REPORT NO: 272/2009
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND LICENSING COMMITTEE
15TH DECEMBER 2009
PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND LICENSING COMMITTEE
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
3 FUL/2009/0533
Centre = 482384 E 300419 N Scale 1/5000 Date 1/12/2009 Note: Printing may affect the scale of this plan
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence No. 100018056 The representation of a road, track or path is no evidence of right of way. The representation of features as lines is no evidence of a property boundary.
MAPS® Aerial Photography Copyright of UK Perspectives All rights reserved. Aerial Photography Copyright of Photography Dates: 23-25/07/99, 10/09/99, 25/08/00 of GeoPerspectives™. Photography Date: Summer 2006 4 1. FUL/2009/0533 - MRS FLORENCE BIDDLE AND OTHERS
CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO USE AS A RESIDENTIAL CARAVAN SITE, LAYING OF HARD-STANDING AND FORMATION OF ACCESS ROAD.
Land to the south of Leicester Road (A47), Belton in Rutland
Ward Braunston & Belton Parish: Belton in Rutland
The Site and its Surroundings
The site comprises some 1.8ha (4.45 acres) of land on the south side of the A47, opposite the lay-by, to the east of Belton village. The eastern boundary of the site borders onto the Parish boundary with Wardley. To the west is a field which has been purchased by the ‘Three Villages Conservation Trust’ which has been planted with trees as a natural wildlife area.
There is an existing vehicular access into the site at its western end. The site is bordered on its south side by the Eye Brook, which at this point also forms the County boundary with Leicestershire (in Harborough District). The water level is normally 2-3m below the level of the site. The site slopes gently down from the A47 towards the brook. Levels have been assessed from mapping sources rather than field survey, but typical levels on the road are 89.19 to 87.78 whilst levels across the site vary from 88.79 near to the existing access, to 86.9 nearer to the brook. Levels rise again beyond the brook. The site is currently overgrown and does not appear to have been used since its purchase by the applicants in 2004/5.
The main area of the site is bounded by a post and wire fence. All vegetation is beyond that fence. The inner roadside and western boundaries are defined by a post and rail fence inside a hedge, typically 3m high. Between the fence and the brook are several mature trees and other vegetation. Mature trees also form the eastern boundary.
Details of the Proposal and accompanying documents
General Proposal
It is proposed to use the land as a caravan site for 16 residential pitches for gypsy families, 12 of whom are specified in the application, the remaining 4 plots being for later household growth. The application states that the occupiers are currently living on the roadside or doubling up on other sites in Leicestershire, mainly around Market Harborough.
Each of the 16 sites would have 2 caravans, one of which would be a ‘static mobile home’. Each pitch would have space for parking and turning of 2 vehicles, one of which the application states is likely to be a transit-type work van. The site is specified as being for residential use only - indeed the applicant suggests a condition prohibiting commercial use.
For comparison purposes, this would be a significantly larger site than at Langham where there are 4 authorised (temporary) pitches with 8 caravans.
Indicative sites for ablution blocks are shown but no details are submitted at this stage. Government Guidance on ‘Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites’ however
5 contains minimum requirements for amenity blocks on permanent gypsy and traveller sites (see page 11 below).
It is proposed to drain the site to a package treatment plant which would be self contained and discharge treated water via an outfall to the Eye Brook. There are no ecological or arboricultural surveys included with the application.
Flood Risk
The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which suggests that the site is within Flood Zone 1 (low risk – probability of flooding from fluvial (river flooding) events at greater than 1 in1000)1. In terms of ground water flooding the FRA states that the ditch between the site and the highway would mean a low risk of surface water transversing direct onto the site. There is no impediment within 2km of the site to restrict flood water, which results in a Zone 1 classification. Those restrictions are in any event approximately 10m below the level of the site so will have no impact on this site.
Mobile homes are normally sited 500-600mm above ground levels so there is no need to raise levels on this site.
The FRA states that there will be negligible increase in surface water run off as roof water discharges direct to the local ground. The tarmac spine road would have a negligible effect on floodplains.
Other Contents of the Application
The application states that the site is not within an area of countryside which is subject to any special planning constraints and is therefore acceptable in principle for a gypsy site. It suggests that the Langham appeal sets a precedent for allowing sites in Rutland as there is an unmet need and that the estimate of need set out in the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs assessment is under-estimated. The 12 families hoping to occupy this site have apparently been included in the needs assessment for Market Harborough district where there as a need for 19 additional pitches. The application suggests that Government guidance is for local planning authorities (LPA) to work jointly in providing sites and that the proximity of this site to Harborough District makes it suitable for such purposes.
The application suggests that there is a shop/post office in Belton2 and that other services in Uppingham are within cycling distance of 5km.
It claims that mains electricity and water3 is available to be connected and that the site does not involve the loss of viable agricultural land. The access is considered to be in accordance with national guidance on highway design. General compliance with saved Rutland Local Plan Policy HO14 is claimed.
The application is accompanied by other appeal decisions which the applicant considers to set a precedent for this site, including one where an appeal site 6km from services was considered to be sustainable and another where it was found that sites do not have to be completely screened.
1 The site has, however, subsequently been assessed by the Environment Agency as being within Flood Zone 3 (high probability of flooding) – see page 23 below) 2 This is, however, incorrect – see page 35 below 3 Seven Trent Water, however, have no record of a request for connection to a mains water supply – see page 23 below
6 A site layout and the Agents supporting statement are attached at Appendix 1.
Planning History
There is no relevant planning history in terms of planning applications on this site.
When the applicants purchased the site in 2004/5, the local planning authority was made aware of this fact, and the Enforcement Team acted swiftly to secure an injunction in the Leicester County Court to prevent any persons known or unknown from moving onto the site. The injunction also secured the removal of post and rail fencing which had been erected in the middle of the site. This injunction remains in place on the land until such time as planning permission is granted for an alternative use.
The applicants did not discuss the proposed use of the site with the LPA either before purchasing the site or at the immediate pre-application stage, so no opportunity was available to advise the applicants of the likely constraints and issues surrounding this site as advised in Circular 01/2006 (see Appendix 2).
Planning Guidance and Policy
The Development Plan
The Development Plan comprises the East Midlands Regional Plan (Mar 2009) and the saved policies in the Rutland Local Plan
East Midlands Regional Plan
Policy 16 – Regional Priorities for Gypsies & Travellers:
‘Local Authorities and other relevant public bodies should identify land for additional pitch provision based on clearly evidenced assessments of need, working together across administrative boundaries where appropriate. Local Development Frameworks should make provision for the minimum additional pitch requirements set out in Appendix 2, taking account of the need arising from future growth beyond 2012 as set out in paragraph 3.1.18. Allowance for redistribution of provision, where identified as appropriate by the relevant GTAA, could be enabled by the preparation of joint or co-coordinated LDFs’.
Policy 35 - A Regional Approach to Managing Flood Risk
Development should not be permitted if, alone or in conjunction with other new development, it would:
• be at unacceptable risk from flooding or create such an unacceptable risk elsewhere; • inhibit the capacity of the floodplain to store water; • impede the flow of floodwater in a way which would create an unacceptable risk elsewhere; • have a detrimental impact upon infiltration of rainfall to ground water storage; • otherwise unacceptably increase flood risk; and interfere with coastal processes.
7 However, such development may be acceptable on the basis of conditions or agreements for adequate measures to mitigate the effects on the overall flooding regime, including provision for the maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity. Any such measures must accord with the flood management regime for that location.
EMRP - Appendix 2 – Minimum Pitch Requirements for Gypsies 2007-2012:
Rutland: 2 residential and 5 transit pitches
Rutland Local Plan (Saved) Polices
EN2 - Design EN17 – Landscaping EN18 – Trees & Hedgerows EN22 – Protected Species EN23 – Landscape Features important for Flora and Fauna EN25 - Lighting EN26 – Development in the Countryside EN28 – Particularly Attractive Countryside HO14 – Travellers Sites (See Appendix 3) HO21 – Open Space etc HT3 – Location of Development HT4 – Traffic Generation HT5 – Adequate & Safe Access UT5 – Utilities in New Development IM1 – Requirements for Development
Other Local Policy considerations
RCC Supplementary Planning Guidance
‘Countryside Design Guidance’. This was adopted in June 2004 following a formal consultation process.
Describes the site as being within the Leighfield Forest area of ‘High Rutland’:
‘A i) LEIGHFIELD FOREST
Landscape Character
Leighfield Forest is in the far west of Rutland. It is relatively isolated and has a quiet remote atmosphere and a strong identity. It has deep, narrow, enclosed, steep-sided valleys. The ridges are high, long, narrower and steeper than elsewhere in High Rutland giving panoramic views extending as far as the Rutland Plateau. Conversely the ridges are exposed to view. This is a mature, pastoral, well-wooded landscape. This sub-area has retained many historical features; a distinctive feature is the network of narrow, gated roads. Ridge and furrow is fairly well distributed throughout the area. Field ponds are also characteristic. Land use is a mixture of arable and grassland. The field pattern is mainly one of regularly shaped fields bounded by thorn hedges with many hedgerow trees. Broadleaved woodlands including ancient semi-natural woodlands and mixed plantations are significant. This is a small scale landscape with a quiet isolated character.
8 Settlement Character
Apart from isolated farmsteads there is general absence of buildings in the countryside, which adds to the area’s very rural isolated character. The only settlement is Belton-in-Rutland, which is in a prominent hill top location with some development on the upper slopes. The exposed foreground slopes to Belton are important to its setting and visible from distant views from east and west. 1.6 Belton, appearing to have been a prosperous village, has a variety of houses with traditional buildings from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. The major building material is ironstone with a very limited use of limestone. Stone tiles and slate are the roofing materials with one thatched roof remaining.
Aim:
To safeguard the distinctive landscape and settlement character of Leighfield Forest sub-area.
Objectives:
• To maintain the quiet remote character of the area. • For new development in the countryside to be sympathetic to the small-scale landscape of the area. • To safeguard exposed ridges and slopes from conspicuous development. • To safeguard the setting of Belton-in-Rutland’.
Leicestershire Leicester and Rutland Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment (2006-2016) (April 2007)
This estimates requirements for Rutland as follows:
2006-2011: 2 residential pitches and up to 10 transit sites 2011-2016: 1 residential pitch
LDF Core Strategy (Preferred Options - extract):
Consultation on the Council's preferred approach to the Core Strategy took place from 14 May - 30 June 2009. The Core Strategy is a key document in the Local Development Framework for Rutland that sets out the overall vision, objectives and spatial strategy that will help shape the way the County will develop in the period up to 2026.
In relation to gypsies and travellers the most support for the best locations for sites was within or on the edge of Oakham and Uppingham.
Most support for identifying sufficient pitches was based on a needs assessment and regional plan requirements but setting out measures if sites are required more quickly or slowly than expected. There was a preference for small sites, preferably with transit and residential pitches on separate sites and carefully managed. There is a need for close liaison with existing gypsy and travellers in Rutland to establish actual requirements. The need for gypsy and traveler provision beyond 2012 will need to be considered having regard to the Leicestershire Leicester and Rutland Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment and any future updates to be undertaken every 5 years.
