Planning Committee Report 19 October 2016

REPORT SUMMARY

REFERENCE NO - 16/503211/FULL APPLICATION PROPOSAL Variation of condition 3 of 12/03241/FUL (Use of the land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for 1No. gypsy pitch) - to allow for an additional 2 no. mobile homes and 2 no. touring caravans for residential purposes ADDRESS 3 Hartleylands Swattenden Lane Cranbrook TN17 3PS RECOMMENDATION GRANT subject to conditions (see Section 11 of the report for the full recommendation) SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION - The proposal lies outside the Limits to Built Development however the merits of the case weigh in favour of the proposal. There is a need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in the area which overrides the presumption against development in the countryside. - The proposal would amount to exceptional circumstances to outweigh the limited harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). - The proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS). The size of the site is considered to be appropriate to its location and constitutes previously developed land. The imposition of conditions can contain the site against extension. It is well screened, of a modest scale and is not considered to be visually intrusive. - The scope for the use of planning conditions are sufficient to grant permission for a residential use for Gypsies and Travellers and it is considered that such a use could be accommodated within the site without significant detriment to the landscape quality of the area. The current access arrangements are sufficient to ensure the safety of local users of the road and footpath network. INFORMATION ABOUT FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL The following are considered to be material to the application: Net increase in numbers of jobs: N/A Estimated reduction in average annual workplace salary spend in Borough through net decrease in numbers of jobs: N/A The following are not considered to be material to the application: Estimated annual council tax benefit for Borough: £317.44 Estimated annual council tax benefit total: £3,174.40 Annual New Homes Bonus (for first 6 years): £1,000 Estimated annual business rates benefits for Borough: N/A as for residential properties- no business rates applicable. REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE Referred by (Acting) Head of Planning Services WARD & PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL APPLICANT Mr M Doran Cranbrook Cranbrook And AGENT Ruston Planning

Planning Committee Report 19 October 2016

Parish Council Limited DECISION DUE DATE PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE OFFICER SITE VISIT DATE 31/10/16 (Extension of 07/10/16 27/04/16, 13/05/16 time) RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (including appeals and relevant history on adjoining sites): Previous permissions covering this site: App No Proposal Decision Date 12/03241/FUL Use of the land for the stationing of caravans Granted 28/05/13 for residential purposes for 1No. gypsy pitch NB: Permission granted for Gypsies/Travellers as defined within the PPTS only – no personal conditions 93/00065/FUL Retrospective - siting of two mobile homes for Granted 22/09/93 residential purposes. NB: Permission granted on a personal basis to Michael Buddy Adams and John Adams and their respective families. The ‘red line’ of this application covers the whole of Hartleylands, including the paddock to the south. Permissions for nearby site (No. 1 Hartleylands) App No Proposal Decision Date 16/505243/FULL Amendment to size and position of welfare Granted 15/08/16 building

14/506867/FULL Stationing of two mobile homes and three Granted 01/05/15 touring caravans on site; Retrospective alterations of existing building to provide welfare facilities and provision of an additional welfare building. NB: Permission granted for Gypsies/Travellers as defined within the 2012 PPTS only – no personal conditions

MAIN REPORT

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE

1.01 Hartleylands is located to the southwest of Cranbrook. The area was previously used as a trade and domestic waste tip and was infilled in 1968. It was then granted permission for use as a single two-pitch gypsy and traveller site in 1993

Planning Committee Report 19 October 2016

(93/00065/FUL). The ownership has since been divided in to three separate sites and these are known as Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Hartleylands. It is surrounded by a mixed area of agriculture, woodland and a few rural dwellings. The site and the surrounding land are generally flat although the land to the east rises gently from the site levels.

1.02 The site is accessed via a long unmade roadway from Swattenden Lane which also provides access for the five existing pitches on the Hartleylands residential caravan site, Hartleylands Farm (including an agricultural workers’ dwelling currently under construction there) and Bramfield, which is a residential property accompanied by a group of agricultural buildings located to the south of the application site. The roadway also provides access to agricultural land to the north of the Hartleylands development. There is an adjacent Public Right of Way (PROW), WC116 (which follows the path of the access way directly past the site). In addition, WC115 transects WC116 around 100m south of the site.

