COMMITTEE REPORT
Application Ref. 15/00229/VARY
Applicant Mr R. Smith
Reason for Referral Objection from Ward Member to Committee Objection from Parish Council
Case Officer Eleanor Bass
Presenting Officer Eleanor Bass
Ward Member Councillor S Adams
Parish Council Temple Grafton
Site Address Field View, Croft Lane, Temple Grafton
Variation of condition 1 (personal occupancy) and variation of condition 2 (temporary permission) of planning permission 10/01181/FUL (Change of use of land to a five plot residential Description of gypsy caravan site, limited to five mobile homes, five day rooms, Development five touring caravans, ancillary parking and hardstanding areas, new tarmac entrance and additional landscaping) to allow for use of the site for occupation solely by named residents and their dependants on a permanent basis. Description of Site . Open countryside location Constraints . In close proximity to footpaths
Summary of . GRANT for temporary period Recommendation
Description of site and surroundings The application site is located within the open countryside in an elevated position with predominately open agricultural land surrounding the site. The site level falls towards the south-east with the eastern boundary of the site being significantly lower than the boundary with Croft Lane. There are several public footpaths surrounding the site. To the south of the site lies the village of Temple Grafton which is approximately 400m away.
On my site visit carried out on 5th February 2015 there were 6 touring caravans on the site and 3 of the 5 brick built day rooms constructed.
Development Plan Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework”.
Relevant Policies in the Development Plan for this application are PR.1, DEV.1, DEV.4 – consistent with Framework EF.6/EF.7, EF.10, DEV.2, DEV.6, DEV.7, CTY.1, CTY.7, PR.8 – some consistency but Framework is less restrictive STR.1, DEV.5 – inconsistent with Framework/out-of-date
Other Material Considerations Central government guidance NPPF 2012 & PPG 2014 Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (2012) (PPTS) Designing Gypsy and Traveller sites – A Good Practice Guide (2008)
Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance Meeting Housing Needs 2008 Car and Cycle Parking Standards Stratford on Avon District Design Guide
Other Documents Draft Core Strategy policies: CS.1, CS.5, CS.9, CS.12, CS.15, CS.20, AS.10
Paragraph 216 of the NPPF allows for weight to be given to relevant policies in emerging plans, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise, and only subject to the stage of preparation of the plan, the extent of unresolved objections and the degree of consistency of the relevant emerging policies to the NPPF policies. To date, it is officers’ opinion that draft Core Strategy carries limited weight for decision making purposes.
The examination in public (EIP) of the Core Strategy was in January 2015. The EIP Inspector’s interim report was published on 19 March 2015. The executive summary identifies four areas of further work to be carried out by the Council:
. To revisit the objective assessment of housing need (OAN) and to increase the housing requirement to provide an improved balance with the projected growth in jobs . To do further sustainability appraisal (SA) work . To consider an employment land allocation at Atherstone Airfield to support the delivery of housing via proposal SUA.1 (Canal Quarter), proposal SUA3 having been found to be not justified . To increase the OAN to provide more headroom in the housing supply trajectory.
The Cabinet on 1 June 2015 supported a number of Core Strategy policies to be adopted on an interim basis for the purposes of development management. The matter has been referred up to Council on 22 June.
