8 week date Application No. Date of meeting

28.09.09 GR/2009/0104 11.11.2009

Land at Millers Farm Road DA13 0QA

Use of land as a private Gypsy & Traveller site for two pitches to accommodate two mobile homes and two touring caravans on a permanent basis.

Messrs. J. A. & A. J. Vine

Recommendation:

Grant a further temporary permission for 3 years in accord with the transitional arrangements of ODPM Circular 01/06 with an informative advising that the current position will be reviewed in the light of the emerging South East Plan, Local Development Framework and the North Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA).

1. Site Description

The application site is situated on the east side of the A227 Wrotham Road 360 metres north of its junction with Road. The land is roughly rectangular in shape having a frontage width of 65 metres, a depth of 45 metres and an area of 0.3 hectares.

The site is currently being used for the stationing of caravans for the residential occupation by two gypsy families. The caravans are positioned on a hardstanding area and include 2 residential mobile homes and a touring caravan. To the south of the caravans and within the appeal site is an ‘L’ shaped former agricultural building constructed of blockwork and corrugated metal roof which is used as a utility area and for storage. The site has a gated vehicular access to the A227 which is set back from the highway.

The appellants also own a larger area of agricultural land beyond the appeal site to the north and east extending to about 5 hectares. On this area is a small timber building being used as a dog kennel and a group of concrete buildings providing 9 stables and a container used for storage. Beyond the stables is a dilapidated pole barn.

The site abuts a residential dwelling known as The Grange (formerly Tower Folly) to the south, open countryside to the north and east and the A227, a primary distributor route to the west. The boundary between Borough and Sevenoaks District runs down the centre of the A227 at this point. To the north of the appeal site and very close to its boundary is a public footpath, NS278. A further public footpath, also NS 278 runs through the agricultural land.

The area is rural in character and the site lies approximately 8 miles south of Town Centre, being outside the identified confines of the nearby villages of Culverstone Green and Vigo. 1

The site was until the mid 1970’s within an area of approximately 60 acres of land situated between the Wrotham Road and Harvel Road, Meopham and which constituted Rose Farm, Fairseat. In about 1976 the farm was fragmented into lots of varying acreages and sold off at auction separately from the farm house.

The appeal site together with the adjacent land is the subject of an Article 4 Direction (The Gravesham Borough Council (Land at former Rose Farm, Meopham, Kent) Article 4 Direction 1979). That Direction withdraws permitted development rights within the now Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order for the following development: Gates, fences and walls; construction of a means of access to a highway; operations on land; temporary uses of land; use of land for recreation; agricultural development; forestry development; & use of land as a caravan site.

2. Planning History

There is a lengthy planning history in recent years relating to the appeal site as follows:

Application reference GR/78/798.

Outline application for the erection of a dwelling for use as a farmhouse on land forming part of Rose Farm, Wrotham Road.

Refused 19 th December 1978. Appeal dismissed 8 th April 1980.

Application GR/89/300.

Stationing of a mobile home for use as an agricultural residence at Millers Farm.

Refused 22 nd June 1989.

Application GR/89/982.

Stationing of a mobile home for use as agricultural workers residence.

Refused 13 th February 1991.

Application GR/91/770.

Continued use of land for the stationing of one caravan/mobile home for use by a gypsy family.

Refused 27 th February 1992.

Enforcement action was taken pursuant to the refusal of application GR/91/770 for the continued use of land for the stationing of one caravan/mobile home for a gypsy family in 1992. The caravan was moved on to the site in November 1991 by a previous owner of the site Mr. & Mrs. Love.

An Enforcement Notice was served on 13 th July 1992 and took effect on 14 th September 1992. The notice required: a) discontinuance of the use of the land for the stationing of a caravan for residential purposes. b) removal of all caravans stationed on the land. c) removal of fencing.

