Contact your Parish Council

APPLICATION:       MA/10/1336   Date: 1 August 2010   Received: 22 November 2010

 

APPLICANT:	Mr J  Collins & Mrs L Smith
LOCATION:	THE CHANCES, LUGHORSE LANE, HUNTON, KENT
PARISH:	Hunton
PROPOSAL:	Variation of enforcement appeal reference ENF/8968 Conditions 1 and 2 to allow the use of the site for the siting of a mobile home and a touring caravan on a permanent basis for an extended gypsy family as shown on site location plan received 05/08/2010 and site layout received 22/11/2010 together with letters and supporting information dated 30/09/2010 (received 30/09/2010), 12/10/2010 (received 19/10/2010), 05/11/2010 (received 08/11/2010),  15/11/2010 (received 18/11/2010) and 17/11/2010 (received 22/11/2010).
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	13th October 2011   Steve Clarke

 

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

 

·      The recommendation is contrary to the views of Hunton Parish Council

 

1.       POLICIES

 

·         Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV6, ENV28, ENV34, ENV49, T13

·         South East Plan 2009: CC1, CC6, H4, T4, NRM5, NRM7, C4

·         Government Policy: PPS1, PPS3, PPS7, PPS9, Circular 1/2006

 

2.       HISTORY

 

2.1    MA/97/1125: Change of use of land to a mixed use for agriculture and the           stationing of a residential mobile home; 16 poultry buildings and two       sheds:         REFUSED 26/11/1997:

 

2.2     ENF/8968: Two Enforcement Notices served on 19 October 2006.    

                  

Notice A: Change of use of land from agricultural to a mixed use comprising agriculture, the stationing of caravans for residential occupation, the storage of motor vehicles and the operation of a tree surgery/tree topping/landscape gardening business.

         

          Notice B: The carrying out of operational development being the construction of a hard surface access way at the approximate area shown cross-hatched on Plan B attached to the notice.

 

The notices were subject to an appeal and the decision was made on 7 August 2007. A copy of the appeal decision is attached at Appendix One to this report.

 

2.3   In respect of Notice A, the Inspector upheld the enforcement notice but varied the notice to allow the use of part of the land originally specified in the notice (the current application site) for a temporary personal permission for three years among other conditions. The notice is therefore extant on the remainder of the land

 

2.4   In respect of Notice B the inspector upheld the Notice but varied the time for compliance from six months to three years.

 

        Adjoining site

 

2.5   Members may also recall a recent planning application submitted on land within the larger field to the north of this application site. This site is closer to Lughorse Lane than the current site. The application was considered by the Planning Committee on 11 August 2011. Application MA/10/1542 sought permission for the following development:

       

        ‘Change of Use of land to provide two plots for gypsy travellers, including the stationing of two mobile homes, two touring caravans, a stable building and two utility blocks.’  

 

2.6   Planning permission was refused on 11 August 2011 for the following reason:

       

        ‘The proposed development would represent, because of the area in which it is located, incongruous development within open countryside, which is designated as part of the Greensand Ridge Special Landscape Area, causing unacceptable harm to its character and appearance. To permit the development would be contrary to policies ENV28 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000, policies CC1, CC6, and C4 of the South East Plan 2009 and the advice in PPS4, PPS7 and Circular 1/2006.’

 

2.7     An appeal has been lodged against this decision. The appeal is to be determined   following a public inquiry for which a date has yet to be fixed.

 

3.                     CONSULTATIONS

 

3.1    Hunton Parish Council:

 

‘Hunton Parish Council has considered this application and wishes to see it Refused and also wishes it is reported to Planning Committee.

 

The Parish of Hunton already has a large gypsy contingent and the Council is concerned about the growth of such sites with the Parish. 

 

While it is stated that "the applicants have a genuine need for a site", the Council has been informed that the family does not use the site during the winter months and in fact has other dwellings away from the Parish that is uses during this time.  The Council does not see any need to vary the Conditions and wishes to see Enforcement Action taken.’

