DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL 20 AUGUST 2012

Case No: 1200601FUL (FULL APPLICATION)

Proposal: PERMANENT CHANGE OF USE OF LAND FROM AGRICULTURE/PADDOCK TO PROVIDE 5 ADDITIONAL GYPSY/TRAVELLER PITCHES AND HARD STANDINGS

Location: FIVE ACRES FIELD, ST IVES ROAD, WOODHURST PE28 3BP

Applicant: MR F PRICE

Grid Ref: 533844 275832

Date of Registration: 13.04.2012

Parish: SOMERSHAM

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 This site is located on the B1040 mid way between St Ives and Somersham. It comprises the rear third of a field, the front two-thirds of which is used as a residential caravan site by an extended gypsy family. The field has a frontage of 70 metres and a depth of 230 metres. This application relates to the rear 75 metres. The site has no features of note apart from boundary hedges. It rises from the road in a south easterly direction. There is a compound abutting the highway frontage containing a building and other structures with a gated access from the main road. There are eight authorised permanent pitches on the front and central areas of the site and this application is for an additional 5 permanent pitches in the remainder of the field.

1.2 Development in the area is scattered but there are two cottages opposite, a mushroom farm and a compost making plant to the south and the Raptor Centre on the opposite side of the road.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development - an economic role, a social role and an environmental role - and outlines the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Under the heading of Delivering Sustainable Development, the Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for: building a strong, competitive economy; ensuring the vitality of town centres; supporting a prosperous rural economy; promoting sustainable transport; supporting high quality communications infrastructure; delivering a wide choice of high quality homes; requiring good design; promoting healthy communities; protecting Green Belt land; meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change; conserving and enhancing the natural environment; conserving and enhancing the historic environment; and facilitating the sustainable use of minerals.

2.2 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (March 2012). This document, which came into force alongside the NPPF, sets out the Government’s planning policy for traveller sites.

2.3 For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Further information on the role of planning policies in deciding planning applications can also be found at the following website: http://www.communities.gov.uk then follow links Planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Information and Guidance, Planning Guidance and Advice and then Creating and Better Place to Live

3.2 East of Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008) Policies viewable at http://www.go-east.gov.uk then follow links to Planning, Regional Planning then Related Documents and Single Issue Review on Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation

 H3: “Provision for Gypsies and Travellers” – Local Authorities should make provision for sites/pitches to meet the identified needs of Gypsies and Travellers living within or resorting to their area.

3.3 and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) Saved policies from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 are relevant and viewable at http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk follow the links to environment, planning, planning policy and Structure Plan 2003.

 None relevant

3.4 Policies from the Adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2009 are relevant and viewable at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk click on Environment and Planning then click on Planning and then click on Planning Policy where there is a link to the Local Development Framework Core Strategy.

 CS1: “Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire” – all developments will contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development, having regard to social, environmental and economic issues. All aspects will be considered including design, implementation and function of development.

 CS3: “The Settlement Hierarchy” – states that any area not specifically identified are classed as part of the countryside, where development will be strictly limited to that which has an essential need to be located in the countryside.

 CS6: “Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople” - Account will be taken of the need to ensure that Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople are accommodated in sustainable locations where essential services such as water and sewerage are provided and with good access by foot, cycle or public transport to services such as education and health. Providing sites in appropriate locations will help prevent the social exclusion of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople and conflict with settled communities. Consideration will be taken of the preference of many Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople for a rural location with a degree of separation from the settled community. The number of pitches should be appropriate to the size of the site and the availability of infrastructure and services and facilities in accordance with the general principles set out in the settlement hierarchy. The policy sets out the criteria which will guide the provision of sites: - there would be no significant adverse effect on the amenity of nearby residents or operations of adjoining land uses; - the development should not have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape and appropriate landscaping and boundaries should be provided; - adequate schools, shops and other community facilities are within reasonable travelling distance, and can be reached by foot, cycle or public transport; - the site is served (or can be served) by an adequate water supply and appropriate means of sewage disposal which meets national standards; - the health and safety of occupants are not put at risk including through unsafe access to sites, poor air quality and unacceptable noise (as for example close to trunk roads) or unacceptable flood risk so that the quality of the environment is at the same acceptable standard as for the settled community; - there should be adequate space for operational needs including the parking, turning and servicing of vehicles.