An appeal against the Notice was lodged and following a public inquiry was dismissed and the notice was upheld. The Inspector stated that:

“There is no justification to override the strong policy and environmental objections to the development on the basis of the need to accommodate this gypsy family”.

The compliance period for the notice was however extended to 6 months.

Application 95/0103

This application was submitted in 1995 by the current appellant, J. Vine, for the use of an agricultural barn as a rest room/lounge with WC and erection of a new roof over barn. The applicant was advised that the proposals should also include the use of the land for the keeping of horses. A letter was sent to the applicant’s agent on 23 rd March 1995 but as no response was received and the application was treated as withdrawn.

Application GR/2000/0092

Was an application for the continued use of land for the stationing of residential caravans and the stationing of a portaloo and again sought permission for the retention of gypsy caravans. The application was refused by the Council on 3 May 2000 and was subsequently taken to appeal. In considering the appeal the Inspectorate choose to amend the description to a change of use of land from agriculture and stabling to residential for two gypsy families in caravans, namely Mr. J. A. Vine, his brother (Mr. A. J. Vine) and respective families.

In considering the appeal the Inspector Mr. S. J. Papworth felt that the main issues for consideration were if it constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt and whether any very special circumstances had been put forward to overcome any detriment. In conclusion he acknowledged that the use was an inappropriate development which would harm the openness of the Green Belt and that no very special circumstances had been put forward to override the harm that he identified. However he concluded that Mr. Vine’s daughters’ education carried sufficient weight to allow a temporary permission which would allow reversion to the previous use without prejudicing the principles of PPG 2 and Green Belt policies within the Council’s adopted Local Plan. He subsequently granted a 3 year temporary permission to Mr. J. A. Vine, his brother A. J. Vine and their respective families; and restricting the number of caravans and station of toilet facilities.

Application 01/0009

Was as application for a variation of Condition 5 attached to GR02/0092 order to enlarge the area of hardstanding for the caravans and to erect a post and wire fence around the site. This was approved by the Council on 2 March 2001.

Application GR02/0192

Was an application by Mr. J. & Mr. A. Vine to use an agricultural building within the holding for a utility room for the residents in the caravans, the erection of a new hay barn and re-siting of a tack room was submitted in February 2002 but this was withdrawn in January 2003 when the applicant failed to proceed.

Application GR03/1001

Was the first application for the renewal of the temporary 3 year permission granted on appeal in October 2000 under ref: GR/00/0092 and was submitted in September 2003. This was granted for an additional year on 12 January 2004 on the grounds that the original permission was given on the basis of Mr. A. J. Vine’s daughters’ education which was continuing for another year.

Application GR04/1097

Was submitted in December 2004 as an application for a further extension of the temporary permission. It was supported by information that Mr. A. J. Vine’s daughter Charlotte’s education was still continuing but also on the basis of the educational needs his grand daughters Mary-Ann and Emmylou Petherick who were now also living on the site with their mother. Additional information was submitted on the medical needs of Mr. A. Vine who had recently suffered a stroke and needed to avoid stressful situations. Investigation subsequently revealed that Mrs Rebecca Petherick (Mr. J. A. Vine’s elder daughter) had moved on the site in March 2004 following the breakdown of her marriage. However because of the wording of the original temporary permission by Inspector Papworth it was felt that there was no breach of conditions even though another family unit had been introduced. The permission was however extended for a further 18 month period on 3 February 2005 subject to an informative that the Petherick girls were not considered to be justification for any further extensions as they did not meet the requirements of Conditions 3 & 4 attached to the original temporary permission GR/00/0092 which was granted on appeal. This permission was due to cease on 4 August 2006.

