Planning Application 2 PLANNING OFFICER REPORT

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT

Application No. MO/2021/0715 Detailed Valid Date: Applicant: Mr John Casey Case Officer: Aidan Gardner Ward(s): Leatherhead North Proposal: Change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site for an

extended gypsy/traveller family with 7 No. caravans, including no more than 4 No. static caravans/mobile homes, together with the laying of hardstanding, erection of amenity building and formation of new access.

Amendments /amplifications: Site Location: Caravan site south side of, River Lane, Leatherhead, Surrey

Committee: Number of objections

RECOMMENDATION: Permit subject to conditions

1. Site Plan:

.

2. Description of Site:

2.1. The site lies approximately 1.5 kilometres to the north west of Leatherhead town centre, at the junction of Randalls Road (a principal route out of the town in this direction) and River Lane. River Lane is a narrow unmetalled road which runs off the western side of Randalls Road to a footbridge over the River Mole. The western section of River Lane continues thereon to connect with Cobham Road in Fetcham. The land is metropolitan Green Belt.

2.2. The site is adjoined to the east by a gypsy and traveller site, which continues east up the Randalls Road. In February 2020 following a public inquiry, permission was granted on a permanent basis for four pitches (MO/17/1932). A copy of that decision notice is

Planning Application 2

appended to the report as some of the Inspector’s comments are relevant to this application.

2.3. On the northern side of River Lane are the grounds of Leatherhead Football Club and two pairs of semi-detached cottages, Nos. 1-4 River Lane.

3. Description of Proposal:

3.1. Permission is sought for the provision of 6 no gypsy pitches. The six households would occupy a total of 7 caravans, of which no more than 4 would be static caravans/mobile homes. The proposal includes the laying down of hardsurfacing, erection of a communal amenity building and construction of a new access from River Lane.

3.2. The permission sought is for permanent development and is not for the personal benefit of the applicant.

4. Timing of application

4.1. There has been some comment from those responding to the consultation exercise about the timing of the application. It is important to note that there is no difference, in terms of the consideration of an application, between those applications that are submitted before development occurs or after.

4.2. For completeness this application was submitted before the development occurred, albeit only just, and the applicants were made aware that any development they undertook, without the benefit of planning permission, is at their own risk.

5. Constraints

Metropolitan Green Belt (CS1)Env Agency - Flooding Zone 2Env Agency - Historic Flood Zone

6. Relevant Planning History - Relates to the adjacent established gypsy andtraveller site.

MO/2017/1932 Removal of Conditions 1 and 2 of approved application MO/2016/0587 to allow the permanent use of the site for the siting of 4 No. Gypsy and Traveller pitches with unrestricted occupancy. DEEMED REFUSAL Allowed on appeal 03-Feb-2020.

6.1. Consultations

6.2. County Highway Authority – Recommend condition (electric vehicle charging point).

6.3. Environmental Health Department – No comments to make. The licencing would be controlled by Surrey County Council

6.4. Mole Valley Joint Waste Solutions – Bins would need to be presented to the edge of the properties on collection days.

6.5. Environment Agency – Raise objections. Addressed below.

6.6. Countryside Access Officer – No views received.

7. Representations

Residents Association Representation

Officer Comment Relevant Condition

One representation has been received from Leatherhead Residents’ Association, in which the following sumamrised points are raised:-

Further erosion of Green Belt land.

Considered below 10.20 1-5, 8.11-13

Proposal much more dense that authorised site, as site so much smaller

Considered below 10.20.7

Work has already started on the development being applied for.

This has been addressed

One representation has been received from the Fetcham Residents Association. Following summarised points are raised:-

Green Belt impact Considered below 10.20 1-5, 8, 11-13

Increase in accesses to and from River Lane.

County Highway Authority raise no objections.

1

Flooding risks, due to some fo site being within the flood plain.

Considered below 10.25.3-62

10

Representation Officer Comment Relevant Condition

Number of Reps: 19 representations have been received from 15 households, in which the following summarised points are raised:-

Conditions relating to the authorised traveller site have been ignored who pay little regard for Council restrictions.

The site referred to adjoins the application site, is outside the red-line area and occupied by individuals who are not associated with the applicants. Compliance with planning conditions by other parties is not a material consideration.

