Contact your Parish Council

APPLICATION:       MA/09/0208         Date: 6 February 2009   Received: 19 August 2009

 

APPLICANT:	Mrs B  Cash
LOCATION:	HAWTHORN FARM, PYE CORNER, ULCOMBE, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME17 1EF
PARISH:	Ulcombe
PROPOSAL:	Change of use to gypsy caravan site to include to 2 No. mobile homes, 2 No. touring caravans, 2 No. utility blocks and 2 No. stables and tack room as shown on location plan and drawing nos. 363/01, 02 and 03 received on 9/2/09; and elevations of utility blocks received on 18/8/09.
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	12th August 2010   Geoff Brown

 

The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:

 

●  it is contrary to views expressed by Ulcombe Parish Council.

 

1. POLICIES

 

Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV6, ENV28, ENV34
South East Plan 2009: N/A
Village Design Statement: N/A

Government Policy: PPS1, PPS3, PPS4, PPS7, PPS9, Circular 01/2006

 

2. HISTORY

 

The relevant planning history is as follows:

 

MA/03/1810 – Retrospective application for the erection of a pole barn – Permitted. This half-built structure is to be seen close to the north east corner of the site.

 

A high court injunction was obtained in March 2005 aimed at preventing the use of the site as a caravan site. Despite this the site was occupied by the Cash family and enforcement notices were served in June 2006 to secure the cessation of use as a caravan site and the removal of hardstandings and an earth bund. No appeals were lodged and the residential use of the site subsequently ceased.

 

The current phase of occupation by the applicant and her family began in early 2009 following the death of Mrs Cash’s husband. The application states that the death left the family in a state of shock and depression which persists to this day; whilst the family have a personal need for lawful, culturally appropriate accommodation and have no alternative site to which they can resort.

 

A valid application has been lodged with the Council since August of last year. A significant part of the delay in determination has been the need to receive and consider a great crested newt survey.

 

3. CONSULTATIONS

 

ULCOMBE PARISH COUNCIL wishes to see the application refused and states:

 

“Please could you note that Ulcombe Parish Council wishes to see the above planning application refused because:

 

1) The site is well outside the village envelope as designated in the Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan adopted in December 2000 and it forms part of the Eastern Low Weald Special Landscape Area. Both the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and the Borough Local Plan policies protect Special Landscape Areas by giving priority to the conservation and enhancement of the landscape of these areas over planning considerations. The proposal could in no way comply with these policies and would encourage and itself contribute to an intensification of the existing scatter of residential development. This would be to the detriment of the open character of this rural section of the Special Landscape Area.

 

2) Ulcombe is a small village with approximately 350 households. There are currently 4 gypsy/traveller sites in the parish – one of which is the Water Lane site, one of the two Maidstone Borough Council managed sites in the Borough (NB : this was omitted from the map and data which was emailed to members and parishes by MBC 4/9/09 in relation to the forthcoming Gypsy and Traveller Sites Development Plan Document). Of the 4 sites, 3 collectively contain 22 permitted mobile homes. The fourth site is Hawthorn Farm for which a further 2 mobile homes are proposed under this planning application. At present, there are 6 touring caravans and 1 mobile home on the site without permission. An enforcement order precluding use of the land for this purpose was served in 2006 but not enforced and the investigation has been closed while this planning application is being considered.

 

According to the South East Regional Assembly’s Partial Review of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East in relation to the provision for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople (June 2009) the total existing number of gypsy/traveller pitches within the borough in currently 115. These are spread over 17 of the 40 parishes, the others having none. Thus of the parishes who have any gypsy pitches at all the average number is less than 6 whilst Ulcombe already has 22 with a further 2 proposed by this application. The SEERA consultations of 2008/9 showed the preferred option was to provide a more equitable distribution of sites within the region. The parish council believes that the same principle should apply within Maidstone Borough.

 

3) The site does not meet the criteria for sustainability. There is little employment available within the parish, the village now has no shop, post office or public house (apart from the Pepperbox Inn which is not within walking distance of the village centre) and there is only an infrequent bus service to Maidstone. The nearest service centre for shopping, medical needs etc is in Headcorn, some 3 miles distant and to which there is no bus service.”

 

Commenting on the newt survey, the Parish Council questions its timing and thoroughness as it was carried out in January.

 

KENT HIGHWAYS SERVICES states that the proposals would not create a negative effect on highway safety and has no objection subject to conditions.

 

NATURAL ENGLAND: views awaited.

 

THE KENT WILDLIFE TRUST: views awaited.