Application GR06/0236

Another renewal application was received in March 2006 on the basis of Mr. J. A. Vine, his wife Sandra, daughter Rebecca and her two daughters Emmylou and Mary-Ann together with A. J. Vine and his wife Marsha. The application sought justification for a further extension on the ill health of both Mr. Vine’s, which were substantiated by medical support, and on the grounds of the grandchildren’s education. It was emphasised in the face of the Council’s continuing shortage of allocated gypsy sites that it would be impossible to any of the three family units to relocate in the short term. It was accepted that in the light of the Council’s continuing investigation for alternative sites under the requirements of the Housing Act 2004, Circular 1/06 and the emerging policies within its Local Development Framework that a renewal of the temporary permission was justified. The temporary permission granted under GR/00/0092 was further extended until 1 October 2008, in line with other gypsy sites within the Borough, when it was considered that the emerging LDF would outline suitable alternative sites. It was emphasised within an informative attached to the permission that it was unlikely that any further extensions beyond 1 October 2008 would be granted.

Application GR07/0384

Was an application for the permanent retention of the site approved under Gr00/0092 for Mr. J. A. Vine and his wife Sandra and Mr. A.J. Vine and his wife Marsha. The application was made on the basis that they retained their gypsy status but needed to be settled because of their continuing ill health. It was confirmed that the application was only for two traveller families as the Petherick Family had now vacated the site. The application was refused on 26 July 2007 largely on the grounds that the site had a temporary permission until October 2008 when it was hoped that the Council’s emerging LDF would be in place to consider alternative sites for gypsies and travellers together with n assessment of the sustainability of retaining existing unauthorised Gypsy & Traveller sites.

3. Proposal

The application, as described above, seeks permission to continue to use the site as a gypsy caravan site for two families involving the retention of two mobile home units and two touring caravans on a permanent basis. The site had a temporary permission until 1 October 2008 in line with other gypsy and traveller sites in the Borough but this has now lapsed. The application was originally submitted prior to the expiry of the temporary permission but remained invalid for some considerable time.

The application is on behalf of the two original families, being Mr. John Alfred Vine and his wife Sandra together with his brother Mr. Alfred John Vine and his wife Marsha, who have occupied the site residentially since 1999 although the Vines are believed to have first acquired the site in 1993 prior to their first application (GR95/0105) on the site.

The site was also formerly occupied by Mr. J. A. Vine’s daughter Rebecca Petherick and her two daughters but she now has her own site in Tonbridge. However her daughter Emmylou still resides at the site Monday to Friday as she still attends the local school.

The application was supported by a Design & Access Statement confirming the status of the site, its sustainable location and its access to Wrotham Road. Additional medical support for the applicants was also submitted as well as the educational requirements of Emmylou Petherick.

4. Development Plan & Government Policy

This proposal falls to be considered against the guidance set out in PPG2, PPS7 and Circular 1/2006, along with the policies contained in the South East Plan (May 2009) and the Gravesham Local Plan 1 st Review (1994).

The Gravesham Local Plan 2 nd Review (Deposit Version, 2000) was adopted for the development control purposes on 8 March 2000, but work was suspended after the first stage deposit to focus on the Local Development Framework. The policies in this document have limited weight, except where they reflect current national guidance.

Green Belt

The application site lies in the Green Belt. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy as set out in PPG2: Green Belts, is “to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness ”. Within the Green Belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. Such development should not be approved unless justified by very special circumstances. The onus will be on the applicant to justify why such special circumstances exist.

PPG2 (para 3.4) states that new buildings are considered to be inappropriate development unless they are related to one of the following exceptions

• agriculture and forestry (unless permitted development rights have been withdrawn – see paragraph D2 of Annex D); • essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, for cemeteries, and for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it (see paragraph 3.5 below); • limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings (subject to paragraph 3.6 below); • limited infilling in existing villages (under the circumstances described in the box following paragraph 2.11), and limited affordable housing for local community needs under development plan policies according with PPG3 (see Annex E, and the box following paragraph 2.11); or • limited infilling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites identified in adopted local plans, which meets the criteria in paragraph C3 or C4 of Annex C 1.