5 and 6

There should be no further extension of the traveller site into the Green Belt. This would be inappropriate development.

Considered below 10.20.1-9

2

If approved, the remaining land to the River Mole should be permanently and actively protected and any further development prohibited.

The application site is confined to the red-line area. A planning permission cannot dictate whether applications will be submitted or the outcome of such applications.

2

This is a lovely area, a haven for wildlife, and has been spoiled by the existing traveller use with dumping of rubbish.

Considered below 14 and 15

Access would be a safety hazard. Vehicles are driven fast along River Lane which is much used by walkers, runners, dog walkers and horse riders.

CHA raise no objections on highway safety grounds. None of the refusals of permission over the years for the adjacent traveller site have involved highway grounds.

Area is liable to flooding and hardstanding would make matters worse.

Considered below 10.25.1 12

The applicants began the use without planning permission.

Addressed above – not a material planning consideration

Lamentable failure of the Council to find sites over the past 18 years.

Considered below 10.2.1-10.25

More stress to local residents already affected by pandemic lockdown

The applications have been considered on their merits at the time.

Residents in the houses in River Lane could not get away with such breaches of planning control.

All development in the Green Belt has to be considered against relevant guidance in the NPPF and development plan policies/

It is appreciated that sites need to be found for travellers; however, this is not the right location.

Considered below 10.20

Additional disturbance to adjacent crematorium where tranquillity is very important.

Considered below 10.17-9

Conflict with policies CS5 and ENV22.

Considered below 10.12

8. Main Development Plan Policies

Core Strategy (CS)

CS1 – Where Development will be DirectedCS5 – Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling ShowpeopleCS13 – Landscape CharacterCS20 – Flood Risk Management

Local Plan (LP)

ENV4 – Landscape CharacterENV22 – General Development Control CriteriaENV23 – Respect for SettingMOV2 – The Movement implications of Development

9. Material Considerations

Government Guidance – National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Section 2 – Achieving Sustainable DevelopmentSection 5 – Delivering a sufficient supply of homesSection 11 – Making effective use of landSection 13 – Protecting the Green BeltSection 14 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change

Section 15 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Other documents

Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (August 2015) (PPTS)

10. Planning Analysis

10.1. Legislation dictates how all planning applications must be determined. Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) states -

In dealing with an application for planning permission the authority shall have regard to - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,(aza) a post-examination draft neighbourhood development plan, so far as materialto the application,(b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and(c) any other material considerations

10.1.1. The main planning issues for consideration are discussed below.

10.2. Principle of Development 10.3. Core Strategy Policy CS1 sets out the adopted spatial strategy for the District. It seeks

to direct new development to previously developed land within the built-up areas of Leatherhead, Dorking, Ashtead, Bookham and Fetcham. Limited redevelopment and infilling is considered appropriate in the larger rural settlements. Development within the countryside will be considered against other relevant policies including those for the Green Belt. The proposal is not on previously developed land and does not fall within the built up areas of the towns listed. The site is within countryside designated as Green Belt. As such the proposal does not accord with the spatial strategy within the development plan and this weights against the proposal.

10.4. The site is within the Green Belt. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The Government’s approach to protecting Green Belt land is set out in section 13 of the NPPF. Paragraph 143 of the NPPF states: As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.’

10.5. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

10.6. Guidance about development in the Green Belt is contained in the NPPF. Paragraph 145 sets out those categories of development that are deemed not to inappropriate development. The formation of traveller pitches does not fall within any of the listed categories. The proposal is therefore inappropriate development. Further, National policy on the determination of planning applications for new gypsy and traveller sites is set out in the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS), August 2015.

10.7. PPTS Policy E confirms that traveller sites are inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is stated to be harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. This is stated to apply to traveller sites, whether temporary or permanent.

Policy E goes on to state:

10.8. ‘Subject to the best interests of the child, personal circumstances and unmet need are unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to establish very special circumstances.’

10.9. Under Policy H, PPTS paragraph 27 further states that the lack of an up-to-date five year supply is NOT a significant material consideration where the proposal is on land designated as Green Belt.

10.10. The proposed development is unacceptable in principle, whether temporary or permanent. Permission can only be given for inappropriate development within a Green Belt if the harm by definition, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other consideration.