Other evidence based documents: . Stratford on Avon District Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) - Main Report of Study Findings (October 2011) and associated update (2014) . Gypsy and Traveller Guidance Note (June 2012) . Written Ministerial Statement by Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis, delivered on 1 July 2013. . Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines 1993
Other Legislation Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Housing Act 2004 Human Rights Act 1998 The Equality Act 2010 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 Localism Act 2011 Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
Summary of Relevant History
Reference Number Proposal Decision and date
DISC/00342/13 Discharge of condition 5 site Approved 11.09.2013 development scheme of planning permission 10/01181/FUL. DISC/00093/12 Discharge of condition 5 site Approved 19.07.2012 (Split development scheme of planning decision) permission 10/01181/FUL. 10/01181/FUL Change of use of land to a five plot Refused 18.02.2011 residential gypsy caravan site, limited (committee) to five mobile homes, five day rooms, five touring caravans, ancillary Allowed at appeal 15.03.2012 parking and hardstanding areas, new (3 year temporary consent) tarmac entrance and additional landscaping. 00/03084/FUL Change of use from agricultural to Refused 17.05.2001 agricultural and storage Appeal dismissed 14.02.2002 98/01315/FUL Croft lane - open side agricultural Granted 28.10.1998 building. Open side building clad with yorkshire timber 60' x 20'. 90/01342/FUL Croft lane - stud farm & managers Refused 09.04.1991 mobile home 90/00169/FUL Croft stud croft lane - landfill using Objections raised 24.07.1990 clean builders rubble, hardcore And excavated sub soil and finished Refused by County 6.08.1990 with 225mm of top soil to remove irregularities from site for operation of stud farm. 89/00343/FUL Land at croft lane - stud farm Refused 14.11.1989 including stabling ancillary buildings and paddocks. Appeal dismissed 01.06.1990
Applicant’s Supporting Documents List of documents: Covering Letter Site Location Plan Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment (two parts) Summary of personal circumstances
Ward Member Councillor Adams – object to the application for the following planning reasons: Site was originally given permission as a temporary site for a travelling family because of social need and giving time for the applicant to find a more suitable permanent site. Would support a further temporary extension to give the applicant further time to find a permanent home (02.06.2015)
Adjacent Ward Member Councillor Gittus - object to the application for the following planning reasons: Temporary site for a travelling family. Temporary permission was given for the site on the basis of the immediate personal, health and social need of the applicants family. Object to the present application to vary, but would support a further temporary application to enable the applicant to see a more suitable permanent home (31.05.2015)
Parish Council Object to the application for the following planning reasons:
Damage to the landscape due to permanent site, Inspector agreed. Do not consider that anything has changed and that the landscaping will have a negligible impact in mitigating this damage given the sloping site. LVIA commissioned by SDC concluded there would be significant landscape and visual harm. LVIA submitted by applicant lacks credibility – uses distant viewpoints to the west and largely ignores the open aspect to the east and north east. Draft Core Strategy Policy CS.12 designates area as Special Landscape Area - should be given appropriate weight. Conflicts with CTY.1, CTY.7, DEV.1 and PR.1 – nothing has changed. Other work carried out, creating a suburbanising influence. Temple Grafton – not a sustainable location – classified as ‘all other settlements’ in Draft Core Strategy based on lack of facilities. Emerging policy indicates that significant progress has been made by SDC in identifying a number of gypsy pitches in the District. It would be premature to grant permanent permission to this site. On 9th February 2015 SDC’s Cabinet considered a Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan and agreed a number of sites which could be considered for further consultation. Croft Lane was not one of these. Given the sensitive nature of the landscape – the site must be returned to original state. Do not consider it is appropriate to make this permission permanent and urge SDC to insist on the proper restoration of the site. (26.02.2015)
Third Party Responses The comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer.
3 letters of support from local residents received: A permanent base gives the family security and enables them to have a sustainable gypsy lifestyle Have become part of the village community Children attend local schools If permission refused, will have to leave and have no secure base to go to Refusal would threaten ability to successfully relate to the local population, educate their children and access services such as health care Tidy site, almost no impact from the road looking at their site
44 letters of objection from local residents received, including letter from CPRE: Key objections to original application remain Circumstances since previous application and appeal have not changed Development too large for a rural site and inappropriate for a temporary permission Temple Grafton not a LSV – no facilities and limited public transport. Unsustainable location Concerned raised over highways safety and increased traffic movement Major concerns over the visual impact of the site within the landscape and is clearly visible from many public footpaths Area designated as Special Landscape Area – should be protected Elevated position further exacerbates public views and prominence in countryside Fails to enhance the immediate setting Permission granted on a temporary basis – this should now cease Concerns over drainage and foul waste systems not being implemented/working with foul sewerage running onto neighbouring land and into watercourses Concern regarding light pollution Hard landscaping and fencing is unsightly Landscaping works will not hide the development Other official sites have been established Village cannot cope with further expansion Travellers travel and do not live in permanent settlements
Other non-planning related matters were also raised.