1.03 No. 1 Hartleylands is the northern-most plot. Planning permission was granted in May 2015 for separate use of this plot as a two-pitch gypsy and traveller site (ref: 14/506867/FULL) which has now been implemented. No. 2 Hartleylands, in the centre, is also a two-pitch site pursuant to that original 1993 permission.

1.04 The application site, No. 3 Hartleylands, is the southern-most site. It lies within the red line of the original 1993 permission for gypsy and traveller occupation of the site. It is now in the ownership of the applicant and was originally granted permission as a separate single pitch site in 2012 (ref: 12/03241/FUL). The single mobile home was shown to be sited to the immediate north east of a single storey storage barn in the centre of the site.

1.05 The Council’s aerial photographic records indicate that at the time the August/September 2012 images were taken, the southern boundary fence had been moved 10m to the south and hard surfacing laid on this part of the site. This repositioning and some of the surfacing was part of the 2012 permission. It benefits from its own access point on to the footpath and timber close-boarded fencing has recently been erected along the boundaries.

1.06 At present the site is occupied by four unlawful caravans (as shown in the positions on the existing site plan 574/01).

2.0 PROPOSAL

2.01 Condition 3 of 12/03241/FUL states the following;

No more than two caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (of which no more than one shall be a static caravan or mobile home) shall be stationed on the site at any time.

Reason: To prevent further intensification of the use of the land without planning permission in accordance with Policies EN1, EN25 and H4 of the Local Plan

2.02 The application proposes to vary the condition to allow an additional two pitches on the site. These are shown to be sited to the south of the storage barn, parallel to it (i.e. in different positions to the unlawfully sited caravans presently on site). A new grassed/landscaped area is shown within the site along with areas of the existing hard surfacing dedicated to parking. A mixed native species hedge is shown to the immediate south and west of the boundary fence. The access point is shown to

Planning Committee Report 19 October 2016

remain unchanged although the profile of the gates/fencing around it has recently been altered.

2.03 The application does not specify who the occupants of the site would be, although reference is made within the accompanying statement to the site facilitating access to schools and healthcare for the occupants. It is noted that para 18 of the supporting statement advises that ‘the site is well suited as a Gypsy/Traveller transit site’. A ‘transit site’ is one that is normally occupied for short periods by gypsies and travellers who have no settled base nearby. However no other reference is made for the site being used for these purposes. The proposal will thus be assessed as one proposing two additional pitches to an existing single pitch site: i.e. not as a transit site.

2.04 The application was originally made to retain the four caravans currently on site, however it has since been amended to show the layout proposed in drawing number 574/02A.

3.0 SUMMARY INFORMATION

Existing Proposed Change (+/-) [Delete if not a [Delete if not a replacement] replacement] Site Area 0.14ha 0.14ha No change Land use(s) including floor Single pitch Three pitch + two pitches area(s) gypsy and gypsy and traveller site traveller site No. of residential units 1 3 +2

4.0 PLANNING CONSTRAINTS

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (statutory protection in order to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of their landscapes - National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 & Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000)

LBD – Outside

PROW WC116 passes north-western boundary of site

5.0 POLICY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF)

Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2015 (PPTS)

National Planning Practice Guidance 2014 (NPPG)

Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010 (CS)

- Policy CP1: Delivery of Development - Policy CP3: Transport Infrastructure - Policy CP4: Environment - Policy CP5: Sustainable Design and Construction

Planning Committee Report 19 October 2016

- Policy CP6: Housing Provision - Policy CP14: Development in Villages and Rural Areas

Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 (LP)

- Policy LBD1: Development Outside the Limits to Built Development - Policy EN1: Development Control Criteria - Policy EN25: Development Control Criteria for all development proposals affecting the rural landscape - Policy H4: Gypsy Sites - Policy TP4: Access to the Road Network

Supplementary Planning Documents

- Borough Landscape Character Assessment 2002 (Second edition October 2011)

Other documents

- High Weald AONB Management Plan 2014

6.0 LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS

6.01 Letters have been sent to neighbouring properties, a site notice was displayed and the application was advertised in a local newspaper

6.02 Two objections from two separate addresses have been received which raises the following issues;

- The site is only for gypsy use but is being rented to several non gypsy people/families; - The road is not suitable for extra traffic as it is deteriorating and extra traffic causing danger to young children and public / cyclists & walkers. - Outside the LBD and within the AONB; - No justification or additional caravans; - Access to utilities which in some cases is currently shared (Officer’s Note: this is a private civil matter and not a material planning consideration).