9 The preferred approach is to set out criteria in the Core Strategy to guide the location of sites for gypsies and travellers. The criteria will ensure that sites are suitable for the use proposed with an acceptable impact on the environment. The exact locations of any sites will be determined through the Site Allocations Development Plan Document and/or the planning application process.
Consideration will be given to sites in or close to the existing settlements particularly within or on the edge of Oakham and Uppingham in line with government guidance on sites for gypsies and travellers and the consultation responses.
Preferred approach – Gypsies and travellers
That appropriate criteria will be identified to guide the location of sites for gypsies and travellers. The exact location of sites will be determined through the Site Allocations Development Plan Document and/or the planning application process. The criteria will take account of the need to ensure that gypsies and travellers are accommodated in sustainable locations where essential services are provided with good access to services by foot, cycle or public transport and potential impacts on the environment including any likely significant effects on the internationally designated nature conservation site of Rutland Water.
That the minimum requirements of 2 permanent pitches for gypsies and travelers plus 5 transit pitches and 3 plots for show people will be identified for the period up to 2012 based on the East Midlands Regional Plan. Beyond 2012 the requirements will be based on the latest needs assessments in Rutland.
Government Guidance/Policies:
Planning Policy Statements
PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development:
The Governments key policy to create sustainable development to help combat climate change.
PPS 1 Supplement – Planning & Climate Change (Dec 2007)
Planning authorities should adhere to the following principles in determining planning applications:
• information sought from applicants should be consistent with that needed to demonstrate conformity with the development plan and this PPS, and be proportionate to the scale of the proposed development and its likely impact; • in considering planning applications before development plans can be updated to reflect this PPS, have regard to this PPS as a material consideration which may supersede the policies in their development plan.
Any refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity should be consistent with the policy in The Planning System: General Principles. (PPS 1)
(This document also post dates Circular 01/2006)
10 PPS 3 – Housing:
Housing should be provided in sustainable locations allowing good access to services, following the advice in PPS 1. Particularly where family housing is proposed, it will be important to ensure that the needs of children are taken into account and that there is good provision of recreational areas, including private gardens, play areas and informal play space. These should be well designed, safe, secure and stimulating areas with safe pedestrian access.
PPS 7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas:
Sustainable development is the core principle underpinning land use planning.
PPS 7 seeks to raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas through the promotion of:
• thriving, inclusive and sustainable rural communities, ensuring people have decent places to live by improving the quality and sustainability of local environments and neighbourhoods; • sustainable economic growth and diversification; • good quality, sustainable development that respects and, where possible, enhances local distinctiveness and the intrinsic qualities of the countryside; and • continued protection of the open countryside for the benefit of all, with the highest level of protection for our most valued landscapes and environmental resources.
To promote more sustainable patterns of development: • focusing most development in, or next to, existing towns and villages; • preventing urban sprawl; • discouraging the development of ‘greenfield’ land, and, where such land must be used, ensuring it is not used wastefully; • promoting a range of uses to maximise the potential benefits of the countryside fringing urban areas;
Away from larger urban areas, planning authorities should focus most new development in or near to local service centres where employment, housing (including affordable housing), services and other facilities can be provided close together. This should help to ensure these facilities are served by public transport and provide improved opportunities for access by walking and cycling.
In planning for housing in their rural areas, local planning authorities should apply the policies in PPS3. They should: (i) have particular regard to PPS3 guidance on the provision of housing in villages and should make sufficient land available, either within or adjoining existing villages, to meet the needs of local people; and (ii) strictly control new house building (including single dwellings) in the countryside, away from established settlements or from areas allocated for housing in development plans.
Many country towns and villages are of considerable historic and architectural value, or make an important contribution to local countryside character. Planning authorities should ensure that development respects and, where possible, enhances these particular qualities. It should also contribute to a sense of local identity and
11 regional diversity and be of an appropriate design and scale for its location, having regard to the policies on design contained in PPS1.
PPS 9 - Biodiversity (2005)
Key Principles (extract):
The aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. Where granting planning permission would result in significant harm to those interests, local planning authorities will need to be satisfied that the development cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm. In the absence of any such alternatives, local planning authorities should ensure that, before planning permission is granted, adequate mitigation measures are put in place. Where a planning decision would result in significant harm to biodiversity and geological interests which cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated against, appropriate compensation measures should be sought. If that significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against, or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.
SSSI’s:
Where a proposed development on land within or outside a SSSI is likely to have an adverse effect on an SSSI (either individually or in combination with other developments), planning permission should not normally be granted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of SSSIs. Local authorities should use conditions and/or planning obligations to mitigate the harmful aspects of the development and where possible, to ensure the conservation and enhancement of the site’s biodiversity or geological interest.
PPG 13 - Transport
Objectives include promotion of sustainable modes of travel for accessibility to jobs and services and reducing the need to travel by car.
To deliver these objectives, LPA’s should (inter alia): • accommodate housing principally within existing urban areas, planning for increased intensity of development for both housing and other uses at locations which are highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling;
• in rural areas, locate most development for housing, jobs, shopping, leisure and services in local service centres which are designated in the development plan to act as focal points for housing, transport and other services, and encourage better transport provision in the countryside;
The Government places great emphasis on people being able to travel safely whatever their chosen mode. Para’s 40-43 discuss rural locations in more detail. The emphasis is still on locating housing close to services and jobs and vice versa. Cycling also has potential to substitute for short car trips, particularly those under 5km.
12 PPS 23 – Pollution
Pollution control and prevention is part of the Government’s aim of creating sustainable development.
The Government is committed to using a precautionary principle which should be invoked when:
• there is good reason to believe that harmful effects may occur to human, animal or plant health, or to the environment; and • the level of scientific uncertainty about the consequences or likelihood of the risk is such that best available scientific advice cannot assess the risk with sufficient confidence to inform decision-making
Development Control decisions can have a significant effect on the environment, in some cases not only locally but also over considerable distances. LPAs must be satisfied that planning permission can be granted on land use grounds taking full account of environmental impacts. This will require close co-operation with the Environment Agency and/or the pollution control authority, and other relevant bodies such as Natural England, Drainage Boards, and water and sewerage undertakers, to ensure that in the case of potentially polluting developments:
• the relevant pollution control authority is satisfied that potential releases can be adequately regulated under the pollution control framework; and • the effects of existing sources of pollution in and around the site are not such that the cumulative effects of pollution when the proposed development is added would make that development unacceptable.
LPAs may wish to set out principles and policies to deal with cumulative impacts when drawing up their LDDs. Decisions on individual cases must always be justified on the facts applying to those cases.
The following matters (inter alia, and not in any order of importance) should be considered in the preparation of development plan documents and may also be material in the consideration of individual planning applications where pollution considerations arise: • the possible impact of potentially polluting development (both direct and indirect) on land use, including effects on health, the natural environment or general amenity; • the potential sensitivity of the area to adverse effects from pollution, in particular reflected in landscape, the quality of soil, air, and ground and surface waters, nature conservation (including Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs),Wetland of International Importance (RAMSAR sites), agricultural land quality, water supply (Source Protection Zones), archaeological designations and the need to protect natural resources;
PPS 25 – Development & Flood Risk:
Zone 3 High Probability Definition
This zone comprises land assessed as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding (>1%).
13 Appropriate uses
The water-compatible and less vulnerable uses of land in Table D.2 are appropriate in this zone.
The highly vulnerable uses in Table D.2 should not be permitted in this zone. The more vulnerable and essential infrastructure uses in Table D.2 should only be permitted in this zone if the Exception Test (see para. D.9) is passed. Essential infrastructure permitted in this zone should be designed and constructed to remain operational and safe for users in times of flood.
FRA requirements
All development proposals in this zone should be accompanied by a FRA. See Annex E for minimum requirements.
Policy aims
In this zone, developers and local authorities should seek opportunities to: i. reduce the overall level of flood risk in the area through the layout and form of the development and the appropriate application of sustainable drainage techniques; ii. relocate existing development to land in zones with a lower probability of flooding; and iii. create space for flooding to occur by restoring functional floodplain and flood flow pathways and by identifying, allocating and safeguarding open space for flood storage.
Caravans and Camping; Chalets and Mobile Homes (including Gypsy and Traveller Sites)
D19. Land used for ….permanently occupied caravan, mobile home and ‘park home’ sites that use similar structures give rise to special problems in relation to flooding. Caravan or park-home sites intended for permanent occupation are regarded as ‘highly vulnerable’. The instability of such structures places their occupants at special risk and they are likely to be occupied during periods when flood risk is likely to be higher….. D21. In either case, the Sequential Test and Exception Test should be used by decision-makers (where applicable, – remembering that ‘highly vulnerable’ development should not be permitted in Zones 3a and 3b and ‘more vulnerable’ development should not be permitted in Zone 3b).
Government Circulars
Circular 03/99 – ‘Planning Requirements in respect of the Use of Non-Mains Sewerage incorporating Septic Tanks in new development’. (April 1999)
This Circular provides advice to ensure that the problems associated with non mains drainage systems are not perpetuated in future developments.
The suitability of a non mains sewerage system is likely to be a material planning consideration. LPA’s should satisfy themselves based on the information provided by the applicant and that by appropriate bodies that the proposal is suitable and that significant environmental problems are not likely to occur. Developers are encouraged to make a full assessment of any proposals at the project design stage.
14 If mains drainage is not suitable a package treatment plant should be considered. Its discharge should meet the standards and conditions set down by the Environment Agency. The proposal should set out clearly the responsibility and means of operation and maintenance that the discharge consent is not likely to infringed. The cost and difficulty in maintaining these relatively sophisticated plants make them unsuitable for small scale developments, i.e. single dwellings.
The assessment of non-mains drainage proposals should include a full and detailed consideration of (inter alia) the following: i) High water tables k) flooding
If the assessment of the criteria indicates that the development would lead to significant environmental problems, it would normally be sufficient to justify refusing planning permission.
Circular 01/2006 – Planning for Gypsy & Traveller Caravan Sites (Feb 2006)
See précis at Appendix 2.
Designing Gypsy & Traveller Sites – Good Practice Guide (CLG May 2008)
• Promotes good access to transport and services, social contact with other residents to deal with myths and stereotypes which cause community tension, provision of a safe environment for residents. • Reiterates the importance of sustainability including promotion of co-existence with local communities, provision of acoustic privacy, sites could be included in negotiations for affordable housing in larger developments, Advice to the Government Select Committee in designing the guidance said that small sites were seen to be working well, especially in Ireland. • Consideration must be given to the relationship of sites to the surrounding community, sites should not be distant from local facilities for fear of walking home at night. • Essential to provide mains water and electricity. • When sites are adjacent to main roads consideration should be given to health & safety of children and greater noise transference through walls. • Sites should be developed in accordance with existing planning polices and designations with particular regard to : o Convenience & safety for residents, o Acoustic privacy, aesthetic compatibility with the local environment and scope for social integration with the local community. • Sites should not be developed where there is a high probability of flooding • As a general rule, a maximum of 15 pitches is conducive to a comfortable environment. • Minimum requirements for amenity buildings on permanent residential sites • Fencing can be used to screen and protect from a main road. • It is recommended that play areas are incorporated into layouts where suitable provision is not within walking distance on a safe route. • Play areas in secluded locations or edge of sites are not popular. • Should not be developed where there is a high probability of flooding risk.