3.5 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95

 H23: “Outside Settlements” – general presumption against housing development outside environmental limits with the exception of specific dwellings required for the efficient management of agriculture, forestry and horticulture.

 En17: "Development in the Countryside" - development in the countryside is restricted to that which is essential to the effective operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, permitted mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services.

 CS8: “Water” – satisfactory arrangements for the availability of water supply, sewerage and sewage disposal facilities, surface water run-off facilities and provision for land drainage will be required.

3.6 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002) Saved policies from the Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

 None relevant

3.7 Policies from the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010 are relevant.

 C5: “Flood Risk and Water Management” – development proposals should include suitable flood protection / mitigation to not increase risk of flooding elsewhere. Sustainable drainage systems should be used where technically feasible. There should be no adverse impact on or risk to quantity or quality of water resources.

 E1: “Development Context” – development proposals shall demonstrate consideration of the character and appearance of the surrounding environment and the potential impact of the proposal.

 E2: “Built-up Areas” – development will be limited to within the built-up areas of the settlements identified in Core Strategy policy CS3, in order to protect the surrounding countryside and to promote wider sustainability objectives.

 E8: “Sustainable Travel” – proposals must demonstrate how the scheme maximises opportunities for the use of sustainable travel modes, particularly walking, cycling and public transport.

 H7: “Amenity” – development proposals should safeguard the living conditions for residents and people occupying adjoining or nearby properties.

3.8 Supplementary Planning Guidance / Documents:

 Huntingdonshire Townscape and Landscape Assessment – site is located within the Central Claylands Landscape Character Area.

 Cambridge Sub-Region Traveller Needs Assessment 2006 – assessed the need in Huntingdonshire to be between 15 and 25 extra pitches in the period 2005 – 2010.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 Planning permission (0302573FUL) was refused in September 2003 and an enforcement notice (0300231ENCARA) served relating to the unauthorised use of the field as a residential caravan site.

4.2 Subsequent appeals (APP/HO520/A/04/1146919 & C/04/1147154) were dismissed on the 5th October 2004 because of impact/harm to the character and appearance of the area and conflict with development plan policies seeking to protect the countryside. The inspector also concluded that landscaping would not overcome the harm and it made no difference whether the site was for four or eight caravans. The enforcement notice was varied in the time for compliance to 18 months to enable the Council to assess need and provide firmer guidance on suitable locations for private gypsy sites.

4.3 He also considered the option of granting temporary planning permission. He considered that the site was not well located for accessibility to services and facilities and is relatively remote from settlements (Somersham and St Ives) and situated alongside a busy and unlit road without footways. Walking and cycling would not be an attractive proposition and this together with the limited frequency of the bus service meant reliance upon motor vehicles.

4.4 In May 2006, the Panel refused an application (ref. 0600956FUL) for change of use of land (the front part of the field) to a residential caravan site for four gypsy families with eight caravans, hardstandings and landscaping on the grounds of material harm to the character and appearance of the landscape. The Panel also resolved to extend the implementation of the enforcement notice for a further 18 months. The owner appealed the decision but the appeal was withdrawn. Instead a further application on the front part of the field was submitted under the reference 0700959FUL in view of revised national guidance in Circular 01/2006. The Panel granted a personal, temporary planning permission for 3 years to May 2010.

4.5 Application 1000817S73 was for the removal of condition 1 of planning permission 0700959FUL. The condition was varied and a personal, temporary permission was granted for 3 years to Dec 2013.

4.6 Application 1100656S73 was for the removal of condition 1 of planning permission 1000817S73. The condition was varied and permanent permission was granted without the personal restriction but with a condition limiting occupation to gypsies and travellers.