 

4.       REPRESENTATIONS

 

4.1     Cllr Brian Mortimer has made the following comments on the application:

         

         ‘I understand that the applicant is applying for full permission but would also accept another temporary permission. it is very clear in the Inspector decision why temporary permission was granted, even though my views remain the same that permission should not have been given on this site., but I understand that because of the inspectors decision it would be foolish and may be costly to refuse this application, so I believe the way forward is to grant another temporary permission which I am happy is dealt with under delegated powers. However, if you are minded to grant full permission, I would then like this to be put to Committee.’

 

4.2    Some 27 letters including a petition signed by 20 people and comments from the Maidstone branch of the CPRE Protect Kent have been forwarded to the Council on the application.

 

         Objections are raised on the following summarised grounds:

 

·       The area is one of natural beauty and rural charm, the development is at odds with these qualities and harmful to the character of the area.

·       Allowing this site to continue would open the door for others on the land which has been divided and sold-off in plots

·       It is stated that the family do not live on the site there is very little evidence of the site’s occupation even the track shows little sign of regular use by vehicles.

·       The area is a Special Landscape Area and development so this type should not be allowed to spoil its character.

·       The site is subject to an Article 4 direction due to the need to prevent it being fenced and the character changed 

·       The CPRE would support the idea of a further temporary permission given the lack of progress on developing gypsy policy and finding alternative sites but would object to a permanent permission.

·       Local residents should be allowed free and safe passage along the public footpath that runs through the field to get to St Mary’s Church, St Georges field and other local amenities.

 

5.       CONSIDERATIONS

 

5.1    Site Description

 

5.1.1 The application site is located in open countryside off the south side of Lughorse Lane approximately 200m west of the junction with West Street/Hunton Hill. The land slopes gently southwards but is flat in appearance and is located within the Greensand Ridge Special Landscape Area (SLA). The application site is located adjacent to the southern boundary of the existing roughly square-shaped field and is screened by fencing and landscaping. The site is between 4m and 40m in width and is approximately 114m long. The site is located approximately 110m from Lughorse Lane at its closest point and 130m at its furthest point. Lughorse Lane has patchy hedging of indigenous species separating the highway from the aforementioned field.

 

5.1.2 The land is served by a rough track that runs down the west side of the field. Public Footpath KM163 runs from the vicinity of the access gate to Lughorse Lane southwards so that it cuts across the corner of the square-shaped field and therefore across the western extremity of the application site. The site is bounded to the north by fencing and landscaping to the east by a line of intermittent hedging, to the south by tall hedging and poplar trees that form the boundary between the site and the Hunton recreation ground to the south and to the west by low fencing.  

 

5.1.3 The site is currently occupied by a single static mobile home and a touring caravan together with two sheds one adjacent to the static mobile home and one adjacent to the touring caravan. In addition there is a second small shed adjacent to the touring caravan which has replaced a ‘portaloo’. Drainage on site is provided by two cesspits, which are regularly emptied.

 

5.1.4  The nearest residential properties are located on the north side of Lughorse          Lane within the ‘Gennings Estate’  in excess of 280m north of the site and at      ‘North Lodge’ located at the junction of Hunton Hill and East Street which is in          excess of 180m north east of the site. The nearest dwelling to the west is       Lughorse Cottage approximately 340m from the site and to the south ’Church          Cottage’ approximately 320m from the site boundary and beyond the recreation        ground on the east side of West Street 

 

5.2    Proposal

 

5.2.1  Permission is sought to vary/remove conditions 1 & 2 of the Enforcement appeal decision dated 7 August 2007.  The conditions currently state as follows

           

1.    The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by John Collins, his wife, Lucy Collins, their children and his mother-in-law, Lena Smith and shall be for a limited period being the period of 3 years from the date of this decision, or the period during which the premises are occupied by them, whichever is the sooner.

 

2.    When the premises cease to be occupied by Jon Collins, his wife, Lucy Collins, their children and his mother-in-law, Lena Smith, or at the end of 3 years whichever shall first occur, the use hereby permitted shall cease, all materials and equipment brought onto the premises in connection with the use, shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition.

 

5.2.2 The agent advises that consent is sought to vary conditions 1 and 2 set out above to retain the use of the land as a caravan site on a permanent basis. It is indicated that if this is not accepted the family would accept in the alternative renewal on a further temporary basis. They have no objection to occupation being retained with occupation restricted to those listed.