6.03 A further anonymous objection simply signed ‘Cranbrook Residents’ (which has since been followed up by a further objection with several names and signatures attached) has been received. This raises concerns regarding the occupation of the caravans by non-gypsies or travellers, additional traffic movements, overdevelopment compared to the original permission which was for two pitches, safety issues for footpath users from loose dogs, water supply issues and sewage disposal.

7.0 CONSULTATIONS

Cranbrook and Sissinghurst Parish Council 7.01 (04/05/16) – Recommend refusal. There is no justification; the site is in an AONB, it will impact on the countryside, and the access is unsuitable to serve any further units on which was a small family owned site originally given consent under reference

Planning Committee Report 19 October 2016

TW/93/00065 where the total number of mobile homes/caravans sited on the land at any one time shall not exceed two and was only for two members of that family together with wives and children.

7.02 The reason was the permission has only been granted because of the personal circumstances of the applicant’s family. It appears that the site has now been split into different plots under different ownerships and the number of pitches has escalated. It is questioned whether the infrastructure in place is capable of serving these units.

Campaign for the Protection of Rural 7.03 (12/08/16) - CPRE opposes this application. Agree with Cranbrook and Sissinghurst Parish Council that it represents an unjustified and inappropriate extension of this site, which is outside the LBD and within the High Weald AONB, is in an elevated rural location, is not screened by vegetation, lies beside two public footpaths and would extend very close to neighbouring dwellings.

7.04 The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the High Weald AONB and does not accord with Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s planning policies, including Policy H4 - Gypsy Sites from the Local Plan 2006 which is quoted in the application. Recommend that the application should be refused.

KCC Public Rights of Way & Access Service 7.05 (11/05/16) - The proposal will lead to an increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site along the public footpath. Although there is currently vehicular access along this track, the proposals will lead to an increase in wear and tear on the surface. It is the landowners’ responsibility to repair any damage as a result of private vehicular access. In practical terms it can be difficult to enforce this and so if there is to be an increase in vehicular traffic along the track then it would be preferable to upgrade the existing track surface so that it is able to withstand the increase in traffic with minimal maintenance.

7.06 The track does not appear to be within the application site and so this would need to be agreed with the landowner. The PROW should remain open and available at all times. No materials or waste arising from the development should be stored on the PROW.

Mid-Kent Environmental Protection (EP) 7.07 (13/05/16) – No objection.

7.08 (18/05/16) – Recommend an informative regarding the need for a caravan site licence. Any mobile home must be positioned at least three metres away form any site boundary and six metres away from any other structure or mobile home on the site.

7.09 (05/10/16) - The applicant/agent has submitted a block showing the location of the sewage treatment plant and a ‘Klargester Septic Tank’ brochure. The applicant/agent has not however stated what size of the tank will be installed at the site. In addition, records show that there has been a problem at this site with overflowing sewage into nearby woodland and toilets not flushing properly.

7.10 Therefore, before further comments can be provided, details regarding the size of septic tank to be installed at the site should be submitted.

Planning Committee Report 19 October 2016

7.11 The applicant should be aware that if this information is not received in sufficient time before the determination date of this application to allow EP to fully review it the default position of the EP Team is to recommend refusal on the grounds of insufficient information.

7.12 If the further information requested above is not received by the end of the consultation please assume that the Environmental Protection Team is recommending refusal of this application/submission on the grounds that sufficient information required has not been submitted.

8.0 APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING COMMENTS (taken from covering statement)

- Site is well located in relation to local services; - The proposal complies with the provisions of the PPTS; - The site has a long-standing history of gypsy and traveller use dating back to the first permission granted in 1993; - The proposal is comparable to other applications which have been granted permission by TWBC; - There is an unmet need for gypsy and traveller sites in Tunbridge Wells and a lack of robust figures quantifying that need.