4.7 Application 1101499FUL was for Permanent change of use of land (the central ‘third’ of the field) from agricultural paddock to provide 4 additional gypsy/traveller pitches and hard standings. The number of additional pitches had been reduced from 8 to 4 during the course of the application. It was approved in March 2012 following consideration at the Panel in January 2012.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Somersham Parish Council – Recommend refusal (copy attached) - A further 5 pitches on the site making a total of 13 pitches with 1 “mobile home” and 1 travelling caravan per pitch + a number of ancillary buildings) would dominate the nearest settled community. - Over-development of this narrow site. - The 5 pitches to the rear of the site would be on higher ground and therefore visually intrusive in the surrounding countryside. A Planning Inspector previously considered this to be inappropriate. - The significant increase in the number of traffic movements on and off the site (13 pitches could result in 2 vehicles per pitch) would lead to more vehicle movements and the B1086 is a fast, straight road with a 60mph speed limit. A fatal accident occurred last year at the nearby Pidley Sheep Lane junction. - What has changed since the objections to 8 additional pitches in a previous application? (see details for 1101499FUL above) - Huntingdonshire District Council has publicly stated its intention to limit the number of pitches on privately well run family sites to a maximum of 8 in its updated Development Plan. Although this is not yet policy, the key argument must be that on this particular site more than 8 pitches is not appropriate.

5.2 Pidley Parish Council – Recommend refusal (copy attached) - There should be no further development of the site.

5.3 Woodhurst Parish Council – Recommend refusal (copy attached) - This planning proposal has arrived only months after the previous expansion was permitted but limited to four pitches. - Previous comments regarding this site are still relevant – i.e. the access to schools, public transport and health centres are all poorly provided. - Looking at the recent addition of more pitches, this would demonstrate that the site is close to capacity. The monitoring of the site by the District Council Planning Department was supposed to reassure us that future expansion would be the addition of four more pitches for caravans and not the considerable construction of permanent buildings and walls that have been/are currently being erected.

5.4 Parish Council – Recommend refusal (copy attached) - The number of additional pitches is excessive and the comments made on application 1101499FUL still stand. - Approval would set a precedent for expansion elsewhere in the District. - There are a high proportion of travellers’ sites in this vicinity. - The current site works well as a small family group, reservations about increasing to 9 but the Council would be content to see a limited expansion to 6 pitches in total.

5.6 Cambridgeshire County Council (Highways) – Had no objection to the previous application as originally submitted (1101499FUL) which proposed a total of 12 pitches on the field subject to a condition requiring the provision of on-site parking and turning.

Any further comments received in relation to this application will be reported at or before the Panel meeting.

5.7 HDC Environmental Protection – Had no objection to the previous application (1101499FUL)

Any further comments received in relation to this application will be reported at or before the Panel meeting.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 One representation has been received: - At the Panel meeting in January 2012 it was announced that the policy for HDC would allow a maximum of 8 pitches on private well run family sites, that statement clearly influenced the decision. - The enforcement appeal decision for this site in October 2004, APP/H0520/C/04/1147154, concluded that retention of the development would materially harm the character and appearance of the area and conflict with development plan policies seeking to protect the countryside. The addition of five on the higher ground even with additional landscaping would be visually intrusive. - Developing the higher ground would mean that the site would not have any green spaces left for recreation. - A total of 13 pitches would dominate the nearest settled community of the two cottages and the Raptor Centre, contrary to the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. - The Bluntisham site of 11 pitches was regarded as unsustainable for the scale of use proposed by the appeal inspector. It is on a similarly busy road with a 60 mph speed limit and similar distances from shops and schools etc. This proposal could therefore be seen as unsustainable for the scale of use proposed. - Although the site is on a bus route, there are the same constraints on the provision of bus stops as at Bluntisham. The Council should be consistent.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues in assessing this application are: - the principle of development; - the existing level of local provision and need for sites; - the availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants; - other personal circumstances of the applicant; - the application of locally specific criteria for the allocation of sites. 7.2 Having regard to paragraphs 214 and 216 of the NPPF full weight can be given to the Core Strategy and the RSS because they have been adopted since 2004; full weight should be given to the Core Strategy; it is acknowledged however that the Government’s intention is to revoke the RSS and although this has not yet happened it is considered that this intention diminishes the weight that should be given to the RSS policies.