When the application was first submitted, condition 1 was proposed to be varied to allow for occupation of the site by gypsies and therefore removing the personal occupancy condition. Several letters were received which referred to this with objections being raised. Consultations The full responses are available in the application file.
WCC Highways No objection (17.02.2015)
WCC Ecology No representations (10.02.2015)
WCC Archaeology No comment (16.02.2015)
Severn Trent No objection subject to a condition securing surface water and foul sewerage details (07.04.2015)
Warwickshire Police No comments made in relation to this application (11.02.2015)
SDC Policy Concern raised regarding the landscape and visual harm. A further temporary consent for the site with a personal occupancy condition is considered appropriate. Temporary consent will allow time for the G&T local plan to identify alternative sites (03.03.2015)
ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES
Background
The Gypsy status of the applicant and the Gypsy status of the extended family has not been contested by the Council in the previous decision and appeal.
On 15.03.2012, following an appeal against the Council’s refusal of planning application reference 10/01181/FUL, planning permission was granted for the change of use of the land to a five plot residential caravan site, for use of the appellant and his family, together with boundary track and ancillary buildings. The permission was subject to 5 planning conditions, one of which granted permission of a temporary 3 year basis and another restricted occupancy. Condition 5 required the submission of further information for approval by the Local Planning Authority which has been discharged.
During the course of the application, an amendment was made to the wording of the description of development. The original wording of the description of development was:
"Variation of condition 1 (personal occupancy) and removal of condition 2 (temporary permission) of planning permission 10/01181/FUL (Change of use of land to a five plot residential gypsy caravan site, limited to five mobile homes, five day rooms, five touring caravans, ancillary parking and hardstanding areas, new tarmac entrance and additional landscaping) to allow for use of the site solely for gypsy and travellers and as a permanent permission". The description of development has been amended to read:
"Variation of condition 1 (personal occupancy) and variation of condition 2 (temporary permission) of planning permission 10/01181/FUL (Change of use of land to a five plot residential gypsy caravan site, limited to five mobile homes, five day rooms, five touring caravans, ancillary parking and hardstanding areas, new tarmac entrance and additional landscaping) to allow for use of the site for occupation solely by named residents and their dependants on a permanent basis".
Preliminary Matters
Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, under which the current application is made, relates to the determination of applications for development without compliance with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. Decisions may be subject to revised or new conditions provided that they meet the requirements of the six tests outlined in the NPPF and the Planning Practice Guidance.
On such an application the local planning authority shall consider only the question of the conditions subject to which planning permission should be granted, and—
(a) if they decide that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions differing from those subject to which the previous permission was granted, or that it should be granted unconditionally, they shall grant planning permission accordingly, and
(b) if they decide that planning permission should be granted subject to the same conditions as those subject to which the previous permission was granted, they shall refuse the application.
As such, in the determination of this application, Members have the option to choose to add any further conditions or vary the requirements of any of the conditions attached to planning permission reference 10/01181/FUL.
This application proposes the variation of condition 1 and 2 attached to planning permission 10/01181/FUL, granted on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on 15th March 2012, to allow for use of the site for occupation solely by named residents and their dependants on a permanent basis.
Condition 1 and 2 attached to 10/01181/FUL read as follows:
1. The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by the following: Mr Riley Smith (senior), Mr Dean Smith, Mr Herbert Smith, Mr Riley Smith (junior), Ms Grace Smith and their resident dependants, and shall be for a limited period being the period of 3 years from the date of this decision, or the period during which the premises are occupied by them, whichever is the shorter.
2. When the premises cease to be occupied by those named in condition no.1 above, or at the end of 3 years, whichever shall first occur, the use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, buildings, structures, materials and equipment brought onto the land, or works undertaken to it in connection with the use shall be removed and the land restored to its condition before the development took place. Determination of the Planning Application
Policy Background
The Development Plan At the time of writing this report, the formal development plan comprises only the saved policies of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework”.
The application site lies in an open countryside location. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out a range of core planning principles, including (inter alia) the requirement to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. This core planning principle is reflected by policy CTY.1 insofar as CTY.1 seeks to preserve the character of the open countryside.
The NPPF further considers conserving and enhancing the natural environment at Section 11. This outlines various instances where particular care needs to be taken in order to limit the harm caused by development.
