Strategic Planning, Sustainability & Transport Committee				18th August 2015
Is the final decision on the recommendations in this report to be made at this meeting?					Yes
Maidstone Borough Local Plan – Gypsy & Traveller site allocations
Final Decision-Maker		Strategic Planning, Sustainability & Transport Committee
Lead Director or Head of Service		Rob Jarman, Head of Planning & Development
Lead Officer and Report Author		Sarah Anderton, Principal Planning Officer (Spatial Policy)
Classification		Non-exempt
Wards affected		All wards
This report makes the following recommendations to the final decision-maker:
1.    That the Committee approves the officer responses to the representations submitted during the public consultation on the draft Maidstone Borough Local Plan (Regulation 18) for Policy GT1 Gypsy & Traveller Site allocations, set out in Appendix A.   2.    That the Committee approves the amendments to Policy GT1 set out in Appendix B for incorporation into the Regulation 19 version of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan.   3.    That the Committee approve the additional Gypsy & Traveller site allocations set out in Appendices C and D for Regulation 18 stage public consultation.
This report relates to the following corporate priorities:
·         Keeping Maidstone Borough an attractive place for all
Timetable
Meeting			Date
Strategic Planning, Sustainability & Transport Committee			18 August 2015

Maidstone Borough Local Plan – Gypsy & Traveller site allocations

 

1.         PURPOSE OF REPORT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

1.1      This report responds to, and proposes changes to, the Gypsy site allocations contained in Policy GT1 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan in response to the representations made during the Regulation 18 public consultation completed in May 2014. It recommends that the proposed policy changes be agreed for inclusion in the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan.

 

1.2      The report also recommends that nine additional sites be approved for Regulation 18 stage public consultation.

 

2.         INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

 

2.1      As with conventional housing, there is a need for additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches and Travelling Showpeople plots in the borough which the Local Plan must address for the period up to 2031[1]. The number of additional pitches/plots needed is evidenced in the Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (“the GTAA”) for Maidstone undertaken by the University of Salford, published in January 2012. The same methodology for assessing need has been followed in the equivalent studies undertaken by all the Kent authorities.  In short, the need for pitches/plots arises from unauthorised sites, sites with temporary consent (where planning permission is time limited), overcrowded and concealed households, movements between bricks & mortar housing and sites and natural household growth.

 

2.2      The need for pitches/plots in Maidstone Borough 2011-31 is as follows:

 

	2011-16	2016-21	2021-26	2026-31	Total
Gypsy & Traveller Pitches	105	25	27	30	187
Travelling Showpeople Plots	7	1	1	2	11

 

 

2.3      As part of the preparation of the Regulation 18 Local Plan, a call for potential Gypsy and Traveller sites was included as part of the overall Call for Sites undertaken in 2012/13. The sites submitted were assessed for their suitability for allocation in the Local Plan. In parallel, a review of unauthorised sites and sites with temporary permission was undertaken to determine which could also be suitable for allocation. The outcome of this work was that seven sites with capacity for some 23 additional permanent pitches were allocated in Policy GT1 in the Regulation 18 Local Plan.

 

2.4      The issues raised in the representations and proposed responses to them are set out in the table in Appendix A.

 

2.5      Specific parish councils (Headcorn, Ulcombe, Stockbury) are of the strong opinion that their parishes have an existing high number of Gypsy sites and that a more numerically even distribution of sites across the borough should be achieved.

 

2.6      In response, it is the case that existing pitches are not distributed evenly across the borough.  To an extent, this reflects historic patterns when Gypsy families were involved in local agriculture but also it reflects the fact that the distribution of key planning constraints such as Green Belt and AONB[2] are themselves not equally distributed across the borough. National planning policy in Planning for Traveller Sites does refer to councils ensuring ‘sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate, the nearest settled community’[3]. Whilst some local residents strongly believe that the threshold of ‘domination’ has already been met in some parts of the borough, in practice, Inspectors frequently test this against the capacity of local infrastructure (schools, medical facilities, for example) and are not supporting it as an argument at appeal, particularly when they must also give weight to the overall shortfall in the supply of Gypsy sites.   

 

2.7      Also, the achievement of some alternative distribution of Gypsy sites is crucially dependant on there being alternative suitable sites which are demonstrably available for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation.  Despite concerted efforts, explained further below, a choice of such sites has not come forward.