15 Consultations
Parish Comments
There have been objections from 10 local Parish Councils and Parish and Village Meetings. The 3 adjacent Parishes’ comments are dealt with in précis here as their full comments are attached in the Appendices. Other Parish comments are bulleted below.
Belton Parish Council
Queries the content of the application in terms of misleading information and questions the accuracy of certain statements.
The Parish Councils objection, including reference to local and national policies and guidance, is set out under the following headings:
• The application • Sustainability • Environment and Ecology • Traffic Safety and concludes that the proposal should be refused on the grounds that it conflicts with the Development Plan and other advice in the Circulars and PPS’s. The Belton Parish Council letter is reproduced in full at Appendix 4.
Allexton Parish Meeting
Objects on the grounds that:
• The application lacks adequate information and is incorrect in some of its statements • The Design & Access Statement is incorrect regarding facilities in Belton and accessibility to Uppingham. • Development Plan objections are raised under Local Plan policies EN22, EN26, EN28 and the East Midlands Regional Plan.
Allexton PM also considers the following Material Considerations:
• Circular 01/2006 • Highway safety • Sustainability and Environment • Need
It concludes that the proposal is contrary to the Development Plan and that there are no material considerations that would outweigh the Plan. The letter from Allexton Parish Meeting is attached at Appendix 5.
Wardley Parish Meeting
Wardley PM objects to the proposal on the grounds of:
• Sustainability – lack of school places, lack of easy access to Uppingham, • Domination of adjacent settlements by such a relatively large site
16 • Environment & Ecology – impact on SSSI, Wardley receives water from a borehole which may become contaminated • Detrimental to the character of the countryside and impact on wildlife • The possibilities of flooding have been underestimated by the Environment Agency. • Highway safety
The letter from Wardley Parish Meeting is attached at Appendix 6.
In addition to those 3 Parishes, objections have been received from the following:
Stockerston Parish Meeting Horninghold Village Meeting Tugby & Keythorpe Parish Council Hallaton Parish Council Medbourne Parish Council East Norton Parish Meeting Blaston Village meeting
These parishes object to the proposal on similar grounds to those above, but the following is a précis of the comments received:
• Proposal is contrary to Policies EN26 and EN28 of the Local Plan (Countryside location) • Contrary to Policy HO14 (Traveller sites) • Policy HO13 (sites for mobile homes) not addressed • Contrary to PPS1, PPS3 and PPS 7 • Contrary to SPG on Countryside Design which seeks to protect character • Visual impact of so many caravans, vans and lorries • Potential commercial use of site • Unsustainable location – need to cross A47 – no paths etc. • Development would over dominate adjacent settlements • Hallaton Primary school is full to capacity • No facilities for older children locally • Lack of information regarding amenity blocks • Lack of consideration regarding impact on trees and hedges • Lack of consideration of impact on protected species (Otters, Ospreys and Kingfishers sighted along Eye Brook) • Misleading information in the application regarding the availability of services locally • Risk of contamination of Eye Brook if foul sewage not properly dealt with • Eye Brook regularly floods – evidenced by debris high in trees (photos provided) • Organic flocks drink from Eye Brook – possible contamination • Site is prominent from the road, esp in winter • Access is very dangerous – history of accidents and potential for fog • No cycle or footpaths available to access Belton or Uppingham • Recent increase in crime in the area • Loss of agricultural land – better suited to a brownfield site
Harborough District Council (Adjoining Authority Consultation)
This Local Planning Authority is concerned about the potential adverse impact of the development proposal upon the character and appearance of the open countryside. Prevailing government policy is to protect and preserve the countryside for its own sake. Whilst it is respectfully acknowledged that the impact of the proposal within Rutland is a matter for Rutland County Council (RCC) to assess, this Local Planning Authority does
17 think the proposal by virtue of its size, scale and position will impact upon the attractive open character and appearance of the countryside. This is of concern as the proposal is contiguous with the Harborough District boundary meaning that any erosion of countryside openness and character will affect the views to and from the adjacent Harborough district, and, due to its proximity, impact upon the character and appearance of the countryside within Harborough.
This Local Planning Authority understands the proposal will provide accommodation for gypsy and traveller families and recognises this as an important consideration for RCC. This is especially so within context of advice within Circular 01/06 (ODPM): Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites, including any personal circumstances.
However, on the basis of East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 16 and the Leicestershire, Leicester & Rutland Gypsies’ and Travellers Accommodation Needs Assessment 2006 -16 (April 2007) this proposal goes well beyond the minimum identified requirement of providing two pitches within Rutland by 2011. There appears inadequate justification, such as an unmet need, for the scale of development proposed and no special material consideration that would warrant a departure from prevailing Government policy to protect the countryside for its own sake. Furthermore the proposal does not seem to satisfy emerging RCC policy expressed in its Core Strategy DPD - Preferred Options (preferred approach 14) the supporting text to which states: ‘Consideration will be given to sites in or close to the existing settlements particularly within or on the edge of Oakham and Uppingham in line with government guidance on sites for gypsies and travellers and the consultation responses.’
This Local Planning Authority also has concerns about the introduction of traffic onto the A47 but is content that RCC will assess this accordingly.
RCC Highways
The Highway Authority objects to this proposal.
This site is located on the A47 near Belton. The A47 has recently been de-trunked, but carries around 10,000 vehicles per day with an average speed of 58.4mph (94kph). Therefore the appropriate guidance for assessing the suitability of the access is TD 41/95 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges – Vehicle Access to All Purpose Trunk Roads. For the purposes of this guidance the A47 at this location is defined as a rural road and the proposed access is defined as a direct access. As the average speed exceeds 85kph the A47 at this location it is considered to be a high speed road. The gradient of the A47 immediately to the east of the proposed access is about 10%, which is likely to cause vehicles turning right from the proposed access to accelerate slowly. The application site is likely to generate about 100 vehicle movements per day.
The following abbreviated mandatory sections of TD41/95 are relevant:
1.7 The primary purpose of the trunk road network is to provide for the safe and expeditious movement of long distance through traffic. That means strictly limiting the number of direct accesses to trunk roads. Limiting direct access remains a prime objective of the Overseeing Organisations.
2.2 Direct vehicular access on to trunk roads shall be avoided as far as practicable.
18 2.14 New direct accesses shall not normally be provided at locations where the major road gradient is greater than 4%.
Annex A and B of TD 41/95 set out the evidence in support of the assertion that the number of accesses per kilometre on a road is proportional to the injury accident rate per kilometre, as shown below:
The performance of junctions similar to that proposed for this development should be considered. There are a number of priority junctions with right turn lanes in the vicinity of the proposed access point. The geometry and visibility splays of these junctions comply with the appropriate guidance; however a significant number of injury accidents still occur. The injury accident history since 1994 is as follows:
Junction Location: Slight Serious Fatal Belton (West) 7 1 0 Belton (East) / Alexton 0 2 1 Wardley 2 1 0 Uppingham (West) 5 1 1 Uppingham (East) 6 0 1
A fatal accident occurred at the Wardley end of the lay-by opposite the site (3/5/2008). This was the only accident in the immediate vicinity of the site, the others occurring at the bottom of Wardley Hill (still close to the site) and Belton junction.
Having considered the guidance and evidence outlined above, the Highway Authority objects to this proposal as it will be detrimental to highway safety (Local Plan Policy H5).
Policy HT3 is also relevant as the proposal is located in an unsustainable location with poor public transport links. This is likely to increase travel by unsustainable forms of transport
19 Should consent be granted, the following conditions are requested:
1. No development shall commence until a right turn has been constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. 2. The access road shall be surfaced with a bound material (eg asphalt, concrete or block paving) for a distance of 15m beyond the highway boundary.
The reasons for these conditions are as follows:
1. In the interests of highway safety. 2. In the interests of highway safety.
Note to applicant: For the avoidance of doubt, the construction of a right turn lane will require the applicant to enter into a Section 278 (Highways Act 1980) Agreement with the Highway Authority. The Highway Authority reserves the right to carry out all Section 278 works at the expense of the applicant.
Leicestershire CC Highways
The proposals would result in a negligible increase in traffic on the A47 or side roads in Leicestershire and certainly not enough to warrant a refusal of the application. As such, it is not wished to resist the granting of planning permission.
Highways Agency
Thank you for providing the Highways Agency with the opportunity to review these proposals. However, please be advised that the A47 does not form part of the trunk road network and, therefore, the Highways Agency have no comment to make regarding the proposed works.
The Three Villages Conservation Trust
The Trust (comprising resident members from Allexton, Belton and Wardley) owns the field to the west of the application site and is concerned that the proposal will have an adverse impact on the work that it has already done in establishing a site of over 1500 native species trees. Several rare species have been found on the site and it considers it likely that similar species will be on the application site.
The site is subject to flooding and the Eye Brook is inhabited by Otters, various species of fish, Kingfishers and other mammals and insects which are heavily dependant on clean water. There are crested newts in pools nearby.
The site would detract from the attractiveness of this area with its abundance of wildlife, ancient woodlands and SSSI. The large number if children on the site, (greater than the total for Allexton and Wardley combined) would need to be carefully supervised to prevent access to adjacent land where damage could be caused to ecological interests.
Leicestershire CC Ecology
Our records show that bats and grass snake have been recorded in the area. Due to the proposed site being adjacent to the Eye Brook we recommend that surveys requested under Trigger G of the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Biodiversity Trigger List be carried out prior to determination. Whilst surveyors are on site, we
20 recommend a walk over survey of the field for the potential presence of grass snakes. We would be pleased to view and comment on any completed surveys.
Our maps show that the stretch of river / stream running alongside the application site has previously been designated as being of Parish Level ecological importance. Therefore, a buffer zone of five metres should be maintained between the edge of the development and the riverbank. This should be maintained after the development has been completed to provide a wildlife corridor. No run-off from the development site should enter the river either during construction or from the subsequent development. No spoil should be dumped within the buffer zone and no heavy machinery should be operated with the buffer zone.
We have seen the findings and comments of Leics & Rutland Wildlife Trust (see below) which are interesting.
We would need to get survey data before we formulate a detailed response, particularly in the light of the findings of the LRWT. The surveys commissioned by the applicant should be undertaken prior to determination and should include surveys for all the species in our Trigger G as well as a survey for the potential for reptiles within the site. Any mitigation measures could then be considered.
Our advice would be for the applicant to withdraw the application and get the survey data together and then re-submit.