Saved Policy CTY.7 of the Local Plan review relates to Gypsy and Traveller sites. This supports the provision of permanent sites which fulfil three criteria: (a) where there is a significant unmet need for further provision in the District; (b) where the proposed site would not cause harm to the character of the local area or to features of acknowledged importance, or unduly affect any neighbouring properties or activities; and (c) appropriate facilities are provided to meet the requirements of people living on the site.
Proposed Submission Core Strategy This document was submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for examination on 30th September 2014, with the Examination in Public in January 2015. The Inspector’s interim report was published on 19 March 2015 with the executive summary identifying four areas of further work to be carried out by the Council as identified in the above section of this report. Policy CS.20 (as proposed to be modified) relates to Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. The Policy clarifies that a Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocations Development Plan Document will be prepared to meet the identified need. I consider that the Policy has limited weight at present.
National Guidance Since the previous application was determined (10/01181/FUL), the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has consulted on revisions to the definition of the planning definition of Gypsies and Travellers and other policy matters 'Consultation: Planning and Travellers'.
Consultation closed on the 23rd of November 2014. The proposed change to the definition of Gypsies and Travellers would make a distinction between those that live a nomadic way of life and those that have a permanent pitch (regardless of whether or not they still travel from that pitch). The consultation document makes it clear that the needs of all Gypsies and Travellers would still need to be assessed by local authorities. The consultation document indicates that the need for changes to primary legislation will be considered as part of the review to ensure that needs are still assessed. DCLGs Equality Impact Assessment notes that "where cases involve families in which some members do not travel, it may continue to be appropriate to grant permission for traveller sites on the grounds that it is proportionate to do so, and would be an interference with the family's Human Rights to limit the permission to particular family members only". This suggests that any change in definition would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement. As this is a consultation document and primary legislation will be required to bring any change into effect it is suggested that little weight be given to the consultation document.
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites Paragraph 3 of the PPTS states that, ‘The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers, in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community.’
Paragraph 2 of the PPTS highlights that local authorities, when taking decisions on traveller sites should also have regard to the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework so far as relevant.
The NPPF puts an emphasis on the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system is considered by paragraph 6 of the Framework to constitute the policies in paragraphs 19 to 219 of the Framework.
Paragraph 21 of the PPTS states that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies in the Framework along with the PPTS.
Paragraph 22 of the document ‘Planning Policy for Traveller Sites’ (PPTS) states that:
“Local planning authorities should consider the following issues amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for traveller sites: . 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 . 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 . that they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections”
The consideration of these and other material issues is set out below:
Assessment of Need The Council is required by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 and the Housing Act 2004 to meet the accommodation needs of the population within their area. This includes the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community and that of Travelling Show People. The Housing Act, 2004, places a duty upon local authorities to produce assessments of current and future accommodation need for Gypsies and Travellers on a strategic, regional basis. The NPPF states that the framework “should be read in conjunction with the Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites”. This policy document was published in March 2012 to accompany the NPPF. This sets out the government’s aims in respect of Traveller sites. The document includes a requirement to identify a five year supply of sites and to update this annually through monitoring of delivery.
The Council does not currently have a five year supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites. The Council is preparing a Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan, although this document is at an early stage in the preparation process. The evidence base for this document (and the Core Strategy) was updated in 2014. The 2014 update was received by The Cabinet in September 2014. The update adopts a 2014 base date for assessing need and identifies a need for additional pitches as follows:
41 pitches between 2014 to 2019 11 pitches between 2019 to 2024 12 pitches between 2024 to 2029 7 pitches between 2029 to 2031 71 pitches in total
In line with the GTAA 2014 updated assessment, based on recent permanent permissions being granted (Darlingscott, Broom & Warmington) a balance of 25 new permanent pitches are still required to provide a five year supply of sites up to 2019. In addition a further 30 sites are required between 2019 and 2031.
Given the above, the Council has a significant continuing unmet need for pitches, which attracts substantial weight in the determination of the current application.
