Broadland District Council

BROADLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78

APPEAL BY: Mr Jason Smith against the refusal of Broadland District Council to grant planning permission for a gypsy and traveller pitch for one static, one tourer and facilities at Honingham Road, Weston Longville, Norfolk NR9 5LB

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE: APP/K2610/A/17/3189064

LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY REFERENCE: 20170173

LOCAL AUTHORITY HEARING STATEMENT

1. QUALIFICATIONS

1.1 My name is Matthew Shirling-Rooke and I hold the post of Area Planning Manager (West) with Broadland District Council. I hold a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Planning and a Post Graduate Diploma in Town Planning. I assumed my appointment at Broadland District Council in July 1995.

2. THE SITE AND ITS LOCATION

2.1 The appeal site is situated on the eastern side of Honingham Road some 1.3km to the south of the small village of Weston Longville, the village has a church and a village hall but no essential services, it has no shop, school or medical facilities or access to public transport, as a result Weston Longville has not been designated with a settlement limit within the adopted Development Plan. There is no roadside footway or public right of way which links the appeal site to the village centre.

2.2 The appeal site itself has two points of vehicular access. The main point of access is approximately halfway along the southern boundary via a former airfield taxi-way which connects to Honingham Road. A second point of access exists directly onto Honingham Road to the west although this has been temporarily blocked with fencing.

2.3 The site comprises a paddock on the eastern side of the appeal site with a field shelter in the southeast corner, while the western half accommodates a wooden stable and the proposed static caravan, within the remainder of the paddock.

2.4 The northern boundary is marked by middle aged and mature trees and hedging. The western boundary is a mature mixed hedgerow with Oak trees in the northwest

corner. The eastern boundary is formed by Oak, Ash and Cherry trees in the north east corner and a young hedgerow. The southern boundary is marked by a hedgerow.

2.5 Neighbouring land includes an open arable field to the south, paddocks to the east and woodland to the north. On the opposite side of Honingham Road to the west of the appeal site is the former RAF Attlebridge airfield, which is now a poultry rearing site. This site also accommodates a solar farm and two wind turbines that are 125m high to maximum tip height; the closest turbine is approximately 360m to the appeal site.

2.6 The nearest residential properties are in the small cluster of dwellings at Weston Green some 320m to the south west of the appeal site.

2.7 A plan of the appeal site edged in red in the context of its surroundings has been sent to the Planning Inspectorate and the appellant attached to the appeal questionnaire.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 20080141 – Stable and grazing. Approved 25 April 2008.

3.2 20111496 – Change of use to residential purposes, involving the siting of two mobile homes, four touring caravans, two amenity buildings, hardstanding, internal access road and field shelter. Refused 3 May 2012.

3.3 20130225 - Change of use of land for residential purposes including the siting of two mobile homes, four touring caravans, two amenity domestic stores, hardstanding, internal access road and retention of field shelter. (Resubmission). Refused 27 August 2014.

4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

4.1 The relevant policies relating to the consideration of this appeal are; Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk 2011 (amendments adopted 2014) (JCS)

Policy 1 – Addressing climate change and protecting environmental assets

Policy 2 – Promoting good design

Policy 4 – Housing delivery.

Policy 17 – Smaller rural communities and the countryside.

Broadland Development Management DPD 2015 (DMDPD)

Policy GC1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development

Policy GC2 – Location of new development

Policy EN2 – Landscape

Policy EN4 – Pollution

Policy H6 – Sites for gypsies and travellers

Policy TS3 – Highway safety

4.2 Copies of these policies have previously been forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate and the appellant attached to the completed questionnaire.

5. PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE

5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) – Sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to achieving sustainable development and that at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It also reinforces the position that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2015 – Sets out the government’s policies for traveller sites with the aim to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of travellers whilst respecting the interests of the settled community, is a material consideration.

5.3 Planning Practice Guidance 2014 – On-line reference guide which adds further context to the NPPF, is a material consideration.

5.4 The development plan policies in section 4 of this statement are material to the appeal together with the advice contained in the NPPF, Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, the Planning Practice Guidance and Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications and appeals to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 38 states:

‘If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.’

5.5 In this instance, the Local Planning Authority considered the proposed development against the policies in the adopted JCS and DMDPD and had full regard to the advice contained in the NPPF, the Planning Practice Guidance and the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites and found that it was unacceptable for the reasons set out in the refusal notice and section 7 of this statement. It is suggested that these are material policies and advice and that there are no material considerations that 3

would justify approving the application which was determined in accordance with the Development Plan.

