Contact your Parish Council

APPLICATION:       MA/10/1546   Date: 2 September 2010  Received: 26 May 2011

 

APPLICANT:	Miss J  Brazil
LOCATION:	PLUM TREE FARM, PARK ROAD, MARDEN, TONBRIDGE, KENT, TN12 9LG
PARISH:	Marden
PROPOSAL:	Variation of conditions 1 & 2 of planning permission MA/04/2108 (residential stationing of two mobile homes and one touring caravan for a gypsy family) to allow use by any gypsy traveller family on a permanent basis.
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	13th October 2011   Geoff Brown

 

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

 

●  It is contrary to views expressed by Marden Parish Council which has requested Planning Committee consideration

 

1.           POLICIES

 

• Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV6, ENV26, ENV28
• The South East Plan 2009: CC1, CC6, C4, H4
• Government Policy:  PPS1, PPS3, PPS7, Circular 1/2006, Rights of Way Circular 1/2009

 

2.      HISTORY

 

The relevant planning history is as follows:

 

MA/04/2108 - Change of use from grazing to residential stationing of two mobile homes and one touring caravan for a gypsy family – Approved

 

3.      CONSULTATIONS

 

MARDEN PARISH COUNCIL OBJECTS and requests committee consideration. The comments read:

 

“No evidence has been provided for justification to override the exceptional circumstances outlined in the previous application (MA/04/2108).

Cllrs also wish MBC to note that Public Right of Way KM275 passes over the land for this application and is currently blocked.

Cllrs would however be in agreement if similar conditions were placed on this application to those of MA/04/2108: (1) being granted with named person(s) listed; (2) for a 5 year temporary permission; (3) that the PROW is unblocked and remains so.”

 

Additional information was provided by the agent, principally on the issue of the Public Right of Way and additional landscaping (discussed below). The Parish Council was re-consulted but has not changed its view:  

 

“Condition 1 should remain in the family name of “Brazil”.

Condition 2 should continue as a temporary condition for 5 years

Cllrs also asked that the issue with the PROW blockage be actively pursued with KCC.”

 

THE KCC PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY OFFICER points out that Public Right of Way KM275 runs down the access drive of this development and this right of way is currently blocked by a pair of locked gates. As such he objects to the application although he is currently in negotiation with the applicant as to an alternative route for the right of way which would need to be achieved through the normal legal procedure. Plans provided by the KCC officer show KM275 running from Park Road westwards along the northern edge of the application site to join Howland Road in the vicinity of Moatlands Farm. The alternative route is shown to the south of the application site aligned east/west from Park Road to Copper Lane and running just to the north of Little Mountain Farm.  

 

4.      REPRESENTATIONS

 

CPRE KENT wishes to see the application refused. A permanent consent would not be appropriate and a further temporary permission should be considered in the light of views expressed by the Parish Council, local residents, etc. The personal element of the permission should not be allowed to be removed as the personal circumstances remain relevant.

 

THE MARDEN SOCIETY FOOTPATH GROUP objects to the application on the grounds that the footpath has been blocked.

 

ONE LOCAL RESIDENT states that the Brazils have been good neighbours and supports their continued occupation of the site. However the personal element of the permission should not be allowed to be removed as this may open up occupation to an intensified use and less reliable neighbours.

 

ONE LOCAL RESIDENT states that the personal permission should remain and that a max. 5 year consent should be granted. All land away from the caravans floods in winter and the welfare of horses is at risk. The land is not secure and dogs escape into the road.

 

5.      CONSIDERATIONS

 

5.1    Site Description

 

5.1.1 The application site is located in open countryside off the west side of Park Road. The land here is not the subject of any particular landscape designation is not within a recognised flood zone and generally comprises flat farmland. The site measures approx. 28m by 24m and is located to the south of the access track into the site which also serves an agricultural building on land to the west of the site. Information provided by KCC indicates that Public Right of Way KM275 runs along the access track.

 

5.1.2 The site currently accommodates a large mobile home in its southern part and a smaller mobile in the north west corner. The roughly rectangular site has a gravel surface and is bounded my hedging, particularly so at the eastern margins close to Park Road and to the access drive (shared with KM 275) to the north. Park Road itself has a thick band of tall hedging to its eastern side providing further screening from that highway. Land around the site is generally given over to grassed paddocks in agricultural use.

