Appeal Decision Hearing held on 8 January 2014 Site visit made on 8 January 2014 by Frances Mahoney DipTP MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 27 February 2014

Appeal Ref: APP/K2610/A/13/2203023 Land south east of Letter Box Cottage, Reepham Road, Foulsham, Dereham, Norfolk NR20 5PP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr John Morgan against the decision of Broadland District Council. • The application Ref 20130444, dated 1 April 2013, was refused by notice dated 26 June 2013. • The development proposed is the siting of 2 number ‘Log cabin style’ mobile homes, 1 number double ‘dayroom’, 2 number touring caravans, and parking for 4 personal vehicles and retention of existing access road and ‘open barn’ for residential use.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the siting of 2 number ‘Log cabin style’ mobile homes, 1 number double ‘dayroom’, 2 number touring caravans, and parking for 4 personal vehicles and retention of existing access road and ‘open barn’ for use in association with the gypsy and travellers’ site at Land south east of Pillar Box Cottage, Reepham Road, Foulsham, Dereham, Norfolk NR20 5PP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20130444, dated 1 April 2013, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A to this decision.

Application for costs

2. At the hearing an application for costs was made by Mr John Morgan against Broadland District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

Preliminary matter

3. The appeal site address, as set out above, refers to land to the south east of Letter Box Cottage. This should read Pillar Box Cottage and I have made the necessary change to the address in my decision.

4. The description of development includes reference to an open barn. At the hearing it was apparent that this barn was just a simple, small shed constructed of old telegraph poles, timber sheeting walls and corrugated sheeting roof. It was used to stable two horses. The use of the barn was not intended to be residential but to be an ancillary outbuilding to the main use of

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/K2610/A/13/2203023

the land as a gypsy and travellers’ site. The description of the proposed change of use set out in the decision above reflects this clarification of the open barn’s use.

Main Issues

5. The main issues are:

• the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the countryside;

• whether the appeal proposal would be a sustainable development with particular reference to its location in relation to service centres and how those centres would be accessed; and

• the overall balance, taking into account the general need for and provision of sites, the availability of alternatives, and the personal circumstances of the appellant and his family.

Background

6. Mr Morgan and his sister are Romany gypsies. Their family has lived in Norfolk for many years, including stays in ‘bricks and mortar’ accommodation. Both siblings each have two young children of similar ages and the intention is that they would live in separate caravans, but sharing the appeal site as one family group. The children currently attend school in Hockering, but would transfer to Foulsham Primary School were the appeal to be allowed. At present both individual families live separately in ‘bricks and mortar’ accommodation having been unable to locate a suitable site previously for occupation in caravans. I heard from the appellant that this way of living caused considerable unease to himself and his sister, which impacted upon their wellbeing. They considered living in a house as a temporary arrangement until a suitable site could be found. Amanda Morgan has regularly travelled in the past returning to live with her parents to allow the children to attend school. Mr Morgan is a landscape gardener and has travelled for work. They both wish to settle as one family group, providing access to education and medical assistance, as well as a stable environment in which to bring up their children.

7. The Council does not dispute that Mr Morgan has gypsy status. From the information given, there is no reason to come to a different view and Mr Morgan, therefore, meets the definition in Annex 1 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS).

8. The appeal proposes the change of use of the appeal site to accommodate the Morgan family group in two log cabin style static caravans, sharing an amenity block providing kitchen and bathroom facilities, parking for 4 vehicles and storage for 2 touring caravans. The proposal also includes the retention of the vehicle access and the open barn. Mr Morgan currently uses the appeal site and the adjoining field to accommodate his horses. This would continue to be the case whether permission for the caravans was granted or not.

Planning Policy

9. Following the close of the hearing the Council adopted on the 10 January 2014 the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk: Adopted March 2011, amendments adopted January 2014 (JCS). Both parties have

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/K2610/A/13/2203023

confirmed that the relevant policies within the adopted version of the JCS have not changed from those within the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk 2011 referred to at the hearing. I have dealt with the appeal accordingly. Therefore, The development plan in this instance consists of the policies of the adopted JCS and the saved policies of the Broadland District Local Plan (Replacement) 2006 (LP) which remain current and relevant to this proposal.