The use of land for Gypsies and Travellers is not one of the exceptions referred to above and as such is considered to be an inappropriate use of land in the Green Belt. This is confirmed in Circular 1/2006 para 49 which states that alternative sites should be explored before Green Belt locations are considered for Gypsy and Traveller use.

South East Plan policy SP5 seeks to maintain the general extent of the Green Belt across the region. The Plan makes no reference to uses within the Green Belt as this is referred to in PPG2.

The Gravesham Local Plan 1st Review policy GB2 supports the advice set out in PPG2 and seeks to safeguard the Green Belt in view of its local and wider regional importance. The policy states:

There will be a strong presumption against permitting new development in areas subject to Green Belt policies, other than in accordance with Approved Kent Structure Plan Policy MGB2.

The Kent Structure Plan referred to in this policy was superseded by the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006). The policies in the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006) ceased to have effect in July 2009 following the adoption of the South East Plan (May 2009).

Special Landscape Area

The application site lies within the Special Landscape Area. This is a local landscape designation that originated in the Kent Countryside Plan and was identified in the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006). The Kent and Medway Structure Plan has been superseded by the South East Plan, where, in line with PPS7, the policy approach focuses on protecting landscapes of national value while adopting a criteria based approach to local landscapes based on local landscape character assessments.

South East Plan policy C4 states that planning authorities should aim to protect and enhance the diversity and local distinctiveness of the region’s landscape, informed by landscape character assessment. It stresses the need for positive land management around the edge of London and in areas subject to growth and change. The policy requires local authorities to develop criteria-based policies to ensure that all development respects and enhances local landscape character, securing appropriate mitigation where damage cannot be avoided.

A landscape character assessment has been carried out for the Borough and will be publicly available as part of the Regulation 25 consultation on the Core Strategy and Generic Development Management Policies DPD in December 2009/Janaury 2010. This identifies the application site as lying in the Meopham Downs which is an area that stretches from the middle of the Borough southwards along the A227, along the boundary with Sevenoaks District. Within this area proposals should conserve and reinforce any existing landscape features.

The Gravesham Local Plan 1 st Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994 policy C4 states

Policy CC7 of the Approved Kent Structure Plan, which defines Special Landscape Areas, will be applied to the areas delineated in this Plan. The Borough Council will give long term protection to these areas (which incorporate that part of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which falls within the Borough) and will normally give priority to their landscape over other planning considerations.

Gypsy and Traveller sites.

The proposal is for the continued use of land for a Gypsy and Traveller caravan site. Guidance on Gypsy and Traveller caravan sites is set out in Circular 1/2006. This Circular was brought into effect to:

• address a range of issues facing local authorities and the Gypsy and Traveller community as past policy approaches had failed to deliver sufficient pitches in appropriate locations to meet the needs of this community and,

• set out the planning process for identifying and delivering new pitches.

The Circular provides guidance on the approach to meeting Gypsy and Traveller needs through the planning process and on suitable locations for Gypsy and Traveller sites for inclusion in Local Development Frameworks. It emphasises the importance of ensuring that sites are located in areas that are generally suitable for general housing, they are accessible to local services and facilities, in particular education and medical services, to meet the educational and welfare needs of this community and they meet the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community.

The Circular suggests a criterion based approach is taken to selecting sites for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. The factors to be taken into account are as follows:

1 The suitability of the site for use – sites should be allocated in areas that are generally acceptable for residential use. As such sites in areas at risk of flooding, contaminated sites, and sites close to power lines, railway lines, major roads, sewage works etc should be avoided unless the impact can be militated against. Safe access to the highway network should be available.

2 Sustainability of the location – sites should be accessible to local health, education and retail facilities, employment opportunities and public transport by a variety of means other than the car. This focuses the site search on areas within or near to the main urban area of Gravesend/ or the rural settlements, in particular those with the widest range of facilities available. Priority should be given to the use of brownfield land.