Availability of Alternative Sites
The existing Council-owned Gypsy and Traveller site at Pathlow includes provision for a total of 30 pitches and is currently full. There are therefore no pitches available on Council-owned sites in the District. The PPTS (2012) encourages the provision of private sites in addition to the provision of local-authority owned and managed sites.
Where planning permission has been granted for sites in Stratford-upon-Avon, all the sites are fully occupied, with the exception of the site at Black Hill (application 09/02313/FUL) for 4 pitches which has not been implemented at the present time and is currently subject to a pending application, 15/00572/OUT, for the development of 5 dwellings and the 2 pitches within Rainbow Nurseries which have been unoccupied for the last 2 years.
In relation to other potential alternative sites, I note that the Friday Furlong site in Bidford-on-Avon is discussed in the previous appeal decision; however this site has now been re-developed for housing and therefore is not available as an alternative site.
From the matters considered above, I conclude that there is a currently a lack of suitable alternative sites and that this shortfall is not likely to be resolved in the immediate future. Personal Circumstances The main issue to consider in assessing the personal circumstances of the applicant and his family relate to their health and educational needs.
In support of the application, information has been provided stating who occupies each plot and their personal circumstances. Detailed information regarding each plot was referred to in the previous committee report (10/01181/FUL) and in the main the circumstances are little changed. Currently, there are eight children on the site attending Bidford-on-Avon Primary School and there are also several occupants who have significant health problems which require regular monitoring and treatment.
Having regard to caselaw relating to the best interests of the children (Stevens v SoSCLG, 2012) these personal circumstances should be afforded significant weight in the determination of this application.
I consider that the personal circumstances of the family, and in particular their educational and healthcare needs, are a material consideration in the assessment of this application, which should be given significant weight.
Impact on the landscape and character of the area The application site occupies agricultural land within the rural landscape of small settlements and rolling topography between Alcester and Welford on Avon. The site is not covered by a national or local landscape designation. The emerging Core Strategy does identify the land as being within the Arden Special Landscape Area (CS.12) however this currently carries limited weight.
The site does lie in the ‘Vale Orchard Belt’ landscape type as identified in the Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines document with this area typically characterised by a rolling landscape, with a large, geometric field pattern and important hedgerow boundaries. Woodland on high ground is a further landscape component, providing a back drop to the countryside and the villages within the area.
The site occupies a rectangular field that falls from west to east off Croft Lane from 50.2 AOD down to 42.9 AOD, over 7 metres change in level.
A network of public footpaths cross the adjacent land, to the south, east and north, including the Grafton’s Way which links into the regionally important Arden Way. Due to the topography of the area, the application site is clearly visible from these public footpaths, with the greatest impact being during leaf fall, October to March. The site is also visible from Croft Lane through the site entrance, distance views from within the Village (mainly Church Bank road) and from Haselor Hill Road, through hedge gaps, over the hedge and from farm gateways.
As part of the appeal for the original application on this site (10/01181/FUL) the Council commissioned a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of the site and proposed development. This report concluded that there ‘is absolutely no doubt that the level of development proposed on this site would result in significant landscape and visual harm’. The report went onto conclude that proposed mitigation measures would prove difficult on the site.
Additionally, Temple Grafton Parish Council commissioned a separate Landscape and Visual Assessment as part of the appeal. This report concluded that ‘The nature of the effect would be adverse as the proposed development would introduce a series of elements onto the site which would appear incongruous in the local landscape. Whilst planting along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site would mitigate this to some extent, this will take several years to establish. Moreover much of the development would still be visible (and therefore affect people’s perception/appreciation of the landscape) due to the elevated position of the site and the height of several proposed buildings structures’
At appeal, the Inspector concluded that the ‘development would be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the area’.
A Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment has been submitted in support of this current application. This report has concluded that ‘due to the localised nature of the existing developments landscape impacts and the proposed landscape mitigation measures, which can be secures by way of planning condition and upon establishment ensure reduced residual impacts, it is considered that the site at Croft Lane can accommodate a permanent residential gypsy site without unacceptable adverse impacts upon the character and visual amenity of the site surroundings’.