 

THE MBC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER has no objection subject to a condition requiring full details of the proposed manner of foul water disposal.

 

4. REPRESENTATIONS

 

HUGH ROBERTSON MP objects for the following reasons:

a)   The site is part of the Low Weald Special Landscape Area and should be protected. It is clearly outside the village envelope.

b)   Ulcombe already has a relatively high number of traveller sites compared to its settled population of around 350 households. It would not be equitable to add further sites.

c)   There are considerable doubts as to the sustainability of the site given the lack of available rural services in Ulcombe.

 

CPRE KENT expresses concerns over the application and suggests that, if permission is to be granted, then it should be on a temporary basis as the site is not considered sustainable in the long term.

 

LETTERS OF OBJECTION HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM SIX LOCAL DWELLINGS. The following (summarised) points are made:

a)   The site is outside of the village envelope and would cause harm to the character of the countryside. The land has been the subject of a number of attempts to occupy the land without proper consent. The land condition has deteriorated and there is an absence of proper grazing for horses.

b)   There is already a proliferation of traveller sites in this area and this would make the situation worse.

c)   Noise and disturbance would be caused.

d)   There would be increased traffic. The access to the highway and the local network of country lanes is not adequate to satisfactorily deal with the additional traffic.

e)   The site is not well connected to basic services and utilities and the drainage arrangements may cause flooding problems.

f)    This site is not needed as there are public sites at Water Lane, Ulcombe and at Marden.

g)   The level of accommodation sought is excessive given the size of the family. Utility blocks, stables, etc. would be permanent development.

h)   The surface of the access track would be further eroded.

i)     To permit this application would be to set an undesirable precedent for further development on or near the site.

 

5. CONSIDERATIONS

 

5.1    Site Description

 

5.1.1  The application site is located in open countryside within Ulcombe Parish. This is an area characterised by grassed paddocks on level land to the south of the Greensand Ridge. The site is located within the Low Weald Special Landscape Area. A long access track leads south-eastwards from Pye Corner, passing the Roydon Farm gypsy site on the south side, before arriving at the application site on its north side. Much of the length of the track is shared with Public Footpath KH330 (which joins Pye Corner to the north with Crumps Lane to the south). The footpath passes the application site and leads to a group of dwellings based around Kingsnoad Farmhouse further to the south east.

 

5.1.2  The application site is accessed from the aforementioned access track/footpath leads northwards into an irregularly shaped area of flat land. The north eastern part of the site accommodates a derelict shed and pole barn that I understand have their origins in a previous agricultural use of the site. In front of those structures is a collection of touring caravans occupied by Mrs Beverley Cash and family. There are rough hardstandings, principally of rubble and roadstone, in the vicinity of the buildings and caravans.

 

5.1.3  The site is bordered to the north by an earth bund and hedging, to the east by a substantial belt of trees and bushes, to the south by the access track/footpath and to the west by low fencing. The site area is approx. 0.46ha.

  

5.2    Proposal

 

5.2.1  The application is retrospective in that Mrs Cash and family are currently living on the site. However, the application shows a different layout to that currently on site. The application proposes the stationing of two mobile homes and two utility blocks in the north east part of the site with space for the stationing of two touring caravans. A stable block of stained timber cladding is shown to be sited in the north western part of the site. There would be a parking area and a children’s play area. The pole barn and the storage shed would be removed from the site to make way for the proposed development.

 

5.2.2  The application seeks to meet the needs of one gypsy family. This comprises Mrs Cash and her three sons ie Paul (aged 11 years), Patrick (aged 20 years) and Stephen (aged 22 years). The application states that the family have been living and travelling in and around Kent for all of their lives and there are relatives in the area. Mrs Cash and the eldest boys are effectively unable to read and the family is anxious that the youngest child obtains at least a basic education. In terms of health concerns, the application outlines that both Mrs Cash and one of her sons have experienced long running health difficulties although no details are provided of such health problems.  

 

5.3    Principle of Development

 

5.3.1  Development in the countryside is restricted by the provisions of the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. With the demise of The South East Plan 2009, the Development Plan now simply involves the ‘saved’ policies of The Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000. The Local Plan has policies aimed at the protection of the countryside, and particularly the Special Landscape Area, but no longer has a policy that gives direct guidance on the provision of gypsy sites.

 

5.3.2  The main ‘tool’ for the determination of applications is therefore Central Government Circular 01/2006 ‘Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites’. That circular places a firm emphasis on the provision of more sites in order to satisfy the needs of gypsy families stating that rural settings, where not subject to special planning constraints, are acceptable in principle. Whilst acknowledging the importance of nationally recognised designations, 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.

