Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

Application Number 11/00955/AS

Location Land south east of Malden Lodge, Stone Cross Road, ,

Grid Reference 2582/6414

Parish Council Bilsington

Ward Saxon Shore

Application Change of Use of Land to provide 2 plots for gypsy/ Description travellers including the stationing of 2 mobile homes and 2 touring caravans together with the erection of 2 utility buildings, hard standing and cess pit

Applicant Mr James & Mr Wilson

Agent WS Planning and Architecture, Reigate Place, 43 London Road, Reigate, Surrey RH2 9PW

Site Area 0.17 hectares

(a) 11/12(r); 6(s) (b) Bilsington: R (c) ABC Drainage: X; KHS: X; Aldington: R PROW: X; EA: X; ABC : R EHM: X

Introduction

1. This application was reported to the Planning Committee of 16th November 2011 at the request of one of the Ward Members, Councillor Wood, but was deferred prior to discussion awaiting further guidance from central government with regard to determination of gypsy and traveller applications. This guidance has not been forthcoming and as such, Councillor Wood has agreed that the application should now be reported back to the Planning Committee for determination.

Site and Surroundings

2. The application site comprises part of an agricultural field located in the countryside outside of the village of Bilsington. The site on which the mobile homes sit is 0.17 hectares in size; however, the applicants also own the field to the rear of the site which is separated from the site by a low post and rail fence. The site has an access to the northern side which has been altered by the applicants to improve visibility in both directions along Stone Cross Road.

1.1 - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

A Public Right of Way runs from the access along the boundary of the site in a south easterly direction.

3. Adjacent to the boundary with the highway there is a 2 – 2.5 metre high hedge and some mature trees. This provides some screening from the road and is typical of boundary treatments for the area. The boundary to the north east is densely planted with trees and bushes which screen the site from the public right of way, and the boundary with Malden Lodge is also demarcated by dense, mature hedgerow. Several post and rail fences bisect the field to the rear of the site; however, the site is clearly visible from the open countryside to the south of the site.

4. A site plan is attached to this report as Annex 1.

Proposal

5. Full planning permission is sought for the change of use of the land for the stationing of two residential mobile homes for gypsy families, 2 touring caravans and the installation of two utility buildings, hard standing and cesspit.

6. The development proposes to use the existing field access which has undergone improvement to increase the visibility splays. The Public Right of Way access would be retained to the north east of the site and the remainder of the field which is also in the applicant’s ownership would be used as grazing land.

7. Plans of the proposed site layout are detailed below:

Figure 1: Proposed Layout

1.2 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

8. At the time of the previous planning committee the two residential mobile homes were present on the site. The committee deferred the application and requested that no further development took place on the site. Since this time, the applicants contacted the planning officer and Cllr Wood and asked to erect the utility buildings which are also included in the proposal. It was advised that this would be at the applicant’s own risk, and these buildings have now been erected on the site.

Planning History

9. Planning permission was sought retrospectively and subsequently refused for the change of use of the land for the keeping of horses and construction of hardstanding to provide access to top field under application number 10/00917/AS. The reasons for refusal were the following:

1. The proposed hardstanding by virtue of its length, width and location would give rise to an unnecessary development in this rural area and has resulted in a visually prominent and incongruous feature within the rural landscape which bisects the agricultural field and has caused harm to the visual appearance of the rural landscape designated as an SLA.

2. The land the subject of the application is prone to localised flooding, and due to the limited grazing, the proposal is likely to lead to overgrazing resulting in harm to the appearance of the landscape and the pressure for further physical development of the land in connection with the supervision of horses which would be harmful to the appearance of the rural landscape.

10. Following this refusal an enforcement notice was served on the owners to ensure the removal of the hardstanding area which extended from the access up to the field at the rear.

Consultations

Ward Members: One of the Ward Members, Cllr Wood, requests that the application is reported to the Planning Committee. No comments have been received from the other Ward Member, Cllr Howard.

Parish Council:

Bilsington Parish Council:

Object to the application and advise the site area stated on the application form is incorrect with regard to the site area outlined on the application form and question

1.3 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______whether as part of an established Bilsington family if the gypsy/traveller status given this application is correct.

Mersham and Parish Council:

“As a neighbouring parish, Mersham and Sevington Parish Council strongly supports the objections of Bilsington Parish Council to this application. In addition to the fact that it is contrary to the policies they list, Councillors are completely opposed to this type of application for ad hoc development in the countryside. This would not normally be allowed and, if granted, will set a precedent which would result in numerous applications of a similar nature being submitted. This will further threaten the protection of the local countryside in this area, which is already under great pressure from large developments on Greenfield sites. This is an important reason why the countryside around Ashford and its new development sites should be given greater protection than ever”.

Aldington and Parish Council:

“As a neighbouring parish, Aldington and Bonnington Parish Council objects to this application. If it were to be granted, it would set a precedence for other piecemeal development outside village envelopes”

Ruckinge Parish Council:

“This site already has a history of enforcement and refusal. Even so weekends are deliberately selected in a premeditated effort to complete tasks without hindrance with the sole objective of circumnavigating planning regulations. If these illegal actions are permitted or indeed ratified retrospectively then the same can happen to any field anywhere. Clearly this cannot be permitted and we are objecting on this basis.”