 

5.2.3 The agent has also stated that if it is agreed to grant on a permanent basis there is no requirement for restoration condition 2.  However, if consent is renewed on another temporary basis the applicants do not object to the requirement for site restoration as set out in condition 2.

 

5.2.4 Supporting information has been supplied from the childrens’ schools and relating to the applicants’ lifestyles and occupation of the site, in response to some of the representations that have been received.

 

5.3    Principle of Development

 

5.3.1 The recent decision on the adjacent site is a material consideration, but as Members will be aware, each site and application must be considered on its individual planning permits.

 

5.3.2 There are no saved Local Plan policies that relate directly to this type of development. Policy ENV28 of the Local Plan relates to development in the countryside stating that:

 

“Planning permission will not be given for development which harms the character and appearance of the area or the amenities of surrounding occupiers”

 

5.3.3 ENV28 then outlines the types of development that can be permitted. This does not include gypsy development: this was previously formally covered under housing policy H36 but was not ‘saved’.

 

5.3.4 There is no specific gypsy accommodation policy in The South East Plan 2009 although Policy H4 makes reference to providing accommodation for gypsies and therefore there is no need to advertise this application as a departure from the Development Plan. Policy CC1 concerns sustainable development and ensuring the physical and natural environment of the South East is conserved and enhanced. Policy CC6 outlines that actions and decisions associated with the development and use of land should respect, and where appropriate enhance, the character and distinctiveness of settlements and landscapes. Policy C4 concerns landscape and countryside management, essentially outlining that outside nationally designated landscapes, positive and high quality management of the region’s open countryside will be encouraged, protected and enhanced, securing appropriate mitigation where damage to local landscape character cannot be avoided.

 

5.3.5 PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas outlines at paragraph 15 that:

 

“Planning authorities should continue to ensure that the quality and character of the wider countryside is protected and, where possible, enhanced.”

 

5.3.6 PPS4 is also considered relevant, as whilst it relates to economic development, it provides the Government’s most recent stance on the protection of the countryside at Policy EC6 –

 

“Local Planning Authorities should ensure that the countryside is protected for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and to ensure it may be enjoyed by all.”

 

5.3.7 Also key in the determination of this appeal is Central Government Guidance contained within Circular 01/2006: Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites. This places a firm emphasis on the need to provide more gypsy sites, supporting self-provision and acknowledging that sites will need to be found in rural areas. Whilst the Government has indicated that this guidance is to be withdrawn, it remains in place and must be given significant weight.

 

5.3.8 Work on the Local Development Framework is progressing; however there is, as yet, no adopted Core Strategy. Now that the Government intends to abolish the South East Plan, local authorities have the responsibility for setting their own target for the number of pitches to be provided in their areas. The Core Strategy will set the target pitch figure for the Borough for the period 2006 to 2016. The Core Strategy will contain a gypsy and traveller policy to assess any windfall sites. The initial Core Strategy public consultation has just begun, which includes the agreed Cabinet target of 71 pitches for the period 2006 to 2016.

 

5.3.9 The Local Development Scheme Priority Documents were considered by Cabinet on 8^th June. In relation to the Gypsy and Traveller Pitch Allocations DPD, Cabinet agreed to no longer pursue this as a specific DPD but instead to merge it with, and allocate pitches within the overall Land Allocations DPD (under a new title of Development Delivery DPD). (The Land Allocations DPD will allocate the specific sites for residential and non-residential development, as well as dealing with landscape designations and village boundaries). The Development Delivery DPD is scheduled for adoption in March 2015.

 

5.3.10 Issues of need are dealt with below but, in terms of broad principles, Development Plan Policy and Central Government Guidance clearly allow for gypsy sites to be located in the countryside as an exception to the general theme of restraint.

 

5.3.11 Members will also be aware of the draft National Planning Policy Framework that is currently subject to a consultation process. This document is a material consideration that must be taken into account. However, given the fact that it is still subject to the consultation process, the weight it has is limited. In my view the decision on the application does not turn on the draft framework.

 

5.4    Gypsy Status

 

5.4.1  Circular 01/06 defines gypsies and travellers as:-

 

“Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling show people or circus people travelling together as such.”