10.11. Overall the principle of development in this location is unacceptable and contrary to Policy CS1 and represents inappropriate development in a Green Belt. No information in respect of the best interests of a child have been presented.

10.12. Policy Considerations

10.13. Core Strategy Policy CS5 sets out five criteria for considering planning applications for new sites:

(a) safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian access to the site can be provided.(b) there is easy and safe access to the strategic road network and the site does notgenerate traffic of an amount or type inappropriate for the roads in the area.c) the site is able to accommodate on site facilities for the parking and manoeuvringof vehicles and storage, play and residential amenity space;(d) the site is located within a reasonable distance by foot and/or by public transportof local facilities and services including schools and health facilities, and(e) does not have an unacceptable impact on the physical and visual character ofthe area or on the amenities of neighbouring land uses.

10.14 Notwithstanding the comments made in respect of this application it is considered that there is compliance with criteria (a) and (b). Whilst the road is single width it is lightly trafficked with the exception of the access area that leads onto the roundabout. There is the possibility for delays and vehicle conflicts but not to the degree that highway capacity or safety would be substantially compromised. The Highway Authority raises no objections. For these reasons it is also considered that the development is acceptable in the context of policy MOV2.

10.15 In terms of criterion (c) the site can accommodate the number of caravans pitches requested but it is tight for residential amenity space. This is not however considered such a significant deficiency in the proposals as to warrant refusal. The site is located within 800m of a bus stop and 1500m of a train station. Local facilities can be accessed

either via Randalls Road or River Lane and as such the proposal is considered compliant with criterion (d).

10.16 Criterion (e) is largely a reflection of the overall thrust of policies CS13, ENV4, ENV22 and ENV23. Policy CS13 is largely concerned with development within the AGLV and AONB. It does however require new development to respect, and where appropriate, enhance the character and distinctiveness of the landscape character area in which it is proposed. It is debateable whether this is a landscape character area, as it is not designated as such. It is also inevitable that the provision of a traveller site will not offer opportunities to enhance character and distinctiveness. This is not fatal to the application as the policy only requires such where appropriate and it is considered that there is no special characteristics of the surrounds that would require an enhancement. In terms of whether the development respects the character and distinctiveness of the area the most that can be said is that it does not significantly alter it. On a macro level the site is adjacent to other similar sites and in the wider context it is small enough not to have far reaching impacts. As such it is considered compatible with policy CS13 and the very similar policy ENV4. For the same reasons it is considered compliant with policy ENV23, subject to further consideration of that policy’s criterion 5 later in this report.

10.17 ENV22 is general policy for new development covering matter such as scale, form, appearance, amenities, character and appearance, retention of attractive features, screening and landscaping, safe access and parking, and an appropriate environment for occupiers. Matters in relation to appearance, character, access and the environment for occupiers has been considered above. There is no loss of specific attractive features and landscape can be provided. It needs to be considered whether the proposals would significantly harm the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by reason of overlooking or its overshadowing or overpowering effect, noise, traffic or other adverse environmental impact.

10.18 The proposal does not introduce new overlooking, overshadowing or overpowering effects. It is acknowledged that there is likely to be some increase in noise and traffic from the site but this must be considered both in terms of the potential intensity and the exist traffic and noise sources in the vicinity. As such it is considered that there would not be the significantly harmful impacts the policy seeks to address and the proposal is therefore compliant with policy ENV22.

10.19 Overall it is considered that there is no substantial conflict with Policies CS5, CS13, ENV4, ENV22 and ENV23, in the latter case subject to Green Belt considerations later in this report.

10.20 Impacts on the Green Belt

10.20.1. The four static and three touring caravans, along with parked vehicles and other domestic paraphernalia reduce the openness on the site and would conflict with the policy aims of preventing urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. As set out in the Framework substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt.

10.20.2. The land comprised in the site was previously in use as grazing land by the occupiers of the adjacent traveller site; hardcore was laid shortly after the arrival of the applicant and his family. The site therefore cannot be regarded as ‘previously developed land.’

