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.