10. Within the relevant policies of the LP none relate specifically to the provision of, or the criteria for selecting gypsy and traveller sites. The relevant LP policies are more general in their remit seeking to protect the countryside by restricting development, in the main, to existing identified settlements (LP Policy GS1), whilst achieving good design and accessibility (LP Policies GS3 and ENV2). The appeal site is also located within an area of landscape value where the terms of LP Policy ENV8 apply to safeguard the scenic quality of the area. LP Policy HOU19 is a very general policy which sets out that applications for gypsy and traveller sites will be considered against the residential and other local plan policies.

11. Set targets for gypsy and traveller accommodation provision are provided in Policy 4 of the JCS. This requires the provision of 15 permanent residential pitches for gypsies and travellers within the District between 2006 and 2011, and a further 20 permanent pitches between 2012 and 2026. This results in a net requirement of 35 pitches over the plan period specific to the District. This overall figure is derived from the now revoked East of England Plan 2008. However, the specified requirement for gypsy and traveller sites has been adopted through the terms of the development plan. The Council has no plans to revisit JCS Policy 4 in the immediate future.

12. Whilst the Council has evidence of need contained within the Greater Norwich Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) 2012, this only provides evidence up to 2016. It identifies a requirement for the provision of 3 permanent pitches in Broadland between 2011 and 2016. However, there is no evidence that further survey work is underway to update the GTAA beyond 2016.

13. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary I afford the terms of the relevant development plan policy JCS Policy 4 substantial weight in this case.

14. Since 2006 the Council has permitted 14 permanent pitches, and on the day of the hearing the Council resolved to permit a further single pitch at Larkeys Farm. The Council contend that these 15 pitches meet the requirement within the JCS Policy 4, set up to 2011, albeit some 3 years beyond the specified date. They also consider that, as part of the 15 pitch total, the requirement of the GTAA for 3 pitches between 2011 and 2016 has also been achieved. However, there is no consideration of provision into the future. There is no indication as to where or when the 20 pitches to be provided up to 2026 as required by development plan policy (JCS Policy 4) will come forward.

15. The Council has resolved, for the time being, to continue monitoring the need for gypsy and traveller sites, dealing with private sites via planning applications. This is as a result of the low level of need indicated in the GTAA. Nonetheless, for the time being and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Council has continued to use the figures set out in JCS Policy 4 to

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/K2610/A/13/2203023

establish the requirement for gypsy and traveller accommodation beyond 2016 up to 2026.

16. There are no public sites in the District and, at this stage, the Council do not intend to make such public provision or carry out any ‘search for sites’. They are to rely on the private sector to make provision dealing with each proposal site on a case by case basis. Such a strategy acknowledges Government aims to promote more private traveller site provision (Para 4 of PPTS).

17. However, the Council also recognise that the main disadvantage of this response is the lack of strategic approach as to where sites should be best located and the lack of opportunity to find pitches for those who cannot provide their own sites. The accessibility of existing pitches and those into the future for those unable to make their own provision will be at the whim of private individuals, were vacant pitches to become available. Those travellers who cannot provide their own sites would be seriously disadvantaged.

18. The Council has indicated that they will continue to work with partner organisations and local authorities, engaging with gypsy and traveller communities, addressing issues as they arise.

19. As a result of the lack of strategic planning for gypsy and traveller provision the Council are unable to show a 5 year land supply for the accommodation of gypsy and travellers as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). They have indicated that were a need to arise, they would consider producing a development plan document for gypsy and traveller provision. However, in the absence of any marked progress in seeking updated evidence of the requirement for gypsy and traveller sites beyond 2016, the Council confirmed that they rely on the terms of JCS Policy 4 in this regard.

20. Therefore, in these circumstances taking into account the terms of the development plan policy, I have no surety of when the ongoing requirement for gypsy and traveller sites beyond 2016, identified in the development plan, may be met. The lack of gypsy and traveller sites, therefore, carries significant weight in the balancing exercise.

21. The Council is currently working on a Development Management Policy document which would include a specific criteria based policy to inform any search for a suitable site for gypsy and travellers. However, progress on the production of this document is not advanced and this in itself would not address the lack of a 5 year land supply.