Natural England
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. We are working towards the delivery of four strategic outcomes:
A healthy natural environment; People are inspired to value and conserve the natural environment; Sustainable use of the natural environment; A secure environmental future
We have considered the proposal against the full range of Natural England’s interests in the natural environment but our comments are focussed on the following specific matters:
The application site is up-stream of the Eyebrook Reservoir SSSI. Natural England objects to the proposed development and would recommend the LPA to refuse planning permission on the grounds that the application contains inadequate information to enable Natural England to determine the likely effects of the proposal on features of interest for which the SSSI is notified. In order to assess the potential implications for the SSSI, any subsequent planning application should include the following additional information:
• Details of the impact on the scheme on water quality with the downstream SSSI. This document should contain sufficient information to show how any assessments of impact on the SSSI have been drawn and also should be suitable for comprehension by a non technical audience. The applicant should be directed to the conservation objectives for the SSSI which are available from our website www.naturalengland.org.uk.
21 • Details of the measures that will be put in place to safeguard and enhance the Eyebrook as it runs along the boundary of the site. At a minimum there should be a 6 metre buffer of grassland alongside this stream. This buffer will assist in filtering any surface run off from the rest of the site before waters enter the stream and ultimately the SSSI downstream. This buffer will also satisfy the requirements of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act and PPS 9 by contributing to biodiversity and PPS1 by ensuring that the develop is more sustainable in terms of its impacts on water quality and biodiversity.
I draw your attention to your duty, under S28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as incorporated by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of your functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the SSSI.
I also draw your attention to the provisions of S28I of the 1981 Act, in particular to the requirement that, should permission be given contrary to Natural England's advice or to the conditions which Natural England recommends should be attached to the permission, then you must ensure that: • notification is given to Natural England of the date and terms of the permission and how, if at all, you have taken account of Natural England's advice. • the permission does not permit operations to begin before 21 days after details of the permission and a statement of how you have taken account of Natural England's advice, has been given to Natural England.
Rutland Natural History Society
I am writing on behalf of the Rutland Natural History Society to object to the above planning application. Given the proposed site’s location, we believe there is high likelihood of damage to the Eyebrook river, an environmentally-sensitive watercourse and feed to the Eyebrook Reservoir. The site is also very close to Wardley Wood, another area of great environmental value. We are very concerned that the proximity of the site would encourage trespass and damage to these ecosystems.
Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust
The above application was brought to the attention of the Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust by local residents, concerned about the ecological impact of the caravan site on the Eye Brook which runs along the south-western boundary of the site. As a result of this we have carried out a brief survey of the Eye Brook from Sweet Hedges Farm (on the Allexton to Stockerston road, south west of Wardley Wood) to the proposed caravan site.
During the survey otter spraints were found along the whole stretch, demonstrating that the water course is used by otters, which are protected under Article 12 of the EU Habitats Directive as well as section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. There are also a number of mature trees growing along the brook (including the development site), whose exposed roots would be suitable resting or breeding places for otters.
As otters have been found adjacent to the site we would like to object to this application in its current form for two reasons, one an ecological survey has not been completed to inform the process and two the development in it current form would be likely to disturb otters and could damage breeding or resting sites.
22 The brook has retained many natural features including meanders, a gravel substrate and areas with riffle and pools, which are often indicative of ecologically important sites. Furthermore, the brook flows into the Eye Brook Reservoir which is a Site of Special Interest and as such has legal protection.
One issue particularity pertinent to this development is the possibility of pollution from sewage treatment or vehicles. Any pollution of the brook would obviously have huge consequence for the flora and fauna of both the brook and the SSSI reservoir.
We would strongly recommend that a full ecological survey of the site and brook be undertaken to establish how the development would affect any sensitive habitats or species, and that the application be altered or refused depending on the result. We were disappointed to see that in sections 14 and 16 of the planning application all the questions are answered to the negative, despite the site being bounded by hedges and trees, the SSSI reservoir being downstream of the site and there being otters in the adjacent brook.
Severn Trent Water
We have no record of a request for connection to a water supply.
The lay of the land suggests we may be able to get positive pressure to the site, however it all depends on the amount of water required and for what reasons (water for domestic use, has a completely different daily usage pattern to say commercial and industrial usage), this information would need to be supplied to our new connections department to determine whether this would have an impact on our existing customers and whether any reinforcement would be necessary to our existing network.
Likely cost is unknown, all enquires have to go through our New connections team, via our website, or by telephone on 0800 7076600.
Environment Agency
The Environment Agency originally had no objection to the proposal on flood risk grounds as its Flood Maps indicated that it was in Flood Zone 1. It pointed out that it would need to issue a license for the discharge from the Package Treatment Plant and that run-of from vehicles etc was not a concern as there is no large communal parking area. It required all development to leave a 9m strip along the top of the bank to the river. However, it has re-assessed that position following expressions of concern locally that the site is prone to flooding. As a result the following comments are made:
You will be aware that the planning consultation process for this site has led to new information coming forward which we must consider. This new information, including historic flooding records, indicates that the stretch of the Eye Brook where the application site is located has an associated floodplain. This has led us to review the flood risk to the application site and to re-instate the previous Flood Map based on our 2004 National Scale Modelling. This therefore locates the application site in Flood Zone 3, defined by Planning Policy Statement (PPS25) as having a high probability of flooding.
Consequently, we have to advise that this has very significant planning policy implications for the application which we last advised on in our letter of 15 October 2009 (reference AN/2009/108333/01-L01). This letter was based on the application
23 site being located within Flood Zone 1 at that time, as was the output of the Welland Catchment Model undertaken by the Environment Agency in 2007.
PPS25 makes no provision for highly vulnerable development in Flood Zone 3, the flood zone in which the application site is located. We therefore have no option but to change our position on the above application to an objection in principle.
PPS25 classifies development types according to their vulnerability to flood risk and gives guidance on which developments are appropriate in each Flood Zone. In this case, the application site lies within Flood Zone 3 which is defined by PPS25 as having a high probability of flooding. The development type in the proposed application is classified as ‘highly vulnerable’ in accordance with table D.2 of PPS25. Tables D.1 and D.3 of PPS25 make clear that this type of development is not compatible with this Flood Zone and should not therefore be permitted.
Please note that our advice has not considered the risk of flooding from ground water, drainage systems, reservoirs, canals or ordinary watercourses.
I have written to the Applicant’s agent, Philip Brown Associates Ltd, explaining this situation.
Leicestershire Constabulary
I have visited the site and carried out crime pattern analysis.
Crime levels in the area are generally low. There is however a series of recorded incidents linked to the A47 as a crime route. These incidents appear to be casual and opportunistic with forced entry of outbuildings and premises near to the road.
The Design and Access statement in the main refers to planning case law although there is an undertaking to install a vehicular access point to current specification.
The application presents two issues for Leicestershire Police and these are traffic safety on the A47 and the implications for delivering the Police service in this location.
Considering the application, colleagues in Police Road Safety report that the A47 is subject to the national speed limit and is a key east to west route. At this point it consists of a short straight section between winding bends. The entrance to the travellers site is shown as immediately west of the entrance/exit to a large lay by on the other side of the road. This lay by is in constant use by all forms of vehicles including large HGVs. A fatality occurred at this point last year. The circumstances were a vehicle conducting a right turn towards Leicester (opposite the proposed site entrance), being struck by a motor cyclist travelling towards the city. The cyclist died.
The entrance/exit to the site would bring more movements onto and off the A47, a high speed road, raising concerns. In addition to the fatality, 6 other injury road traffic collisions have occurred in the vicinity of the traveller’s site at the foot of Wardley Hill and the Belton turn.
Current DFT guidance would suggest that the speed of the road is unlikely to be reduced if the site should go ahead. Another road safety concern relates to the safety of children who would be playing on the site in close proximity to the A47. Any encroachment on to a high speed road by youngsters gives cause for a high degree of concern.
24 Leicestershire Police are party to the work of Local Planning Authorities in preparing plans to accommodate growth and provide services to support this. This part of Rutland is not seen as a sustainable location for such growth. Indeed Police would face unnecessarily high costs in delivering our services here. In responding to proposals for traveller sites in such plans we have commented that our preference is for smaller sites on the edge of existing settlements.
On the matter of Police resourcing, this application has already generated a number of enquiries and concerns from the public. As a result Leicestershire Police has had to commit to open a community impact assessment should the use commence.
In the light of the above, Leicestershire Police raise objections to this application on the following grounds:
The proposed site, located on a major trunk road, would generate high levels of road safety risk and would, as a result, erode the safety of road users on the existing highway and those attempting to access the site.
The site is considered to be an unsustainable location for development of this scale and would as a result place an unnecessarily high burden on police resources.
I would be happy for you to amend the suggested reasons to accommodate other planning considerations.
Michael Lambert Force Architectural Liaison Officer
Environmental Health
I note that Natural England has objected on the grounds of water quality and impact on SSSI. I think it would be appropriate to invoke Circular 3/99, where the applicant must demonstrate they would not impact on the water quality, especially a SSSI, which they clearly have not done.
From a caravan site licensing point of view, the following comments are made:
1. The site (if granted planning permission), will require a licence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. As such it will be required to comply with Rutland’s standards (based on model standards).
2. Site design should be developed in accordance with existing planning policies and designations, with particular regard made to ODPM (Office of Deputy Prime Minister) guidance on ‘Designing Gypsy & Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide’. The following issues are relevant:
Sewerage and water supplies Safety for residents Visual and acoustic privacy – both for people living on the site and those living nearby Facilities for children Convenience for residents Aesthetic compatibility with the local environment
25 Scope for social integration with the local community.
Infrastructure and amenities
3. Siting and provision of the sewage treatment plant is not determined on the plans. It is recommended that a sealed tank is used and that regular maintenance is provided by the site owners. Overflowing of sewage must be avoided and any risk of seepage to the brook nearby should be prevented.
4. The overflow from the suggested sewage disposal system is proposed to enter the brook and thus the Eyebrook reservoir. This may create water quality issues and this would depend on dilution rates. I suggest consultation with relevant agencies and persons with an interest in this water course such as- Water Abstractors, Riparian owners, Natural England, the Environment Agency etc. There may be additional risk of unauthorised discharges from the site from, for example, oil from car engines etc.
5. Severn Trent should be consulted on the feasibility of providing mains water to this area.
6. Health and Safety-Site risk assessment. All the pitches that back onto the brook appear to be open to the brook. Children are likely to be present and so there is likely to be an increased risk of drowning considering the high banks, deep water etc. The applicant would need to demonstrate how this risk is to be dealt with.
7. The site’s relatively close proximity to the A47 is likely to decrease the quality of life for the inhabitants of the site. It is recommended that a Noise assessment should be provided by the applicants prior to the application being decided. Caravans are generally regarded as being poorly insulated from noise. ODPM guidance states that when considering sites adjacent to main roads, flyovers and railway lines, careful regard must be given to: • The health and safety of children and others who will live on the site; • The greater noise transference through the walls of trailers and caravans than through the walls of conventional housing, and the need for design measures (for instance noise barriers) to abate the impact on quality of life and health.
8. The proposed plans show nowhere on site for children to play. CLG guidance document “Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites: Good Practice Guide” recommends provision of a recreational area for children. In particular Chapter 3 of the ODPM guidance says
"It should also provide visual and acoustic privacy, and have characteristics which are sympathetic to the local environment. When selecting locations for permanent sites, consideration needs to be given to the relatively high density of children likely to be on the site. "
My examination of the proposal seems to indicate that the site doesn't fulfil any of these criteria and is designed to maximise the number of pitches.