 

5.3.3  I am satisfied that Mrs Cash and family fall within the definition of gypsies in Circular 01/2006. There is a clear and identifiable need for gypsy accommodation within the Borough that stems from the findings of the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA), which was undertaken in 2005/06 and covers four local authorities (Ashford, Maidstone, Tonbridge & Malling and Tunbridge Wells). Based on this assessment, there is a need for some 32 new pitches in the Borough over the five year period. This figure assumes a higher rate of turnover on public sites than has actually occurred.

 

5.3.4  The Council is preparing a Gypsy and Traveller Sites DPD which will allocate specific sites.  With the revocation of The South East Plan, the Borough target for the number of pitches to be provided will be set in the Core Strategy.  As a direct consequence, the DPD must be prepared in parallel with the Core Strategy, or marginally behind it, and not in advance of it as previously programmed.

 

5.3.5 At the time of writing this report the number of private pitches allowed since 31 March 2006 is as follows:-

 

•               31 permanent permissions

•               8 temporary permissions

•               10 permanent with personal permissions

•               14 temporary with personal permissions

 

5.3.6 The above figures show 31 permanent permissions having already been granted for the five year period to date. However, at appeal Inspectors regularly place significant weight on the inadequacy of the public site provision (no additional provision has been made in the relevant period) and the high number of unauthorised caravans in the Borough. For example, in the Part Norham Farm appeal decision the Inspector recognised that the number of permissions granted was broadly in accord with GTAA requirements but placed considerable weight on what he saw as the significant number of unauthorised caravans within the Borough, whilst decisions at Symonds Lane, Yalding focussed on the inadequacy of public provision as an alternative means of accommodation. 

 

5.3.7 There remains a need for gypsy accommodation within the Borough even though permissions have broadly kept pace with the identified need in the GTAA. A grant of permission in this case would mean that the overall figure would rise to 33 ie a figure ahead of schedule on the GTAA requirement. The general need for gypsy accommodation needs to be given weight in the determination of this application. Given this need and the advice in 01/2006 I consider the principle of the development to be acceptable.

 

5.4    Visual Impact

 

5.4.1  The site is not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, nor any other nationally recognised designation. It lies within a Special Landscape Area but the advice in Circular 01/2006 is that such local designations should not be used, in themselves, to refuse this type of application. Before its use as a gypsy caravan site the land already accommodated at least two buildings. The site occupies flat land that is well screened to the north by the low bund and hedging and to the east by a belt of trees and bushes. Views from higher land to the north would be interrupted by the various intervening field boundaries. The site is more exposed in views from the south and west and it is clearly visible in short distance views from the public footpath close to the site entrance. Longer distance views from the public footpath are largely screened by hedging along the north side of the footpath. The application drawings show new hedgerow planting of indigenous species along the western boundary of the site but, if permission is to be granted here, what is already shown should be extended southwards to cover more of the site frontage. The caravans and buildings would be sited in the rear part of the site away from the public footpath and close to boundary screening.

 

5.4.2  I recognise that this site is in the same locality as the Roydon Farm traveller site but the sites are approx. 200m apart and separated by fields and hedging such that they would not constitute an undue concentration.

         

5.4.3  Considering all of these factors I am of the view that, subject to landscaping conditions, the development would cause limited harm to the character of the countryside. This limited harm must be balanced against the need to provide more gypsy caravan pitches.  

 

5.5    Residential Amenity

 

5.5.1  The site has no close residential neighbours. Kingsnoad Farmhouse (to the south east) is approx. 140m from the proposed site of the nearest mobile home. The application site and the curtilage of that property are separated by a grassed field and its treed/hedged boundaries. The Roydon Farm traveller site is a significant distance away to the north west. Given the position of the site I do not consider that any existing property would suffer unduly from additional noise and disturbance. The stable block would be small and would not impact on the residential amenities of neighbours; I consider it acceptable in terms of its visual impact. The plans show plenty of land available for the grazing of horses.

 

5.6    Highways

 

5.6.1  The Highways Officer has no objection to this application. The access track from Pye Corner already serves the Roydon Farm gypsy site, the residential properties in the vicinity of Kingsnoad Farmhouse and the agricultural activities at Amarna Farm and I do not consider that an intensified use of this track would cause significant highway safety problems. There would be adequate parking and turning space on site. I consider the local highway network to be capable of accommodating the additional traffic. Wear and tear to the surface of the access track is not a planning issue.