The report has assessed 10 viewpoints around the site, however it does not address all of the views considered in the LVIA prepared for SDC and a separate assessment prepared on behalf of the Parish Council. These include additional views available from public footpaths to the east of the site, which remain relevant. The report has focused more on the views to the west and south of the site, with the more prominent views from the east not being assessed.
The appraisal establishes that with the exception of Photo Viewpoint 10, mid and short range views of the site from surrounding area accessible to the general public are generally well screened by a combination of naturally undulating topography combined with the native field boundary/roadside hedgerows and associated hedgerow trees which surround it. It concludes that from these locations the significance of the developments impact is identified as ‘negligible’ or ‘minor adverse’.
View point 10, which is from the eastern side along the footpath, is considered that there would be a moderate deterioration of view as a result of the development with there being a moderate adverse change in view.
This differs to the LVIA commissioned by the Parish Council which considers that this view point is of high sensitivity with a major effect in the landscape.
Having assessed the submitted LVIA against those commissioned for the appeal, I consider that the viewpoints chosen to be assessed are limited, with the main views from the east of the site not being addressed.
Since the appeal decision I cannot see that there have been any material changes to the landscape that would lead me to conclude that the proposal would result in acceptable development visually within the landscape. I consider that the Inspectors decision was very conclusive on the landscape and visual harm stating that it would be incongruous and its visual impact and the loss of openness would result in significant harm to the landscape character.
It should also be noted that the previous refusals of planning permission relating to this site and the adjacent land have been (in part) related to the detrimental impact upon the rural character and visual amenity of the area. In the case of the appeal in respect of application 89/0343, the Inspector stated that the stud farm would spoil the appearance of the peaceful, pleasant, rolling landscape which should be protected for its own sake. Similarly, in the 2002 (00/03084/FUL) appeal, the Inspector concluded that the use would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. I am of the view that although the area dose not benefit from being designated as a Special Landscape Area, this does not lessen the special qualities and attractiveness of this area.
As part of the LVIA submitted with this application, landscape mitigation has been proposed. This would involve:
native hedgerow planting to the site entrance and northern boundary to improve development screening and diversity; new native buffer plantations, carefully located across the rising topography of the site, to fragment development massing and screen the visual impact of both mobile and permanent structures; groups of native tree planting to define individual plots, strengthen the northern boundary, provide additional screening and improve site biodiversity; and where ownership allows, the infilling of gaps in boundary hedgerows with suitable native species to improved screening and biodiversity.
The report goes on to conclude that as well as providing screening and improving site biodiversity, the landscape mitigation proposals would create a wooded site in accordance with the WLG management strategy for this area.
Having conducted a second site visit on 13th May 2015, it was noted that some planting has recently been carried out to both the northern and eastern boundaries.
Taking into account the two LVIA reports commissioned as part of the appeal as well as the Inspectors appeal decision, I am not satisfied that this planting and mitigation would be sufficient enough to limit the visual harm to the overall landscape character of the area. Given the elevated and sloping nature of the site I do not consider that the visibility of the development could be minimised to an acceptable level to mitigate views from key vantage points in a manner sympathetic to the local landscape character.
Therefore, taking into account all of the above, I consider that as a result of the particular characteristics of this site, in particular its elevated nature, situated in rolling countryside, its proximity to and visibility from public vantage points, and the attractiveness of the surrounding area, it is not an appropriate location in visual terms for the establishment of a permanent gypsy site. Due to the number of pitches proposed, together with the number of caravans, day rooms and extent of hardstanding and fencing, there would be a high level of urbanisation resulting from the development in this sensitive rural location.
As a result, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on this part of the rural landscape of the District and would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the locality, contrary to local plan polices PR.1, DEV.1 and CTY.7(b) as well as paragraph 17 of the NPPF.
The degree of harm to the areas character and appearance weighs significantly against the proposal. Other Material Planning Considerations
Sustainability The site is located approximately 400m to the north of Temple Grafton. Within the emerging Core Strategy, Temple Grafton has not been identified as a Local Service Village, which are locations considered sustainable to accept new housing. However, recent appeal decisions have concluded that Temple Grafton is a suitable location for new housing. From the information submitted, the children on the site attend Bidford on-Avon Primary School which is approximately 3 miles from the application site.