7.3 In the view of the LPA (and having regard to the stage of its preparation, the extent of unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency of relevant policies with the NPPF) significant weight can be given to the DM DPD: Proposed Submission although it is noted that those policies relate mainly to ‘detailed’ matters as opposed to the principle of the development. It is considered that the remainder of the development plan (i.e. those policies which pre-date 2004 but remain part of the development plan) are consistent with the NPPF principles.

7.4 Full weight must be given to the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) guidance which was published alongside the NPPF in March 2012. The NPPF is also apportioned full weight.

7.5 The Consultation Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan 2036 has not yet been published and is therefore not a material consideration.

Principle of development:

7.6 Government policy on traveller sites is now set out in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (March 2012) (PPTS) which has replaced Circular 01/2006. The Government’s overarching aims include: - that local planning authorities should make their own assessment of need for the purposes of planning; - encouraging local planning authorities to plan for sites over a reasonable timescale; - reducing tensions between settled and traveller communities in plan- making and planning decisions; - enabling provision of suitable accommodation from which travellers can access education, health, welfare and employment infrastructure - local planning authorities to have due regard to the protection of local amenity and local environment.

7.7 Local planning authorities should set pitch targets for gypsies and travellers which address likely needs. In producing their local plans they should: - identify and update annually, a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets; - identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years six to ten and, where possible, for years 11-15.

7.8 The selection of sites should ‘relate the number of pitches or plots to the circumstances of the specific size and location of the site and the surrounding population’s size and density’ and protect local amenity and environment. Criteria should be set to guide land supply allocations where there is identified need and the determination of applications which come forward.

7.9 In addition to the general guidance in Policy B that traveller sites should be sustainable economically, socially and environmentally there is specific guidance for sites in rural areas and the countryside. When assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community.

7.10 Unlike the Circular which stated that gypsy and traveller sites were appropriate in principle in rural settings where not subject to special planning constraints, PPTS says that new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan should be strictly limited.

7.11 Under PPTS Policy H, amongst other relevant matters, the issues to be considered in determining planning applications are: a) the existing level of local provision and need for sites b) the availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants c) other personal circumstances of the applicant d) that the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites e) that they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections.

7.12 In respect of applications for permission made in the 12 months from the date PPTS came into effect in March 2012, if a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites, Policy H says that this should be a significant material consideration when considering the grant of temporary planning permission. Also under this policy LPAs are advised to attach weight to: a) effective use of previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land b) sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness c) promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate landscaping and play areas for children d) not enclosing 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.(Policy H para.24)

The existing level of local provision and need for sites

7.13 The Government has announced its intention to revoke all Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) including the Plan and the Localism Act 2011 is the applicable enabling legislation. The intention to revoke the RSS is a material consideration in determining applications. However, until it is revoked, Policy H3 of the East of England Plan remains relevant. This policy requires a minimum of 25 additional pitches in Huntingdonshire in the period 2006-2011 and an annual compound increase of 3% between 2011 and 2021. By July 2012 a total of 14 permanent pitches had been provided together with 22 temporary pitches. In assessing need against this policy it has to be noted that it was adopted before the requirement to provide a five year supply of pitches was introduced and it makes provision at two different rates within the overall plan period.

RSS Policy H3 Number of Pitches Target to 2006-2011 25 Target to 2011-2017 9 Target 2006-2017 34 Completions since 2006 14 Residual target to 2017 20

7.14 When the RSS has been formally abolished it will be for each local authority to determine the number of pitches it considers appropriate for its area. In July 2010 the Government’s Chief Planner advised local planning authorities that the abolition of RSS would mean that local authorities would be responsible for determining the right level of local site provision, reflecting local need and historic demand, and for bringing forward land in Development Plan Documents. He further advised that Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments (GTAAs) would form a good starting point for local authorities to identify their own levels of provision but local authorities are not ultimately bound by them.

7.15 The Local Planning Authority therefore considers that, having regard to Policy B (Paragraph 9 a)) of the PPTS, the RSS targets in Policy H3 no longer form an up-to-date target and in addition they are not ‘locally set’.