9.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS AND PLANS Drawing number 574/01 Drawing number 574/02B Site location plan Application form Covering statements Details of septic tank

10.0 APPRAISAL

10.01 The main issues to be considered are;

- The principle of the development (including impact on the AONB, landscape and character of the area and whether the proposal constitutes sustainable development); - Other considerations.

Principle of Development

10.02 The proposal amounts to the sub-division of a single pitch Gypsy and Traveller site to create three unrestricted permanent pitches.

10.03 The site is within the countryside, where housing is only scattered in character. The PPTS states that LPAs should “very strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan”. However it is important to note that there is no definition of ‘away’ and this restriction does not act as a presumption against all new Gypsy and Traveller development in the open countryside.

10.04 The site is within the countryside, outside the LBD and in the AONB. In this context there is a principle against new development unless there are overriding material considerations or need. Policy LBD1 of the LP seeks to restrict new development in the countryside because once it is developed it cannot easily be restored.

Planning Committee Report 19 October 2016

Development outside the LBD would only be permitted where it would be in accordance with all relevant policies in the LP.

10.05 Policy EN25 of the LP sets out the criteria that development outside the LBD is required to satisfy; including that the proposal has a minimal impact on the landscape character of the area, has no detrimental impact on the landscape setting of settlements, would not result in an unsympathetic change to the character of a rural lane, and that it should be well screened by existing vegetation.

10.06 This is also reflected in Policy H4 of the LP which relates specifically to proposals for the use of land for accommodation by Gypsies, and sets out criteria that must all be satisfied in order for such use to be considered acceptable. These criteria are:-

- The size of the site and the distribution of pitches within it would be appropriate to its location; - The configuration of the site would be satisfactory and its physical containment against unauthorised extension; - The proposal would not be visually intrusive and would be well screened by existing vegetation and physically contained by landscaping; - Proposals would not be located within an exposed position in the AONB, or elsewhere where they would have a more than minimal impact on the rural character of the locality; - The location of the proposed site is appropriate in terms of proximity to essential services such as shops, schools, public transport, medical and social services.

10.07 The details of each proposal should therefore be assessed against the criteria of saved Policy H4 and also the advice contained in the PPTS. This is the latest advice on planning for Gypsy and Traveller sites. The Local Planning Authority is required to determine applications in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF and PPTS are material planning considerations, as is the failure of TWBC to demonstrate a five-year housing supply following the ‘Highgate Hill’ appeal decision in autumn 2015. However, unlike conventional housing, TWBC has not been able to demonstrate a five-year supply of Gypsy and Traveller for many years; in this respect LP Policy H4 has always ben ‘out of date’.

10.08 It is considered that, despite being ‘out of date’ due to the lack of a five-year supply of sites, Policy H4 is consistent with the NPPF and PPTS following recent appeal decisions on Gypsy and Traveller development. The exception to this is the definition of a gypsy/traveller because it does not include those Gypsies and Travellers who have ceased to travel temporarily. The PPTS includes a revised definition of gypsies and travellers for planning purposes. This will form the basis of the appraisal of this application.

10.09 Therefore, the principle of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation outside the LBD and within the AONB can be acceptable.

Criteria 1 and 2: satisfactory and appropriate configuration of site and physical containment against unauthorised extension 10.10 In addition to the above criteria contained within policy H4, the PPTS specifies that the scale of gypsy sites in rural or semi-rural settings should not dominate the

Planning Committee Report 19 October 2016

nearest settled community. The proposal is for two additional pitches, which in combination with the existing and adjacent sites would create seven pitches in total. It is considered that the cumulative impact of the proposal would not dominate Nos. 1 and 2 Hartleylands, Bramfield and the other scattered dwellings in the near vicinity. For the purposes of the PPTS, the nearest settled community is considered to be Cranbrook.

10.11 The size of the site is such that it is not considered to be physically contained against further extension, despite the boundary fencing and hedging on the perimeter. However appeal inspectors in previous decisions on traveller sites within the Borough have considered that this issue can be addressed by condition (limiting the number of mobile homes/caravans). Accordingly it is considered that subject to such a condition the proposal accords with criteria 1 and 2 of LP Policy H4.

