• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

The Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House Inquiry opened on 19 May 2009 2 The Square Temple Quay Site visit made on 17 September 2009 Bristol BS1 6PN 0117 372 6372 by David Rusdale BA DipTP MRTPI email:[email protected] ov.uk Decision date: an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 21 October 2009 Appeal Ref: APP/D3125/C/08/2092833 Land to the north of the B4449 Hardwick to Stanton Harcourt Road at former Vicarage Pit, Tar Road, near Stanton Harcourt • The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. • The appeal is made by Michael Delaney against an enforcement notice issued by West Oxfordshire District Council. • The Council's reference is 09/0011/P/ENF. • The notice was issued on 19 November 2008. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission, change of use of land from agriculture to use for stationing residential caravans, other vehicles, static mobile homes and portable toilets together with ancillary excavation, engineering, and other building works for the alteration and construction of accesses, drives, roads and hardstandings, and the provision of pole mounted external lighting throughout the site. • The requirements of the notice are: i) Cease using the land for the stationing of residential caravans and static mobile homes; ii) Cease the use of the land for residential purposes; iii) Remove all caravans and other vehicles, portable toilets, plant, equipment, walls, fences and external lighting from the land; iv) Break up all hardsurfacing on the land; v) Remove from the land all of the materials, rubble and wood arising from compliance with the above requirements; vi) Restore the land to its condition before the breaches took place by levelling the land, laying topsoil and reseeding it with grass or turfing. • The period for compliance with the requirements is ten weeks. • The appeal was made on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(a),(c) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. • The inquiry sat for 6 days, on 19-21 May and 7, 11 and 14 September 2009. Decision 1. I direct that the enforcement notice: a. be corrected by substituting the plan attached to this decision for that attached to the notice and in paragraph 2 substituting ‘[shown edged with a thick black line on the attached plan]’ for ‘[shown edged red on the attached plan]’; and, b. be varied in paragraph 5 by inserting ‘(other than the perimeter fence)’ after ‘fence’ . Appeal Decision APP/D3125/C/08/2092833 2. Subject to these corrections and variations I dismiss the appeal, uphold the enforcement notice, and refuse to grant planning permission on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended. Preliminary Matters 3. I was assisted in this appeal by Inspector S Roscoe BEng MSc CENG MICE, who assessed matters relating to land contamination. 4. At the Inquiry: a. The appeal on ground (c) was withdrawn and an appeal on ground (f) was added; b. With the agreement of the parties, the enforcement notice plan was corrected. The Appeal on Ground (a) Background 5. The appeal site, as corrected, is a rectangular parcel of land, some 65 metres wide and about 95 metres deep, bounded by a post and rail fence. It lies in the countryside outside the village of Stanton Harcourt. It is adjoined to the west by the Old Vicarage, a listed building, and Keppel Cottage. Solid wooden fences divide the appeal site into eight similarly sized plots; four each on either side of a central track which leads from the site access to Tar Road, the plots being numbered in an anti clockwise direction from the north west part of the site. The intention is to provide a mobile and a touring caravan on each of the plots: the day rooms shown on the related planning application do not form part of the deemed planning application before me. 6. At the time of my site inspection there was: a mobile home, a touring caravan and a portaloo on Plot 1; two touring caravans and a portaloo on Plots 2, 4, 5 and 6; two touring caravans, a portaloo and a wooden shed on a pallet on Plot 3; and 3 touring caravans and a portaloo on Plots 6 and 8. On the appellant’s evidence, five of the plots are occupied by members of the Delaney family and the remaining plots are occupied by relatives of the Delaneys. Main Issues 7. At the Inquiry no one disputed the gypsy status of the occupants of the appeal site. On the evidence available to me, I find that all of the occupants are gypsies as defined by Circular 1/2006. 8. The main issues in this appeal are: (i) whether the appeal development provides satisfactory living conditions for its occupiers in respect of matters relating to contaminated land; (ii) the effect of the unauthorised development on the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the Old Vicarage, a listed building; (iii) the impact on the safe and free flow of traffic and pedestrians on nearby roads; 2 Appeal Decision APP/D3125/C/08/2092833 (iv) the impact on adjoining residents in terms of noise; (v) the general need for gypsy sites; (vi) the specific accommodation needs of the occupants of the appeal site and the availability of alternative sites; and (vii) the personal circumstances of the occupants of the appeal site. Land Contamination 9. Part of the appeal site comprises a former landfill facility, and the ground within some areas of the site is emitting significant levels of methane, irrespective of whether the site is classified as made ground or landfill. The main parties however acknowledge that the area subject to the contamination is somewhat imprecise. In some parts of the site, methane emissions are within and also well above the explosive range for the gas. 10. These methane levels place the site in the red National House Building Council traffic light category in terms of methane gas screening values 1. I recognise that the traffic light category system is specific to low rise housing with contained under floor voids. It does however give a reasoned indication of the level of risk in terms of potential gas penetration of enclosed areas above ground level and is therefore relevant to this case. 11. Having identified the potential for gas emissions, I now turn to consider pathways and receptors. The appellant has suggested that caravans and mobile homes on the site could be located on concrete slabs, which would include a gas proof membrane. He has also suggested that slabs could be provided for visiting caravans, and this provision could be regulated by means of an appropriate condition. The main parties agree that such a barrier could provide a satisfactory level of protection from methane emissions for the occupiers of any caravans and mobile homes situated on the concrete slabs. I can see no reason to disagree with this view. 12. The main roadway on the site would be surfaced with tar macadam. Some alterations to this roadway are proposed, and the appellant has provided me with a detail showing gas venting arrangements for the ground below the tar macadam. The appellant has suggested that venting pipes would need to be positioned at 10m centres. I am satisfied that this arrangement would be satisfactory, subject to the agreement of details which could again be controlled by means of a condition. 13. The site is partly surfaced with hardcore. It is proposed that this hardcore is extended to cover the entire site outside those areas having either concrete slabs or tar macadam surfacing. The slabs and tar macadam would not provide any protection to the remainder of the site which is to be capped with hardcore, and some of these hardcore areas would be subject to any gas emissions from the ground. It has been suggested that clayey material, which from trial pit information appears to lie just below the ground surface, would have some capping and barrier qualities. From the information provided 1 Construction Industry Research and Information Association Report C665: The Assessment of Risks Posed by Hazardous Ground Gases to Buildings (Revised): 2007 3 Appeal Decision APP/D3125/C/08/2092833 however, I do not agree that this would be the case and, in any event, some of the material could be replaced with the existing and proposed hardcore. 14. Accommodation space in caravans and mobile homes is often limited. In my view, this increases the likelihood of the use of outdoor areas and the erection of temporary structures, such as sheds for residents’ storage purposes or enclosures built by children playing. The provision of permanent or temporary residential accommodation, together with associated structures, is a sensitive use. It is thus necessary to adopt a precautionary approach in the assessment of contamination pathways on this site. 15. The appeal site is also likely to attract visitors, and indeed evidence to this effect was given at the Inquiry. Moreover, the plots on the site are large and this again would render the site attractive to visitors and also for the erection of temporary structures. Visitors to the site would be likely to be accommodated in touring caravans. These are generally smaller than more permanent caravans or mobile homes, and there would thus be a greater probability of the use of temporary structures.

Load more

  18

Copy Link