Appeal Decision Hearing held on 12 June 2013 Site visit made on 12 June 2013 by B Hellier BA(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 5 September 2013

Appeal Ref: APP/L1765/A/12/2188816 The Big Muddy Farm, Alma Lane, Lower Upham, SO23 1HE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mr J Smith against the decision of Winchester City Council. • The application Ref 12/01314/FUL, dated 8 June 2012, was refused by notice dated 3 August 2012. • The application sought planning permission for the use of land as a single family gypsy site without complying with a condition attached to planning permission granted by appeal decision Ref APP/L1765/A/10/2141387, dated 22 June 2011. • The condition in dispute is No.2 which states that: No more than two caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968, of which no more than one shall be a static caravan or mobile home, shall be stationed on the site at any time.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the use of land as a single family gypsy site at The Big Muddy Farm, Alma Lane, Lower Upham, in accordance with the application Ref 12/01314/FUL, dated 8 June 2012, subject to the conditions set out in the accompanying Schedule.

Background

2. The appellant, Jacob Smith, is a gypsy who lives with his wife and two children on a smallholding of 9.7ha from where he runs a stud farm. Planning permission for his mobile home was granted on appeal in 2011 1 and included a condition limiting the number of caravans on the land to one mobile home and one touring caravan. The current proposal is to vary this condition so as to allow, in total, three mobile homes and one touring caravan which would accommodate his grandparents, George and Mary Cole, his mother Kelly Smith, and his sister Jessica Smith.

Main issues

3. The family are Romany Gypsies. For planning purposes the gypsy status of the appellant was established in the 2011 appeal. His grandparents travelled widely but are now semi retired and his grandfather is in poor health. His

1 Appeal Ref APP/L1765/A/10/2141387 Use of land as a single family gypsy site including the stationing of a mobile home and a touring caravan. Allowed 5 April 2011. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/12/2188816

mother is now also unable to travel because she too is in poor health. His sister lives with and supports her mother. The Council does not dispute the gypsy status of these individuals and I agree that on the evidence before me they meet the planning definition of a gypsy.

4. Having established that gypsy policies should apply to this proposal I consider there are four main issues. • Whether this would be a sustainable form of development having regard to local and national planning policies. • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside. • Whether other considerations exist including the general need for and availability of gypsy sites, and the accommodation needs and personal circumstances of the appellant, which favour the proposal. • Whether these other considerations would be sufficient to outweigh any harm identified in relation to sustainability and countryside impact.

Planning policies

5. Subsequent to the date of the planning refusal the Council adopted its Core Strategy 1 (CS) and the South East Plan has been revoked. The development plan now consists of the CS together with the saved policies of the Local Plan Review 2 (LP). CS Policy CP5 indicates that the Council will grant planning permission for new sites to meet the needs of travellers subject to a number of criteria. LP Policy DP3 seeks development which in terms of design, scale and layout, responds positively to the local environment. LP Policies DP4 and CE5 expect development to maintain or enhance landscape quality.

6. In coming to my decision I have taken account of these development plan policies together with national policies, particularly those set out in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) 3.

Reasons

Sustainability

7. The site lies adjacent to a quiet rural lane about 1km from the village of Lower Upham and within walking distance of a general store and post office, community hall and two public houses. The primary school at Upham is a further 2km away. An hourly bus service from Lower Upham gives access to a good range of facilities in Bishops Waltham including a secondary school and a general medical practice. This is a relatively accessible location which would not conflict with the requirement in the PPTS for gypsy sites to be strictly limited in open countryside away from existing settlements 4. It was agreed that the sustainability criteria in the PPTS 5 would also be met.

8. The proposal would accommodate three generations of the same family who already live locally. Its modest scale would not be dissimilar to that of other scattered building groups nearby. It would respect the scale of the village and would not affect its social cohesion. Consequently it would not represent an

1 Winchester Local Plan Part 1: Joint Core Strategy (CS). Adopted March 2013 2 Winchester District Local Plan Review (LP). Adopted July 2006 3 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS). March 2012. Communities and Local Government 4 PPTS paragraph 23 5 PPTS paragraph 11 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/12/2188816

over concentration of gypsy development and would satisfy CS Policy CP5 in this respect.

9. A further requirement of CS Policy CP5 is that sites should be capable of being accommodated by existing services and of being developed to an acceptable standard. At present there is an electricity and water supply and it is agreed that, subject to the installation of a larger septic tank, foul drainage arrangements would be satisfactory. There is an adequate access onto Alma Lane and, whilst the concerns of the Parish Council are noted, I do not consider the additional vehicle movements resulting from the development would give rise to a significant traffic hazard.