Criteria 3 and 4: Visual impact, and impact on the AONB and rural character of the area 10.12 Neither LP Policy H4 nor the PPTS exclude sites in the countryside or the AONB, subject to them being sensitively located. Protection of the AONB is also addressed in Core Policy 4 of the CS which seeks to conserve and enhance it in accordance with national policy. The NPPF advises at para 115 that ‘great weight’ should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, which have the highest statue of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

10.13 The Landscape and Character Assessment identifies the area within which the application site is located as Benenden Wooded Farmland as Local Character Area 6. It notes the characteristic features as including a strong sense of prospect and long distance views from the ridge tops with a more intimate, smaller-scale experience within the ghyll valleys; the dominance of pasture landscape; the appearance of a peaceful, well managed, small-scale and intact agricultural landscape; variable field boundary hedgerows; and strong surviving intact network of ghyll and shaw woodlands.

10.14 The PPTS states that sites should be well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness. It also states that proposals should not enclose a site with so much hard landscaping, high walls or fences, that the impression may be given that the site and its occupants are deliberately isolated from the rest of the community.

10.15 Whilst the areas to the north and west are open and undeveloped, there is a certain level of development in relatively close proximity to the site. There are five existing Gypsy/Traveller pitches with buildings and perimeter fencing to the north. Bramfield and several agricultural buildings are further away to the south-east. 200m away to the south-west, there are Hartleylands Farm and several temporary workers’ mobile homes surrounding the main buildings, as well as a new dwelling under construction. The farm buildings dominate the approach from the private track and the view only becomes more rural in appearance to the north beyond this area.

10.16 The proposal is for a sub-division of an existing site which already benefits from planning permission in two forms. The first is the original 1993 planning permission, whose red line (and therefore the ‘application site’) this proposal lies within (although caravans were not originally shown to be sited on what is now 3 Hartleylands). The second is the 2012 permission which granted approval for the existing single pitch at 3 Hartleylands. It does not therefore propose a change of use of historically agricultural land.

Planning Committee Report 19 October 2016

10.17 The site has for many years been covered with a hard surface. The NPPF defines ‘Previously Developed Land’ (PDL) at Annexe 2. This description includes land which is or was occupied by fixed surface infrastructure. It is not considered the application site falls within the categories of land that are excluded from this definition, or that the hard surfacing has blended into the landscape over time. Former landfill sites that have been remediated under an LA scheme are also excluded from the definition of PDL, but it is not clear if this process has been undertaken at Hartleylands: the site is not recorded as a former landfill site on the Council’s mapping systems. Para. 26 (a) of the PPTS states that weight should be attached to the use of PDL when considering Gypsy and Traveller applications. Although in this case it is not considered that the issue of whether or not the site is PDL is a determining factor.

10.18 The level nature of the site is such that the proposed development is not considered to be located in a highly exposed position in the AONB (as required by Policy H4). The site does become apparent as it is approached from the adjacent PROW, especially from the south. Views are very limited from the north as it is screened by the existing Gypsy/Traveller pitches, associated buildings and perimeter fencing. It is located along a private access track and is not visible at all from the public vehicular highway.

10.19 The application includes landscaping along the southern boundary which can be secured by condition and which would filter views of the site from the south. It is considered that the positioning of the mobile homes and the surrounding woodlands would thus result in them being largely screened from views from the access track or neighbouring land. The development does consolidate a previous 10m incursion in to the paddock to the south, which serves as an open, undeveloped buffer to the south of the site. The function that this paddock serves is considered to be important to the protection of the wider landscape and prevent any overspill or residential sprawl to the south. Nevertheless, this incursion appeared to take place some years ago and the permission can be conditioned to preclude any caravans or other development being stationed/stored within this area. As such, the impact is considered to be restricted to the immediate area due to the screening and surrounding built development.

10.20 In addition, the two new pitches would be seen very much in context with the adjacent Gypsy/Traveller site(s) when approached from the south. The site has been historically hard surfaced and used for ancillary purposes to the existing Gypsy/Traveller site for the parking of vehicles, caravans, storage of materials etc. prior to the 2012 grant of permission. In addition, the caravans would be screened or seen against the backdrop of the existing barn building on the site. It is not considered the proposed residential use would (in comparison to the previous use) create a significantly more harmful impact upon the wider landscape or the AONB than the existing situation.