3 Green Belt and areas with nationally recognised designations (SSSI, AONB, Conservation Areas etc) should be avoided unless there are no alternative locations and their impact on these areas can be minimised.

4 Impact on local settlements – the size and location of the site should not impact adversely on the character or appearance of the settlement or local residential amenity. Mitigation measures should be considered to avoid possible impacts.

5 The accommodation meets the needs of Gypsies and Travellers – the site should be of an adequate size to accommodate pitches of an appropriate size. Provision of mixed use sites should be considered.

6 Availability of site – It is important that a site is available and capable of being delivered within the necessary timescales. There are three main ways sites are likely to become available; either the land is in local authority or other public ownership; private landowners may bring forward sites for use or sites are compulsory purchased.

As with general housing, the Circular (para 49), as indicated above, makes it clear that Gypsy and Traveller sites are not appropriate uses in the Green Belt and alternative locations should be explored before Green Belt locations are considered. Alterations to the Green Belt can be made on an exceptional basis where no suitable alternative locations are available outside the Green Belt, but such alterations should be brought forward through the Development Plan process (para 51).

The South East Plan contains an interim statement on provision for Gypsies and Travellers as an early review of this issue was being undertaken at the time of publication, to take on board the guidance set out in Circular 1/2006. This requires regional spatial strategies, on the basis of local authority Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments (GTAA), to determine a strategic view of needs across the region and identify the number of pitches required for each local planning authority.

The South East Partnership Board (SEEPB) has produced a draft policy (Policy H7) which has been submitted to government for examination. This is programmed for February 2010 with adoption anticipated at the end of 2010. Under the draft policy, Gravesham will need to provide 12 new pitches between 2006 and 2016. In this respect the Council has recently provided provision for 8 new pitches at Springhead Road in Northfleet.

There are currently no adopted policies at the local level to guide Gypsy and Traveller provision. The issue will be addressed in the Core Strategy (CS) and Generic Development Management Policies DPD (GDMP DPD). The regulation 25 consultation on the draft document will take place in December 2009/January 2010.

As required by the Housing Act 2004, (and reiterated in Circular 1/2006), a sub regional Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) has been carried out jointly with Dartford, Medway and Swale Councils (August 2006). This identifies a need for 15 new pitches in Gravesham for the period 2006 - 2011. This figure has been fed into the South East Plan partial review to inform the draft policy.

Having established a need for new pitches in the Borough, the draft CS & GDMP DPD will set out the approach to be taken to identify and assess new Gypsy and Traveller sites, taking account of their availability and deliverability over the Plan period (2026). The approach is based on the criteria set out in Circular 1/2006 (which received support at the Issues and Options consultation for the CS & GDMP DPD in November 2007) and the criteria used to assess the suitability of sites for general housing use in the Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA).

In view of the established need for sites and current stage with the CS & GDMP DPD the absence of any suitable sites the Circular advises (paras 45/46) that consideration should be given to granting temporary consent particularly given progress on the CS & GDMP DPD and the likely timeframe for adoption.

In view of the lack of local policy guidance, the acceptability of the current site should be on the basis of the factors set out in the Circular.

Transport

The application site lies on the eastern side of the Wrotham Road (A227), the main distributor which runs north to south linking Gravesend with the M20. This is a public transport route however there are no bus stops near the site, the nearest being either at Vigo village to the south east or Culverstone Green to the north, both over 800m away.

Gravesham Local Plan 1 st Review policy T1 seeks to ensure that developments are served by the highway network states

The Local Planning and Highway Authorities will consider the impact on the transport system and on the environment of traffic generated by new development and will wish to ensure that all proposed developments are adequately served by the highway network identified on the Proposals Map.

Turning movements onto the highway account for a number of accidents. In the rural area, speed is an additional factor. Policy T5 seeks to ensure that any new accesses do not add to this risk and states:

The formation of new accesses or the intensification of use of existing accesses to the roads forming the highway network shown on the Proposals Map, will not normally be permitted, except where no danger would arise and where a properly formed access can be created in a location and to a standard acceptable to the Local Planning and Highway Authorities.