7.16 Work to provide an up-to-date GTAA and to identify the Council’s own level of provision was carried out in 2011 led by Cambridgeshire County Council’s research team. The resulting Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment (GTANA) assessed the ‘backlog’ in Huntingdonshire’s case as 17 pitches primarily as a result of the temporary approvals. A model of projected population growth based on available figures of children registered for education indicated that there would be an annual local need from newly forming households of between 3 and 5 pitches per year, some of which would be met by turnover of existing pitches. The assessment concluded that there was a need for an additional 53 pitches between January 2011 and January 2031 in Huntingdonshire.

7.17 The Huntingdonshire Traveller Sites Officer Steering Group met in June 2012 and decided to include a target of 64 pitches or 2.5 pitches per year in the draft Local Plan for Consultation. This target is based on the findings of the 2011 GTANA, projected to the timeframe of the Council’s revised Local Plan (April 2011 to April 2036). The projection to 2036 is made using the GTANA’s assessment of 53 pitches from January 2011 to January 2031 and adding 11 more pitches for the extra 5 years at the same figures as those for 2026 to 2031.

7.18 Using this draft figure and the PPTS methodology a 5 year housing supply can be calculated as follows. Higher and lower provision figures have also been considered and these are also included.

2/yr 2.5/yr 3/yr Local Plan to 2036 target: 50 64 75 Minus completions since Plan start date of 38 52 63 April 2011 (12): Years left in Local Plan to 2036 period: 24 24 24 Residual annual target at April 2012 (i.e. 1.58 2.16 2.62 target minus completions divided by 24): 5 year target from April 2012 (residual 7.9 10.8 13.1 annual target x 5):

7.19 In terms of the calculation of need, at the present time it is not possible to place full weight on any one development plan policy, assessment of need or emerging plan. The weight which can be given to the RSS (East of England Plan Policy H3) is diminished from full weight because of the intention to revoke it but only limited weight can be given to the GTANA as it has not been formally endorsed by the Council and to the Target Options and GTANA document which was posted on the Planning Policy section of the Council’s website in July 2012.. However, the thrust of the PPTS seeks to ensure that decisions are made having regard to the level of local provision and need and the assessment available on the Council’s website which takes into account the GTANA 2011 is the most up-to-date assessment.

7.20 In terms of the scale of the need, it can be said that taking into account all methods of calculation there is currently a need for further permanent pitches and it is in the range of 8 to 20 pitches across the whole District over the next 5 years. From that perspective the determination of this application for 5 pitches does not, in respect of need, turn on the choice of which document should be given greatest weight. The need for sites would add some weight in support of a temporary permission.

The availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants

7.21 It is accepted that pitches on sites with temporary planning permission do not count towards the requirements. However, the GTANA, which is the most up to date assessment, breaks down its pitch need assessment into 5 year periods and a significant element of the need for 17 pitches in the first period 2011 to 2016 is the 16 pitches which, as of January 2011, had temporary planning permission. It is noted that 10 of the 12 pitches granted permanent planning permission since January 2011 are on sites which had previously had temporary permissions, so a substantial element of the ‘backlog’ in this first period has been addressed. There are also currently 22 pitches on sites with temporary planning permissions where pitches are already available and meeting some of the identified need, albeit on a temporary basis. These sites were granted on appeal in the light of paragraph 45 of Circular 01/2006 which advised that, where there is unmet need but no available alternative gypsy and traveller site provision but there is a reasonable expectation that new sites are likely to become available at the end of that period, local planning authorities should give consideration to granting temporary planning permission.

7.22 In terms of pitches available there are currently a number of unoccupied pitches on other parts of this site and at Bluntisham.

Other personal circumstances of the applicant

7.23 No such circumstances have been put forward in this application. The proposal does not therefore attract any weight in this regard.

Locally specific criteria

7.24 Locally specific criteria are set out in Core Strategy policy CS6 which can be accorded full weight. These criteria are compatible with the new policy in PPTS. PPTS states that traveller sites should be sustainable in economic, social and environmental terms. It sets out aims for local planning authorities’ policies in Policy B, paragraph 11 as well as other specific policies. The site has been assessed against these and found to conflict in terms of the scale of the development and its landscape impact.