10.20.3. The character of the site has changed from an open field to hardsurfacing with caravans stationed on it. There is also the generation of noise from the site and comings and goings as a result of the occupiers living there. However, the appeal decision on the adjacent authorised site is highly pertinent in this regard particularly given that it is a very recent decision (February 2020). A copy of the appeal decision is appended. It concerned an application to occupy the land without complying with the requirements of conditions restricting the occupants.

10.20.4. The Inspector was of the view that the character of this area had changed over the years. ‘First there is nearby development which imparts a strong urban influence. Most notable is the Leatherhead Youth Football Club on the opposite side of River Lane. This includes hard surfaces, buildings and tall floodlighting, bringing a distinct perception of built development. The development of the football club is a significant change to the situation previously considered, certainly at the time of the appeal in 2006/7. The club is used during daylight and dark hours, and when the new floodlights are on (as seen by me during the inquiry period) the club site has no characteristics associated with a rural location. Secondly the nearby business park has a similar though slightly less pronounced urbanising impact. Thirdly, the site is bounded to the south east by a row of poplar trees underplanted by a tall coniferous hedge which forms the common boundary with an extensive crematorium. This is not a typical characteristic of the Landscape Character Area but is more attuned to an urban edge location. Taking these matters together, I agree with the Appellant that the site exbibits characteristics which can be generically described as being typical of an urban fringe location. Whatever the situation at the time the land was first developed (and I accept that it was different), there has been a marked change in the intervening period. The land is now less sensitive to development. Given that is it sandwiched between the football club and the crematorium its sensitivity to development is low.’ (Paragraphs 17 and 18)

10.20.5. To the appeal Inspector, the conclusions on the Green Belt balance were clear. The harm to the Green Belt carries substantial weight, but the substantial weight to be given to the best interests of the children on site, together with the failure in policy over many years, and the lack of any alternative sites available to the Appellant, carried more weight. (Para. 31)

10.20.6. In the case of the current application, the proposal would result in the extension of traveller pitches to the west along River Lane, on land that was hitherto in use as grazing land. As set out in paragraph 134 of the Framework, Green Belts have five purposes. One of these, is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

10.20.7. The proposal would extend traveller development to the west into the undeveloped area of River Lane. However, the site is considerably smaller than the authorised site. The proposal would provide 6 pitches on an area equivalent to one of the four authorised pitches. The proposal therefore makes better use of the land available and would make a significant contribution to the need for pitches within the district. Unlike the authorised site, the application site does not occupy the entire depth of land between River Lane and the crematorium. The site would be adjoined on two sides by open grazing land.

10.20.9 Overall, it is considered that the proposal does result in actual harm to the Green Belt in addition to the harm by definition, in terms of loss of openness and encroachment. However, it is considered that the actual harm is limited, due in part to the changes in character.to this area that have taken place in this locality, articulated by the 2020 appeal Inspector.

10.21 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS); Unmet Needs

10.21. The PPTS also includes detailed criteria for decision-makers. Paragraph 24 sets out five criteria to be considered:

(a) the existing level of local provision and need for sites;(b) the availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants;(c) other personal circumstances of the applicant;(d) that the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or

which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should beused to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites;

(e) that [LPAs] should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not justthose with local connections.

10.21.1. It is first appropriate to conclude on whether the policy applies by considering the status of the intended occupiers of the land. The Planning Policy for Travellers Sites states that “gypsies and travellers” means:-

‘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, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling showpeople or circus people travelling together as such.’

10.22. The application states that adult members of the proposed households travel for economic purposes, and intend to continue doing so, although the family also requires a settled base to support access to health and education. It has to be considered whether the occupiers maintain a sufficiently nomadic habit of life that they comply with the above definition.

10.23. In respect of criteria (a) to (e) it is considered that (d) is not relevant to Mole Valley as it has an identified need for pitches and (e) does not need discussion as it is an instruction. (a) to (c) do need to be addressed.

10.23.1. In respect of (a) and (b) there are 4 public authorised pitches currently in Mole Valley located at:

- Brambledown, Coldharbour Lane, Dorking;- Conifer Park, Ranmore Road, Dorking;- Salvation Place, Swanworth Lane, Mivkleham- Travellers Rest, Swanworth Lane, Mickleham.