10.21 It is thus considered that the proposed position of the mobile homes would result in them being seen largely in context with existing development on the site and nearby development. Although the development would cause some visual harm, it is very much localised, the wider landscape impact would be minimal and is not considered to significantly erode the quality of the rural landscape even given its AONB designation.

Criterion 5: Location of site relative to local services 10.22 The site is in an unsustainable location by virtue of being outside the LBD. However it is located 1km away from the edge of Cranbrook and close to two PROWs. This

Planning Committee Report 19 October 2016

does not place it in complete isolation, being within theoretical walking/cycling distance.

10.23 Para 13 (h) of the PPTS requires that LPA policies should reflect the extent to which traditional traveller lifestyles can contribute to sustainability, whereby some travellers live and work from the same locations. The site also enables access to health services and schools for its occupiers, as per criteria b) and c).

10.24 It could be argued that by virtue of its location relative to Cranbrook centre, the proposal would partially conflict with criterion 5 of Policy H4 of the LP (this was the approach taken for 14/506867/FULL). However there have been two recent appeal decisions in the Borough (APP/ M2270/A/13/2199370 - Willow Stables, Queen Street, and APP/M2270/W/15/3005034 - Land adjacent 3 Holly Cottages, Pearson’s Green Road, ) which address this issue. These two sites, whilst outside the AONB, are more distant from nearby settlements than Hartleylands. In both cases the inspectors found that where settlements/schools and services are 2-3km from the site, where the connecting roads/paths are largely unlit without pavements, with only limited access to rural bus services and where there would be high reliance on the use of a car for most journeys, there was no significant conflict with criterion 5) of Local Plan policy H4. This requires proposals to be appropriately located in terms of proximity to essential services such as shops, school, public transport and medical services. In addition, there are already five lawful pitches at Hartleylands - the distance from services would not be materially worse than the existing situation.

10.25 At this juncture it is considered necessary to draw a distinction between the requirements of Policy H4 (which only requires that the location of the proposed site is ‘appropriate’ in terms of proximity) and the concept of a sustainable location within the broader concept of sustainable development. The less exacting requirements of Policy H4 are perhaps inevitable given that gypsy and traveller sites are commonly found in the countryside. The site is in an unsustainable location but does comply with the locational requirement of Policy H4.

10.26 The proposal includes minor changes to the existing access point layout however these in themselves do not require planning permission.

Conclusion in respect of LP Policy H4 10.27 The proposed development would not be contrary to Policy H4 of the LP and there is not considered to be significant conflict with policies that seek to protect the rural character of the area - Core Policies 4 and 14 of the CS, Policies EN1 and EN25 of the LP (and consequently Policy LBD1), advice in the NPPF (particularly para 115) as well as the PPTS. The proposal is thus considered to be acceptable in principle.

Need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation 10.28 The PPTS requires LPAs to make their own assessment of need for sites in their area, plus identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites in appropriate locations. These must be sufficient to provide 5 years worth of sites against locally set targets and identify broad locations for years 6-10. In addition LPAs need to identify any land that has been submitted through the Site Allocation process that might be suitable for allocating as Gypsy and Traveller sites.

10.29 A Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment ["GTAA"] was carried out in 2005 and found that there was a small unmet need for additional sites. That GTAA is now considered to be out of date – little weight can be attached to it. The Council has stated in previous appeals and reports on similar developments that it aimed to have

Planning Committee Report 19 October 2016

identified Gypsy and Traveller sites through the Local Development Framework (LDF), although this has not taken place and is unlikely to do so until the new Local Plan is published in 2018/2019.

10.30 The PPTS states at para 27 that “If a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up–to-date 5 year supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the grant of temporary planning permission” (Officers’ emphasis), although the PPTS then goes onto to state that exceptions to this include if a site is in the AONB. As the site is in the AONB this paragraph of the PPTS is not relevant (whereas it is for other sites in the Borough outside the AONB), but para 24 of the PPTS is still clear that the need for sites is a material consideration.

10.31 Evidence is available through the level of unauthorised sites and the monitoring undertaken at the biannual caravan count which points to a small (but ultimately unquantified) need. The most recent Caravan Count in July 2016 established that there are four pitches on one site which are unlawful.