KCC Public Rights of Way: Raise no objections but suggest informative.

Environment Agency: “We have assessed this application and have determined that it poses a low environmental risk, taking into account the details in the application and its proposed location. We therefore have no comments to make on this application.”

Kent Highway Services: Raise no objections subject to conditions and comment “The sight line requirements are in accordance with the proposed block plan. I have been out to look at this and they have removed a large amount of hedgerow by the site access anyway to gain the visibility splays. I don't think that there is any need to remove any further hedgerow/trees.”

Ashford Borough Council Drainage: “The applicant has indicated in their application that they propose to dispose of surface water from the proposed 1.4 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______development to soakaway. I would recommend that a permeability test is carried out on the site to establish this as a suitable means of disposal and the results are submitted to ABC for approval.

(Note from case officer: further information from the applicant advises they have used French drains to drain the site and not soakaways)

The ABC SUDS SPD document recommends the incorporation of Sustainable Drainage Systems into all new developments. Although opportunities are limited for this application, the use of rainwater recycling from the roof run-off could be incorporated in particular for the flushing of toilets in the utility buildings.”

Neighbours: 11 consulted; 11 letters of objection and 5 letters of support received

Letters of objection: i) If this application is successful, it would be seen to set a precedent for this type of application in the local area and the objector will be following the decision with their own similar application as the rules laid down by law cannot be seen to favour any individual or individuals. ii) The caravans were moved onto the site “under the cover of darkness”. iii) “I find it bizarre that building and changing the use of land like this can be done retrospectively, and consider it is time the law is changed regarding this type of application”. iv) The development occurred “under the cover of darkness” which implies that the people responsible knew exactly how to plan this action to ensure that there would be no interference from anyone in authority. v) We in Mersham are in a similar position regarding planning application for the Traveller’s site, Note: TERM TRAVELLER- from the Oxford English Dictionary:- one who or that which travels/one who is travelling from place to place or along a road or path, one who is on a journey? vi) I am sure ABC will see sense regarding the application and return the land back to its proper use or I am sure ABC will be inundated with planning applications that they will find hard to defend. vii) The total lack of respect shown by these “Travellers” in relation to the laws governing this country is nothing short of scandalous. viii) Did the applicants ever give a thought to the residents surrounding the site before they bulldozed their way into their lives?

1.5 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______ix) I notice after driving past the site that the families are enjoying Sky TV. x) If the application is allowed to prevail then the properties in the surrounding area will be forever blighted and those wishing to sell at any point will be lucky to escape with half the real value of their property. xi) Concern over drainage from the site as overflow and outflow from the land is likely to end up in the road or in roadside ditches. The land is poorly drained heavy clay with limited permeability. xii) The granting of planning permission is permanent and this will set a precedent in the local area. xiii) The development is unwarranted development in the countryside. xiv) The development is out of keeping with the area. xv) The vehicular egress from the property is an added traffic hazard. xvi) Increased noise levels for existing residents- largely from generators- will also be a nuisance. xvii) Under-provision of permanent Gypsy sites in the Ashford Area is potentially leading to areas of the countryside being granted development permission for communities of Gypsies and Travellers which areas under normal circumstance would not be awarded such concession. xviii) Gypsies and Travellers are likely to receive much more favourable treatment under the planning system than other members of the community. This is particularly unfair to normal residents. xix) Ashford Borough Council should concede that it is a material consideration that the Government recognises this unfairness and wishes to abolish the current guidelines of Circular 01/2006. xx) The paragraph in Circular 01/2006 dictating the need to “recognise, protect and facilitate the traditional travelling way of life of Gypsies and Travellers, whilst respecting the interests of the settled community” must not overlook the second part of the statement. xxi) Current residents in the area will be inconvenienced by consolidation of the proposed development. xxii) Non-traditional housing standards do impact detrimentally on the environment but, more significantly, they very materially lower the value of nearby and

1.6 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

existing properties, thus impacting severely on financial and retirement plans of existing residents. xxiii) This illegal development already contravenes the recommendation that sites should respect the scale of, and not dominate, the nearest settled community. xxiv) The applicants did not consult the local planning authority prior to purchasing the land or carrying out the development and as such have deliberately ignored the Government’s recommendations of circular 01/2006. xxv) The Council must assess whether or not the applicants have alternative sites where they might live, clearly these applicants do since they have relocated but a few miles from where they were already domiciled. xxvi) The spurious claims that Gypsies and Travellers must retain their community life is directly contradicted by the clearly- displayed desire to leave the existing community and move, in isolation, to another part of Bilsington. xxvii) The claim by one applicant that he was bred and born in Bilsington is not strictly true since he stated also that he has lived here only since aged 3. xxviii) There must be scores of young people in Ashford who would love the opportunity to build a house on a cheap piece of land that would otherwise cost upward of £200,000 if it had building permission. xxix) The council should note the already incessant “rumble” of portable generators to provide electrical power to the site. xxx) The LPA should have regard to the potential for noise and other disturbance from the movement of vehicles to and from the site, the stationing of vehicles on the site and on-site business activities. xxxi) The existing use of the land is agricultural and there is limited visibility from the access which potentially makes it unsafe for residential use- the view of traffic approaching from the western end of Stone Cross Road is very limited ad the road is now a busy thoroughfare for both residential and commercial traffic. xxxii) KHS have asked for conditions to be imposed as to height of hedgerows and trees adjacent to the access however, this conflicts with the applicant’s own proposals as this would remove screening from the site meaning the mobiles would be more visible.