6. THE APPEAL PROPOSAL

6.1 The application for planning permission to which this appeal relates was received on 1 February 2017, but wasn’t registered until 19 April 2017 as further details were required. The application sought full planning permission for the siting of a traveller’s pitch for one static caravan, one tourer caravan and an amenity block containing toilet and shower facilities.

6.2 A static caravan is on site in a position parallel with the western boundary and is positioned next to the stable to the north. The static caravan has the appearance of a park home with a pitched roof and brick skirt. It measures 9.6m in length by 3.15m in depth. The position of a tourer caravan is shown to the north of the stable also parallel with the western boundary.

6.3 It is proposed that the amenity block will be positioned to the south of the static caravan, it will measure 4.5m in width, 3.1m in depth and 3.4m in height to a ridged roof and will accommodate male and female washing and toilet facilities.

6.4 The supporting statement submitted with the application sets out the intention for foul water to be discharged to a package treatment plant to the east of the static caravan and for surface water to be collected in water butts with overflow to a soakaway. 6.5 The matter was reported to Planning Committee on 4 October 2017 and was refused on 6 October 2017 for the reasons set out on the decision notice. A copy of the refusal notice has been sent to the Planning Inspectorate and the appellant, attached to the appeal questionnaire.

7. EXPLANATORY COMMENTS

7.1 The main planning issues to be considered in relation to this appeal are an assessment of the proposal against the relevant policies of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and the Development Management DPD (DMDPD) with particular regard to JCS Policy 1; and DMDPD Policies GC2 and H6. The advice contained in the NPPF, the Planning Practice Guidance and the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites are material considerations.

7.2 The appeal site lies outside of any settlement limits that have been defined by the DMDPD and is in a remote countryside location. Weston Longville which is 1.3km to the north has not been designated with a settlement limit due to the lack of any essential services. The closest settlement with a primary school (reception to year 6) and a village store is Hockering (in Breckland District) which is approx. 5km by road to the south west, the closest place with a secondary school and a doctor’s surgery is Taverham which is approx. 8km by road to the east, both these locations would require a private motor vehicle to access the schools, shops and medical services. Policy GC2 of the DMDPD seeks to accommodate new development within settlement limits but outside of these areas, permits development where it would not result in any significant adverse impact and where it accords with a

specific allocation and/or Policy of the Development Plan. Policy H6 of the DMDPD is particularly relevant as it permits permanent gypsy and traveller accommodation outside of settlement limits which meet an identified need, where the site is within reasonable proximity of community facilities and provided there is no significant adverse impact.

7.3 Therefore to be considered to meet the requirements of Policy H6 of the DMDPD and therefore be considered acceptable under Policy GC2 of the DMDPD, three separate factors have to be assessed; firstly whether an identified need exists for the permanent gypsy and traveller accommodation, secondly is the site within reasonable proximity of community facilities and thirdly are there any significant adverse impacts arising from the proposals.

Whether a need exists for the proposed gypsy and traveller accommodation?

7.4 Careful consideration should be given to the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites which as well as setting out the targets for provision, states that it is the Government’s aim to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers in a way that facilitates their traditional and nomadic way of life while respecting the interests of the settled community. It states that traveller sites should be sustainable economically, socially and environmentally and advocates that a robust evidence base is needed to establish accommodation needs to inform the preparation of plans and make planning decisions. It states that local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets and also identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth for years 6-10 and where possible years 11-15. It also states that local planning authorities should ensure that traveller sites in rural areas respect the scale of and do not dominate the nearest settled community and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure.

7.5 In terms of planning policy, Policy 4 of the JCS identifies the requirements to provide permanent residential traveller pitches across the plan area and in Broadland the target for provision was set at 15 permanent pitches between 2006 - 2011 and 20 permanent pitches between 2012-2026. These figures were taken from the 2008 Single Issue Review which was undertaken as part of the now revoked, East of England Plan. Policy 4 also recognises that as the Plan was about to be revoked that new targets for permanent residential and transit pitches for the period after 2011 will be set, based on local evidence.

7.6 As a result, more detailed local level research was undertaken on behalf of Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk Councils through the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment (GTAA) in 2012. The study indicated that the need in Broadland was for 3 permanent pitches for the period 2011-2016, with higher levels of need in Norwich and South Norfolk. Beyond 2016, the GTAA suggested that there would likely be a need to provide further gypsy and traveller sites, although no target was set.