10.32 In considering general need it is also necessary to consider whether there is suitable alternative accommodation to meet this need (even if it is relatively low). There are presently no vacancies on the TWBC Cinderhill Site or on the KCC Heartenoak site. As such it is not considered that there are any lawful suitable alternative sites to accommodate this small general need. It is noted that the high percentage of Green Belt and AONB coverage within the Borough also makes it difficult to identify suitable sites.

10.33 In summary it is considered that the evidence of a small, unquantified need, allied with compliance with Policy H4 of the LP, makes the proposal is acceptable in principle.

Personal circumstances of the occupiers 10.34 In light of the above it is proposed that the granting of a permanent permission for a Gypsy and Traveller site without restriction to named individuals is suitable.

10.35 Inspectors have previously given significant weight to personal circumstances in the absence of a current GTAA and the lack of alternative sites in the locality. Para 24 of the PPTS under c) requires LPAs to consider the personal circumstances of the applicants.

10.36 Conditions restricting occupation to a named individual are sometimes included in grants of planning permission for Gypsy/Traveller sites where departure from policy (and/or level of harm caused) would be considerable but is outweighed by the particular personal circumstances of the occupier. However, due to the assessed compliance with policy and the small but unquantified level of need, it is not considered necessary or appropriate in this instance for a personal condition to be attached. In addition, there are no named individuals proposed to occupy the site. This is the approach taken by both inspectors and TWBC when determining gypsy and traveller planning applications.

10.37 It is recognised that the original 1993 permission was restricted to particular occupiers, however this was granted many years ago prior to the NPPF, NPPG, PPTS and the current Development Plan.

10.38 Regard has been given to the potential for a temporary permission at this site, as opposed to a permanent permission. Paragraph: 014 Reference ID:

Planning Committee Report 19 October 2016

21a-014-20140306 of the NPPG under ‘Use of Planning Conditions’ states that a temporary permission may be acceptable where it is expected that the planning circumstances will change in a particular way at the end of that period: in this instance that the new GTAA will be undertaken which will quantify the level of need and the relevant DPD (potentially as a single Document/Plan) will progress through to adoption (as set out above).

10.39 A temporary permission is only considered to be necessary where any AONB or landscape harm is so significant that it is considered to be necessary to be restricted to a short period of time and reversed after that period. As limited landscape/AONB harm (and no conflict with Policy) has been found, a temporary permission is not considered necessary.

Other considerations 10.40 Owing to the location of the site relative to other dwellings it is not considered that harm to residential amenity will be created by the proposal.

10.41 Given the other uses along this access track and adjacent to the site, it is concluded that no additional material harm would be caused to highway or footpath user safety. The long-term maintenance and condition of this track has been raised by an objector. KCC Public Rights of Way & Access Service advises that the proposal would lead to additional wear and tear to the access track/PROW. However responsibility for the track lies with a separate landowner and the track lies outside the red line of the site. The track is also used by a number of other users. It would not therefore be proportionate or appropriate to impose conditions requiring its maintenance or upkeep.

10.42 Objectors have raised the retrospective nature of the application, anti-social behaviour and the alleged occupation of the four caravans presently unlawfully on the site by persons who are not gypsies or travellers (and the alleged payment of benefits towards those occupiers). However the site has been assessed as suitable for two additional gypsy and traveller pitches and the standard condition restricting occupation only to persons who meet the definition within the current PPTS would be used. Any reported breaches of planning control that are brought to the attention of the Council would be investigated and formal action taken if it is expedient to do so. Whilst fear of crime and anti-social behaviour is a material planning consideration, this is dealt with by other agencies such as the Police and the Council’s Community Safety Unit. A planning permission also runs with the land and this is not proposed to be personal to certain individuals. Payment of Social Security benefits is addressed under different legislation.

10.43 In terms of the infrastructure required for the site, such as a septic tank or similar, these would be a requirement of the caravan site licence (and an informative drawing the applicant’s attention to the need for this is proposed to be added). It is noted the EP team have recommended refusal of the application however it is considered that this matter can be dealt with through other legislative powers. Previous problems with overflowing sewage in to adjacent woodlands are considered to be a separate issue which is not directly related to this proposal (as it includes provision of a new septic tank). This is matter is not considered to be one that is insurmountable to the point that the application should be recommended for refusal. The cessation of the joint water supply is a civil matter.