26 9. ODPM guidance states that
"The site must be sustainable, offering scope to manage an integrated coexistence with the local community. This will include consideration of noise and possible disturbance to Gypsy and Travellers living on the site, and possible noise and disturbance to the wider community, in particular from movement of Gypsy and Traveller vehicles. "
There are few amenities in Belton and Allexton and the children on the site are likely to require additional activities In Uppingham. There are few opportunities for cycling on any route from the site apart from the A47 which is not suitable for children cycling. There is no footpath either. The site is some 4.2 miles from Uppingham.
The actual number of pitches is high and above that recommended for manageable sites. ODPM Guidance recommends small single family 4-5 pitch sites. The number of people and school children is likely to impact on local services. Some regard should be paid to problems arising from mixed family sites at larger sites in neighbouring districts in Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire. The Police may be able to advise further on this.
10. Amenity block provision is not detailed in the planning application, so I am unable to comment on whether it will be adequate.
11. There is no current gas supply to the site. Provision of a mains gas supply is recommended for amenity buildings on pitches and, if supplied, must be compliant with current gas installation regulations. The cost of bottled gas is considerably higher than mains gas. As caravans are generally poorly insulated this may lead to issues with fuel poverty.
12. The provision of mains electricity to each pitch is essential, sufficient to meet the reasonable requirements of the residents, and with separate metering for each pitch. Ideally electricity meters will be provided in amenity buildings for each pitch by the relevant supplier directly and must be for domestic usage.
13. A Fire risk assessment should be carried out by the owners and then the Fire Service should be consulted on its suitability. This is a requirement of the Regulatory Reform (Fire safety) Order, It is advisable to carry this out at an early stage as this may affect site design and certain issues can be designed out.
14. Sufficient lighting must be provided on the site to enable safe access and movement through the site at night for both pedestrians and vehicles. The street lighting arrangements should be planned to minimise the risk of damage through vandalism and avoid problems of light pollution to the homes on the site through light shining directly into caravans, amenity buildings or park homes. It should be planned to properly illuminate access roads and access to residential pitches. Consideration should also be given to the introduction of three quarter length light pillars where there is a prospect that the site may create light pollution for the neighbouring community residing outside the site. It is recommended that external lighting is provided on each amenity building to reduce the risk of night-time accidents. It is recommended that any lighting should not distract drivers from the A47. Highways may wish to comment on this.
27 15. Paying attention to both ODPM circular 01/2006 Planning for gypsy and traveller caravan sites and Rutland local plan, the following comments relate to the suitability of this site:-
i. It is noted that a large number of children would be present on the site (23 detailed on the application) Consideration should be given for the effect on local infrastructure and the effect of these children on local schools. ii. This is an unsustainable location though not a direct reason alone to refuse planning permission this should still be a factor to bear in mind on a suitable location for families to live. iii. The large size of the site with different families who do not live together currently may be issue- guidance recommends smaller single family sites. iv. Though not a direct reason to refuse the site, the design and access statement refers incorrectly to the local need for this site. The applicants are not in local need or within the requirements of the Gypsy and Traveller’s Accommodation Assessment (GTAA). v. Effect on local infrastructure – Uppingham C of E school / Uppingham Community College. 23 children without any access to local parks, play equipment, local youth clubs. Likely effect on existing schools would be overly burdensome. The Director of Children and Young People’s Services (CYPS) may wish to comment further on this.
The design and access statement appears to be incorrect. The persons detailed on the design and access statement are incorrectly stated to be in Harborough District. Through research I have ascertained that in addition to Justin Park, they are resident in other locations.
Certain statements are therefore incorrect in that they have no other pitches, are doubling up and / or are on the side of the road. Most are already on permanent sites and as such would not fall within the needs assessment in the GTAA. Rutland’s requirement until 2011 is 2 pitches.
Conclusions
For the reasons stated in my comments, on the basis of information supplied, I do not consider that this is a suitable site for the size of the intended development. There are also a number of unsatisfactory safety, sanitation and amenity issues which have not been addressed and would be difficult to resolve in this location.
Belton Pre-School Playgroup
We are the nearest pre-school to the site. We currently have a full quota, due to our good reputation and the closure of other establishments. We have to offer 15 hours per week to all eligible children. Our next intake will be September 2010.
RCC Children & Young Peoples Service
The proposed traveller site lies close to the Rutland-Leicestershire border. The details provided below therefore only forms part of the picture as we do not hold information on the situation in Leicestershire.
28 The site lies within the local area of Uppingham.
Childcare:
Belton pre-school, Stepping Stones and Uppstarts provide preschool places within Uppingham. Although there is movement is the capacity of childcare places, the general picture is: • a shortage of full-time places and childcare for under-2s - obtaining these places is unlikely. • a shortage of part-time childcare places however the odd place is normally available.
Primary Schools (children aged 4 - 11): • Leighfield Primary School is the catchment school which has a capacity of 240 places. As there are currently 212 pupils, this school has 28 places available. • Uppingham Church of England Primary School (which lies close to Leighfield School) has 180 places and currently has 134 pupils - providing 46 available spaces.
Secondary School (children aged 11-16):
The local secondary school is Uppingham Community College (UCC) which has a capacity of 847 spaces but with 869 pupils it is oversubscribed by 22 pupils. Therefore children currently of secondary school age are unlikely to be offered a place through the admissions route but would have the opportunity to appeal. As the proposed site is within the catchment area, children starting within the normal intake, year 7, would have a good chance of obtaining a school place at UCC but this would impact children living further away, who would then be less likely to get a place at this school.
The numbers given above are obtained from the Autumn School Census 2009 and correct as at 1st October 2009 but subject to change.
National Farmers Union
The application appears to contradict several policies in the Rutland Local Plan, particularly EN24, EN26, HO6 (not saved), HO13, HO14. Also appears to be contrary to the proposals set out in the Core Strategy and is considerably larger than the strategic requirement for Rutland.
Primary Care Trust
Thank you for your recent communication with regard to the above planning application. NHS Leicestershire County and Rutland (PCT) would like to make the following comments.
With regard to primary healthcare provision the development of the facility for Gypsy Travellers is unlikely to impact significantly on the estate capacity of the practices in the area.
However the PCT is aware that certain groups of patients have different health needs and access healthcare in different ways and therefore the issue for the PCT would be around service delivery to the increased population rather than estate capacity to deliver the service. Should the proposed development proceed, the PCT
29 would need to liaise with primary care providers in the area to ensure healthcare for the population is appropriately secured.
Neighbour Representations
There have been approximately 279 individual letters of objection from residents of adjacent villages and some from further afield such as Uppingham.
These generally reflect the concerns set out by the various Parishes above, but the objections are summarised as follows:
• Dangerous access • Armco barriers to keep vehicles from leaving the road would block visibility • The road is not wide enough to safely take a right turn lane • Large scale development would despoil the open countryside • Bus route 747 recently threatened with closure • Should be sited closer to a town for access to services and less dominance • Lack of footpaths/cycleways and street lighting • Dangers due to lack of lighting, esp for walking to and from site at night (see Govt guidance). • Light pollution from lighting within the site • Contrary to Governments Good practice guide which suggests: o locations near built up areas for safety o easy access to services and social contact with residents – sustainable co-existence. o Avoid main roads to prevent noise pollution and choose a site without risk of flooding, • Possible pollution of Eyebrook Reservoir SSSI from sewage and other contaminants from vehicles • Impact on wildlife • Likely increase in crime due to applicants widely reported background which is seriously alarming and should be taken into account. Do the Police have adequate resources to deal with this site? • Site would be larger than Wardley and Stockerston put together and same size as Allexton. Proposal would over dominate local communities thereby contrary to Circular 01/2006 which requires social integration with the settled community, respecting scale and not dominating • Contrary to Rutland Local Plan Policies EN22, EN26, EN28 and HO14 • Contrary to PPS 1, PPS 3, PPS 7, PPS 23 and PPS 25 • Lack of evidence/surveys that protected species will not be adversely affected. Water voles, Otters sighted within 200m of the site. • Contrary to Circular 01/2006 which advises against development unless the interests of SSSI’s are not compromised. • Travellers should occupy conventional housing for health and safety benefits • Cant understand how any member of the community should be allowed to build on agricultural land • Lack of amenities in local villages would cause social problems • Visual impact in beautiful countryside through vehicles and litter etc? – visible from A47 and Stockerston Road to rear. • Potential for small children and animals to wander onto A47 • This is a strategic ploy by applicants to be located close to the County boundary where neither County will be bothered with them until the site becomes unmanageable
30 • Unsustainable location failing to contribute to reduction in car journeys and fails to provide alternative means. • Known flood risk in the locality. High water table esp in winter. The brook floods several hundred metres wide in Stockerston, thawing snow can flood the site and adjoining land. • No water supply to the site • Risk of fog • Loss of agricultural land • The Langham site exceeds County requirements • Cross boundary co-operation is not appropriate due to the much larger size of Leicestershire • Biddle family and others already have a site near Mkt Harborough – why do they need another? • Noise pollution – travellers staying on the old A47 on Wardley Hill caused noise problems (loud music) which the police could not deal with. • Planning permission would not be granted for housing here • Further impact on Uppingham’s strained resources • Local side routes cannot support more vehicles due to narrow width • Need to cross A47 to catch a bus • Possible contamination of Wardley water supply. • The 2000 Index of Access to Services showed that this area of Rutland was at the lowest end of deprivation in terms of such access. • Scheme would undermine PPS 7 objective of effective protection & enhancement of the environment • PPS 7 states new building in the countryside should be strictly controlled – why should this be outweighed by Circular 01/2006? • A Klargester Bio Disc would need to be buried 3m below ground with inlet & outlet 1m below. This would conflict with the water table and safe running would depend on maintenance and avoiding oils and bleach which could impair performance. • Scheme is contrary to Circular 10/99 – it is not clear that a non-mains drain solution is adequate and is sufficient to justify refusal. • The sustainability issue as set out in the applicants Farnborough appeal example is not comparable as that was only a small site. • The scheme would be a blot on a beautiful landscape • Objector witnessed a fatal accident at the site and many near–misses which was very distressing • Lack of care facilities nearby • Leighfield school already has classes of up to 35. • Danger to livestock from dogs • Risk of unauthorised access to Stockerston Road at the rear • A resident of Belton’s son was involved in a serious accident near the site • Detrimental impact on tourism in the area. • Owners of Eyebrook Reservoir are concerned about potential pollution in the SSSI
No letters of support have been received.
Planning Officer Comments
The main issues in this case are:
• Principle of Development in Countryside/Visual Amenity
31 • Impact on Adjacent settlements • Sustainability • Flooding • Highway Safety • Ecology • Pollution (inc lighting) • Perceived Fear of crime • Need • Human Rights Issues
Principle of Development in Countryside/Visual Amenity
In addition to the Development Plan and the various PPS’s, Circular 01/2006 is a material consideration to which significant weight should be given.