Impact on the settled community

7.25 One of the general aims of PPTS is the promotion of peaceful and integrated co-existence between sites and the local community. This is specifically to be secured in rural areas by respecting the scale of, and not dominating the nearest settled community. This can be achieved by relating the number of pitches to the circumstances of the specific size and location of the site and the surrounding population’s size and density.

7.26 In determining the last application on the site it was concluded that a total of 8 pitches on the front and middle parts of the site would not dominate the settled community which consist of a pair of cottages opposite the site access. In view of the latest policy in PPTS it is considered that increasing the total to 13 pitches spread across the whole site would unacceptably dominate the settled community and not be well-related to its very small scale and low density.

7.27 The proposal would be contrary to PPTS policy B para. 9(d), policy B para 11 (a) and policy H, para. 23 and Huntingdonshire Core Strategy Policy CS6.

Impact on the character and appearance of the countryside

7.28 There is scattered development along the B1086 between Somersham and St Ives. Albeit in the context of the national guidance in the superseded Circular 01/1994, the Inspector who dealt with the enforcement notice appeal in 2004 in respect of the stationing of caravans on this field found that despite the sporadic built development the area had a strongly rural character. Whilst the boundary hedges would help to screen the caravans from close views, in longer views from higher ground on the B1040 and the B1089 at Pidley, caravans on this rear part of the field would be highly intrusive features within the landscape. A recent appeal decision at Somersham (for 6 pitches) was dismissed because the Inspector considered that caravans set back from the road would be poorly related to existing development and a significant encroachment into the open landscape. At the time of the last application on this site the applicant was asked to reduce the number of additional pitches from 8 to 4 and to confine the development to the middle third of the site, leaving the more elevated rear third which is now the subject of this application undeveloped. Planning permission was granted subject to a requirement that the caravans, mobile homes and any utility buildings should not be further back than 135m from the roadside boundary, equivalent to the extent of the existing mushroom growing structures.

7.29 Whilst it is noted that the orchard trees to the south of the site have been removed and there is planning permission for a significant expansion of the mushroom farm, it is considered that extending the gypsy and traveller site onto the higher ground which is the subject of this application would materially harm the character and appearance of the area and conflict with development plan policies seeking to protect the countryside. The harm could not be overcome by conditions relating to additional landscaping.

7.30 The PPTS (para 23) now states that LPAs should “strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements...” Whilst the site is away from existing settlements it is considered to be acceptable in terms of distance to facilities (as discussed below), the change in emphasis away from “Rural settings, where not subject to special planning constraints, are acceptable in principle” in the now replaced Circular 01/06 is considered to add further weight to the importance of protecting the rural character and appearance of the countryside. The proposal would be contrary to PPTS policy B 9 (e), Huntingdonshire Core Strategy Policy CS6 and policy E1 of the DM DPD.

Distance to facilities

7.31 No conflict has been found with Policy B aims 11(b) access to health services and (c) access to schools or the equivalent provisions of policy CS6. The site is approximately 3km from the centre of Somersham, where a wide range of day-to-day services is available including surgeries and a primary school. The site is also 3.5km from the town of St Ives where a full range of services and facilities including a secondary school is available. Advice in PPG13: Transport (although cancelled by the NPPF still provides some useful guidance) was that up to 3km walking and up to 5km cycling are reasonable distances. Road conditions and perceptions of how safe the road is will have a bearing on whether people are prepared to walk or cycle. The road is busy, unlit and there are no footways so although the distances would be conducive to cycling it may not be perceived as safe. Core Strategy Policy CS6 states that consideration will be taken of the preference of many Gypsies and Travellers for a rural location with a degree of separation from the settled community and, in allowing the recent appeal for 2 Gypsy/Traveller pitches at Chatteris Road, Somersham, the Inspector in that case considered that a distance of some 3km to Somersham was acceptable. This application site is also on a bus route. Taking the guidance in paragraphs 11 and 23 of the PTTS in relation to sustainability and all of these matters into account, it is considered that the site can be considered to be sustainable for use by gypsies and travellers.