 

2.8      Some residents expressed their frustration at an apparent lack of control over unauthorised Gypsy sites. In response, the role of the Local Plan is to positively identify suitable sites.  By having an adopted Local Plan in place which successfully does this, the Council’s position will be significantly strengthened in trying to resist development on unsuitable sites.

 

2.9      Parish councils and residents are concerned that previous appeal decisions are being overturned by including three specific sites in Policy GT1, namely GT1(2) – Little Boarden, Headcorn, GT1(3) – The Chances, Hunton and GT1(4) Hawthorn Farm, Ulcombe. The officer responses in Appendix A include the planning history of these sites and reaffirms why their allocation is judged appropriate.  A general point in response is that sites have had to be assessed in the face of the challenging need to identify additional pitches as well as a more recent assessment of the impacts of development based on the current conditions on site to determine whether or not the issues identified in earlier appeals still apply to an over-riding extent.

 

2.10   The Kent Downs AONB Unit object that three sites (GT1(5) - Cherry Tree Farm, GT1(6) – Flips Hole and GT1(7)  - The Ash) will not preserve or enhance the AONB. These are all established sites which benefit from established screening such that, it is judged, the impact on the AONB will be low. Further, the policy criteria for these sites specify the additional landscaping which will further mitigate the visual impact on the AONB.

 

2.11   The Committee is recommended to approve the responses set out in Appendix A and the detailed changes to Policy GT1 set out in Appendix B.

 

2.12   In the knowledge that the allocation of the sites in Policy GT1 would still result in a shortfall against the evidenced need, Cabinet[4] agreed that a further Call for Gypsy Sites should be undertaken at the same time as the call for additional housing sites in early 2014. As the response to this was also limited, other routes had to be explored to identify suitable, available sites. The NPPF requires councils to plan positively and indeed this is one of the tests of soundness which the Local Plan will be tested against at Examination.  It will be  important to be able to demonstrate to the Local Plan Inspector the Council has been pro-active in its efforts to meet evidenced needs by showing that all reasonable options have been explored.

 

2.13   The sources and numbers of sites that have been reviewed are;

 

a)        Sites submitted in the 2014 call for sites as Gypsy sites or where Gypsy development was identified by the landowner as a potential option	7 sites
b)        Sites rejected for housing, mixed  use and employment in the 2013 SHLAA/SEDLAA	135 sites
c)         Sites rejected for housing in the 2014 SHLAA	85 sites[5]
d)        Sites previously considered for the proposed public Gypsy site	108 sites[6]
e)        Existing permanent Gypsy sites	98 sites[7]

 

2.14   Availability: In addition to sites being suitable in planning terms for Gypsy pitches, it is also important that the land is also available for this use. By this means they can be regarded as genuinely deliverable under the terms of the NPPF.

 

2.15   To test availability, the following process was followed;

 

a)    The sites that were put forward through the 2014 call for Gypsy sites have been regarded as available, or in some cases, potentially available on the basis that they had been submitted by the landowner.

 

b)    & c) For rejected SHLAA/SEDLAA sites, landowners were contacted and asked to confirm or otherwise the availability of their land in the event that a planning assessment found their site to be suitable for Gypsy use.

 

d)   For those public site candidates where landownership was known, the approach was the same as for the rejected SHLAA/SEDLAA sites.  In some cases however landownership was not known so it was not possible to confirm availability (or otherwise) at the outset. Such sites with unconfirmed availability were progressed forward for site suitability testing so as not to delay the overall assessment process.   

 

e)   In the case of existing permanent Gypsy sites, Kent County Council Gypsy & Traveller Unit was employed to visit sites and ask the owners about availability..

 

2.16   In all approaches, it was made clear that the request for availability information did not imply that any individual site would prove suitable for additional pitches.

 

2.17   Suitability: The sites in categories (b) to (d) above had all had some form of site suitability assessment in the past, either through the SHLAA or through the public site assessment process.  Based on this prior assessment, it was possible to identify at an early, first stage that some sites would also be unsuitable for private Gypsy accommodation because the previous analysis identified significant or multiple planning constraints. Similarly, some of the existing permanent sites ((e) above) were identified as unsuitable for additional pitches at an early, first stage based on a review of their recent planning history and/or knowledge of physical limits to the size/capacity of the site.