1.7 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______xxxiii) The proposed hard standing would generate more surface water run-off and this increase the risk of flooding or water logging of the ground in adjacent properties. xxxiv) The application states that the site is well away from houses ad therefore there would be no impact on neighbour amenity, this is factually incorrect as there are several properties close by, the nearest being 50 metres away. xxxv) It is unclear whether the applicant’s status as long term residents of Bilsington is consistent with gypsy status and status is fundamental to this planning application. xxxvi) If the gypsy status is no longer appropriate, this proposed development neither offers affordable or additional housing within the ambit of the development plan. xxxvii) If the gypsy status is still relevant, the proposal does not accord with the Good Practice Guide on Designing Gypsy and Traveller sites (“sites should not be identified for Gypsy and Traveller use that are inappropriate for ordinary residential dwellings”). xxxviii)The application site is both premature and contrary to Ashford Borough Council’s policy as set out in SCI 2009. xxxix) Further permissions for new Gypsy and Traveller sites should not be granted pending the completion of the Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Show people DPD. xl) Permission should not be granted for further Gypsy and Traveller site in such close proximity to the existing site on Brisley Lane (0.9miles away). xli) The applicants have effectively created a further 2 pitches with the touring caravans over and above the two which are proposed for the static homes and 2 more than were vacated on their previous site. xlii) The granting of permission for two pitches adjacent to a large parcel of land in the same ownership is likely to give rise to unauthorised expansion caused by an influx of Gypsy and Travelling people in the area. xliii) Persistently ignoring the planning regulations gives rise to concern that the applicants may disregard any further restrictions which might be imposed by the planning authorities. xliv) The area in question is in very real danger of having an over population and over- concentration in so far as two sites already exist less than 1 mile away

1.8 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

from the proposed change of use at both Woodside, Brisley Lane and 6 Little Acres, Brisley Lane. xlv) To grant a 3rd site in such a small radius does not have regard to private residential interests as it is likely to have an impact on the value of residential properties in the area. xlvi) The field should be retained to preserve the rural landscape which is already substantially developed. xlvii) The development would not respect the context of the area and would be harmful to the street scene, the locale generally and residential amenities of nearby dwellings in the area. xlviii) There is a concern that the change of use will lead to pressure for further development in connection with this which would be harmful to the appearance of the rural landscape. xlix) The site is only screened by a hedgerow and are highly prominent and out of keeping with the landscape, they are visible over and above the height of the hedgerow. l) The boundary hedgerow between the site and Stone Cross Road is an important hedgerow within the definition of the Hedgerow regulations 1997 and cannot simply be supplemented nor altered in order to provide further screening. li) Altering the layout of the landscape would result in a loss of wildlife habitat. lii) The installation of a foul drainage system will do nothing to alleviate the excess surface water. liii) The proposed application does not identify a clear need nor does it state why it cannot be met on an existing or planned site. liv) No local service can be accessed from the site without a car as no services are within walking distance and the area has very poor public transport links. lv) The site does not take into account sustainability. lvi) The enforcement notice served on the land preciously has been ignored. lvii) The application form and submitted documents have many discrepancies with what has occurred at the site e.g. application form states there has been no alteration to the access when works have actually occurred.

1.9 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______lviii) The area of hardstanding is very large- larger than the car park in front of the Civic Centre office which has 29 car parking spaces. lix) Whilst there are other caravans in the local area many of these are old and were positioned when the brick houses were being built or renovated, the owners lived in them whilst the house was being built. lx) The positioning of new residential properties on this land would be infilling. lxi) Will Gypsies that do travel be stopping off and staying at the site for long periods? lxii) If the applicants want to live in a private residential site they cannot have movable structures, they will have to fork out the cost of building a brick house if they are granted permission. lxiii) What is the need for 2 utility buildings as the caravan should have all the facilities inside? lxiv) The appearance of the caravans could be easily and frequently changed - how big could they get? Can they double in size? lxv) Just because you have bought and own land does not give you the right to love on it or do what you want on it. lxvi) The applicant’s state that they all have links to the area and have always travelled as a way of life; this contradicts the fact that they are currently living on a site where they have permission to live for life. lxvii) The alterations to the entrance has impacted the landscape and scenic value let alone the mobiles and fencing that has been put up. lxviii) No residential properties along Stonecross Road currently have neighbours only fields or woodland sheep or cows but the site is opposite a neighbour. lxix) People who live in houses outside the village choose to live away from people. Ashford Borough Council do not grant planning permissions for new houses and as such there must be a reason why new houses, homes or buildings are not permitted in this location. lxx) Now a days we are all travellers as we all travel in our cars and vans etc.