The Circular states that local landscape and local nature conservation designations should not be used in themselves to refuse planning permission for gypsy and traveller sites, and that rural settings, where not subject to special planning constraints are acceptable in principle. This does not, however, mean that the impact of the development on the surrounding countryside is not a material consideration. Indeed the Circular expressly cites ‘likely impact on the surrounding area’ as being amongst the material consideration for gypsy and traveller site applications (and see reference to the Essex Appeal decision below).
Previous appeal decisions, whilst capable of being material considerations, must nevertheless be approached with caution given that they will have been decided on their own particular merits. In the Oxfordshire appeal, therefore, it would be appropriate to note that the development allowed in an Area of High Landscape Value was for only 3 vans, where the occupiers were already on site. Furthermore, planning permission had already been granted for a tack room and prominent store on site which mitigated against some harm caused, by acting as a backdrop to caravans. The Inspector said the site was ‘barely visible’ and referred to ‘fleeting glances’ from other directions. The appeal decision referred to another appeal in which an Inspector had found that the harm to an AHLV was “so very visible and as a consequence so very harmful” that she/he dismissed the appeal.
In the Langham appeal, the Inspector found that the scheme caused some harm to the character of the landscape. However, in that case again the fact that the site was already occupied was also given significant weight, and the needs of the families in close relation to settled schooling and health facilities were paramount in the allowing of a temporary permission.
This current application site is considered to be more prominent, and the proposal comprises a significantly larger development in what could be considered an even better quality landscape setting, than at Langham. There is therefore more potential for harm. Member’s attention is drawn back to the description of the local landscape in the Supplementary Planning Guidance referred to above. ‘This is a mature, pastoral, well-wooded landscape’ – ‘This is a small scale landscape with a quiet isolated character’. The importance lent to the landscape in both the SPG and the Local Plan (APAC) is such that special consideration needs to be given to the impact of a scheme of this size in this location.
The site is prominent from the road, and whilst at a slightly lower level and screened by a hedge (which could be improved upon more by the imposition of conditions) the
32 structures on site would still be visible, especially in winter months, tending to be lighter coloured. The use of fencing as suggested in the Good Practice Guide would be inappropriate here and emphasise the impact of the site. The view over the site when approaching from the east down Wardley Hill also makes it more prominent. The site is also visible from the south on rising land. In an area of pastoral, well wooded landscape, a site of this scale and nature would cause a serious ‘jar’ on the landscape such that it is considered on its merits that a reason for refusal on these grounds can be justified.
Policies EN26 and EN28 of the Local Plan deal with development in the countryside, the latter within APAC in particular. The proposal does not meet any of the criteria in EN26, for exceptionally allowing development in the countryside. EN28 states that development in APAC will only be allowed where it complies with EN26 and does not adversely impact on the landscape. On that basis the development cannot comply with EN28 as it is not in accordance with EN26, and it is argued that it does have an adverse impact on the landscape in any event.
In National planning policy terms, members are reminded that PPS 7 seeks to raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas through the promotion of:
• good quality, sustainable development that respects and, where possible, enhances local distinctiveness and the intrinsic qualities of the countryside; and • continued protection of the open countryside for the benefit of all, with the highest level of protection for our most valued landscapes and environmental resources
The applicants did not seek pre-application advice in relation to the suitability of the site for use as a gypsy and traveller site as encouraged in paragraph 59 and Annexe E of Circular 01/2006.
The proposal is thereby contrary to saved polices EN26, EN28 and the advice in Circular 01/2006 and PPS 7.
Impact on Adjacent settlements
Allexton is the nearest settlement to the site, being approximately 350m to the nearest property on the edge of the village (compared to 450m to the nearest dwelling in Belton on Littleworth Lane) and has a population of 58 within 23 households (2001 census). The proposal is effectively for 16 households. The application states that there would be 46 persons on 12 plots with 4 vacant for future expansion of families.
The 3 Villages Trust submits that there would be as many children on this site as in Allexton and Wardley put together.
Circular 01/2006 points out that gypsy and traveller sites should respect the scale of and not dominate the nearest settled community, whilst promoting peaceful and integrated co-existence.
Although the use of the site in terms of traffic movement would be direct onto the A47 and traffic would be unlikely to travel through Allexton or Belton, the scale of the overall proposal is such that it would be likely to dominate the local villages, and Allexton in particular, having a detrimental impact on the character of that village,
33 such that it would not enable the proper integration with the existing community as intended by Government guidance. The size of the completed new site would be akin to Allexton itself, but at a higher density, and hence would completely dominate the village.
A recent appeal decision in Essex countryside4 concluded that a site for 12 pitches around a children’s play area would dominate the nearest settlement. It was considered to have more than a minimal impact on the countryside and that its scale would be uncharacteristic of the locality. Whilst the Inspector acknowledged that Circular 01/2006 indicates that rural locations are acceptable in principle if they are not subject to special planning constraints, this did not mean that such development has to be acceptable. The Inspector noted that the Circular states that the proposal should respect the scale of the nearest community and not dominate it, and in that case considered the development to introduce a disproportionate number of residents, overwhelming the resident population (in that case 1.5km away). She also found that the scheme would produce traffic movements that would be detrimental to amenity.
Although the impact of the application site on Belton and Wardley would, due to the increased distance, not be so great as that on Alexton, the lack of services in Belton and other villages means that there would probably be little interaction with the occupiers of the site. The lack of facilities locally for older children may lead to problems within the local settlements.
The impact on Uppingham would be in terms of impact on existing services there. Primary education would not be adversely affected but there would be an impact on secondary education as Uppingham Community College is over subscribed.
There does not appear to be any objection from the Primary Health Care Trust about facilities to serve the site.
On the basis of the impact on Allexton in particular, it is considered that the proposal would thereby be contrary to Policy EN2 of the Local Plan and the advice in Circular 01/2006 and the Good Practice Guide and would place an unwarranted burden on the provision of secondary education in Uppingham, with no indication that any contribution towards education provision is intended.
4 Involving a proposal for a gypsy traveller site for 12 permanent residential pitches – Appeal Ref: APP/P1560/A/09/2105020
34 Sustainability
The site is located on the A47 approximately 1200 metres from the centre of Belton village, 630m from the junction with Wardley village and 5km (3.1 miles) from the centre of Uppingham, (via Leicester Road).
The No.747 bus service runs on an hourly basis, Monday to Saturday’s, along the A47 between Leicester and Uppingham. The No.47 Service between Uppingham and Peterborough also runs into Belton at either end of its route and is a twice daily service (Mon-Sat) at 0710 and 1600 from Belton and Peterborough respectively. Access to bus stops to Uppingham would be across the A47 and into Belton village, with the bus stop being at the top of Littleworth Lane, approximately 1100m from the site entrance. The stop for a Leicester bound bus is opposite the bottom of Littleworth Lane. There are no footpaths along the A47 to reach Littleworth Lane. There are bus stops at the Wardley junction, on both sides of the road, approximately 660m from the site entrance, but again there is no footpath access from the site. This would add to the potential for dangers to highway safety.
Belton has a limited range of services and does not have a post office as claimed in the application. Apparently this closed 10 years ago. The latest sustainability appraisal of the villages shows that Belton has a public house, a community hall and a play area. There is a small farm shop on New Lane but no permanent shop in the village. The farm shop opens 10-5 daily except for Thursday and sells a limited range of fruit & veg, meats and cakes etc. It is approximately 1400m from the proposed site entrance off the A47 up New Road. There is a Pre-school play group but no primary school. The pre –school group claims to have no availability at present.
The promotion of peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community is one of the considerations for sustainability set out in Circular 01/2006 (see impact on adjacent settlements above).
There is no children’s play space on the site. The nearest area is on Back Lane in Belton where a small facility exists. This is approximately 1.25km from the site via Littleworth Lane and Main Street.
Circular 01/2006 indicates the benefits that a settled base would give, from regular access to health services and schools etc.
In terms of accessibility to services, cycling is stated in the application as being a realistic proposition as Uppingham is only 5km away. However, as there is no cycle lane between the site and Leicester Road in Uppingham, this would involve cycling directly on the A47 up Wardley Hill where there is a ‘crawler lane’ and where traffic speeds are high, up to and over 70mph. This is not a safe route for cyclists and to suggest that school children in particular could or would use this route is unrealistic. It is possible to reach Uppingham via a series of public footpaths but this is tortuous and not realistic for school and service access. One resident claims it take 3 hours to walk to Uppingham and back over the footpaths. There is no footpath directly off the A47 until Wardley.
The Circular states projected vehicle movements should be considered on an individual basis. This is a large site with potentially at least 32 vehicles using the local road network to access services and schools etc. This is a significant number of vehicles from a large site and would clearly have more impact than a smaller site as advocated by other guidance. It would lead to a high number of car journeys from
35 the site to other services and employment. The scale of the site in terms of integrated co-existence with local communities is discussed under the impact on adjacent settlements paragraphs above, but can also be considered under the issue of sustainability.
The proposal would thereby be contrary to saved Policy HT3 and the advice in PPS 1, its supplement, ‘Climate Change’, PPS 7 and PPG13 and the advice in the Good Practice Guide.
Flooding
The Environment Agency has investigated the flood potential of this site more closely following representations from locals who had local knowledge of actual flooding events on the road and in fields, including the application site. As a result, the Environment Agency has concluded that its computer modelled flood maps for this locality were not sufficiently robust and has re-assessed the application site as falling within Flood Zone 3 i.e. with a high probability of flooding rather than 1 as assumed in the applicant’s Flood Risk Assessment. Caravans and mobile homes intended for permanent residential use are considered to be ‘highly vulnerable to flood risk’ and therefore should not be permitted in this Flood Zone.
Circular 01/2006 states that issues of sustainability include consideration of not locating sites in areas at high risk of flooding given the particular vulnerability of caravans and the Good Practice Guide re-iterates that sites should not be developed where there is a high probability of flooding risk. . It is therefore considered in this case that the proposals would put the occupants of the site at unnecessary risk from flooding and would be contrary to the advice in PPS 25, Circular 01/2006 and the Good Practice Guide.
Highway Safety
The application has been subject to highway safety objections from the Highway Authority and the Leicestershire Police. Notwithstanding the proposal for a new access with a right turn lane, consultees consider that the rural location, proximity to the lay-by, speed of traffic and the accident record in the locality are such that the proposal would lead to an unacceptable risk to highway safety. Anecdotal evidence from residents suggests that this area in a valley adjacent to a water course, is also particularly prone to fog which, whilst not unusual on any road, would make the use of the new access opposite the lay-by potentially even more dangerous in such conditions.
Concern has also been expressed about young children and pets venturing onto the road if not fully supervised. In the light of the stated number of children on site and the proposed expansion of families to occupy sites 13-16, this is a realistic potential danger.
Circular 01/2006 states that regard should be had to highway considerations and Annexe C states that there should be a safe and convenient access to the highway network.
Having regard to all of the issues raised in relation to highway safety, including in particular the concerns expressed by the Highway Authority, it is concluded that the proposal would pose a risk to highway safety and would thereby be contrary to
36 saved Local Plan Policy HT5, the advice in the Good Practice Guide and Circular 01/2006.
Ecology
Protected species have been identified in the Eye Brook and ecology issues should be considered in terms of the potential impact of the proposal on the SSSI at Eyebrook Reservoir.