 

2.18   As a result of the work outlined above, there was a balance of some 56  candidate sites requiring further, more detailed assessment.  These sites were ones:

·         Where availability was confirmed or where non-availability had not been resolved conclusively, and

·         which had not been found to be unsuitable based on a first stage assessment using existing information

 

2.19   For the new and existing site candidates ((a) and (e) above), sites were assessed using the proforma previously agreed by the Cabinet Member for Planning Transport and Development. For the remaining categories of sites, which have all had a planning assessment in the past, an addendum assessment form was completed specifically focusing on the suitability of the site for private Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. The views of KCC Highways, KCC Ecology and the Environment Agency were incorporated into the assessments of the candidate sites. 

 

2.20   The 56 candidate sites have been subject to a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) by the independent expert consultants, AECOM (formerly URS).  The SA provides a comparative analysis of the candidate sites, testing them against agreed sustainability criteria. The SA does not over-ride the planning assessment of the individual sites but rather it provides framework against which to check the conclusions emerging from the site assessments.   A summary of the comparative analysis is included in Appendix D hereto.  A theme across the SA assessment is the relatively poor scores that existing sites register for access to services and facilities and access to public transport as the sites are generally situated in less accessible countryside locations. Current and future occupants of these sites are more likely to rely on their private cars to reach key services and facilities. This outcome needs to be balanced against the overall benefits of making positive site allocations which will contribute towards the identified need for additional Gypsy pitches coupled with the lack of confirmed availability of suitable sites in more accessible locations.  

 

2.21    The outcome of the overall assessment process is that nine additional sites are recommended for inclusion in the Local Plan for Regulation 18 public consultation.  Each of these sites is an existing site with permanent permission where additional pitches are considered appropriate.  In the case of Blossom Lodge, this site was specifically put forward by the landowner in the Call for Sites.  .

 

Ref	Site	Additional permanent pitches
GT1(8)	Kilnwood Farm, Old Ham Lane, Lenham	+2
GT1(9)	The Kays Heath Road, Boughton Monchelsea	+1
GT1(10)	Greenacre (Plot 5), Church Hill, Boughton Monchelsea	+1
GT1(11)	Chart View, Chart Hill Road, Chart Sutton	+2
GT1(12)	Neverend Lodge, Pye Corner, Ulcombe	+1
GT1(13)	The Paddock, George Street, Staplehurst	+2
GT1(14)	Bluebell Farm, George Street, Staplehurst	+2
GT1(15)	Land r/o Granada, Lenham Road, Headcorn	+1
GT1(16)	Blossom Lodge, Stockett Lane, Coxheath	+6[8]
	Total	18

 

2.22   For the Chart View and Neverend Lodge sites (GT1(11) and (12)), the SA records that development is likely to have an adverse impact on local landscape character which is unlikely to be appropriately mitigated. This scoring stems directly and exclusively from the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment;  the wider character areas into which these sites fall have ‘very good’ condition and ‘high’ sensitivity. The sites themselves however are well screened and are not subject to long range views.  It is not considered that their development as proposed would have undue impact on rural or landscape character.

 

3.         AVAILABLE OPTIONS

 

3.1      Option 1: The Committee could decide not to include any additional sites in the Local Plan.  The disadvantage of this is that the Council would not be planning positively towards meeting the identified need for additional pitches.  It would constrain the Council’s ability at the Local Plan Examination to demonstrate that it had explored and exploited all reasonable options to identify suitable, available sites in the face of the significant need for additional pitches. The Inspector will be cognisant that national guidance in Planning for Traveller Sites directs that needs should be met through the allocation of land for sites[9]. These same considerations will be applied by neighbouring authorities in considering any future approach from this Council under the Duty to Co-operate. Other authorities will expect the Council to demonstrate through evidence why additional sites cannot be accommodated in the borough.  As with conventional housing, Councils are also required to be able to demonstrate a five year forward supply of Gypsy sites and this will be best achieved by allocating sites in the Local Plan.

 

3.2      Option 2: The Committee could decide not to include any additional sites and that instead another dedicated call for Gypsy sites should be undertaken to try to identify further suitable and available sites.  It is considered, however, that a further call for sites is likely to have limited additional benefit as there have been sufficient and repeated occasions for landowners and the Gypsy community to put forward sites.  Further, contact with those who had put forward sites to the SHLAA showed only very limited interest in Gypsy development with131 out of 143 sites confirmed as unavailable. The first call for sites in 2013 also explicitly included planning agents who submit Gypsy planning applications in the borough and Gypsy representative bodies.  As outlined above, the recent work undertaken by KCC G&T Unit made specific contact with resident Gypsies.