11. Since the time of writing the previous committee report the following additional representations have been received:

1 additional letter of objection received stating the following: 1.10 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

i) Temporary permission; how long is temporary?

ii) The site should not be viewed as a further gypsy site, this is a single application specific to two families only.

iii) Regardless of whether the field entrance has been altered to the satisfaction of highways, it remains a field entrance which because of its location and speed of traffic, it is not suitable for a residential site which frequently has 4 vehicles on it.

iv) The development is not screened from the public footpath and one of the fences intersects the footpath.

v) As to the drainage being unimpaired, we will wait to see how unimpaired it is when we get the winter rains.

vi) Any permission should be uniquely for the two families applying, they should be named in the permission and any such permission should not be transferrable for example with the sale of the land.

vii) How big can a single unit be? What happens if the applicants decide they are too small and want to build on.

viii) It appears there is no longer any mention of a change of use of land for the keeping of horses – might this be to avoid “keeping horses” clouding the issue of commercial activity for a horse dealer?

ix) Has the order to remove from the site all the hardcore been removed or simply ignored?

x) We maintain our objections to the use of the site for residential which would undoubtedly be refused for any “normal” application.

xi) The present applicants are being considered as a “special case”, we believe that any permission granted should be on this basis only for the specific family with 2 tourers and 2 static mobiles. As a “special case” this should not be transferrable and sets no form of precedent of any kind.

Letters of Support: i) The family are kind, hard working and family orientated as well as long standing members of the community. ii) They have bought the land and are improving it.

1.11 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______iii) I know that the mobile bungalows do and will continue to have an attractive appearance, better than some houses because they are well maintained and cared for. iv) This seems like a sensible lifestyle choice in today’s economic climate and financial disasters. v) There is plenty of room on the land and there are other caravans in the area. vi) The thought that a land owner cannot live as they so choose on their own land in this civilised country is abhorrent to me. vii) The applicants are a respectful and very proud family and I have full confidence that they will keep the land and surrounding area beautifully maintained. viii) I know that the family have lived and worked in the parish, married in the local church, children went to school locally and have done so for many years without any objections. ix) They have moved less than half a mile and all of the above are now objecting to the same people that they have been living with for the past 30 years. x) There are 5 residential caravans in the same road and one opposite the site; as far as I am concerned static caravans are static caravans whoever’s land they are on. xi) In my opinion the site is considerably better condition than it has been. xii) The mobile homes are set back from my view (at Stone Cross Cottage) and I therefore have no objection or concerns regarding the change of use. xiii) There is good visibility on the road frontage, clearing the overgrowth and access, new fitted gates and it is not a lot safer driving in and out as traffic can now see the opening to the fields. xiv) The footpath for walkers has been tidied and levelled where it used to become water logged. xv) Hedges are cut back giving a smart appearance with some quality fencing installed. xvi) The two bungalows are located in a discrete location and of attractive appearance.

1.12 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______xvii) There is the same level of wildlife since the static bungalow arrived. xviii) Larger traffic such as tractors are now using the clear field entry as a safe passing place.

12. Since the time of writing the previous committee report the following additional representations have been received:

1 additional letter of support received stating the following:

“Having used Mr Wilson’s company for my home I must say I found him very helpful, honest and polite. At least give his family a chance to a show what kind of neighbours they will be”.

Planning Policy

13. The Development Plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy (The South East Plan, May 2009), the saved policies in the adopted Ashford Borough Local Plan 2000, the adopted LDF Core Strategy 2008, the adopted Ashford Town Centre Area Action Plan 2010 and the & Rural Sites DPD 2010.

14. The relevant policies from the Development Plan relating to this application are as follows:-

South East Plan 2009

CC1 – Sustainable Development

C4 – Landscape and Countryside Management

Ashford Borough Local Plan 2000

GP12 – Protecting the countryside and managing change

Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008

CS1 – Guiding Principles

CS14 – Gypsies and Travellers

Tenterden & Rural Sites DPD

TRS17 – Landscape Character and Design

1.13 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

15. The following are also material to the determination of this application:-

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

Landscape Character SPD

Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Show people Development Plan Document Issues and Options Report

Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide 2008

Sustainable Drainage SPD

Government Advice

PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

ODPM Circular 01/2006 – Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites

Draft PPS on Planning for Traveller Sites (out to consultation and set to replace Circular 01/2006)

National Planning Policy Framework (Consultation Version 2011)

16. The coalition government, through the DCLG, published the consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), together with its associated consultation document, Impact Assessment and media summary on 25 July 2011. The NPPF is intended to bring together Planning Policy Statements, Planning Policy Guidance Notes and some Circulars into a single consolidated document. Whilst it is a consultation document and, therefore, subject to potential amendment, it nevertheless gives a clear indication of the Government’s ‘direction of travel’ in planning policy. Therefore, the draft National Planning Policy Framework is capable of being a material consideration, although the weight to be given to it would be a matter for the Committee's judgment in each particular case, bearing in mind the relevance of the draft advice to the particular application.