7.7 In October 2017 five Norfolk authorities including the three Greater Norwich authorities (Broadland, South Norfolk and Norwich City) published the ‘Norfolk Caravans and Houseboats Accommodation Needs Assessment (ANA) including for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show People’ this document was prepared as an 5

evidence base for policy development in housing and planning. In relation to the Greater Norwich area it forms part of the evidence base for the forthcoming Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP) which is at the Consultation Regulation 18 stage. The document has been considered, accepted and signed by the directors/leaders of each authority. A key element of the ANA was the stakeholder consultation that was undertaken with the gypsy and traveller community within Norfolk to understand their accommodation needs currently and in the future together with modelling of need based on current best practice issued by the DCLG. In terms of the gypsy and traveller part of the assessment it has taken account of the requirements set out in the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites in respect of the provision of a supply of adequate sites. The ANA advocates two different options for identifying suitable provision for the period 2017-2036; option 1 is for a supply ‘based on households who have not ceased to travel permanently’ and option 2 which is a supply ‘based on those who only travel for work purposes’.

7.8 In terms of the identified need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches this is set out in the tables in Appendix 1 of the ANA, these show that in Greater Norwich the five year need (2017-2022) under option 1 is 15 plots (average 3 per year) and the need for the remaining 15 year period between 2022–2036 is a further 45 pitches (average 3 per year). Under option 2 the five year need (2017-2022) is -2 plots and the need for the remaining 15 year period between 2022–2036 is a further 33 pitches (average 2.2 per year). It should be noted that these requirements are across the wider Greater Norwich comprising Broadland, South Norfolk and Norwich City and are very low per year for option 1 and in terms of option 2 the supply exceeds demand for the first 5 year period so no further sites are required to be provided.

7.9 A copy of the Norfolk Caravans and Houseboats Accommodation Needs Assessment (ANA) including for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show People’ will be sent to the Planning Inspectorate and the appellant.

7.10 It is recognised that the Council currently does not have any development plan allocations for gypsy or traveller site provision and the current strategy is that careful consideration will be given to sites via planning applications for private sites whilst also working with partner organisations on the scope of bringing forward transit sites and producing a gypsy and traveller specific DPD if required in the future. However the ANA forms part of the evidence base for the forthcoming GNLP and consideration will be given as part of the adoption of the Plan as to whether it is necessary to allocate any suitable sites within Greater Norwich to meet the identified need over the next 18 years.

7.11 In terms of previous provision of gypsy and traveller sites in Broadland, between 2006 - 2011 planning permission was granted for 13 permanent residential traveller pitches across the District, representing an average of 2.2 per year (8 at Stratton Strawless and 5 at Foulsham), this being two short of the JCS target. From 2012 to date, planning permission has been granted for a further 7 permanent residential traveller pitches, representing an average 1 per year (1 at Horsford, 2 adjacent Pillar Box Cottage in Foulsham, 1 at Hevingham and 3 in Stratton Strawless) resulting in 20 pitches being provided in total against the total JCS target of 35. It is considered that the latest ANA data is the most up to date information in this respect and therefore supersedes the JCS provision. Furthermore each of these sites came forward by travellers submitting planning applications for private pitches on their own land and this demonstrates where the need for traveller sites exists. 6

7.12 The District Council’s approach is considered to be working and there is no reason to assume that it won’t continue to deliver against the target, especially as the above provision has been taken from Broadland District only and the future identified need will be met across the wider Greater Norwich. The planning permissions that have been granted in Broadland are private sites that a gypsy or traveller has purchased for themselves and their family as a permeant base as they have ceased to travel permanently and only travel for work, hence they met the option 2 category and for the next five years the supply of sites exceeds the identified need.

7.13 The latest position is that there are no undetermined planning applications or unauthorised pitches for gypsy or traveller pitches within Greater Norwich. There is one unauthorised pitch in Norwich City and one pitch for a travelling show person, 260m to the east of the appeal site, which has been refused consent with an appeal pending. In Norwich City planning permission was granted in January 2017 for 13 traveller pitches on Swanton Road, which is still to be implemented.

Is the proposal within reasonable proximity of community facilities?

7.14 As set out above the appeal site is considered to be in a remote countryside location that is more than 5km from a primary school and village shop in Hockering and more than 8km from a secondary school and doctor’ surgery in Taverham. The facilities in Weston Longville are limited to a church, a village hall with children’s play area/field and a public house/restaurant, which offers limited local community facilities. The supporting text of Policy H6 of the DMDPD at para. 4.40 states that ‘To minimise the need for long-distant trips to access services/facilities sites should be located within reasonable proximity of schools, doctor’s surgeries etc.’