5. Reason for Report

Departure from Local Plan – Gypsy Site Provision

6. Consultations and Publicity

Consultations

Kent Highways Services

Have raised no objections to the use of the site on a permanent basis.

Sevenoaks District Council:

Were consulted as an adjoining borough but no response has been received on this occasion although they have not objected in the past for the renewal of the temporary permissions.

Kent Gypsy & Traveller Liaison Officer:

Was consulted but no response has been received.

Meopham Parish Council:

Were consulted and have recommended approval subject to a strong condition that the permanent right of residence at Millers Farm is given to Mr. & Mrs. J. A. Vine and Mr. & Mrs A. J. Vine only and does not pass as of right to any subsequent owners of the Millers Farm site, and that this does not imply any permanent change of use of the Millers Farm site beyond their lifetimes.

GBC Head of Regulatory Services

Raises no objection to the application subject to the applicant applying for a site licence and seeking EA approval under the Water Resources Act 1991 for any non-mains drainage system. The on-site drainage is an existing septic tank and no changes are proposed.

Publicity

The proposal has been advertised by way of Notices displayed on the site and in a local newspaper as a development proposal not in accord with the Development Plan. In addition a total of 7 local owners/occupiers were consulted. Two letters of objection have been received from adjoining owner/occupiers:

James Edward – Barnfield Farm Gravesend Road:

Has submitted a lengthy letter of objection and has raised issues about the legality of the application in terms of landownership and drainage. These issues have been clarified with the applicants and their agent and details are included within the main body of this report.

Mr. Edwards has objected to the inclusion of the words ‘gypsy and traveller’ within the description of the development and maintains that the applicants are not travellers because they no longer travel. Again these issues are dealt with in detail in the main body of the report but the site has been a ‘registered gypsy & traveller site’ since October 2000 when the Planning Inspector Mr. Papworth granted the use for the occupation by two gypsy families. In making this decision Mr. Papworth accepted that the applicants were gypsies of long standing and meet the requisite definite of gypsy.

Mr. Edwards has made reference to policy contained within the Kent & Medway Structure Plan and the Council’s own Local Plans. The Kent & Medway Structure Plan is no longer relevant and has now been superseded by the SE Plan. Its policies are outlined above. Whilst the policies in the Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994 in respect to Green Belt have been ‘saved’ there are no policies of any relevance to gypsies and travellers. In the absence of an adopted Local Development Framework the application falls to be considered on the basis of the recommendations within ODPM Circular 01/06 and the recently published SE Plan (July 2009).

The objector has made reference to the site recently approved at Springhead Northfleet but is under the misapprehension that this is a council run site which can be used as an ‘alternative’ to relocate the occupiers of Millers Farm.

Mr. Edwards also makes reference to the location on the A227 and to highway safety issues but these are not shared by the Highway Authority.

Mrs. J. A. Brown – The Grange Gravesend Road

Has objected on Green Belt grounds which should be protected from development. She acknowledges the length of time that the Vines have lived there and that they are good neighbours who she has helped on many occasions. She has even supported their applications to remain on the site.

She does not however accept that they are gypsies and objects to the inclusion of the words gypsy & traveller in the description because of the stigma people associate being next door to a permanent gypsy site. She does not accept that this is already a registered gypsy site.

Like Mr. Edwards she has questioned if they are the owners of the land – which is clarified elsewhere in this report.

She maintains that the proposal will have a major impact on the value of her property – this is not a planning consideration.

7. Service Manager Development Control comments

Before considering the proposal some procedural points have been raised by local residents about the legality of the application and in particular the ownership of the site and the drainage system.