Other matters

7.32 There is no objection under aims 11(e) the local environmental quality of the site and (g) flood risk. The site is close to the ADAS composting facility at Somersham Heath which has a waste management licence issued by the Environment Agency. Previous concerns about health risks and amenity issues for occupiers from living in proximity to this use were investigated with the Environment Agency and the Council’s Environmental Protection officers and it was found that there is no significant risk. The site is not at risk of flooding and conditions could address surface water disposal.

7.33 Policy CS6 states that sites should have a safe access. There is adequate visibility at the point of access and no objection in terms of highway safety provided that the access is safely configured and there are on-site turning facilities which could be secured by conditions.

Conclusion

7.34 There is a need for an additional supply of deliverable sites within the District to provide in the range 8 to 20 pitches for a five-year supply. This is partially off-set by the provision of 22 pitches on sites which have temporary planning permission. The proposal has been assessed against all relevant criteria and found not to comply in respect of its impact on the settled community in the vicinity of the site and impact on the character and appearance of the landscape. The serious harm resulting from these conflicts is considered to outweigh the need for additional pitches and is such that it would not be appropriate to grant a permanent or temporary planning permission.

8. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE for the following reasons:

8.1 The development of a total of 13 pitches spread across the whole field would unacceptably dominate the settled community and would not be well-related to its very small scale and low density. The proposal would be contrary to PPTS policy B para. 9(d), policy B para 11 (a), policy C and policy H, para. 23 and Huntingdonshire Core Strategy Policy CS6.

8.2 Extending the approved site onto the higher ground which is the subject of this application would materially harm the character and appearance of the area and conflict with development plan policies seeking to protect the countryside. The harm could not be overcome by conditions relating to additional landscaping. The proposal would be contrary to PPTS policy B para 9(e), Huntingdonshire Core Strategy Policy CS6 and policy E1 of the DM DPD.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Mr Nigel Swaby, Development Management Team Leader 01480 388461

To: DevelopmentControl[/O=HUNTS DISTRICT COUNCIL/OU=HDC/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=DEVELOPMENTCONTROL]; Subject: Comments for Planning Application 1200601FUL Sent: Thur 5/24/2012 9:35:06 AM From: [email protected]

Planning Application comments have been made. A summary of the comments is provided below.

Comments were submitted at 10:35 AM on 24 May 2012 from Mrs Penelope Bryant.

Application Summary Address: Five Acres Field St Ives Road Woodhurst Proposal: Permanent change of use of land from agriculture/paddock to provide five additional gypsy/traveller pitches and hardstanding Case Officer: Mr Nigel Swaby Click for further information

Customer Details Name: Mrs Penelope Bryant Email:[email protected] Address: 50 High Street, Somersham, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE28 3JB

Comments Details Commenter Type: Town or Parish Council Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Reasons for comment: Comments: Having obtained permanent planning permission for 8 pitches to the front and middle of the site the applicant, through his Agent, now seeks planning approval for an additional 5 pitches to the rear of the site making a total of 13 pitches (although Mrs Parkin inexplicably suggests a total of 15 in her Planning Statement). We submit that a further 5 pitches on the site making a total of 13 pitches with 1 “mobile home” and 1 travelling caravan per pitch + a number of ancillary buildings would certainly dominate the nearest settled community, in the Raptor Centre and adjacent cottages, and should be considered to be over-development of this narrow site. A total of 13 pitches could also result in 2 vehicles per pitch, so potentially 26 vehicles using the site. Despite an extensive planting scheme, the further 5 pitches to the rear of the site would be on higher ground and therefore visually intrusive in the surrounding countryside. The Planning Inspector had previously considered this to be inappropriate. The significant increase in the number of traffic movements on and off the site could be a highway issue. Not only would there be more vehicles moving on and off the site but the B1086 which passes the site is a straight road with a 60mph speed limit and traffic moves at speed between the Woodhurst crossroads and Somersham White Post T-junction. A fatal traffic accident occurred last year at the nearby Pidley Sheep Lane junction. It should be remembered that it was a few months ago in October 2011 Somersham Parish Council objected to a planning application for a further 8 pitches to add to the 4 pitches already approved for this site. Obviously others objected to the number of pitches and at the Development Management Panel in January 2012, the number approved had been reduced from 8 to 4. What has changed in the interim to suggest that 13 pitches in total would be any more acceptable, when a previous application for a total of 12 pitches had been refused so recently? Huntingdonshire District Council has publicly stated its intention to limit the number of pitches on privately well run family sites to a maximum of 8 in its updated Development Plan. Although this is not yet policy, the key argument must be that on this particular site more than 8 pitches is not appropriate. We therefore submit that the planning application for a further 5 pitches should be refused on the basis of over development of a narrow site; the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and road safety issues.