7.15 Although it is noted that the term ‘reasonable’ is not defined in the DMDPD, it is considered that a reasonable distance to a school would be one that a child can walk/cycle safely. In terms of the appeal site Honingham Road would be a key part of the journey to school and it should be noted that Honingham Road is a busy connecting route between the heavily trafficked A47 and A1067, its speed limit is 60mph and with no roadside footway or alternative safe public right of way, this makes Honingham Road a very dangerous road for anyone wanting to walk or cycle along it from the appeal site to Weston Longville or Hockering and beyond.

7.16 It is noted that a village shop in Hockering offers a level of local service but to access it would require a private motor vehicle as there is no public transport in vicinity of the appeal site. The nearest secondary school, doctor’s surgery and pharmacy are in Taverham some 8km to the east of the site along the heavily trafficked A1067 and once again these would need to be accessed by a private motor vehicle as no other alternative exists.

7.17 Therefore it is considered that the essential services and facilities that a resident of the appeal site would expect to access are beyond a reasonable distance from the appeal site and would be very dangerous to attempt to access by foot or bicycle along Honingham Road. Residents would therefore require long distance trips and access to a private motor vehicle to be able to utilise their essential services and facilities. This would be contrary to the principles of sustainable development which

requires that new development should be located in proximity to essential services and facilities.

Are there any significant adverse impacts?

7.18 It is considered that, by virtue of the well-established vegetation on the boundaries of the appeal site, the stable and proposed static caravan, tourer and amenity building are screened from public vantage points and therefore there is no unacceptable impact from the proposals on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The site has not been identified as having any special ecological or bio-diversity characteristics and therefore the proposals do not have any detrimental impact on ecology or bio-diversity.

7.19 In terms of highway considerations, although identifying that the appeal site is not in a sustainable location, Norfolk County Council (as Highway Authority) did not recommend that the application is refused in terms of highway safety. It is noted that the Highway Authority comments submitted at the application stage included a recommendation that planning conditions should be imposed if approval is given. Not all of the planning conditions that the Highway Authority recommended are considered to be necessary to make the development acceptable, as sufficient space exists on site to provide a parking and turning area and the applicant does not control the access gates close to the junction of the taxi-way with Honingham Road. However, officers consider that a condition is required to permanently close the access that exists along the western boundary onto Honingham Road and to reinstate the verge. This condition is included in the suggested conditions in the Appendix.

7.20 Another factor in this case to consider under the heading ‘significant adverse impacts’ is an assessment of whether the noise associated with the adjacent wind turbines has an unacceptable effect on the living conditions and quality of life of the occupiers of the proposed static caravan. This was considered at the application stage.

7.21 As part of the planning application, a Noise Assessment Report was submitted by the applicant. The scope of this report was agreed with the Council’s Environmental Health Officer beforehand and is based on data from the 2010 windfarm Environmental Statement. The report concluded that predicted noise levels are below the day and night time limits under all wind conditions. It took account of the limited sound insulation of caravans with windows open but still concluded that internal noise standards would be met when considering typical ambient noise levels at the site. Noise levels in amenity areas due to the turbines and ambient sources would meet the required World Health Organisation standard for external noise.

7.22 Weston Longville Parish Council commissioned its own review of the applicant’s Noise Assessment Report and submitted it to the Council for consideration. In summary, the Parish Council’s consultant concluded that it would not be practicable to mitigate the effects of noise on residents by carrying out works to the site or to a caravan or mobile home. His opinion was that occupiers of a caravan or mobile home would experience a noise climate which would adversely impact on their quality of life and there is a significant risk that wind farm noise levels would breach ETSU-R-97 and WHO noise limits. 8

7.23 The applicant’s consultant was invited to respond to this and in doing so, noted that the noise levels from the wind turbines would be 1 to 2dB above the recommended limit due to noisier turbines being installed than originally proposed. The consultant also recognised that it would be difficult to mitigate the effects of turbine noise for a standard mobile home. However, it is proposed that a mobile home from Tingdene Homes Ltd. will be installed that meets the requirements of BS 3632:2015 “Residential Park Homes. Specification” and achieve satisfactory internal noise levels.