10.44 The submitted plans show the caravans to be stationed 3m from the southern edge of the barn. However Environmental Protection comments dated 18/05/16 require the

Planning Committee Report 19 October 2016

gap to be 6m. It is considered this matter can be addressed through a suitably worded condition.

10.45 It is acknowledged that there are currently four unauthorised caravans on site. However this is a separate issue which is currently being dealt with by the Council’s Planning Enforcement officers. A condition requiring the additional two mobile homes to be removed is not considered appropriate as it is more efficient to deal with these through the formal enforcement process.

Conclusion 10.46 It is not considered that the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. There is not considered to be substantial conflict with LP and CS policies and the NPPF regarding the protection of the countryside and AONBs, nor with policy H4 of the LP. There is evidence that there is a small (unquantified) need for Gypsy and Traveller provision in the Borough.

10.47 Due to the compliance with Policy, combined with a small but unquantified level of need, it is not considered necessary or appropriate in this instance for a personal condition to be attached. This approach is consistent with the decision made under reference 12/03241/FUL at the same site.

Human rights 10.48 Human Rights issues especially Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to enjoy property) are relevant to this matter. The agent has also cited obligations under the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, the Children’s Act 2004 and associated Human Rights under Article 3. No personal circumstances have however been advanced as part of this application and it is considered that the proposal for two additional pitches at this site is appropriate without needing to engage the personal circumstances of the applicant.

10.49 The overall recommendation is considered a proportionate and necessary response and would not result in a violation of the appellant's rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

10.50 In terms of the impact on the settled community, any disruption caused to local residents is considered minimal.

10.51 It was noted in the report to 14/506867/FULL that if the proposed changes by the planning system towards Gypsies and Travellers were passed in to law and national policy after the recent consultation, the approach to further applications to extend this site may be different. The proposal is however considered to be compliant with the PPTS 2015, which was published following that consultation.

11.0 RECOMMENDATION – GRANT Subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS to include

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this decision.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

Planning Committee Report 19 October 2016

following approved plans:

Drawing number 574/02 Rev B Site location plan MD16VAR-SLP received 12/04/2016

Reason: To clarify which plans are approved.

(3) Notwithstanding the plans and details submitted as part of this application, within three (3) months of the date of this decision a detailed plan showing the position of Units A, B and C on the site together with associated parking/turning areas along with parking spaces for the touring caravans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

This plan shall show the units being set a minimum of six (6) metres away from the building marked ‘store/barn’ and a minimum of three (3) metres away from the site boundaries detailed on approved drawing 574/02B.

The mobile homes shall then be retained in these positions thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity of future occupiers and to maintain a minimum gap between the caravans and other structures on site for fire safety purposes.

(4) The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers as currently defined in Planning Policy for Travellers Sites 2015.

Reason: Planning permission may not have been granted had the applicant not applied on the basis that the development would provide additional gypsy and traveller accommodation.

(5) No more than six caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (of which no more than three shall be a static caravan or mobile home) shall be stationed on the site at any time.

The touring caravans on site which are not static caravans or mobile homes shall not be separately occupied.

Reason: To prevent further intensification of the use of the land without planning permission

(6) No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the storage of materials. No commercial vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on this site.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity

(7) The existing trees and hedges on site shown to be retained on the approved plans shall be retained. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any trees or plants whether new or retained which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

The new hedge shown to be planted shall be bare-rooted transplants of Hawthorn

Planning Committee Report 19 October 2016

(70%), Blackthorn (20%) and Dog Rose (10%). These should be planted in a double row, staggered, with the plants being at 600mm centres. The individual plants shall be supported using a cane and protected with a spiral guard, with the whole of the new hedge being protected by stock fencing to aid establishment.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to minimise the landscape impact of the development

(8) No structures, vehicles or caravans shall be sited, parked or stored within the area outlined in blue on site location plan MD16VAR-SLP.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to minimise the landscape impact of the development

Case Officer: Richard Hazelgrove

NB For full details of all papers submitted with this application please refer to the relevant Public Access pages on the council’s website.

The conditions set out in the report may be subject to such reasonable change as is necessary to ensure accuracy and enforceability.