Reasons

Character and appearance

22. Beyond the village limits of Foulsham, Reepham Road is a simple country lane set in relatively flat, open countryside, flanked by field hedgerows, punctuated by hedgerow trees. Residential development is sparse and sporadic along this section of Reepham Road. However, caravans are not uncommon in the landscape. Oaklands and Woodyard are two small sites providing pitches for gypsy and travellers set off Reepham Road, granted permission in recent years.

23. The appeal site lies on the south side of the road at a distance to the Foulsham village limits. The wider common boundaries with neighbouring property

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/K2610/A/13/2203023

comprise, in the main, mature hedgerows, including some mature indigenous trees. It is set well back from the highway served by a gravel track.

24. To the east is the Countryside Restoration Trust’s holding at Mayfields. This includes a number of enclosures and a large barn set close to the common boundary with the appeal site. This existing agricultural building would be seen alongside the proposed static caravans which, with the generous set back of the appeal site from the road, would assist in the visual absorption of the change of use into the wider landscape.

25. Views into the appeal site would be mainly limited to those from the access onto Reepham Road and those glimpsed through the road frontage hedge. The extent of the visual prominence of the proposed static caravans would vary with the seasons. However, the proposed timber cladding to the static caravans would be a visually recessive external finish with the colour of staining being controlled by condition. In addition, there are opportunities to reinforce existing planting as well as enhancing the landscaping through the addition of natural indigenous planting which would serve to soften the visual impact of the static caravans.

26. Nonetheless, in such a flat open rural landscape the proposed change of use would impact on the visual qualities and character of the countryside setting. Therefore, the appeal proposal would cause limited harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. In this way the terms of LP Policy ENV8 and GS3 would be compromised. However, it is necessary to balance the harm identified with any other considerations which may weigh in favour of the proposal. I will return to this matter later in the decision.

Whether a sustainable form of development and the effect on the nearest settled community

27. The thread of achieving sustainable development runs through the Framework. As indicated in paragraph 7 of the Framework, sustainable development has economic, social and environmental roles and this is taken through into paragraph 11 of the PPTS which sets out a range of factors to consider. In a positive way, the proposal would enable Mr Morgan and his family to continue to access appropriate health services and for the children to attend school. The proposal offers the opportunity for a settled base for the family on a site which can offer basic facilities to enable them to fulfil their traditional lifestyle, reducing the need for long-distance travelling.

28. The PPTS provides that sites in rural areas should respect the scale of and not dominate the nearest settled community. Taking account of the cumulative scale of the existing traveller’s site in the area along with that of the proposal; the distance to the villages of Foulsham and Themelthorpe; and the extent of the existing buildings in the immediate locality, the proposal would not be of a scale which would have such an effect on the wider settled community.

29. The appeal site has the benefit of readily available mains water. It would be necessary to connect to mains electricity, and there are various options available to achieve this. The installation of a biodisk sewage treatment plant is also proposed. The securing of a connection to mains electricity, along with the provision of appropriate foul drainage disposal should be secured by means of planning conditions. Its small scale, along with accommodating a single family group, would not place undue pressure on the local infrastructure and

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/K2610/A/13/2203023

services. It is how these services would be accessed which must nevertheless be considered.

30. The appeal site lies some 2 kilometres to the edge of the village of Foulsham. Foulsham is categorised as a service village due to the number and range of services and facilities which exist therein. However, the local doctor’s surgery is in Reepham which is not easily accessed by public transport. The local bus stop is located at the far end of the village, some 3 kilometres from the appeal site. It provides regular links to Fakenham and Norwich, but the last bus back into the village arrives around 19.30 Monday to Saturday with a much reduced service on Sundays and public holidays.

31. There has been some recent house building within the settlement due to the nature of the services provided in the village. Nonetheless, taking into account the rural nature of the locality, the distance to more extensive service centres and limitation on the frequency and availability of bus services, it is reasonable to conclude that many of the journeys already undertaken by existing residents within the village, as well as those living in the surrounding rural area, including the residents of the existing gypsy and traveller sites, are by private car.