 

5.2    Proposal

 

5.2.1 On 22 September 2005 planning permission was granted under reference MA/04/2108 for the “Change of use from grazing to residential stationing of two mobile homes and one touring caravan for a gypsy family”. Condition 1 of that approval stated that the use may only be carried on by Mr William Brazil, Mrs Jane Brazil and Jane Brazil (jnr) and their dependent children. Condition 2 made it a temporary permission until 1 October 2010.

 

5.2.2 This application seeks to vary those two conditions so that the lawful occupation of the site would be ‘non-personal’ (i.e. open to any gypsy occupants) and to make the permission permanent rather than for a further temporary period.

 

5.2.3 The site is currently occupied by William Brazil; Jane Brazil (snr); Jane Brazil (jnr) and her young daughter and son. Mr Brazil has serious health problems including cancer, heart/thyroid problems and sciatica: the agent describes Mr Brazil as very seriously ill.

 

 

 

 

 

5.3    Principle of Development

 

5.3.1 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”

 

5.3.2 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 this is not a ‘saved’ policy.

 

5.3.3 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.

 

5.3.4  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.”

 

5.3.5 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.”

 

5.3.6 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.

 

5.3.7 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 begun, which includes the agreed Cabinet target of 71 pitches for the period 2006 to 2016.

 

5.3.8 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.

 

5.3.9 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.

 

5.3.10         The consultation draft of the National Policy Framework has recently been published and whilst regard has been paid to it this decision does not turn on matters raised by this consultation document.

 

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 The Brazils are a well known gypsy family and this was accepted with the granting of the MA/04/2108 permission. I remain satisfied that the Brazils fall within the definition given above.

 

5.4.3 At this point it is appropriate to look at the issue of the personal permission (which the application seeks to remove). The MA/04/2108 permission was made personal because permission was granted on the basis of specific personal circumstances ie the health of Mr and Mrs Brazil (snr). At that time, the Brazils were not travelling due to Mr Brazil’s heart condition and Mrs Brazil’s depression: this meant that the family did not meet the gypsy definition that was relevant at that time. The present definition (above) brings gypsies who have ceased to travel due to ill health within the formal definition of gypsies. Mrs Brazil (jnr) continues the family tradition of keeping horses and attending horse fairs and I consider the family meet the current definition: therefore the reasoning behind the personal permission no longer pertains and, if the site is acceptable in planning terms (discussed below), permission should be given to lift the condition.    

 

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 totaling 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 Amenity

 

5.6.1 The application site is not located in an area designated for its landscape value and is very well screened by hedgerows to north and east and, to a lesser extent, to the south and west. These hedgerows provide good natural screening, in short range views from Park Road, to the extent that the site is barely noticeable from that highway but also from short views from the public right of way. Moving away from the site, the caravans are not at all prominent in medium and long range views, due principally to intervening hedging and trees in a flat landscape, which provide screening and a backdrop to low level development on a small caravan site.

 

5.6.2 The existing mobile homes and associated paraphernalia are particularly well screened by hedging to the east: this in the form of a hedge down the eastern side of the plot but also by the thick hedging of indigenous species slightly further to the east bordering Park Road. Much of the vegetation in the hedging is significantly taller than the caravans. Since this application was originally made, the agent has supplied a plan showing the intention to put in place further landscaping in the gap between these two lines of hedging in the form of a small copse of hedgerow trees (e.g. hawthorn, ash field maple). Clearly this will further add to the screening effect from Park Road. I conclude that the site is very well screened and does not cause significant harm to the countryside.

  

5.6.3 There is  another traveller site, Twin Oaks, approx 150m to the north east that gains access onto Howland Road but I do not consider that a granting of permission here would lead to an unacceptable over-concentration of gypsy sites, given the spacing between the respective sites and the good natural screening of both sites. 

 

5.7    Landscaping

 

5.7.1 The mature hedgerows are to be retained. There are no individual trees of any significance on or around the site. As discussed above, additional landscaping is proposed and this should be secured by condition.

 

5.8    Ecology

 

5.8.1 The site has already been developed with the laying of hardstanding, the siting of caravans and the incidence of the usual domestic paraphernalia. Against this background I consider this small, developed site would have little or no ecological value. No new development is proposed here, an ecological survey has not been submitted and I do not consider such a survey to be necessary given the nature of the application. From an ecological perspective, the hedgerows are to be retained and supplemented with additional planting and this would enhance habitat linkages.