Leics CC Ecology and Natural England both object to the application as they do not have sufficient information to satisfy themselves that the scheme will not have a detrimental impact on ecology in line with the precautionary approach advocated in the literature.
On the basis that no information has been submitted by the applicant in response to the concerns raised by the above consultees, these issues remain unresolved, on which basis the planning authority cannot be satisfied that the proposal will not result in significant harm to biodiversity and geological interests which cannot be prevented adequately mitigated against, or compensated for. Thus the proposal would be contrary to PPS 9 and PPS 23.
Pollution a) To the Water Environment
Relevant advice (Circular 03/99) states that when drawing up sewerage proposals for any development, the first presumption must always be to provide a system of foul drainage discharging into a public sewer. If, however, it can be shown that connection to a public sewer is not feasible, a package sewage treatment plant should be considered which offers full treatment with the final effluent discharge from it meeting the standard and conditions set by the Environment Agency. The proposal for a package plant should also set out clearly the responsibility and means of operation and maintenance.
The application states that a package sewage treatment plant will be used. There are, however, no details provided regarding the size, capacity, technical performance or location of the proposed package treatment plant. The Environment Agency states that if permission was granted, it must issue a licence to discharge to Eye Brook. Natural England objects on the grounds that there is insufficient information to allow it to be assured that pollution will not cause harm to the SSSI at Eyebrook Reservoir in particular. On this basis the lack of detail regarding the proposed package treatment plant is not a matter which it is considered could be adequately dealt with by planning condition.
In the event that the Environment Agency would not issue such a licence, an alternative form of treatment would be required, probably a septic tank which would involve the use of spreader pipes to discharge (mostly) clean water into the ground. Once a planning permission was granted therefore and the principle established, the security of the ecology in the Eye Brook would either be the responsibility of the EA in issuing a licence and monitoring the management of the site, or would rely on ground conditions being suitable for a septic tank.
In the absence of information, including technical analysis of ground conditions, to indicate that this type of system is likely to be acceptable, it is considered, applying a precautionary approach that there would be a risk to the quality of water feeding the
37 SSSI. If the site was to flood, as the revised observations of the Environment Agency now appear to suggest is a high probability, the consequences of pollution would be even more significant.
The proposal would thereby be contrary to the advice in saved Local Plan Policy UT5, PPS 9, PPS 23 and Circulars 03/99 and 01/2006.
b) Lighting
It is likely that internal lighting would be required on the site, for both security and safety purposes, a point raised by Environmental Health in the licensing response above. The potential impact of lighting on a site of this scale and in this dark, rural location would have a significant impact on the rural nature of the site at night. In view of the remote rural location, this would be intrusive. Members will be aware that 2 separate planning and enforcement appeals at Belton House in the village were recently dismissed. The Inspectors found that the impact of lighting from small columns on the driveway had an adverse impact on rural amenity. On that basis the use of lighting across this site would have a detrimental impact on rural amenity in an area where there is little light pollution and which would harm the dark rural character of this area of countryside at night, contrary to saved Policy EN25.
Fear and apprehension of crime
Many local residents, in making their objections to the proposal, have raised this as a concern. Whilst the High Court has held that this is capable of being a material consideration in the determination of a planning application, the Court of Appeal, in quashing a decision relating to a gypsy caravan site on the grounds that local residents fear of crime had (wrongly) been treated as a material consideration, held that there must be real and reasonable fear and concern relating directly to the use of the land, although it fell short of requiring that the feared outcome should be proved as inevitable or highly likely. It further held that in order to take past criminal activity into account it would be necessary to attribute it to the individuals concerned and the land use itself. The use of land as a caravan site should not create inherently a real concern that could be associated with land uses such as, for instance, a bail hostel. (Smith v First Secretary of State and Mid Beds DC [2006] JPL 386)
In this case, it is considered that a fear or apprehension of crime arising out of the use of the land as a caravan site per se would not justify refusal of planning permission. Whilst some of the proposed occupiers of the site have a reported background of criminal convictions, the crimes for which they have been convicted do not appear to have been explicitly committed against their neighbours/local residents, but appear to have been related to tax evasion and benefit fraud, car “clocking” and selling stolen vehicles5. On that basis, and on legal advice, it is not considered that the fear/apprehension of crime put forward by local residents should be given any weight in the decision making process in this case.
5 Times Online – 8 August 2007
38 Need
The site specific objections to the proposed use of the application site must be weighed in the balance with any identified need for gypsy and traveller accommodation within the County, and the planning authority, in determining the application, must decide whether any gypsy or other personal issues raised on behalf of the applicants outweigh any harm arising from the proposal.
This application, does not appear to set out any unequivocal need for this site to be released for development. Whilst Circular 01/2006 suggests that planning authorities should not refuse private applications solely because the applicant has no local connections, the fact that this applicant has no apparent local connection with Rutland and the proposal appears to be a speculative development is nevertheless a material consideration which the planning authority is entitled to weigh into the overall balance.
The need for gypsy and traveller sites in Rutland has been established in accordance with the guidance in Circular 01/2006, by the approved Regional Plan for the East Midlands, informed by the GTAA, which identifies a requirement for only 2 sites up to 2012 and 1 more up to 2016.
Whilst the applicant, by reference to the Langham Appeal decision, seeks to question the scale of the need identified in the GTAA, the East Midlands Regional Plan clearly post-dates the Langham Appeal decision and the identified requirement now forms part of the Development Plan.
In any event, the applicant appears to justify the application on the need identified not in Rutland but in Harborough District (19 sites), which, as an example of cross border co-operation (advocated by the Circular) would provide a site close to the boundary of the 2 authorities.
The GTAA (undertaken in conjunction with the Leicestershire authorities, including Harborough) identified a specific need for 2 gypsy families in Rutland resident on the roadside in the east of the County. Discussions have subsequently taken place with South Kesteven DC to look at providing a joint approach to sites in that part of the County, close to the area of identified need. Rutland has a close working relationship with SKDC in forming plans for the forthcoming LDF, in accordance with Policy 16 of the EM Regional Plan, and these discussions are part of that process. It is a matter for the Council and not for the applicant to decide how it should determine its priorities for producing future policies and which other authorities it may choose to work in partnership with. Work on this issue has been put in abeyance, only temporarily, pending the outcome of an appeal in the SKDC area.
In any event, the applicants do not reside in Harborough District but in various sites elsewhere in Leicestershire and beyond. Justin Park, whilst close to the town of Market Harborough is actually in Northamptonshire. Other stated occupiers are believed to reside on sites in North West Leicestershire District and elsewhere in Northants. The development of this large site would not therefore assist in the provision of sites for Rutland or Harborough District and is thus unwarranted.
Circular 01/2006 indicates that where there is a clear and immediate need, for instance evidenced through the presence of significant numbers of unauthorised encampments or developments, Local Planning Authorities (LPA) should be prepared to bring forward Development Plan Documents containing site allocations
39 in advance of regional pitch numbers. Rutland has no such clear and immediate need based on these criteria either.
There is no overriding need for this development in Rutland, it has not been demonstrated that this is the best or only site to accommodate travellers needs in Rutland and far exceeds the strategic expectation for Rutland (even if that were to be treated only as a minimum requirement). It is thereby contrary to the advice in Circular 01/2006 and the saved Policies HO14, EN26 and EN28 of the Local Plan.
Human Rights
It is considered that as no caravans have been sited on the land, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms (the right to respect for home and family life) is not engaged in this case.
Conclusions
The site is located in open countryside designated as Particularly Attractive and recognised in SPG as having a special character. Whilst this is not a national designation, it is nevertheless indicative of the high quality of the local landscape and is much valued and should be protected. The use of this land for a travellers site would introduce an alien feature in the landscape to the detriment of visual amenity.
The site’s location remote from schools, medical and other services, together with the lack of alternative means of transport, would mean that all persons leaving the site would be likely to do so in private vehicles, contrary to the widely stated intentions of Government on climate change and sustainable development.
The site is located on a fast, and proven to be dangerous, section of former trunk road where speeds are high. Advice from the Highway Authority is that the access would be unsafe and constitute a highway safety hazard for road users and pedestrians
The Environment Agency has objected to the proposal on the grounds that the site is within Flood Zone 3 where PPS 25 states that development which is vulnerable to a risk of flooding should not be permitted, and Circular 01/2006 and the Good Practice Guide both state that gypsy traveller sites should not be located given the particular vulnerability of caravans.
The site would rely on non-mains drainage in an area where the water table is high. There is inadequate information submitted to demonstrate that the drainage of the site would not cause harm to the Eye Brook or the Eyebrook Reservoir which is a SSSI.
The potential for pollution of the water environment and the prominence of lighting at night also leads to a conclusion that the proposal is unacceptable.
There is no demonstrable need for the site in this location that would outweigh compliance with the Development Plan and other material considerations. Indeed, consideration of the overall merits of the application in the context of the Development Plan and National Planning Policies, including the relevant Circulars, demonstrates that the proposal is not acceptable.
40 RECOMMENDATION
REFUSAL, for the following reasons:
1. The site is located in open countryside where national and local polices seek to protect the countryside for its own sake. Notwithstanding the advice in Circular 01/2006 that rural settings, where not subject to special planning constraints are acceptable in principle, the local planning authority consider that the scale and character of the proposal would cause an unacceptable level of harm to the character of the countryside and be contrary to saved policies EN26 and EN28 of the Rutland Local Plan, PPS 7 and the guidance in Rutland County Councils adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Countryside Design’. . 2. The development of a site of the scale proposed would have an overwhelming impact on the character and populations of adjacent villages, and in particular would dominate Allexton, the nearest settled community, by introducing a new population equivalent to that small village, offering no scope for social cohesion or integration with the local settled population. The development itself would not physically assimilate well with Allexton, as the site is considerably larger than advocated in Government guidance. The proposal would thereby be contrary to saved Rutland Local Plan Policy EN2, the advice in Circular 01/2006 and the Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide. . 3. The site is considered to be located in an unsustainable location, not only in terms of access to schools, shops, employment and other services, having regard, amongst other things, to the absence of cycleways or footpaths in the vicinity of the site and the fact that access to all local services would need to be by private vehicles, but also in terms of a lack of scope, given the scale of the development, for occupiers of the site to integrate into the local community. The remote location and scale of the proposal would also have implications for the resources of Leicestershire Police in providing a Police service to the area. The proposal would thereby be contrary to saved Rutland Local Plan Policies HT3 and HO14 and the advice in Circular 01/2006, PPS 1, its supplement, ‘Climate Change’, PPS 3, PPS 7 and PPG13 and the advice in the Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide.
4. The site is accessed off the A47 former trunk road, a main arterial route from the East Midlands to East Anglia, opposite the entrance /exit to a lay-by used by commercial vehicles, the site of a recent fatal road accident. The road is subject to the national speed limit but vehicle speeds are high. The Highway Authority and Leicestershire Police both consider that the use of the site and the new proposed access would lead to an unacceptable increase in risk to highway safety from vehicles entering and leaving the site, by pedestrians crossing the road to access bus services and from small children and animals potentially straying on to the road. The proposal would thereby be contrary to saved Local Plan Policies HT5 and HO14, Circular 01/2006 and the advice in Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide.