32. I heard from the appellant that two of the adults who would occupy the static caravans do not drive. One of them works locally and would cycle to the company bus pick up point in the village. A 2-3 kilometre cycle ride is not unreasonable and does show that there are alternatives to the private car.

33. Reepham Road is rural in nature lacking lighting or pavements. It is not busy, but I observed traffic travelling at some speed along this 60mph stretch of road. However, I also saw local residents walking their dogs and riding horses along the road. This assures me that, whilst anyone walking or cycling into the village would need to be cautious, pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders are not uncommon, unexpected users of the road. Reepham Road as a country lane is not unusual in this respect and I do not consider it to be any different from other connecting rural roads in the locality.

34. Nonetheless, the reliance on the car, and the distance to services do count against the proposal in terms of achieving a sustainable form of development, undermining the terms of LP Policy GS3 and JCS Policy 1.

Other considerations

General need for and provision of sites

35. National policy recognises that there is a need to increase the number of traveller sites in appropriate locations with planning permission, to address under provision and maintain an appropriate level of supply.

36. The Council accept that they do not have a 5 year land supply for gypsy and traveller accommodation in the district. With no surety of when this situation may be remedied, and taking into account the requirements of development plan policy into the future in this regard, the lack of gypsy and traveller sites carries significant weight in the balancing exercise.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/K2610/A/13/2203023

Availability of alternatives/Personal circumstances

37. The Council has not promoted any alternative, suitable sites for the appellant and his family. This is not surprising taking into account the general strategy adopted by the Council of leaving it to the private sector to make provision in the face of a lack of direction in terms of future levels of need, provision and policy approach to enable a meaningful search for an alternative site.

38. The alternative for the family would be to remain living in ‘bricks and mortar’ accommodation or return to a life on the road. The latter would rob the children of an opportunity for a settled base to access education. I appreciate that the appellant and his sister want an education for their children and that is the main reason they have resorted to living within the settled community. However, it was clear that abandoning the traditions of their lifestyle as gypsies diminished the quality of their family life and had a physical effect on the well being of family members. In these circumstances the lack of an appropriate settled base for the family would represent an interference with their home and family life. Therefore, in the overall balance the personal circumstances of the occupiers of the site carry some weight.

Other matters

39. The closest neighbour to the appeal site fronting Reepham Road would be Pillar Box Cottage set diagonally opposite the appeal site to the north-west at a distance of some 115 metres. At that distance and with the intervening hedgerow and trees the living conditions of residents would not be unacceptably harmed by the introduction of the proposed use.

Conclusion

40. As already concluded, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the countryside. There would also be a negative impact in terms of the failure to achieve a sustainable form of development solely on the basis of a reliance on the car for the residents’ transport needs and the distance to services. In combination, there would be some harm that would cause a conflict with the development plan.

41. However, on the other side of the balance is the level of general unmet need measured against the terms of JCS Policy 4; the lack of a 5 year land supply for gypsy and traveller accommodation; and the lack of direction and progress for up dating future need beyond 2016 within a reasonable timeframe. All of these factors weigh in support of the appeal proposal. Given the personal circumstances of Mr Morgan and his family, significant weight should be attached to the likely consequences of the lack of provision of pitches for their immediate future, there being an interference with their human rights in this eventuality.

42. In light of the evidence before me I take the view whilst there would be limited harm which would be in conflict with the development plan as identified above, it would be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme, and so permanent permission should be granted subject to conditions. Therefore, the appeal should succeed. In these circumstances the impact on the home and family life of the appellant and his family is a positive one.

Conditions

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/K2610/A/13/2203023

43. A number of conditions were discussed at the hearing. I have considered them in accordance with the guidance given in Circular 11/95 The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions . In some cases I have amended the wording where necessary to follow this guidance and model conditions.

44. As indicated above, a permanent permission should be granted. However, occupation should be limited to gypsies and travellers, given the policy basis for accepting the proposed use. As the submitted plans show specifically the type of caravans proposed to be stationed on the site, a condition restricting the type of caravan should be imposed to limit the visual impact. Details of the external finishes of the static caravans and the dayroom building, along with external lighting, hardsurfacing materials, and means of enclosure should be agreed for similar reasons.