10.23.2. These pitches are managed and maintained by Surrey County Council and provide 21 pitches.

10.23.3. MVDC’s recently updated Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) (dated March 2021) identifies a total need for 32 additional pitches for gypsies and travellers as defined in Annex 1 of the PPTS, over the period 2020-2037.

10.23.4. A further need is identified for 20 additional pitches to address needs arising from households who do not fall within the PPTS definition, but who are understood to be members of protected ethnic groups whose cultural preference for caravan dwelling is a consideration under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

10.23.5. The 2021 GTAA takes into account delivery of pitches since the previous GTAA was published, in February 2018, including the four established pitches at River Lane, granted permanent planning permission in February 2020.

10.23.6. Since the 2021 GTAA was updated, planning permission has been granted for three additional pitches at Riverdale Paddocks, Rusper Road, Capel (MO/2020/2249).

10.23.7. This reduces the net unmet need to 29 pitches for gypsies and travellers as defined in PPTS Annex 1, or 49 pitches in total, when the needs of other protected ethnic groups are considered.

10.23.8. At the time of preparing this response, there are extant planning applications in relation to 5 proposed pitches (MO/2020/1396 & MO/2021/0584). Should both these applications be granted, the net unmet needs for gypsies and travellers as defined in PPTS Annex 1 would reduce to 24 pitches.

10.23.9. A recent appeal decision at River Lane, Leatherhead (MO/2017/1932) permitted the permanent provision for 4 pitches in February 2020. The Inspector’s comments regarding the significant weight of the unmet need within the planning balance are particularly relevant in the determination of this application. In the appeal decision, the Inspector stated: It is agreed that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of sites for gypsies and travellers. It is also agreed that the need for sites within the district is high.

The Inspector noted that:

‘It is accepted by the Council that the Appellants and other occupants of the site have nowhere else to go. Furthermore, it is accepted by the Council that there are no identified alternative sites which are suitable, available, affordable and acceptable. This is a significant material consideration in favour of the appeal.’

At paragraph 26, the Inspector also states:

‘It is abundantly clear to me that the Council has been afforded many years in which to seek to resolve the issue of gypsy and traveller site provision. It has signally failed to do so notwithstanding that planning permission has been granted on occasion. It has in particular failed to implement its own policy (CS5) by bringing forward a land allocations development plan document. The assurances given in previous public inquires have not been acted upon in a manner which has provided the necessary site provision. Whilst I accept the emerging LP is in the process of bringing forward proposals for consultation, the past performance of the Council amounts to a demonstrable failure of policy. This in itself is a significant consideration in favour of the proposal.’

10.24 Given all of the above, it is considered that the level of unmet need should be given significant weight in the planning balance. Whilst the emerging Local Plan will seek to address the shortage of sites it is too early for it to be given weight.

10.25 In terms of criterion (c) The occupiers on the site comprise 7 adults and 9 children, aged between 1 and 15 years old. There have been circumstances that officers can advise have resulted in the need for the family to quickly change location within the Country. One of the adult members is recovering from a significant illness and needs regular access to health services for on-going care. The education needs of the children has been disrupted by having to move from their previous location.

10.26 The provision of a settled base would allow the children to be enrolled into local, schools. With regard to health, education and establishing a stable and secure family life, the best interests of the children on the site should carry significant weight in the planning balance.

10.27 Paragraph 25 of the PPTS states that LPAs should “very strictly limit” new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. Although this site is near the edge of Leatherhead, it is outside the settlement boundary and not allocated in the development plan. This advice needs to be considered in conjunction with the unmet need and the current inability of the Council to allocate sites. As such whilst sites should be strictly limited it is not considered that this outweighs the long term lack of provision.

10.28 Paragraph 26 of the PPTS states that weight should be attached to:

(a) effective use of previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land;(b) sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively enhance

the environment and increase its openness;(c) promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate

landscaping and play areas for children;(d) not enclosing a site with so much hard landscaping, high walls or fences, that the

impression may be given that the site and its occupants are deliberately isolatedfrom the rest of the community.

10.28.1 It is considered that (a) the site is not previously developed or derelict, although it has at times been untidy. The proposal is considered to be more intrusive than the limited untidiness. Conditions could be used to address (b) and (d). In terms of (c) this report has already commented on the lack of space within the site, however, the location does afford adoption of more healthy lifestyles.

