clear why there would be any more of a challenge for social cohesion than if this were to be for a residential property instead of a gypsy plot.
53 Page 45 of 45