17. The NPPF is supportive of sustainable development and outlines the Government’s objective to create strong, vibrant and healthy communities by creating a good quality built environment, with accessible local services. Further, the NPPF outlines that planning should aim to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting valued landscapes and minimise the adverse effects of development on the local and natural environment. 1.14 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

18. It is the responsibility of the Local Planning Authority to allocated appropriate sites for Gypsies, Travellers and Show people. At this time, the Council are in the process of developing a Development Plan Document (DPD) in order to facilitate this. This document is currently at its first stage of development with the publication of the issues and options report. In light of this early stage of development very limited weight can be offered to it in the consideration of this application.

19. Members should note that the determination must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Assessment

20. The main issues for consideration are:

• The principle of the development • Gypsy status of the applicants • Need for the provision of gypsy sites • Sustainability • Impact upon the character and appearance of the landscape • Impact upon residential amenity • Impact upon highway safety • Other material considerations

Principle

21. Development Plan Policy seeks to protect the character and appearance of the countryside for its own sake and as a result, there is a general presumption against residential development in the countryside except in very exceptional circumstances.

22. The provision of sites or accommodation for gypsies and travellers is dealt with by policy CS14 of the Core Strategy. This policy (adopted by the Council in July 2008) states that:

a. sites for gypsies and travellers (as defined by Circular 01/2006) will be identified in a site allocation Development Plan Document

b. that this should be based on a clearly identified need that cannot be met elsewhere on an existing or planned site and

c. Should be in accordance with policy CS1 and CS15 of the same document.

1.15 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

23. Government advice contained within Circular 01/2006 states that sites may be found in rural settings and that these rural settings, where not subject to other planning constraints, are acceptable in principle.

24. It is therefore the function of the Local Planning Authority to allocate appropriates sites and The Gypsy, Traveller and Show People Development Plan Document is intended to facilitate this. The document will also include general policies that would be applied to allocated as well as windfall sites. The first stage of producing this document is currently underway with the publication of an issues and options report.

25. The Government considers that Circular 01/2006 has become increasingly outdated and is concerned that current Circulars have not achieved their objective of significantly increasing the number of traveller sites with planning permission in appropriate locations. As a result a draft PPS entitled ‘Planning for Traveller Sites’ (hereafter referred to as the draft PPS) has been issued for consultation by the Government and is proposed to replace Circular 01/2006.

26. The draft PPS should therefore be given some weight in the decision process and as a Planning Inspector, in a recent appeal decision concluded, this consultation document gives a clear indication of the Government’s intended direction in relation to the provision of gypsy sites. However, since the consultation process may prompt amendments and Circular 1/ 2006 remains in place, significant regard must still be given to it.

27. Policy H (determining planning applications for traveller sites) of the draft PPS states that whilst Local Planning Authorities should strictly limit new development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the Development Plan, they should:

• Recognise that some rural areas may be acceptable for some forms of traveller sites.

• Ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of and do not dominate the nearest settled community.

• Ensure that sites avoid placing undue pressure on the local services.

• Should consider the existing level of local provision and need for sites when considering planning applications for sites.

These issues will be considered in subsequent sections of this report.

28. The applicants previously resided at a site in Brisley Lane, approximately 0.5 miles from the application site. The previous site was of approximately an acre in size with both the applicants (Mr Wilson and Mr James) along with 1.16 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

their two families including 5 children and their parents living on 1.5 acres closest to the road, and their uncle and his family living on the 1.5 acres to the rear of the site. This site has been visited for the purposes of the current application and it is clear that the site is not suitable for further expansion given that they do not own the surrounding land.

29. The site on which the applicants previously lived has permanent planning permission which was granted permission in 1983 under application number AS/83/0251. This site had the restrictive permission of the permission being only for the benefit of the three named families on the decision notice along with condition 4 requiring no more than 3 caravans be stationed on the site. Since the time of the 1983 planning permission both Mr Wilson and Mr James have got married and have families with 5 children between them. As such, they state that their previous site was overcrowded with the mobiles stationed adjacent to one another and most of the site covered in hardstanding acting as an access road through the site to the rear which is occupied by their uncle. As a result of this, Mr James and Mr Wilson claim that the site offered no privacy.

Gypsy Status

30. An important material consideration is whether the applicants fall within the definition of a ‘gypsy’ or a ‘traveller’ as defined by Circular 01/2006 and the draft PPS.

31. The applicant’s were considered to be gypsies at the time of the 1983 planning permission and prior to this time had been living on the council owned Chilmington gypsy site. As such it is clear that the applicants are both of a gypsy heritage. Recent case law has shown that it is possible for gypsy status to be lost if travelling ceases and permanent residency commences without an overriding justification. The applicants have provided information to prove their travelling existence in earlier life when they travelled through out the south east following the seasons of fruit and vegetable growing and other work. The families do not currently travel and have ceased travelling on the grounds that they have 5 dependent children between them who attend local schools. This would be in accordance with the definition as set out in both the draft PPS and circular 01/2006.