 

5.4.2 In the 2007 decision, the Inspector was satisfied that the applicant and his family including his mother-in-law were gypsies as defined in Circular 1/2006. In       particular, the Council had queried the status of the applicant’s mother-in-law but the Inspector accepted her oral evidence given at the inquiry over that of the        more limited evidence put forward by the Council.

 

5.4.3 The family on site continues to comprise the applicant Mr Collins, his wife, their three children John-boy, Chantilly and Vinnie and the applicant’s mother-in-law Mrs Smith. Chantilly has attended Cornwallis Academy since 2008 and is now in year 10. Vinnie has attended Hunton CE Primary School since September 2010 and is now in year 1. Mr Collins continues to travel to horse fairs and buy and sell horses and horse carts and also undertakes gardening work. Mrs Collins still does fruit picking, although this is generally in the Maidstone area. Mrs Smith is stated to have continuing health problems.          

 

5.4.4 I find no changes in the circumstances of the applicants sufficient to reach a        different conclusion on the gypsy status of the applicants. 

 

 

 

 

5.5    Need for Gypsy Sites

 

5.5.1 Clearly there is a requirement for the Council to provide gypsy accommodation and this is set out in Government Guidance in both PPS3 and in Circular 01/2006. To ensure that the Council provides adequate gypsy accommodation a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) was commissioned to assess the level of need for gypsy accommodation.

 

5.5.2 The GTAA concluded that there was a need for gypsy accommodation and quantified that with a figure of 32 new pitches for Maidstone over the five year period from April 2006 to April 2011.

 

5.5.3 However, the pitch requirement revealed in the GTAA assumed that 6 pitches on local authority owned sites across the four authority areas would become available each year through genuine vacancy.  For Maidstone Borough, this would assume that 3 pitches/year would become available on the two sites the Council owns totalling 15 pitches over the five years. In fact only 3 genuine vacancies have occurred since April 2006. In the circumstances the overall pitch requirement became 44 pitches for the whole 5 year period.

 

5.5.4 Since April 2006 the following permissions for pitches have been granted (net):

         

44      Permanent non-personal permissions

         

          13      Permanent personal permissions

         

          8        Temporary non-personal permissions

         

          27      Temporary personal permissions

 

Therefore a net total of 57 permanent planning permissions have been granted since April 2006.

 

5.5.5 The Council has agreed its public consultation draft pitch requirement for the period 2006 to 2016 for inclusion in the draft Core Strategy as 71 pitches so there is currently a shortfall of 14 pitches. This target is currently being updated as a revised Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment is being carried out and the results are expected by the end of 2011.

 

5.5.6 In terms of unauthorised pitches, based on the January 2011 count and according to the Council’s database at the time of writing this report, there are 86 unauthorised mobile homes and 69 touring caravans. However, 28 of these mobile homes are ‘tolerated’ at a large site known as Plumtree Bottom in Stockbury. Here 15 sites were served enforcement notices in 1999 which in effect allow a set number of mobile homes on each plot (total of 34). As such, I consider the number of unauthorised mobile homes is 58.

 

5.5.7 Numerous Inspectors at appeal consider that the level of unauthorised mobiles is an indication of general need; however, I do not consider this to be currently overriding.

 

5.5.8 It is considered that the Council has met the identified need for the period 2006 to April 2011 through the Development Management process. However, the need for pitches continues beyond April 2011.

 

5.6    Visual impact

 

5.6.1 The site is as stated above located on the southern side of the larger field in         which it is located. It is screened from the recreation ground to the south, by the existing tall hedging and poplar trees. It is also partially screened from the east by existing hedging and also the planting around the edge of the adjacent paddock/fields between the site and West Street.

 

5.6.2 Viewed from the west travelling along Lughorse Lane and from the north again from Lughorse Lane the site is partially screened (but clearly visible) by the patchy hedging along the roadway and also by the fencing and landscaping that has been undertaken on the northern edge of the site itself by the applicants. Clearly the site is also visible from the public footpath that crosses the site at its western end. It remains the case that the site cannot be seen from Public Footpaths including the Greensand Way that run along the Greensand Ridge higher up the scarp slope of the ridge. 

 

5.6.3 I concur with the view of the previous Inspector expressed in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the appended decision letter regarding the greater potential visibility of the site in winter months despite the landscaping that has taken place around the site since the decision. It is also the case that the site can still be readily seen from a number of public vantage points and the Inspector’s conclusions relating to the significant harm that the development causes to the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape still remain valid in my view.