10. In terms of the standard of accommodation within the site there would be only limited potential for providing on site play provision and private amenity space. However, to compensate for this the site is surrounded by countryside and there would be access to the adjacent fields in the ownership of the appellant as well as nearby public footpaths.

11. I find that the appeal proposal would be a sustainable form of development having regard to local and national planning policies as set out in the CS and PPTS.

Character and appearance

12. The countryside to the south of Lower Upham is relatively flat pastureland with strong hedgerows with numerous hedgerow trees. It lies within the Durley Claylands Landscape Character Area (LAC) 1. It is a product of the enclosure acts with straight roads and rectangular fields. The fields fronting Alma Lane and Durley Hall Lane further to the south appear to be in a variety of ownerships with small clusters of development including stables, agricultural buildings, old farmhouses and converted outbuildings. There is a mix of old traditional buildings, ramshackle buildings, caravans, hardstandings and enclosures. In many cases the development is hidden behind a substantial roadside hedge.

13. In principle the limited intensification of development on the appeal site would not be out of character with this setting. The existing mobile home is bounded by hedges, stable buildings and a more substantial barn. The hedge along the boundary with Alma Lane is both thick and high so that, apart from a view directly outside the entrance, the development is not seen from the road. From most other public viewpoints the site is not readily visible but there are glimpses of it from a length of Durley Hall Road about 450 metres away to the south.

14. Whereas the existing mobile home is hidden from view behind the stable buildings the two proposed mobile homes would be open to views from Durley Hall Road from where they would stand out, even against the background of the barn and hedges. The impact would be long range and softened by intervening hedges and trees, although this planting would be less effective in winter. It would also be possible to plant a hedge along the southern boundary to provide additional screening in the medium to long term. Even so, I find that there would be some detriment to the character and appearance of the countryside and the LAC which would be contrary to the objectives of LP Policies DP3, DP4 and CE5. I attach modest weight to this harm.

1 LP Appendix 2: Landscape Character Area Key Characteristics, Landscape Strategies and Built Form Strategies www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/12/2188816

Other considerations

General need for gypsy sites

15. A review of the need for traveller accommodation in Hampshire has been published recently 1. In April 2013 Winchester had 41 approved pitches and the review identifies a need for a further 12 pitches in the four years to 2017. No permissions have been granted since April 2013 and there is no dispute that the Council does not have a five year supply of deliverable sites. This shortfall will be addressed in a Development Management and Allocations Plan (DMAP) which will include allocations for gypsy sites. A call for sites has been undertaken and ended in February. The programmed date for adoption is May 2015.

16. Where there is a lack of a five year supply this should be a significant material consideration in considering a grant of temporary planning permission 2. Whilst the proposal seeks a permanent permission the lack of available sites to meet general need is a matter that should be afforded significant weight.

Accommodation needs of the appellant and his family

17. At present Mr and Mrs Cole, Mrs Smith and her daughter live in a bungalow at New Deeps Farm on the Winchester Road about 1km outside Lower Upham and 2km from the appellant on the appeal site. There is about 1ha of land with the bungalow, some stables and outbuildings. There is no suggestion that the existing accommodation is physically unsuitable or that any individual has an aversion to bricks and mortar. I give little weight to their accommodation needs.

Personal circumstances

18. The family wishes to come together in one location for mutual support. Mr Cole has increasing ill health due to a multitude of medical problems. He relies heavily on his family to look after him. Mrs Smith has a serious cardiac condition. The proposal means that the appellant would be in a position to look after his grandfather and his sister to look after their mother. The move would have the added benefit of maintaining a presence on the appeal site while the appellant was away at horse fairs or otherwise travelling.

19. Whilst it is no doubt inconvenient that the appellant lives some 2km from the rest of the family this is not an unusual situation in the population at large. Nonetheless, it is part of gypsy culture to live as an extended family and to provide support to each other. This is particularly important where family members are old or in ill health as in this case. Given the presence of the stud farm this would be the only practical way to bring the family together. I consider some limited weight should be given to these circumstances.

Balancing exercise

20. The proposal would be a sustainable form of development in a reasonably accessible location and in scale with the surrounding settlement pattern. The two additional mobile homes would be visible at a distance from the south. This would be mitigated by existing vegetation and, potentially, by further

1 Travellers Accommodation Assessment for Hampshire: Forest Bus Limited. April 2013 2 PPTS paragraph 25 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/12/2188816

landscaping but there would remain a modest degree of visual harm to the countryside.