7.24 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer was then asked to review the application in respect of noise matters. Throughout the planning application, his main concern was the attenuation potential of the static caravan and having reviewed the reports and subsequent comments and rebuttals he decided he was not in a position to object to the application. He therefore recommended the use of a planning condition that requires compliance with BS 3632:2015 to ensure that appropriate noise attenuation is maintained. This condition together with a condition that requires that within 4 months of the date of any planning permission, details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval demonstrating that the static caravan installed on site complies with BS 3632:2015 entitled ‘Residential Park Homes. Specification’. On the basis of these comments and the use of appropriately worded planning conditions, the District Council is satisfied that the occupiers of the static caravan would be adequately mitigated from the potential impacts from noise arising from the neighbouring wind turbines.

7.25 The nearest residential neighbour to the site is approximately 320m to the southwest at Weston Green. The District Council does not consider that the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties would be adversely affected by the appeal proposal.

7.26 A further consideration under the impacts heading is an assessment of the three dimensions to sustainable development as set out in paragraph 7 of the NPPF. These are the economic role, the social role and the environmental role. It is considered that the proposal will have only a very marginal economic benefit from the occupiers of the site spending money in the locality. The social role will depend to what extent the occupiers engage with the local community but the remote position of the appeal site significantly counts against this aspect, especially as residents will have to use private motor vehicles to access essential services and facilities, there are no proposals to enhance the environment as a result of the proposals. On balance it is considered that the remote location of the site is not outweighed by the other factors and the site represents an unsustainable form of development.

7.27 Therefore it is considered that there would not be significant adverse impacts arising from the proposals on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, on ecology or biodiversity, on highways safety or the residential amenities of neighbours or future occupiers of the appeal proposals.

7.28 In summarising the explanatory comments of the District Council and applying the planning balance it is considered that the appeal site is located in a remote countryside location which is not in reasonable proximity of community facilities including particularly schools, shops and medical facilities. The Council has set out 9

a clear and robust evidence based assessment through its ANA as to how the identified needs of gypsy and traveller accommodation will be provided for in the next 18 years and the evidence is that in terms of accommodation for gypsies and travellers that have ceased to travel permanently, that there is a small oversupply of sites for the next 5 years. Any additional sites will be provided across the Greater Norwich area at a rate that is very likely to reflect the past provision and could form part of the forthcoming Greater Norwich Local Plan. In addition it is considered that the appeal proposals represent an unsustainable form of development which runs counter to the presumptions of Council and national policy.

8. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL

8.1 The appellant has provided a covering letter dated 10 November 2017 which the Local Planning Authority consider sets out his reasons for his appeal, which are summarised as:

i) The District Council has previously determined that the land was suitable for use as a gypsy/traveller site in 2014 but changed its mind when there has been no change in circumstances.

ii) The noise assessment undertaken as part of the appeal proposal show that the development would not be adversely affected by the existence of the wind turbines.

It is noted that a significant number of supporting documents for his appeal were submitted by the agent for the appellant but these have not been specifically referenced in the grounds of appeal.

8.2 In responding to these reasons in turn; firstly 8.1i) It is noted planning application ref: 20130225 was submitted for a change of use of land for residential purposes including the siting of two mobile homes, four touring caravans, two amenity domestic stores, hardstanding, internal access road and retention of field shelter. From the application submission it appears that the proposals had been re- submitted in light of an appeal that had been allowed two months earlier for two traveller pitches elsewhere in the District (at land adjacent Pillar Box Cottage in the parish of Foulsham) (appeal ref: APP/K2610/A/13/2203023). That site is located approximately 2.2km to the east of Foulsham which is a settlement that is classified as a service village in the JCS as it has a village school, a Post Office, pub, church and village hall, as well as access to public transport to neighbouring higher order settlements elsewhere in the county, Foulsham has a settlement limit as part of the DMDPD. The site adjacent Pillar Box Cottage is approximately 11.3km (as the crow flies) to the north west of the current appeal site.

8.3 Application ref: 20130225 was originally reported to Planning Committee on 30/07/2014 but was deferred due to requests for further information about the impact of the noise associated with the adjacent wind turbines on the amenities of the occupiers of the traveller site. The matter was reported back to Planning Committee on 27/08/2014 and it was agreed to refuse the application on grounds that ‘The noise implications referred to are considered to outweigh the need for traveller sites to be provided within the District and are considered to have a

detrimental adverse impact on the amenity and health of the occupiers of the traveller site’.

8.4 This reason for refusal does not state that the appeal site is a suitable location for use as a gypsy and traveller site but merely that the information available to it at that time was that the noise implications from the wind turbines outweighed the need to provide traveller sites against the provision targets within the JCS.