Page 1 of 1

From: Liz Pendered [[email protected]] Sent: 22 May 2012 13:44 To: Swaby, Nigel (Planning) Subject: FW: Ref 1200601FUL Case officer Nigel Swaby

Attachments: 1200601FUL.jpg

From: Liz Pendered [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 May 2012 14:00 To: '[email protected]' Subject: Ref 1200601FUL Case officer Nigel Swaby

Please find attached comments from Woodhurst Parish Council, please also see note below:

This planning proposal has arrived only months after the previous expansion was permitted but limited to four pitches. Our previous comments regarding this site are still relevent - ie. the access to schools, public transport and health centres are all poorly provided. Looking at the recent addition of more pitches.this would demonstrate that the site is close to capacity. The monitoring of the site by the District Council Planning Dept. was supposed to reassure us that future expansion would be the addition of four more pitches for caravans and not the considerable construction of permanent buildings & walls that have been/are currently being erected.

Many thanks

Liz

Mrs E Pendered Clerk to Woodhurst Parish Council

Harradine House Church Street Woodhurst Cambs PE28 3BN

Tel: 01487 822116 Mob: 07710 888480

file://E:\Adlib Express\Input\4b34a634-fe90-42f3-8023-97f4533f8b2f.html 8/1/2012 From: Sue Morgan [[email protected]] Sent: 17 May 2012 10:25 To: DevelopmentControl Subject: Bluntisham - Planning Applications The Parish Council met on the 14 May 12 to consider the following applications. Please pass the comments below to the appropriate desk officers.

Ref: 1200705REP Replacement of planning permission 0900348FUL for extension to roof dwelling and installation of dormer windows 5 Colne Road, Bluntisham. The Parish Council is content to recommend approval; the proposed extension does not have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties or the streetscene.

Ref: 1200601FUL Permanent change of use of land from agricultural paddock to provide five additional gypsy/traveller pitches and hardstanding Five Acres Field St Ives Eoad Woodhurst. The Parish Council recommend that this application be refused. Application 1101499FUL called for an additional 8 pitches on this site and while recognising that this application for an additional 5 is a reduction, it would still provide a total of 9 pitches on this site. The Parish Council consider this to be excessive and their comments on the original application still stand ie. " .... that approval would set a precedence for expansion elsewhere in the district; also noting that a high proportion of travellers sites are within this vicinity. The Council recognises that the current site works well as a small family group but have deep reservations about this level of increase; however they would be content to see a limited expansion to 6 pitches in total."

Please let me know if you require further information.

Best wishes

Sue Morgan Parish Clerk Bluntisham

file:////Nas2/...Control%20Officers/DMP%20Panel%20Reports/2012/August/1200601FUL/Bluntisham%20-%20Planning%20Applications.htm[07/08/2012 08:48:52] Development Management Panel Application Ref: 1200601FUL Location: Somersham

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. HDC 100022322

11.4m

D

r a

i n

C

R

Pidley Heath

D rain

in Dra

Som ersham Heath

6 8 0 1 #

B

13.7m

Dr ain

6 8 0 1

B

Pond

14.6m Guide Post

in a r D

Dr ain

Tr ac 15.6m k

0 4 0 1

B

16.3m

D ra in

in ra D

Rectory Farm Cottages

in a r D The Raptor Foundation

2 1

Pond

Rectory Farm

Tanks in Mushroom Farm a r D

Milestone

Somersham Heath

Dr ain

31.9m

Somersham Heath

R C

Pond

Dr Colne Heath ain Tank

in a r D Legend

Works

H The Site k T

m 2 2 . 1 WB D rain ¯

Scale: 1:5000