 

5.9    Residential Amenity

 

5.9.1 The site has no near neighbours and has no significant adverse impact on residential amenity. The nearest dwelling is approx. 60m away from the site off the west side of Park Road. I do not consider that the variation of the conditions would have any significant on the residential amenity of local residents.

 

5.10 Highways

 

5.10.1         The local highway network is considered acceptable for a permanent, non-personal permission in terms of accommodating the relatively low level of vehicle movements involved. On the issue of access, the point of access is long established and situated on a straight road with a wide grassed verge that provides good exit visibility. Vehicles can park and turn within the site. There are no justifiable grounds to object to this application on the ground of highway safety.

 

5.10.2         It is inevitable that gypsy traveller sites will be located beyond the bounds of settlements and within the rural area. In my view this site is not so remote from basic services and public transport opportunities as to warrant objection on the basis that this is not a sustainable location. The site is less than 1km away from the village boundary of Marden to the east of the site.

 

5.11   Public Right of Way KM275

 

5.11.1         Objections have been received from the KCC Rights of Way Officer, the Parish Council and The Marden Society Footpaths group on the basis that the path has been blocked. To my mind the situation is somewhat unusual in that, in any event, the path is clearly impassable due to their being a substantial water-filled ditch to the west of the site: a situation that is not connected with this proposal or indeed the actions of the applicant. It is true to say that the path is blocked at its junction with Park Road when the heavy gate there is closed. The agent informs me that the applicant would be willing to create some form of opening at the site entrance but points out that this would seem worthless given the blockage further west.  

 

5.11.2         KCC has taken no remedial action on these blockage issues but there have been negotiations between KCC and the applicant as to a completely new route for the path: the alternative route is shown to the south of the application site running east/west from Park Road to Copper Lane just to the north of Little Mountain Farm. I understand that these negotiations are on-going.

 

5.11.3         I have made enquiries of KCC as to the precise route of KM275 and it would appear that the route follows the line of the access track into the site which is to the north of, and physically separated from, the caravan site. Whilst I understand that fundamental obstructions to the public right of way require resolution, it seems to me that the caravan site applied for here does not, in itself, block the route and the public right of way issue is not central to whether permission should be granted or refused: that is more an issue for KCC as the public rights of way regulator. In these circumstances I recommend that an informative be attached to any permission reminding the applicant of the need to resolve the right of way issue.               

 

5.12  Other matters

 

5.12.1 I have concluded that this site is very well screened and does not cause significant harm to the countryside. I consider it appropriate for a small gypsy caravan site, notwithstanding any personal circumstances. Mr Brazil remains seriously ill but there is no need to give that issue great weight given my conclusions that this site is acceptable for a permanent and ‘non personal’ permission.

 

5.12.2 Representations mention land flooding but this is not land within an identified flooding zone.

 

 

 

6.      CONCLUSION

 

6.1     The application site is located in an area of the countryside that is not designated for its landscape value. I consider the site very well screened and acceptable in terms of its impact on the character of the rural area. There is no justifiable reason here for a temporary or personal permission and I phrase my recommendation accordingly.

 

7.      RECOMMENDATION

 

GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:   

 

1.   This site is not to be used as a caravan site by any persons other than gypsies and travellers, 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 and The South East Plan 2009 Policies CC1 and CC6.

2.   No commercial or business activities shall take place on the site;

Reason: To prevent inappropriate development and safeguard the amenity, character and appearance of the countryside. This in accordance with Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 Policy ENV28 and The South East Plan 2009 Policies CC1 and CC6.

3.   No more than two mobile homes and one touring caravan shall be stationed on the site at any one time;

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the countryside. This in accordance with Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 Policy ENV28 and The South East Plan 2009 Policies CC1 and CC6.

4.   All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the date of this permission, and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the date of this permission 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. This in accordance with Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 Policy ENV28 and The South East Plan 2009 Policies CC1 and CC6.

Informatives set out below

It would appear that Public Right of Way KM275 is obstructed. You are encouraged to work with the Kent County Council Public Rights of Way Officer to either ensure that the route is cleared or to secure an alternative route.

 

 

 

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 the South East Plan 2009) and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.