32. I am therefore satisfied that the applicant’s gypsy status has been suitably demonstrated.

Need for and Provision of Gypsy Sites

33. Under measures in the Housing Act 2004, Local Planning Authorities are required to include gypsies and travellers in the Accommodation Needs Assessment process and to have a strategy in place which sets out how any 1.17 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

identified need will be met as part of their wider housing strategies. Dependent upon the outcome, proposals for additional facilities for gypsies and travellers can continue to be assessed against national guidance.

34. A Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment was carried out by this authority in 2005, in collaboration with other authorities, and it identified a need for 14 pitches in the Borough by 2011 and an additional 22 pitches by 2016. The Partial Review of the South East Plan, which is not being progressed, also identified a requirement for 30 additional pitches in the Borough by 2016. It is clear that there is an on-going unmet need for gypsy sites and following the publication and consultation of an Issues and Options report in 2010, work is continuing on the production of a draft Gypsy and Traveller DPD, which will increase the Council’s ability to steer sites away from unsustainable locations and those harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside.

35. The applicants have not approached the Council with any requests to be housed on the public site at Chilmington, where three to four pitches are currently available and no current waiting list. The applicants have justified this stating that at the time they put an application in for planning permission they were not aware of any pitches free on Chilmington, however, they feel that the site is not suitable for them or their children. They also have a horse which is not allowed to be kept on the site.

Sustainability

36. Sustainable development is a key principle that underpins planning and as a result Central Government guidance contained within PPS1 requires sustainability to be at the heart of all planning decisions.

37. The site is outside of the built confines of any sustainable town or village as designated in the local plan and would mean that the applicants and their families would rely heavily on the private car. Whilst this is the case, the applicants have moved from a site approximately half a mile away which is also in an unsustainable location. Given the proposal is for the use of the site by two small family units who already depend heavily on the use of the private car I do not consider that this would cause a harmful impact over and above that which occurred from the previous site.

Visual Amenity

38. Circular 01/2006 indicates that some rural settings can be acceptable in principle for gypsy sites however it is likely that some harm to the undeveloped nature of the countryside will ensue.

1.18 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

39. The development is visible from the access point and due to its position to the front of the site on the boundary with the public highway; it would be visible from the road. Whilst this would be the case, the hedging and mature trees to the front of the site would largely screen the development and with further reinforcement of this boundary, the static mobile homes would become screened during the summer months. In the winter the development would be more visible due to the deciduous nature of the front hedgerow which would mean the development would have a larger impact upon the visual amenity of the locality. Longer range views of the development from both directions along Stone Cross Road are more limited due to the bend in the road to the north of the site and the trees and hedging on the boundary with Malden Lodge to the south west although once again the development would be more prominent in the winter when the vegetation is bare.

40. The development has been located to the north west of the site in order to sit adjacent to the public highway and utilise the natural boundary screening from the hedgerow. This positioning is the most sensitive for this location as it necessitates the least hard standing and also reduces the impact of the development both from the street scene and wider rural landscape. The gates have been set back and additional hedge planting is proposed all along the front of the site in order to further help reduce the visual impact of the development.

41. The development would be largely screened from the Public Right of Way to the north of the site due to the dense trees and hedging along the boundary with the site. Where the footpath emerges from the trees to the south, the site would become visible and is prominent within the rural landscape from this vantage point due to a lack of boundary screening along this orientation.

42. The application site is located within the Golden Wood- Stone Cross Farmlands Landscape Character Area which has been identified as having a coherent and intact pattern of farmland elements with a few detracting features including the A2070 and the railway line and in need of conservation and reinforcement. The LCA is also characterised by strong historic hedgerows and woodland clumps which add to the strong sense of place. Stone Cross Road itself is characterised by sporadic residential development surrounded by large gardens and open countryside. Where clusters of buildings are found, these are related to historic or present farming activities including Hamilton Farm to the north and Willow Farm to the east. The use of the land has allowed for a consolidation of residential development in this part of the landscape and detracted from the intact pattern of farmland elements which has in turn intrinsically impacted upon the character of this rural landscape.

43. The development has caused material harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. The site is located in an attractive rural landscape and is 1.19 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

somewhat visible due to the open nature of the site to the south and would be more visible in the winter with the lack of leaves on the trees meaning the site would be visible from the public highway. The development has harmed the character and appearance of the landscape by changing the appearance of the site from an agricultural field to a gypsy and traveller caravan site with associated buildings and domestic items. As such, the development is contrary to policies of the Development Plan and significant weight should be attached to this.

Residential amenity

44. The closest neighbour to the application site is Malden Lodge which is situated 34 metres to the south west. This separation distance and the retained tree and hedge screening along this boundary of the site would prevent the development from being significantly intrusive on the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. There would also be no loss of privacy through overlooking or potentially any significant impacts from activities on the site.