10.29 Flooding and drainage

10.29.1 Policy CS20 addresses flood risks. This policy is largely out of date, referring to withdrawn documents and Plans. Of relevance to this application is that the policy says applications within flood zone 2 will only be considered if it can be demonstrated that there is no suitable alternatives in areas of lower risk. The site lies in Flood Zone 2. The Environment Agency is raising objections and considers that the applicant’sFlood Risk Assessments does not demonstrate that the development will be safe andthat climate change has not been taken into consideration.

10.29.2 The applicant has stated in his Design and Access Assessment that the site layout means that the proposed mobile homes would be sited in Flood Zone 1, with only 2 of three touring caravans being within Zone 2. The occupants and their possession are therefore at potential risk. There has been no evidence to demonstrate that a site less susceptible to flood risk has been searched for. However, there are no current allocations for pitches in the Local Plan and whilst this application does not demonstrate a search consideration should be given on its own merits given the lack of traveller provision.

10.29.3 There is no evidence as to whether the flood zone 2 land flooded during the 23/24 December 2013 rainfall event, which the EA advised was the largest recorded flood even in Leatherhead since 1968. What is known is that the existing authorised sites, which are within flood zone 1, did not flood.

10.29.4 As only part of the site is covered by flood zone 2 concerns can only relate to that area. The consequence would potentially be to split up the family unit. There have in other cases been conditions imposed to deal with the impacts of a flood event, namely raising the caravans above the flood level (300mm), tethering caravans to the ground so that they do not float away and cause damage, and advising on registering with the Environment Agency’s Flood Line. It is considered that given the nature of the development these can all be reasonably achieved by condition and are sufficient to outweigh the potential flooding risks. As such it is considered that the scheme can be compliant with policy CS20.

10.30 Local Financial Considerations

10.30.1 Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy states that development should make provision for new infrastructure where necessary. However the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has now been introduced, which places a mandatory charge on new residential and retail developments. The Council will publish an annual infrastructure list detailing the infrastructure projects or types of infrastructure which the Council intends will be or may be, wholly or partly funded by CIL.

10.30.2 The proposed development is not CIL liable.

10.31 Human Rights

10.31.1 The relevant Human Rights Legislation is set out below:

- European Convention on Human Rights- Human Rights Act 1999- Article 8 Rights to a home and private life- Article 1 protocol 1 Peaceful Enjoyment of possessions.

10.31.2 Article 8 states ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for

the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’

10.31.3 Article 1 of the First Protocols is: ‘Every natural or legal person is entitles to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.’

10.31.4 The scope of this right is qualified and in appropriate circumstances interference may be justified in the public interest. The aim is to ensure to strike the right balance between the demands of the general interests of the wider community and the requirement to protect an individual’s private rights. Central to the principle of a fair balance is the doctrine of proportionality.

10.31.5 In regard to Article 1 First Protocol 1, the right to the enjoyment of ownership of land (possessions) is engaged in respect of the applicant. The control imposed by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is compatible with the convention. It regulates the use of property in the interests of the environment and interference is permissible in the public interest which includes safeguarding the character and appearance of the area, trees and landscape features and ecological considerations which contribute to public amenity. Interference with the applicant’s human rights is lawful, legitimate and proportionate in this circumstance due to the environmental harm that has been caused.

10.31.6 If planning permission were to be refused, this would result in an interference with the use of the residents’ homes and their private and family lives under Article 8. The interference would be in accordance with the law provided that planning policy is lawfully applied. The interference would be in pursuit of a legitimate aim of the economic well-being of the country, which encompasses the protection of the environment through regulating land use. This means used to impair an individual’s rights must be no more than is necessary to accomplish that objective. Whether the interference is necessary also is dependent on whether it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by the state.

10.31.7 The key elements are: identify all relevant considerations relating to the individual household’s exercise of their rights of employment of a family life and a home; identify the best interests of any children; identify the particular public interests that have to be balanced against the individual or family’s interest; carry out a structured weighting up and balancing of all these interests. In this instance, it is not intended to refuse the planning application so there is no impact on the human rights of the applicant.