As far as ownership of the land is concerned the applicants have submitted a Statutory Declaration by John Alfred Vine that they purchased the land in October 1993 from Mr. Foy who was the registered owner. Before the land could be registered in their name the transfer deed was lost and was never sent to the Land Registry. Mr. Foy was subsequently put in prison and the matter was never formerly resolved. For this reason Mr. Foy still remains as the registered owner of the land on Land Registry records. I am advised that Mr. Foy is executing a further transfer deed in order to register the site in the applicant’s name. In this regard the correct Certificate has been submitted and there can be no claim that the application has not been legally made.

It has also been alleged that the LPA should not consider the application until confirmation about the drainage system has been provided. In this regard the applicant’s agent has confirmed that a septic tank was in position when the Vines purchased the land and that they have always used this system. There has been no change in this situation at any time when applications on the site have been considered. In this regard the Council is satisfied that the existing drainage system is being used and would not wish to question this.

Having established that the application was legally submitted it has to be considered in the light of local policy and prevailing government guidance . In the absence of any local policy criteria to asses the suitability of this site as a Gypsy and Traveller site it is necessary to make reference to the guidance set out in Circular 1/2006 on identifying suitable locations for Gypsy and Traveller sites as set out above. On the basis of this the main material considerations that need to be reviewed are as follows:

The application site lies outside Culverstone Green, at the northern end of a short length of residential ribbon development in the Green Belt, where there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. As such the principle of using this site as a Gypsy and Traveller is contrary to policy. The fact that there is a need for new sites does not warrant setting this presumption aside as the identification of new sites including any amendments that may be required to the Green Belt should and will emerge through the development plan process and not via a planning application.

The Design and Access Statement attached to the planning application accepts that the site lies in the Green Belt but cites the need for new Gypsy and Traveller sites and health issues of the applicants as special circumstances warranting the setting aside of Green Belt policy.

It is accepted that there is a need for new pitches in the Borough as established in the North Kent GTAA and reflected in the South East Plan draft Policy H7. Work on the CS & GDMP DPD is well underway with the regulation 25 consultation on the draft document proposed in December 2009/January 2010 and once adopted, in late 2011; it will allocate sites for Gypsy and Traveller use.

To identify sites for inclusion in the CS & GDMP DPD, the occupants of all Gypsy and Traveller sites in the Borough were approached by letter, inviting them to submit their site for consideration. This site was not brought forward for consideration.

In terms of identifying new sites, the CS & GDMP DPD will focus the initial search on the urban area and in particular major development sites outside the flood zone, the sites considered suitable for residential development submitted through the Strategic Land Availability Assessment, and any surplus publicly owned land. If this fails to bring forward sites consideration will be given to the suitability of existing Gypsy and Traveller sites, including this site, along with sites on the edge of the urban area and rural settlements.

The criteria to be adopted for assessing prospective sites are based on those set out in Circular 1/2006 and those used to assess the suitability of sites for general housing. The aim is to identify sites that are well related to existing settlements, services and facilities in line with Circular 1/2006 guidance, and in line with policy considerations for affordable housing.

In addition to the issues around the Green Belt, the location of the site in relation to existing settlements is a key consideration. The application site is poorly related to any village or their facilities, such as doctor’s surgery, primary school and local shop. These facilities are located at either Vigo Village or Culverstone Green which are over and just under a mile away respectively. It lies on a public transport route, but there are no bus stops near the site, the nearest being either at Vigo village to the south east or Culverstone Green to the north, both over 800m away. It is considered highly unlikely that public transport will be used to access services and facilities in the nearby villages.

In respect of meeting the needs of Gypsies and Travellers, the layout does not accord with the CLG guidance “Designing Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites” in that the touring caravans are located too close to the mobile homes and would be considered to be a fire risk. I also note that there is a shared dayroom yet the proposal is for two pitches. There is sufficient land available to remedy these issues, but the internal layout should be re-examined to determine that there is adequate space for two pitches within the application site.