5. The site has been assessed by the Environment Agency as being within Flood Zone 3 where highly vulnerable development, including caravan and mobile home sites, should not be approved. The development would thereby put the users of the site at unnecessary risk and be contrary to saved Policy HO14 of the Rutland Local Plan, Policy 35 of the Regional Plan for the East
41 Midlands, the advice in PPS 25, Circular 01/2006 and the Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide.
6. Protected species are known to inhabit the land around the application site. The adjacent Eye Brook also feeds directly into Eyebrook Reservoir, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, located approximately 6km downstream. No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that significant harm to biodiversity, geological interests and protected species would not be caused by the proposed development, either directly on the site or within the adjacent water environment which cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against, or compensated for. The proposal is thereby contrary to saved Rutland Local Plan Policy EN22 and the advice in PPS 9, PPS 23 and Circular 01/2006.
7. There is no provision for children’s play space within the site and any open space on the site appears to be adjacent to the Eye Brook which could lead to smaller children falling into the river at a considerably lower level than the site. The use of the small play area in Belton would be unrealistic as it would involve travelling a considerable distance over the A47 to the further detriment of highway safety. The proposal is thereby contrary to saved Rutland Local Plan Policy HO21 and the advice in PPS 3, Circular 01/2006 and the Governments Good Practice Guide (2008).
8. There is insufficient information to indicate that the use of a package treatment plant in close proximity to a river would not have an adverse impact on the interests of the SSSI served by the river. Package treatment plants do not remove all pollutants from water which is discharged to a watercourse. Government advice is that the first presumption should always be that sites should be drained to the mains systems and that a precautionary approach should be taken in considering proposals. No such mains system exists here and the potential exists for pollution in the Eye Brook and the SSSI downstream, to the detriment of the local ecology. This is contrary to saved Rutland Local Plan Policy UT5 and the advice in PPS 23, PPS 25 and Circular 10/99.
9. The site is located in open countryside where there would be an essential need for extensive lighting on site. This level of lighting in this dark rural location would constitute an incongruous feature in the rural darkness to the detriment of amenity and would be contrary to saved Rutland Local Plan Policy EN25.
10. Uppingham, Community College lacks adequate capacity to cater for children likely to be resident on the application site. The scheme makes no provision for any contribution to local infrastructure to compensate for the additional unwarranted burden which would be created, contrary to saved Rutland Local Plan Policy IM1.
11. The proposal is not accompanied by a noise assessment to demonstrate that the site would not suffer unduly from traffic noise on the A47, contrary to the advice in Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide.
12. The layout of the site appears to fail to keep 9m clear of the top of the banks of Eye Brook, contrary to the requirements of the Environment Agency and ecology groups.
42 13. There is insufficient need for gypsy traveller provision in Rutland to justify the scale of the development proposed having regard to the Regional Plan for the East Midlands (March 2009) informed by the Gypsy and Travellers Accommodation Assessment which requires only 2 permanent sites to be provided in the period 2008-2012 and only 1 more up to 2016. Accordingly any need for the development does not outweigh the harm that would arise from the proposal. No evidence has been put forward to demonstrate that the applicants are in need of accommodation in this location or indeed on any other site and the use of the site for this purpose would thereby be contrary to saved Polices HO14 of the Rutland Local Plan and the advice in Circular 01/2006 which sets out the criteria for determining the level of site provision through the GTAA and the Regional Plan for the East Midlands.
Note to Applicant:
In the event of an appeal, you will first need to resolve non-policy issues, particularly regarding layout, drainage, pollution and impact on protected species.
LIST OF APPENDICES
1. Application plan and supporting statement 2. Précis of Circular 01/2006 3. Local Plan Policy HO14 4. Belton Parish Council Letter 5. Allexton Parish Meeting Letter 6. Wardley Parish Meeting Letter
43 APPENDIX 1
Application Plan and Supporting Letter
Proposed Layout Plan
44 Supporting Statement
45
46
47
48
APPENDIX 2
Précis of Circular 01/2006 – Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites
This Circular sets out Government Guidance for Gypsy and Traveller (G&T) caravan sites generally.
Introduction
Its main intentions are:
• to create inclusive communities where gypsies & travellers have fair access to services • to increase the number of G&T sites in appropriate locations with planning permission
It includes a definition of G&T for the purposes of the Circular:
‘Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their families or dependants education or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently..’
There is a need to provided sites in locations that meet the current working patterns of G&T - which needs to be balanced with the responsibilities of G&T to respect the planning system.
The Planning Process
The Circular then points out that the assessment of needs for G&T sites, to be delivered through the Development Plan system should start with a G&T Accommodation Assessment (GTAA). This then feeds into the Regional Spatial Strategy which then identifies the number of pitches required.
Transitional Arrangements (i.e. pending the Local Development Framework)
Where there is a clear and immediate need, for instance evidenced through the presence of significant numbers of unauthorised encampments or developments, Local Planning Authorities (LPA) should be prepared to bring forward Development Plan Documents containing site allocations in advance of regional pitch numbers.
Other sources of information to assess need could be a continuous assessment of unauthorised sites and the numbers and outcome of planning applications and appeals.
LPA’s will be expected to demonstrate that they have considered this information where relevant, before any decision to refuse a planning application and to provide it as part of any appeal.
Sites in Rural Areas
In rural areas LPA’s should provide a rural exception policy in the LDF where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable land to meet needs. These should operate in the same way as affordable housing sites, but in applying this policy, the LPA should
49 consider in particular the needs of households who are either current residents or have existing family or employment connections.
In areas with (inter alia) SSSI’s, planning permission for G&T sites should only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the SSSI will not be compromised by the development.
The likely impact of development on the surrounding area is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, however local landscape and local nature conservation designations should not be used in themselves, to refuse planning permission Rural settings not subject to special planning constraints are acceptable in principle.
In assessing the suitability of sites, LPA’s should be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local services. Sites should respect the scale of and not dominate the nearest settled community and avoid placing pressure on the local infrastructure.
Planning Applications
In addition to impact on the surrounding area, other considerations for G&T sites are likely to include the level of site provision and need for sites in the area.
It is strongly recommended that G&T consult the LPA before buying land. Such pre- application discussions are important to avoid misunderstanding and subsequent problems over planning permission. G&T should be assisted as far as possible to provide for themselves to allow them to secure the kind of site they require, but in locations that are appropriate in planning policy terms.
LPA’s should not refuse private applications solely because the applicant has no local connections but they are entitled to refuse them in locations that do not comply with planning polices especially where the LPA has complied with the guidance in the Circular and proceeded properly to ensure that needs identified by the accommodation assessments are being met.
Sustainability
Issues of sustainability are important and should not only be considered in terms of transport modes and distance from services. Consideration should include: • Promotion of peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and local community • The wider benefits of access to a GP and health services. • Children attending school on a regular basis • Not locating sites in areas at high risk of flooding, given the particular vulnerability of caravans
In considering where to provide for G&T sites, LPA’s should first consider locations in or near existing settlements with access to local services (shops, doctors, schools). Sites should be identified having regard to highway considerations, stationing of vehicles on the site and possible on-site commercial use. Projected vehicle movements should be assessed on an individual basis.
50 Appeals
A Planning Inspector will have regard to the Development Plan, so far as relevant, and will take account of all materials considerations which should already have been addressed at the application stage. These will include the existing and planned provision of and needs for sites in the area, the accuracy of the data used to assess needs, information on pitch availability, personal circumstances and alternative accommodation options.
Human Rights
Should be considered as part of the planning process. LPA’s should consider the consequences of refusing permission or taking enforcement action on the rights of the individuals concerned, both G&T and local residents. Any doubt over the application of Human Rights should be subject to legal advice.
Annexe C (Good Practice Criteria)
G&T have the same rights and responsibilities within the planning system as any other citizen
For all kinds of site, consideration should be given to access from the public highway as well as road safety for occupiers. Sites need convenient and safe access to the highway network.
Landscaping with appropriate trees and shrubs can help sites blend into their surroundings. Excessive hard landscaping can give the impression of deliberately isolating the site from the local community and should be avoided.
Government does not consider it appropriate to set a maximum size for a site but suggests that cases should be considered in context, and in relation to the local infrastructure and density.
Annexe D (Guidance to LPA’s)
LPA’s need to provide early clear pre-application advice (if asked)
Annexe E (Guidance to G&T)
G&T should consider whether the LPA knows of their need and if so have they identified any suitable sites.
If no, G&T should, to ensure the site they pick is suitable to be granted planning permission: • identify an area of search – is the reason you are looking for a particular location due to family work or other requirements? • Consider if there are suitable brownfield sites available? • consider means of access, ground conditions and levels, accessibility of schools and other facilities • contact the LPA once a potential site has been identified and consider the relevant development plan policies.
Annexe F (Planning Conditions and Obligations)
51 A number of measures can be used to overcome planning objections (bearing in mind Circular 11/95) by using conditions or obligations (S106 agreements) including • Adequate landscaping and play areas for children • Limiting which parts of a site can be used for business operations • The number of days a site can be occupied by more than the allowed number to allow for family/community events etc.
52 Appendix 3
Saved Policy HO14 – Rutland Local Plan
Sites for Travellers (Preamble)
4.89 Three types of gypsy caravan sites can be identified for which provision could be made. These are sites for settled occupation, temporary stopping places and transit sites.
4.90 The statutory requirement for local authorities to provide caravan sites for gypsies has been repealed. Planning applications for private gypsy sites could nevertheless be submitted and policy guidance is considered necessary.
4.91 In addition to the needs of gypsies it is also necessary to address the needs of travelling show people. They require secure, permanent bases for the storage of their equipment and more particularly for residential purposes. These bases are most intensively occupied during the winter. However, increasingly show people's quarters need to be occupied by some members of the family permanently; older family members will stay on for most of the year and there are advantages in children living there all year to benefit from uninterrupted education. At present one site for travelling show people exists in Rutland at Bisbrooke, occupied as winter quarters.
4.92 POLICY HO14 - PLANNING PERMISSION WILL BE GRANTED FOR SITES TO ACCOMMODATE GYPSIES OR TRAVELLING SHOW PEOPLE WHERE THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY IS SATISFIED OF A NEED, SUBJECT TO:
i) THE SITE BEING PHYSICALLY SUITED TO THE PURPOSE,
ii) COMMUNITY SERVICES, FACILITIES AND PLACES OF WORK BEING ACCESSIBLE,
iii) THE SITE BEING CAPABLE OF BEING PROVIDED WITH ADEQUATE SERVICES SUCH AS WATER, SEWERAGE AND REFUSE DISPOSAL,
iv) THE INTERESTS OF AGRICULTURE BEING SAFEGUARDED, AND
v) ENVIRONMENTAL, AMENITY AND HIGHWAY INTERESTS NOT BEING ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
IN ADDITION TO MEETING THE ABOVE CRITERIA, PROPOSALS FOR TRANSIT SITES SHOULD ALSO BE ACCESSIBLE TO ESTABLISHED TRAVELLERS’ ROUTES.
53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81