10.31.8 When a planning decision is made, there is further provision that the Authority must take into account the public interest. In the vast majority of cases existing planning law has for many years demanded a balance exercise between private rights and public interest and therefore the Local Planning Authority will continue to take into account the need for this balance.

10.31.9 In this instance, the development on the site relates to 7 caravans, utility room and associated hardstanding and parking spaces. Set against this is the need for more pitches across the District, together with the specific needs and individual circumstances of the Traveller families involved and this is considered to mean that planning permission should be granted.

10.32 Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

10.32.1 In making its decision, the Council must also have regard to its public sector equality duty (PSED) under s.149 of the Equalities Act 2010. The duty is to have due regard to the need (in discharging its functions) to:

• Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and otherconduct prohibited by the Act;

• Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protectedcharacteristic and those who do not. This many include removing orminimising disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevantprotected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; taking stepsto meet the special needs of those with a protected characteristic;encouraging participation in public life (or other areas where there areunderrepresented) of people with a protected characteristic;

• Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristicand those who do not, including tackling prejudice and promotingunderstanding.

10.32.2 The protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

10.32.3 The PSED must also be considered as a relevant factor when considering its decision but does not impose a duty to achieve the outcomes in s.149. The level of consideration required (i.e. due regard) will vary with the decision including such factors as:

a) The importance of the decision and the severity of the impact on the Council’sability to meet its PSED;

b) The likelihood of discriminatory effect or that it could eliminate existingdiscrimination.

10.32.4 The Council should give greater consideration to decisions that have a disproportionately adverse impact on a protected characteristic and this impact may be unintentional. In appropriate cases, this may involve an understanding of the practical impact on individuals so affected by the decision. Regard should be had to the effect of mitigation taken to reduce any adverse impact.

10.32.5 Further, the PSED is only one factor that needs to be considered when making a decision ad may be balanced against other relevant factor. The Council is also entitled to take into account other relevant factors in respect of the decision, including financial resources and policy considerations. In appropriate cases, such countervailing factors may justify decisions which have an adverse impact on protected groups.

10.33 Temporary Permission

10.33.1 Consideration has been given to whether a temporary permission would be appropriate. It is considered that whilst it would be possible to review whether this site remained acceptable in the light of potential provision on the adoption of the new Local Plan, and on the assumption that it makes sufficient provision for traveller pitches, there is no certainty on this matter. Further, given the ages of the children it is very likely over the period of a temporary permission that they would become settled in education and that the family operation would become settled. It is therefore likely that in reviewing any permission in the future the needs of the children would still pertain and seeking to move a family to an alternative location would not be beneficial. As such it is concluded that a temporary permission should not be used and that if permission is granted it should be on a permanent basis.

11 Planning Balance

11.1 In light of the relevant policy considerations in this report the question is whether the presumption against development in this location by reason of policy CS1 and the proposal not being appropriate development in the Green Belt, together with the harm to openness and the other more minor policy infractions identified, are outweighed by other considerations.

11.2 The local planning authority has a significant unmet need for gypsy and traveller pitches and whilst this is not normally a reason to outweigh the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt, indeed the PPTS say as such, the Council cannot ignore the 2020 appeal decision into the adjoining sites. The inspector concluded that the Council had been afforded many years in which to resolve the issue of gypsy and traveller site provision and has in particular failed to implement its own policy CS5 by bringing forward a land allocations development plan document. That position remains and is consider very significant.

11.3 Furthermore, the Council must have due regard to the personal circumstances of the occupants and the human rights and equality legislation. The application scheme would provide accommodation for a family where there are no alternative sites available within the district and refusal of this permission would result in the occupants of the proposed site having no home.

11.3.1 The applicant’s agent sets out the arguments for very special circumstances in his Design and Access Statement. In it he accepts that the harm to the Green Belt carries substantial weight but, on the other side of the balance, states: the identified need; lack of any alternative sites; absence of a five-year supply, compliance of the proposal will the Council’s locally specific criteria; failure of policy in bringing forward. An adequate supply of gypsy sites; and the extended family’s personal need for accommodation and personal circumstances.

11.4 It is considered that whilst the circumstances of this case taken as a whole are ones that can be repeated and as such would not normally constitute very special circumstances, the weight that should be afforded to the position on the traveller pitches is so great that significant weight has to be given to the 2020 appeal decision on the adjoining sites. Taking all the circumstances together it is concluded that there are very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriate development and the other harm identified.