45. Neighbours have raised concerns with regard to the generator on the site which emits a low hum when turned on and provides electricity for the site. The applicants state that this is a temporary measure until an electricity supply can be provided to the site and that the generator is switched off at night. The drop off in sound from the generator is significant and it is housed within a small wooden compound which further helps to muffle the noise generated by the equipment. The generators are audible, especially in this relatively quiet location, however, due to the distance from the neighbours and the relatively low levels of noise from the generator it has not caused harm to the residential amenity of the neighbours through noise and disturbance. This view is supported by environmental Health who comment

“We have assessed this application and have determined that it poses a low environmental risk, taking into account the details in the application and its proposed location. We therefore have no comments to make on this application.”

46. In light of the above I am satisfied that the development would not be harmful to the residential amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.

Highway safety

47. The residential use of the site by two families would be unlikely to generate a significant number of comings and goings from the site. The access being used to the site was an existing field access with poor visibility located on a bend in the road. The applicant’s have improved the visibility to and from this access by clearing back some of the overgrown vegetation, trimming back some of the hedgerow and widening a hard standing area to the front. Kent 1.20 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

Highway Services consider that adequate visibility splays have been achieved in light of these works and there is no requirement for additional hedgerow removal at the site. Further, there have been no reports of highway safety concerns or crashes along Stone Cross Road in the last 3 years.

48. There would also be adequate parking and turning within the site to allow vehicles to leave the site in a forward gear and to prevent vehicles from having to park on the road.

49. In light of the above I am satisfied that the development would not be harmful to highway safety.

Other Material Considerations

50. The application site is situated adjacent to a Public Right of Way; this sits outside of the application site itself and is separated from it by boundary hedging. The development proposes no changes to this Right of Way and no development is proposed to be located upon it. KCC Public Rights of Way have raised no objections to the application but have suggested several informative notes which would be attached to any permission granted.

51. Several objection letters raise concerns with regard to localised flooding which would be intensified as a result of the proposed development. The site is not located in an area which has been identified as susceptible to localised flooding by the Environment Agency and is not within a flood zone. It is likely that some surface water accumulation occurs at the site due to a combination of the fact that the contours of the land in the local area means that the land acts as a natural drainage channel and the fact that the land is underlain by clay soil. The applicants have provided photographs and a map to show the drainage channels they have dug across the site in order to channel water into the drainage ditches around the site which were already in existence. They have also undertaken works to clear the ditches around the site which were previously overgrown and meant that they did not function correctly to drain the land. These works by the applicants have improved the drainage situation locally and would mean that the development would not exacerbate any drainage issues.

52. The land was the subject of an enforcement notice which related to a previous development on the land for the construction of a 277 metre access road cutting across the field. The notice was served in May 2011 and was due for compliance in August 2011. An Officer visited the site on 7th July 2011 and it appeared that the access road had been dug up and removed from the site in compliance with the requirements of the enforcement notice.

1.21 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

53. Objection comments advise that the spoil from the access road was never removed from the site but was rather redistributed to form the existing hardstanding area on which the mobiles sit and therefore the enforcement notice has never been complied with. There is no evidence to prove or disprove that the hard standing is constructed from the spoil from the roadway. It is not considered that this would have a material impact upon the acceptability of the development for the change of use of the land and associated engineering and operational works.

Human Rights Issues

54. I have also taken into account the human rights issues relevant to this application. In my view the “Assessment” section above and the Recommendation below represent an appropriate balance between the interests and rights of the applicant (to enjoy his land subject only to reasonable and proportionate controls by a public authority) and the interests and rights of those potentially affected by the proposal (to respect for private life and the home and peaceful enjoyment of their properties).

Conclusions

55. There is considerable local objection to this proposal and there is a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. The site will however have no significant adverse impact on highway safety or on the amenities of local residents.

56. The applicants have however demonstrated that they fall within the definition of a ‘gypsy’ as defined by Circular 01/2006. Weight also needs to be given to the need to provide Gypsy and Traveller accommodation within the borough and as planned provision is still to be resolved weight must be given in the decision to this unmet need. Further, consideration also should be given to the personal circumstances of the applicant as they resided on an existing lawful site approximately half a mile away, which had inadequate accommodation for their needs. It is for the committee to balance this need against the visual harm which has been caused by the siting of the development in a position which is visible from public vantage points.

57. The retention of most of the hedges and the additional planting proposed would minimise the visual impacts, however, they would not completely obscure the development from view. Circular 01/06 however makes it clear that it is not appropriate to have such sites completely hidden from view as this does not encourage integration with the local community.

1.22 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

58. It is my view that there is a proven need for additional Gypsy and Traveller sites in the borough and that this should be provided through a plan led process of site selection. This would make it possible to compare alternative sites so the ones least harmful to the interests of acknowledged importance can be chosen. It cannot be assumed that this site would prove acceptable when compared with alternative sites selected through the plan system.

59. Spaces are available at the Chilmington site but the applicants have indicated that it is not an environment in which they would wish to raise their children Their need for accommodation along with the needs of the children on the site for continued education, access to local health services and to their family are all material considerations in favour of the occupation of the appeal site in the absence of suitable alternative accommodation.

60. Given the significant adverse impact on the character of the countryside it would be inappropriate to grant a permanent permission but, in accordance with the current circular, consideration should be given to providing accommodation here on a temporary basis.