45. I am aware the appellant wishes to carry out further soft landscaping (planting) on the site. In the interests of visual amenity it is reasonable and necessary to impose a condition to this effect. A condition requiring that the site layout plan be implemented should also be imposed to safeguard the satisfactory development of the site.

46. The parking of larger commercial type vehicles will not be permitted so as to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. Schemes for the provision of both foul water drainage and connection to mains electricity are necessary prerequisites to minimise pollution and in the interests of general amenity.

47. In the interests of highway safety conditions relating to access gates and the bonded surfacing of the vehicular access itself are imposed.

48. The Council suggested a condition relating to the removal of an existing storage container from the site. However, the stationing of this container does not form part of this proposal and the Council accepted they did have other powers to seek the removal of the container. Therefore, such a condition has not been imposed.

Frances Mahoney

Inspector

Appendix A

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers as defined in Annex 1 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (DCLG, 2012). 3) The use hereby permitted shall be laid out in accordance with Site location plan (scale 1:2500), Proposed log cabin/mobile home details (dwg no 12-3369-122 REV B), Standard detail for double dayroom

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/K2610/A/13/2203023

building (dwg no 12-5090-01 REV A), Tree Survey (dwg no 13 0 5119-05 Rev A), and Proposed site plan (dwg no 13-5119-01 Rev A), showing the precise siting of the 2 new mobile homes, 1 dayroom building and 2 tourers. The caravans shall be stationed in the approved locations and maintained as such. 4) No more than 4 caravans of which only 2 shall be static mobile homes, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 shall be stationed on the site at any time. This is in addition to the dayroom building. 5) Development of the permitted layout shall not begin until a scheme for the disposal of foul drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved prior to the occupation of the first caravan. Once installed the agreed works shall be maintained as such. 6) Before the first occupation of the site full details of both hard and soft landscape works shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include the hardsurfacing materials for the driveway, caravan hardstandings, and parking and turning areas; plans identifying all proposed planting; schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, and an implementation programme. The approved hard landscaping works shall be completed before the occupation of the first caravan. The approved soft landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season following the written approval of the scheme. 7) If within a period of five years from the date of the planting out of the approved soft landscaping scheme, any of the trees, hedging or other plants used which are removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another plant of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the local planning authority gives its written approval to any variation. 8) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates or walls other than those permitted by this permission shall be erected within or along the boundaries of the appeal site. 9) No external lighting shall be installed on the site unless details of the position, height and type of lights have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The external lighting shall be installed and operated in accordance with the approved scheme and no other external lighting shall be installed or operated. 10) Development of the permitted layout shall not begin until details (including samples where necessary) of the external finishes, including colour of staining, of the exteriors of the static caravans and the dayroom hereby permitted, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The caravans shall be finished in accordance with the approved details before the occupation of the first residential unit and maintained as such thereafter.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/K2610/A/13/2203023

11) Before the first occupation of the site, mains electricity shall be connected and shall be maintained thereafter and no other means of generation of electricity shall be used. 12) No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on this site. 13) Before the first occupation of the site, any access gates shall be hung to open inwards at a minimum distance of 5 metres from the near channel edge of the adjacent carriageway and shall be maintained as such thereafter. 14) Before the first occupation of the site, details of the surfacing of the vehicular access for a minimum distance of 2 metres from the near channel edge of the adjacent carriageway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Before the occupation of the first caravan the agreed details shall be carried out and maintained as such thereafter.

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Stuart Harrison Agent

John Morgan Appellant

Mark Sedgwick Appellant’s brother-in-law

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Charles Judson Senior Planning Officer

INTERESTED PERSONS:

James Joyce Ward Member for Eynesford & Norfolk County Councillor for the Reepham Division

David McNeil Foulsham Parish Council

Andrew Johnson Resident

Charles Levien Resident

Judy Levien Resident

Jane Raynes Resident

Ian Robins Resident

DOCUMENTS

1 LP Policy HOU19 2 Location plan for Oaklands and Woodyard

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/K2610/A/13/2203023

3 Bus timetable 4 Appeal decision APP/K2610/A/11/2163133 5 Landscape Character Assessment 6 Council – additional evidence 7 Report to planning committee application no 20131495 – Land Adjacent Larkeys Farm

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11