21. Set against this there is a shortfall in the supply of gypsy sites in Winchester to which I attach significant weight and some additional limited weight should be given to the family circumstances surrounding the health of Mr Cole and Mrs Smith. I conclude that these other considerations clearly outweigh the harm in relation to countryside impact.

Temporary permission

22. The Council expects to be in a position to satisfy the identified need for gypsy sites in its DMAP when it is adopted in 2015. A temporary permission on the appeal site until these sites become available would limit the harm to the countryside to this period. However, in this case the harm to the countryside is modest and the existing mobile home and stud farm has a permanent planning permission. In any event an alternative location for the two proposed mobile homes away from the appeal site would not be suitable because it would remove the support to the family from the appellant. In these circumstances a temporary permission would not be appropriate.

Conditions

23. The appeal seeks the variation of Condition 2 of the 2011 appeal decision to allow the stationing of two additional mobile homes on the site. In addition, since the personal circumstances of the proposed occupiers have been taken into account in the balance in favour of the development, occupancy should be limited to those individuals.

24. The layout submitted with the appeal is unsatisfactory since it relocates the existing mobile home into a more prominent position than that approved. To minimise the environmental impact there is a need for a new layout to be submitted and agreed showing the siting of the mobile homes, the new drainage arrangement and a landscaping scheme. I also agree with suggestions that in this rural location there should be control over external lighting and a restriction on the size of commercial vehicles. Condition 1 attached to the 2011 appeal decision which requires occupation to be restricted to persons with gypsy status should be retained as should Condition 4 which does not permit commercial activities

Conclusion

25. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will grant a new planning permission varying the disputed condition, substituting others and restating those undisputed conditions that are still subsisting and capable of taking effect.

Bern Hellier

INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/12/2188816

Schedule of Conditions (8) 1) The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers as defined in Annex 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. 2) The occupation of the site hereby permitted shall be carried on only by the following and their resident dependants: Jacob Smith, Kelly Smith, Jessica Smith, George and Mary Cole. 3) When the land ceases to be occupied by those named in condition 2 above the use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, structures, materials and equipment brought on to or erected on the land, or works undertaken to it in connection with the use, shall be removed and the land shall be restored to its condition before the development took place. 4) There shall be no more than 1 pitch within the site and no more than 4 caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 of which no more than 3 shall be static caravans shall be stationed on the site at any time. The caravans shall be sited only in the locations shown on the layout approved in Condition 5 below. 5) The use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, structures, equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed within 28 days of the date of failure to meet any one the requirements set out in (i) to (iv) below: i) within 3 months of the date of this decision a scheme for: the means of foul and surface water drainage of the site; any proposed and existing external lighting on the boundary of and within the site; the internal layout of the site, including the siting of caravans, plots, hardstanding, parking and amenity areas; tree, hedge and shrub planting and where appropriate earth mounding including details of species, plant sizes and proposed numbers and densities; the restoration of the site to its condition before the development took place at the end of the period the site is occupied by those permitted to do so, hereafter referred to as the site development scheme shall have been submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority and the said scheme shall include a timetable for its implementation; ii) within 11 months of the date of this decision the site development scheme shall have been approved by the local planning authority or, if the local planning authority refuse to approve the scheme, or fail to give a decision within the prescribed period, an appeal shall have been made to, and accepted as validly made by, the Secretary of State; iii) if an appeal is made in pursuance of (ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted site development scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State; and iv) the approved scheme shall have been carried out and completed in accordance with the approved timetable. 6) At the same time as the site development scheme required by condition 5 above is submitted to the local planning authority there shall be submitted a schedule of maintenance for a period of five years of the proposed planting beginning at the completion of the final phase of implementation as required by that condition; the schedule to make provision for the replacement, in the same position, of any tree, hedge or shrub that is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies or, in the opinion of the local planning authority, becomes

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/12/2188816

seriously damaged or defective, with another of the same species and size as that originally planted. The maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule. 7) No commercial activities, apart from those associated with the equestrian use at The Big Muddy Farm, Alma Lane, Lower Upham shall take place on the land, including the storage of materials. 8) No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on this site.

DOCUMENTS

1 Corrected Design and Access Statement 2 Letters of support from occupiers of Mount Pleasant Farm (2) and Laurel Cottage, Alma Lane 3 Site location plan as per the 2011 appeal decision 4 Appeal decision Ref APP/V3310/A/12/2179189 Land at Tapmoor Road, Moorlinch, Somerset

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7