 

5.6.4 There are no particular ecological implications arising from the development. A survey recently carried out in relation to the adjacent piece of land on Plot 5 did not indicate that the habitat, comprising grazed improved grassland, was of ecological importance in botanical biodiversity or nature conservation terms. There was no evidence of protected species within the or near the site and the use of the field by grazing horses and management of the field through mowing precluded the likely presence o resident reptile species or other herpetofauna.

  

               

5.7    Residential amenity

 

5.7.1  The nearest residential properties are located on the north side of Lughorse          Lane within the ‘Gennings Estate’  in excess of 280m north of the site and at      ‘North Lodge’ located at the junction of Hunton Hill and East Street which is in          excess of 180m north east of the site. The nearest dwelling to the west is       ‘Lughorse Cottage’ approximately 340m from the site and to the south ’Church          Cottage’ approximately 320m from the site boundary and beyond the recreation        ground on the east side of West Street. 

 

5.7.2 I consider that the separation distance of the site from these nearest dwellings is           acceptable and that it would not result in any unacceptable impact on the           residential amenity of the occupiers of those properties as a result of normal           activity associated with the residential use of the site. There would be no loss of           privacy or overshadowing as a result of the development.

 

5.7.3 The previous Inspector did not consider that residential amenity was a        determining issue on the previous appeal.

 

5.8    Personal circumstances

 

5.8.1  At the 2007 appeal the issue of the educational needs and health needs of the     family were considered by the Inspector.

 

5.8.2 The Inspector (paragraphs 34-37 of the decision) stated that the educational needs of Chantilly from living on a stable site and being able to attend school on a consistent basis were a clear benefit and concluded that these benefits would apply in time to Vinnie. The inspector concluded that the particular educational needs of the children amounted to a material consideration of appreciable weight in support of the appeal.

 

5.8.3 Both children still attend local schools, confirmed by letters from the respective schools submitted as part of the supporting documentation. I conclude that the need to continue to provide the children with a stable education is still a material consideration of appreciable weight.

 

5.8.4 The Inspector also considered that the health needs of Mrs Smith should be afforded appreciable weight (paragraphs 38 & 39 of the decision). The information submitted with the application concerning her ongoing medical needs and problems do not in my view amend this conclusion.

 

5.8.5 I conclude therefore that the educational and health needs of the family on the site are of appreciable weight in support of the family being allowed to remain on the site.              

 

5.9    Highways

 

5.9.1 The Inspector did not consider that highway safety and the traffic likely to be generated by the use of the site were a determining issue on the previous appeal. The level of use of the site is below the threshold where Kent Highway Services comment on an application. I do not consider that the traffic generated by the development would be significantly different to that of a ‘bricks and mortar’ dwelling at between 6-8 trips per day. There is no evidence that this level of activity is prejudicial to conditions of highway safety. There are no injury accident records relating to roads in the vicinity of the site.

 

5.9.2 Members will of course be aware that the site has been in occupation and generating traffic for at least four years. I do not consider an objection on highway grounds to the application would be reasonable or sustainable at appeal.   

 

6.        CONCLUSION

 

6.1    The development does cause significant harm to the character and appearance     of the site and the surrounding countryside, although it is recognised that in the intervening period since the original appeal decision landscaping on and around the site has matured further.

 

6.2    However, this must be balanced against the personal circumstances of the applicants and their family. The inspector considered that the educational and health needs should be given appreciable weight. Vinnie who was of pre-school age in 2007 is now attending the local primary school and Chantilly is now at Cornwallis Academy having moved on from the primary school. Mrs Smith continues to have medical problems.

 

6.3    In the 2007 appeal, the Inspector determined that the educational and health needs did not so outweigh the conflict with the development plan as to merit a full planning permission.

 

6.4    However, the Inspector accepted the arguments put forward in support of the applicants that a temporary permission should be granted for a period that would enable the Council to search for sites and to adopt a DPD that catered for the needs identified. The Inspector concluded that there was a reasonable expectation that substantial progress would have been made as regards to the availability of other alternative sites in the area to meet needs at the end of a period of three years.