Recommendation

(A) That for the following reasons the Planning Committee Grant a Temporary Permission for this application:

1. The principle of the development in rural areas can be acceptable in general terms and the development would go some way to meeting the identified need for further gypsy sites.

2. A genuine need has been demonstrated and there is a lack of suitable alternative sites in the short term until the planned release of sites through the council’s Gypsy and Traveller SPD.

3. The development would cause harm to the visual amenity of the locality and character and appearance of the countryside.

4. The development would not be harmful to the residential amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings.

5. The development would not be harmful to highway safety.

6. The development would not have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring Public Right of Way or on surface water drainage in the local area.

1.23 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

7. The development would be largely screened from the adjacent Public Right of Way, offering longer range views only from the south east.

(B) Permit

Subject to the following conditions and notes:

1 The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers, as defined in paragraph 15 of ODPM Circular 01/2006.

Reason: As the site lies in an area where an unrestricted caravan site would not normally be permitted.

2 No more than two single unit mobile homes and two touring caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968, shall be stationed on the site at any time. The mobile homes shall only be positioned as approved on drawing number ASH/07/PL/01/A received 23/08/11 unless otherwise previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In accordance with the terms of the application and in the interests of visual amenity.

3 The areas of track and hardstanding shall be removed and the residential use of the site hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before 16th November 2014. This shall be carried out in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved in by the Local Planning Authority writing prior to the 16th November 2014, unless the Local Planning Authority has in the meantime granted planning permission for a further period.

Reason: The site is not considered to be suitable for a permanent occupation. This will enable the Local Planning Authority to consider alternative sites in line with policy CF14 of the Core Strategy and the emerging Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people Development Plan Document.

4 All existing hedges, hedgerows and trees shall be retained to a height of no less than 2.5 metres high except where works are required to provide adequate visibility splays. All hedges, hedgerows and trees on and immediately adjoining the site shall be protected from damage for the duration of the use of the site.

Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges, hedgerows and trees.

1.24 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

5 No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on this site.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

6 No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the storage of materials.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

7 The approved motor vehicle parking facilities as shown on the site layout plan shall be retained available for the ancillary parking of motor vehicles and access to these facilities shall not be precluded.

Reason: To ensure the provision and retention of adequate off-street parking facilities for vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

8 The area between the nearside carriageway edge and lines drawn between a point 2.4 metres back from the carriageway edge along the centre line of the access and points on the carriageway edge 45 metres from and on both sides of the centre line of the access shall be retained free of obstruction to visibility at and above a height of 0.6 metres above the nearside carriageway level at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety

9 Within 1 month from the date of this permission, a landscaping scheme for the site (which may include entirely new planting, retention of existing planting or a combination of both) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the approved landscaping/tree planting scheme shall be carried out fully within 12 months. Any trees or other plants which within a period of three years from the date of permission die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority give prior written consent to any variation.

Reason: In order to protect and enhance the amenity of the area.

Notes to Applicant

1. No structures of any kind may be erected on or across the Public Rights of Way without the express consent of the Highway Authority.

2. There must be no disturbance of the surface of the Right of Way, or obstruction of its use, either during or following any approved development.

1.25 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 21 March 2012 ______

3. No new hedging or fencing should be sited within 1.0 metres of the edge of the Public Footpath.

4. Maintenance of any stiles or gates on the path are the responsibility of the landowner and occupier to maintain

Background Papers

Letter from KCC Public Rights of Way received 08/09/11 Letter from Environment Agency received 15/09/11 Letter from Bilsington Parish Council received 15/09/11 Letter from Kent Highway Services received 16/09/11 Letter from Mersham & Sevington Parish Council received 22/09/11 Letter from Ashford Borough Council Drainage received 27/09/11 Letter from Aldington and Bonnington Parish Council received 13/10/11 Letter from B Horn received 02/09/11 Letter from J Armstrong received 14/09/11 Letter from N Grove received 26/08/11 Letter from R Thomas received 07/09/11 Letter from R Smithers received 09/09/11 Letter from S Hicks received 20/09/11 Letter from D Guy received 23/09/11 Letter from K Crofton Martin received 23/09/11 Letter from N Evans received 23/09/11 Letter from J & R Hopper received 26/09/11 Letter from K Severs received 11/10/11 Letter from Mr & Mrs J Hopper received 26/09/11 Letter from L Simpson received 22/09/11 Letter from D Sedgebeer received 22/09/11 Letter from L Vassallo received 22/09/11 Letter from D Archibold received 23/09/11 Letter from R Ripley received 23/09/11 Letter from Ashford Borough Council Environmental Services received 27/10/11 Letter from Kent Highway Services received 3/11/11 Letter from N Grove received 14/11/11 Letter from S Paine received 9/12/11 Letter from the Environment Agency received 12/12/11

Contact Officer: Kathryn Holland – Telephone: (01233) 330738

1.26 Ashford Borough Council Planning Committee 21 March 2012 Page 1 of Annex 1a to Report 11/00955/AS ______

1.27 Ashford Borough Council Planning Committee 21 March 2012 Page 1 of Annex 1b to Report 11/00955/AS ______

1.28