8.5 The District Council would like to take this opportunity to identify that it considers that there are fundamental differences between the current appeal proposals and the proposals at land adjacent Pillar Box Cottage, Foulsham. Firstly the two locations are significantly different; the Foulsham site is on a quiet country lane and Foulsham has more available local services, the appeal Inspector stated at para. 33 that ‘..I saw local residents walking their dogs and riding horses along the road. This assures me that anyone walking or cycling into the village would need to be cautious, pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders are not uncommon or unexpected users of the road.’ This is in stark contrast to the current appeal site which is on a busy and fast road which is considered to be a dangerous route for pedestrians or cyclists. Also at the time of the previous appeal decision the available targets for provision were set by Policy 4 of the JCS and the appeal Inspector noted at para. 37 that ‘there was a lack of direction and progress for updating future need beyond 2016 within a reasonable timeframe’ and this was a determining factor in allowing the appeal. This situation has been changed by publishing the ANA in October 2017 which shows that the level of need for traveller pitches is low across the Greater Norwich area.

8.6 Since the appeal was allowed at land adjacent Pillar Box Cottage, the District Council has granted planning permission for 3 further traveller pitches at two sites in Stratton Strawless.

8.7 In respect of reason 8.1ii) as set out in paragraphs 7.21-7.24 of this statement the issue of noise impact on the occupiers of the appeal site was considered at the planning application stage and as no additional details have been submitted as part of this appeal, the District Council is satisfied that the occupiers of the static caravan would be adequately mitigated from the potential impacts from noise arising from the neighbouring wind turbines, this is strictly on the basis that the static caravan is occupied in compliance with the suggested condition which requires that the static caravan onsite shall comply with the sound insulation requirements of BS 3632:2015 entitled ‘Residential Park Homes. Specification’ or any other document revoking, amending or replacing BS 3632:2015 with or without modification.

8.8 The Local Planning Authority has no further comments on the appellant’s grounds of appeal.

9. CONCLUSIONS

9.1 The Local Planning Authority remains of the view that the proposed development is unacceptable for the reasons set out in the decision notice and this statement.

9.2 The Council is also confident that as a result, the development conflicts with up to date and relevant Development Plan policies and national advice and causes harm 11

to interests of acknowledged importance, and that, in accordance with section 54a of the Act, the appeal should be dismissed.

9.3 The onus is on the appellant to show that there are other material considerations to outweigh the Local Planning Authorities presumption in favour of determining the proposal in accordance with the Development Plan. However, it is considered that none of the matters raised in the grounds of appeal provide adequate reason for an exemption based on the relevant policies.

9.4 The Inspector is invited to share this view and dismiss the appeal. If, after consideration of the representations made, it is decided that the appeal should be allowed, the Local Planning Authority requires that the conditions outlined in the attached Appendix should be imposed.

Appendix Conditions

1) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the plans listed below:

Location Plan received on 19 April 2017 Drawing number OS0002 – Block Plan – received on 13 February 2017 Drawing number FP0001 – Floor Plans and Elevations – received on 13 February 2017 2) The development hereby approved shall not be occupied by any persons other than Gypsies and Travellers as defined in Annex 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (DCLG, 2015).

3) Within one month of the date of this planning permission, details of external lighting (including the type of lighting, locations and details of any lighting columns) to be erected on the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval. The lighting shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

4) No more than one static caravan and one touring caravan, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 shall be stationed on the site hereby approved at any one time. This is in addition to the amenity building.

5) Any static caravan on the application site shall comply with the sound insulation requirements of BS 3632:2015 entitled ‘Residential Park Homes. Specification’ or any other document revoking, amending or replacing BS 3632:2015 with or without modification.

6) Within 4 months of the date of this planning permission, details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval demonstrating that the static caravan complies with BS 3632:2015 entitled ‘Residential Park Homes. Specification’.

7) A detailed scheme for the permanent closure of the vehicular access on the western boundary of the site, shown on drawing number OS0002 together with the re-instatement of the highway verge shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within one month of the date of this planning permission. Within two months of the date of the approval of these works by the Local Planning Authority, the works shall be undertaken as approved.

8) The foul drainage proposals shown on drawing number OS0002 shall be installed and brought into operation within three months of the date of this planning permission.

9) Notwithstanding the provisions of Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 or any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification no walls, fences or other means of enclosure shall be erected along the boundaries of the site.