 

5.7    Sustainability

 

5.7.1  The site does not score particularly well in terms of sustainability: however the village of Ulcombe is located around 1km to the north west as the crow flies and that village has a school and a bus service. I note that the buses pass Pye Corner just to the north of the site. Given that gypsy sites will almost inevitably be located in countryside locations I do not consider there to be sufficient grounds to refuse this application on the grounds that it is unsustainable.

 

5.8    Ecology

 

5.8.1  Whilst much of the application site has historically accommodated buildings, access tracks and hardstandings I considered it necessary to require a great crested newt survey in view of the presence of such protected species in this general area and the existence of ditches and watercourses off site. A scoping survey was subsequently submitted, the conclusion of which revealed no newts on site and a generally poor habitat. The report concludes that there would be no impact at all to any great crested newts or other wildlife as a result of the proposals. The report comments that new landscaping would actually provide a net gain of wildlife habitat. I am satisfied that the report was carried out properly and there is no reason to object to the development on ecology grounds.

 

5.9    Other Matters

 

5.9.1  In terms of personal circumstances, the application emphasises the need for the youngest child to receive a proper education but I am not clear as to why he would have to reside on this particular site in order to receive that. The application suggests medical difficulties in the family but no details are provided. In the absence of any detail I can not give significant weight to these personal circumstances.

 

5.9.2  Objectors question the need for this development and point to the Council’s public sites but these are invariably full and there is a relatively long waiting list. In terms of the level of accommodation, the main elements are two mobile homes each with a utility block and I do not regard this as unreasonable given the presence of two adult sons. Each case needs to be determined on its own merits and I do not consider that a granting of permission here would set a precedent for further development.

 

5.9.3  Details of drainage can be the subject of a condition requiring more detail (as requested by the Environmental Health Officer). The Highways Officer has recommended conditions that I do not consider necessary in view of the significant distance to the adopted highway.

 

6.    CONCLUSION

 

In my view the determination of this application centres on the balance to be struck between the limited harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and the ongoing need to provide accommodation for gypsies. Enforcement notices were served on this site in 2006 but no appeal was lodged or planning application submitted. Since then, Inspectors’ decisions have highlighted the need to provide additional sites. On balance, I recommend that permission be granted.  

 

7. RECOMMENDATION

 

GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   This permission does not authorise the use of the land as a caravan site by any persons other than gypsies, as defined in paragraph 15 of ODPM Circular 01/2006.

Reason: The site is in an area where the stationing of caravans/mobile homes is not normally permitted and an exception has been made to provide accommodation solely for gypsies who satisfy these requirements pursuant to Circular 01/2006: Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites. This in accordance with Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 Policy ENV28.

2.   Before works commence on the utility blocks details of the proposed external materials of those blocks shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority;

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. This in accordance with Policy ENV34 of The Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

3.   No external lighting shall be installed on the site at any time unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area and to prevent light pollution in accordance with Policy ENV34 of The Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

4.   If the use hereby permitted ceases, all caravans, structures, equipment and materials bought onto the land for the purposes hereby permitted including hardstandings and utility rooms shall be removed;

Reason:  To safeguard the character and appearance of the countryside in accordance with Policy ENV34 of The Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

5.   Within 3 months of the date of this permission a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme of landscaping shall use indigenous species and shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development and a programme for the approved scheme's implementation and long term management. The scheme shall be designed using the principles established in the Council's adopted Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Guidelines. As well as that indicated on the approved drawings the scheme shall show additional landscaping on the site frontage close to the public footpath;

Reason: No such details have been submitted and in the interests of visual amenity. This in accordance with Policy ENV34 of The Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

6.   All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the next planting and seeding season between 1 October 2010 and 31 March 2011.  Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the 31 March 2011 die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation;

Reason:  To ensure a satisfactory setting and external appearance to the development pursuant to Policy ENV34 of The Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

7.   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 2 shall be static caravans or mobile homes) shall be stationed on the site at any time. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority the caravans shall be stationed only in the positions marked on approved drawing 363/03.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of The Special Landscape Area in accordance with Policy ENV34 ofThe Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

8.   Within 3 months of the date of this permission the existing building marked on approved drawing 363/01 as a 'storage shed' and the building in the norh east corner of the site shown dotted on that drawing shall be demolished and the resulting materials removed from the land;

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy ENV34 of The Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

9.   Within 1 month of the date of this permission full details of the means of foul water drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority;

Reason: In the interests of proper drainage and in accordance with Policy ENV28 of The Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

The proposed development, subject to the conditions stated,  is considered to comply with the policies of the Development Plan (Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000) and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.