The site abuts residential properties but this has not caused any amenity issues and access to the highway is considered to be satisfactory.

The fact that the site performs adequately as a Gypsy and Traveller site is not sufficient to override the fact that the site is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and fails to meet the guidance set out in Circular 1/2006 in respect of accessibility to local services and facilities.

As the CS & GDMP DPD will address the issue of Gypsy and Traveller site provision and allocate sites, it is considered that, in line with para.'s 45/46 of Circular 1/2006, consideration should be given to granting a temporary consent until the outcome of the CS & GDMP DPD is known and sites are identified.

Human Rights Assessment

An updated Human Rights Assessment was carried out by the Planning Enforcement Team on 2 September 2009 as part of the consideration of the planning merits of application. It was also required as part of the due diligence process necessitated by the protocols of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of the Council’s intentions given that the site is currently unauthorised and the possibility of the need to take action under section 178 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

The site comprises two mobile home units with parking spaces for two touring caravans although it is understood that the occupiers do not travel regularly due to ill-health.

The site is currently occupied by:

Plot 1

Mr. John Alfred Vine (59) and his wife Sandra (61)

Mr. Vine’s grand-daughter Emmylou Petherick (12) also resides on Plot 1 Monday – Friday as she attends Borough Green School. It is understood her mother lives on a site at Tonbridge

Mr. J. A. Vines has serious medical problems including chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes and severe arthritis of the knee and has recently has evasive surgery.

Plot 2

Mr Alfred John Vine (56) and his wife Marsha (53)

Alfred suffered a stroke in 2005 and has had severe mobility problems since. Marsha has serious heart problems.

The health records are confirmed by the family’s relevant doctors.

The families met the definition of Gypsy & Traveller given in paragraph 15 of ODPM Circular 01/06 and are gypsies by ethnic origin.

A single storey barn which has been converted to a dayroom sits to the south of the site entrance adjacent to the boundary with Tower Folly. This building is used as a utility room and storage area – its falls within the boundary of the site.

The applicants also own a larger area of agricultural land to the north & east of the application site comprising about 5 hectares of grazing land with stabling and a hay pole barn.

Consultation expiry date: 28 September 2009

Recommendation

Grant temporary planning permission for 3 yrs in accord with the transisition provisions outlined in ODPM Circular 01/06 subject to the following conditions:

1. The permission granted does not authorise use of the land as a caravan site by any persons other than gypsies, as defined in ODPM Circular 01/06.

2. No more than two mobile homes and two touring caravans shall be stationed on the land at any one time except with the written permission of the LPA in writing.

3. The use hereby permitted shall only be carried on, and the caravans occupied, only by Mr. John Alfred Vine, his brother Alfred John Vine and members of their immediate family normally residing with them and shall be for a limited period from the date of this decision ceasing on 30 November 2012.

4. When the premises cease to be occupied by Mr. John Alfred Vine, his brother Alfred John Vine and members of their immediate family living with them, or at the end of the period now granted, the use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, vehicles, material and equipment brought onto the premises in connection with the use shall be removed, and the site shall revert to agricultural land. 5. The caravans hereby permitted shall only be stationed on the existing hardstanding area as shown on the submitted site plan and no other area without prior approval of the LPA in writing.

INFORMATIVE:

1. The applicants are advised that temporary permission has been granted until 30 November 2012 pending the adoption of The Partnership Board (SEEPB) draft policy (Policy H7) for Gypsy & Traveller site provision This has been submitted to government for examination and programmed for February 2010 with adoption anticipated at the end of 2010.

The Council acknowledges that there is an identified need for additional sites but there are currently no adopted policies at the local level to guide Gypsy and Traveller provision. The issue will be addressed in the Core Strategy (CS) and Generic Development Management Policies DPD (GDMP DPD) of the council’s emerging LDF. Consultation on the draft document is due to take place in December 2009/January 2010.