 

6.5    However, and as noted earlier in paragraph 5.3.8 of the report, it is no longer proposed to provide a separate Gypsy and Traveller Pitch Allocations DPD, but instead to allocate pitches within the overall Development Delivery DPD which Members will be aware is scheduled for adoption in March 2015.   

 

6.6    The Inspector concluded that a temporary permission would be appropriate due to the lack of a suitable alternative site coupled with the personal accommodation needs and circumstances of the applicant family, and that this would stroke a fair balance between the competing interests of the wider public interest and the individual.

 

6.7    Given the harm that the site still causes to the area balanced against the continuing personal circumstances of the applicant family and the current position with regards to the provision of alternative sites, I do not consider it would be appropriate to grant a permanent permission in this case as applied for in the application.

 

6.8    In my view a temporary permission should be granted to enable substantive progress in local site provision (now expected by March 2015) to be made but at the same time continue to provide a settled base from which the children in particular, will be able to continue their education.        

 

6.9    I consider therefore that a further temporary permission of four years would be appropriate in this case.

 

7.       RECOMMENDATION

 

GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:   

 

1.   The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Mr John Collins, his wife, Lucy Collins, their children and his mother-in-law, Lena Smith and shall be for a limited period being the period of four years from the date of this decision, or the period during which the premises are occupied by them, whichever is shorter.

Reason: The development would cause visual harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. However, due to the current status of the Council's Development Plan and the lack of alternative options for the applicant at this time, an exception has been made to provide accommodation solely for gypsies pursuant to Policy H4 of the South East Plan (2009) and in light of the circumstances of the applicant and family.

2.   When the premises cease to be occupied by Mr John Collins, his wife, Lucy Collins, their children and his mother-in-law, Lena Smith or at the end of four years, whichever shall first occur, the use hereby permitted shall cease, all materials and equipment brought onto the premises in connection with the use shall be removed, including the stable blocks, and the land restored to its former condition.

Reason: The site is in an area where the stationing of caravans/mobile homes is not normally permitted and in accordance with Policy ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

3.   This permission does not authorise the use of the land as a caravan site by any other 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.

4.   No more than 2 caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (of which not more than 1 shall be a static caravan) shall be stationed on the site at any time.

Reason: To accord with the terms of the application and in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and Policy C4 of the South-East Plan (2009).

5.   The site shall not be used for any business, industrial or commercial use without the prior granting of planning permission by the local planning authority

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and prevent an inappropriate use in the countryside in accordance with policies ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000).

6.   No bonfires or incineration of rubbish or organic material and vegetation shall take place on the site without the prior agreement in writing of the local planning authority

Reason: In the interests of the character and amenity of the countryside and prevent an inappropriate use in the countryside in accordance with policies ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000).

7.   Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no temporary buildings or structures shall be stationed on the land without the prior permission of the local planning authority.

Reason: To accord with the terms of the application and in the interests of the visual amenity in accordance with Policy ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and Policy C4 of the South-East Plan 2009.

8.   The parking/turning areas shown on the site layout plan received 22/11/2010 shall be kept available for such use. No development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2008 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order, with or without modification) or not, shall be carried out on the areas indicated or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to them;

Reason: Development without adequate parking/turning provision is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and in the interests of road safety pursuant to policy T13 of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan 2000.

9.   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
site layout plan received 22/11/2010.

Reason: To ensure the quality of the development is maintained and to prevent harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with policy ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan 2000 and policy C4 of the South East Plan 2009.

10.         No external lighting shall be erected 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 policies ENV28 and ENV49 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000) and policy C4 of the South East Plan (2009).

Informatives set out below

The applicant is advised that, if they have not already done so, it will be necessary to make an application for a Caravan Site Licence under the Caravan Sites and the Control of Development Act 1960 within 21 days of planning consent being granted.  Failure to do so could result in action by council under the Act as caravan sites cannot operate without a licence.  The applicant is advised to contact the Environmental Health Project Manager on 01622 602145 in respect of a licence.

 

 

The proposed development, subject to the conditions stated, would result in visual harm, however, when judged against the policies of the Development Plan (Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and the South East Plan 2009) and Circular 01/2006 due to the personal circumstances of the applicant family and in the absence of any alternative sites this harm is acceptable for a temporary period.