Since the determination of the previous application on the site, Circular 1/2006 has been abolished with Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) being published. Despite the abolition of Circular 1/2006, the guidance within paragraph 11 of the PPTS remains similar with respect to the assessment of sustainability being not only considered in terms of transport mode and distances from services, but also with respect to aspects such as promoting peaceful and integrated communities, the importance of providing a settled base and the reduction for long distance travelling and possible environmental damage caused by unauthorised encampments.
Within the Inspectors appeal decision it is commented that the site is not near the route of a frequent bus service and it is likely that most trips from the site would be made by car. The Inspector goes on to refer to Circular 1/2006 and in particular paragraph 64 which encourages a broad view of sustainability. The Inspector considered that there would be limited opportunities for integration with the local community, however there would be other sustainability benefits from a settled site, including access to health and other services and the avoidance of environmental damage resulting from a roadside existence or other unauthorised site.
The key difference between the Inspectors previous analysis based upon Circular 1/2006 and the PPTS relates to the previous presumption in paragraph 54 of the Circular that sites in rural or semi-rural settings, where not subject to special planning constraints, are acceptable in principle. The PPTS however identifies in paragraph 23 that Local Planning Authorities should strictly limit development in the open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated within the development plan.
As discussed above, the site is located approximately 400m from the edge of a settlement, Temple Grafton, and therefore I do not consider it to be an isolated countryside location.
Therefore on this basis, together with the scale of the proposals, I consider that the development is reasonably sustainable, taking into account the wider benefits of providing pitches across the District and this weighs somewhat in favour of the application.
It is my view that a refusal of planning permission on sustainability grounds could not be sustained for this site.
Site Layout The existing planning permission for the application specified the site layout with mobile homes, dayrooms and touring caravans all defined on the plan. I consider this layout to be acceptable with sufficient distance of 9m between each mobile home. There is an area identified as a children’s play area as well as grass areas available in front of each pitch as amenity land. I therefore raise no objection to the site layout.
Impact on neighbouring amenity The nearest residential dwellings are located approximately 360m to the east of the site (Dove House) and 415m to the south (Croft Lodge).
There is also an office/commercial development in Croft Court, some 320m to the south.
As there are no immediate neighbours to the site, I am satisfied that the development would not lead to an adverse impact upon the amenity of occupiers of adjoining land in terms of overbearing, overlooking or loss of light.
Having regard to the above, I consider that the proposal is acceptable having regard to paragraph 17 of the NPPF and policy DEV.1 of the local plan.
Impact on Highway Safety Since the previous application was approved on a temporary basis, the condition requiring works to the access have been carried out, with this condition being discharged by the LPA. Having consulted with the WCC Highways on this current application, no objection has been raised to the proposals.
Having regard to the above I consider the development is acceptable in this respect and accords with paragraphs 32, 35 and 39 of the NPPF and saved policy DEV.4.
Foul and Surface Water Drainage I note that concerns have been raised in regards to the drainage of the site. It is my understanding that the Inspectors appeal decision required the submission of these details, however the approved scheme has not been implemented fully on site.
I therefore propose that it is reasonable to condition further details of foul and surface water drainage within 3 months of the date of approval.
Subject to this, I consider the development is acceptable in this respect and accords with paragraph 103 of the NPPF and saved policies PR.7 and DEV.7.
Ecology The application has been considered by the County Ecologist who has raised no objection.
Taking into account this assessment and having due regard to the provisions of the NERC Act, I am satisfied that the development complies with paragraph 118 of the NPPF and policies EF.6 and EF.7 of the Local Plan Review.
Human Rights In assessing this application I have considered the Human Rights of the Applicant and his extended family. In the absence of alternative sites the refusal of planning permission may give rise to interference to the rights of persons on the site for private life and home and the retention of their ethnic identity, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However this interference must be balanced against the public interest in pursuing legitimate aims stated in Article 8 such as the protection of the environment.
In view of Inspectors findings on other appeal decisions a temporary planning permission, would be proportionate in the circumstances, and hence there would be no violation of the appellant’s rights under Article 8 of the ECHR or Article 3 of the UNCRC.