 

 

4.         PREFERRED OPTION AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

 

 

4.1      It is recommended that the Committee select Option 3.  This option best helps to maintain momentum with the Local Plan and also demonstrates some positive provision towards the Gypsy and Traveller community’s identified needs.

 

4.2      Appendix C includes site allocation policies for each of the proposed sites.  These policies provide specific criteria to guide the development of each site and specify a pitch capacity. 

 

4.3      The table below sets out the supply position relative to needs with the inclusion of the proposed nine additional sites.  

 

1	Pitch Requirement (2011-31) [10]		187
2	Permanent consents granted 1/10/11 to 1/8/15	79
3	Sites GT1(1)-(7) (Reg 18 Local Plan)	23
4	Proposed additional sites GT1(8)–(16)	18[11]
5	Public pitch turnover (1.4pa for 16 years)[12]	22
6	Shortfall		45

 

 

4.4      When account is also taken of the future supply that can be anticipated through pitch turnover on the two public sites in the borough, in addition to permanent permissions already granted and the proposed supply from allocations, the shortfall against needs would be some 45 pitches.

 

4.5      Councillors may also note that unauthorised sites and sites with temporary permissions were reviewed for their suitability for allocation as part of the preparation for the Regulation 18 version of the Local Plan.

 

 

4.6      There is also a need for 11 additional Travelling Showpeople plots in the borough between 2001 and 2031.  The current need from seven plots (2011-16) directly arises from just two sites, both of them long standing sites on Detling Hill, one of which is unauthorised (a temporary consent was granted in 1953 but never renewed) and the other has four mobile homes above the consented number on site. The balance of the requirement for four plots from 2016 to 2031 is due to the projected natural household growth from the families on these sites. As the need arising is so specific to these two sites it is considered any regularisation of the current position (if required) and the need for additional pitches due to household growth can be most appropriately dealt with through the development management process. Policy DM26 of the Local Plan would provide the criteria by which future applications would be assessed.

 

 

5.        CONSULTATION RESULTS AND PREVIOUS COMMITTEE FEEDBACK

 

 

5.1      Policy GT1 of the draft Maidstone Borough Local Plan was subject to public consultation between March and May 2014.  The outcomes of that consultation are set out in this report and its appendices.

 

6.        NEXT STEPS: COMMUNICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION

 

6.1      Further Regulation 18 consultation is proposed on the additional Gypsy site allocations GT1(8) to GT1(16).  Thereafter, a revision of the whole Local Plan will be subject to Regulation 19 consultation. 

 

7.        CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS

 

 

Issue	Implications	Sign-off
Impact on Corporate Priorities	The adoption of the Local Plan will assist in the delivery of the council’s corporate priorities.	Head of Planning & Development.
Risk Management		[Head of Service or Manager]
Financial	There are no direct financial implications arising from the recommendations in this report. Ensuring the Local plan is based on sound evidence will minimise likelihood of avoidable cost being incurred.	Head of Finance & Resources
Staffing		[Head of Service]
Legal	No direct or immediate legal implications arising from the recommendations contained herein. Consultation in accordance with the Local Planning Regulations 2012 must take place on any inclusion/amendment to the local plan.	Kate Jardine, Team Leader (Planning), Mid Kent Legal Services
Equality Impact Needs Assessment		[Policy & Information Manager]
Environmental/Sustainable Development	The Local Plan is fundamentally concerned with delivering sustainable development objectives.	Head of Planning & Development
Community Safety		[Head of Service or Manager]
Human Rights Act		[Head of Service or Manager]
Procurement		[Head of Service & Section 151 Officer]
Asset Management		[Head of Service & Manager]

 

8.         REPORT APPENDICES

 

The following documents are to be published with this report and form part of the report:

·         Appendix A : table of issues and responses raised in the representations to Policy GT1

·         Appendix B: recommended amendments to Policy GT1

·         Appendix C: site allocation policies for proposed sites GT1(8) to GT1(16)

·         Appendix D: site plans

·         Appendix E: Sustainability Appraisal

 

9.         BACKGROUND PAPERS