Equality Act The Equality Act 2010 amends and incorporates the provisions of the Race Relations Acts to provide a new cross cutting legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. Gypsy and Travellers are identified within the Equality Act as Protective Characters. The Act place a general duty on public authorities to work towards the elimination of unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups in the carrying out of their functions (Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010). In assessing this application, I have considered and given due regard to the duty under the Equality Act.
Conclusion and Overall Balance (Including Consideration of Temporary Planning Permission)
The Council’s inability to demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites represents a material consideration when assessing whether planning permission should be granted on a permanent basis or if a temporary permission would be appropriate. The unmet need for Gypsy and Traveller sites in the District, and the combination of the personal circumstances of the Applicant, including the best interests of the children and medical needs of occupants and interference of the applicant’s right to a home, carry significant weight in favour of granting a permanent planning permission.
However, as assessed in the report, I consider that the proposed development would result in a significant degree of harm to the character and appearance of the area which weighs heavily against the development. Therefore I am of the opinion that that the overall balance does not justify the granting of a permanent planning permission.
The ‘golden thread’ running through the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It gives three dimensions to sustainable development: social, economic and environmental. These should not be assessed in isolation, because they are mutually dependent.
Having regard to the significant unmet need and lack of alternative sites as well as the time frame for the adoption of the Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan to identify alternative sites, I consider it reasonable to grant permission on a temporary 3 year basis. I note that the Planning Practice Guidance (2014) states that a second grant of temporary planning permission is rarely justifiable. However, the PPG also states that circumstances where a temporary permission may be appropriate include where it is expected that circumstances will change at the end of the period. Given the specific personal circumstances of those occupying the site as well as the needs of the children on the site and in light of the progress of the G&T local plan, I consider that it is justifiable to grant a second temporary consent for 3 years. In regards to varying condition 1 to amend the persons named for a personal consent, I am satisfied that this is acceptable and allows for the occupation of the site by those previously named with the addition of their partners. Mrs Grace Smith, Mrs Michelle Smith Mrs Maxine Smith and Mrs Kelly Smith have all been added to the personal occupancy condition as partners of those named in the previous occupancy condition. Ms Grace Smith as previously referred to in the condition is now known as Mrs Grace Birch, with her partner Mr Paul birch also added to this condition.
In light of the balancing exercise described above it is officers view that a temporary 3 year permission should be granted, however ultimately this is a matter for the decision maker.
Recommendation
Whilst officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development Plan and other material considerations it is for the Committee to weigh and balance these in coming to a decision.
It is therefore recommended that the Planning Manager be authorised to grant the variation of 10/01181/FUL for a temporary period, subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and numbering of which is delegated to officers:
1. The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by the following: Mr Riley Smith (senior), Mrs Grace Smith, Mr Dean Smith, Mrs Michelle Smith, Mr Herbert Smith, Mrs Maxine Smith, Mr Riley Smith (junior), Mrs Kelly Smith, Mr Paul Birch, Mrs Grace Birch and their resident dependents, and shall be for a limited period being the period of 3 years from the date of this decision, or the period during which the premises are occupied by them, whichever is the shorter.
2. When the premises cease to be occupied by those named in condition no.1 above, or at the end of 3 years, whichever shall first occur, the use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, buildings, structures, materials and equipment brought on to the land, or works undertaken to it in connection with the use shall be removed and the land resorted to its condition before the development took place.
3. Notwithstanding condition 7, within 3 months of the date of this decision further details of foul and surface water drainage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 3 months of the date of approval of the details.
4. There shall be no more than five pitches on the land and no more than two caravans as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968, as amended, shall be stationed at any time on each pitch, of which no more than one shall be a residential mobile home, and there shall be no more than two parking spaces per pitch.
5. No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the storage of vehicles, plant, products or waste.
6. No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be kept, parked or stored on the land. 7. No burning of waste or other materials shall take place on the land unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
8. The internal layout of the site, day rooms, landscaping external lighting, bin collection area and mitigation measures to safeguard nesting birds, bats, reptiles and amphibians shall be retained in accordance with the details approved under DISC/00093/12 and DISC/00342/13 in regards to condition 5 of planning permission 10/01181/FUL.
Notes
1. 186 and 187 NPPF note