11.5 Overall it is considered that the in principle objections in relation to the special strategy and development within a Green Belt are, in the first instance outweighed by other considerations and in the second amount to very special circumstances. Other areas where the scheme is not wholly compliant with policy are either of such a nature as to not warrant refusal or can be controlled by conditions.

12 Recommendation

12.1. Overall, I consider that the adverse impacts arising from the proposal would be outweighed by other material considerations including the significant unmet need of traveller and gypsy sites within the district and the personal circumstances of the occupants and the development can be approved having taken all the requirements of the development plan and material considerations into account.

1. The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers asdefined in Annex 1: Glossary of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (or its equivalent inreplacement national policy).

Reason: To accord with the terms of the application and to restrict development on thesite in the interests of the visual amenities of the rural area, in accordance with MoleValley Core Strategy policy CS5 and policy ENV22 of the Mole Valley Local Plan.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed in all respectsstrictly in accordance with the submitted documents and plan Nos. contained within theapplication and no variations shall take place.

Reason: To accord with the terms of the submitted application and to ensure minimalimpact on local amenity and the environment in accordance with Mole Valley CoreStrategy policy CS14 and Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV22.

3. No more than 7 caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of DevelopmentAct 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968, shall be stationed on the site at any time, andno more than 4 of those caravans shall be static caravans.

Reason: To protect the character and amenities of the rural area, in accordance with theadvice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, policy CS13 of the MoleValley Core Strategy and policy ENV22 of the Mole Valley Local Plan

4. There shall be no more than 6 pitches on the site.

Reason: To provide control, in the interests of the character and appearance of the ruralarea, in compliance with policies CS13 and CS14 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy andpolicy ENV22 of the Mole Valley Local Plan.

5. There shall be no commercial activities undertaken at the site, including the externalstorage of goods or materials not ancillary to the residential use, and no vehicles over3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on the site.

Reason: To provide control, in the interests of the character and appearance of the ruralarea, in compliance with policies CS13 and CS14 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy andpolicy ENV22 of the Mole Valley Local Plan.

6. Space within the site shall be retained for vehicles to be parked and for vehicles to turnso that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The parking and turning areasshall be retained and maintained for their designated purposes.

Reason: The above condition is required to in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users in accordance with Mole Valley Local policies MOV2 and MOV5.

7. Any sewage treatment plant used to treat waste water and sewage from thedevelopment hereby permitted shall be maintained and emptied in accordance with thedetails as approved in the sewage treatment plant management and maintenance plan.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the ground environment, in accordance with policyENV65 of the Mole Valley Local Plan and the sustainability objectives of the NPPF

8. No floodlights or other forms of external lighting shall be installed on the site.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the locality, including the amenities of neighbouringresidential properties, and in tbe interests of biodiversity, in accordance with Mole ValleyLocal Plan policy ENV57, policies CS14 CS15 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy. and theNPPF

9. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless and until at least 2 ofthe proposed parking spaces are provided with a fast charge socket (current minimumrequirement: 7kw Mode 3 with Type 2 connector - 230 v AC 32 amp single phasededicated supply) in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved inwriting by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The above condition is required in recognition of Section 9 PromotingSustainable Transport in the National Planning Policy Framework 2019

10. The internal floor levels of each mobile home on the site shall be set at least 300mmabove local ground level and each mobile home/tourer shall be tethered to the groundand shall thereafter be retained as such.

Reason: To ensure that the development is not put at an unacceptable risk of flooding, orwould be likely to exacerbate the possibility of flooding, in accordance with the advicewithin the National Planning Policy Framework and Mole Valley Core Strategy policyCS20

11. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General PermittedDevelopment) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with orwithout modification) no fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure shall beconstructed and no areas of hard surfacing installed, other than as hereby permitted andshown on the 1:500 Site Layout Plan

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality, in accordance with MoleValley Core Strategy policy CS13 and policy ENV22 of the Mole Valley Local Plan

12. Within 6 months of the date of this decision there shall be submitted to, for approval inwriting by the local planning authority, a scheme of landscaping. The scheme shallinclude indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, identify those to beretained and set out measures for their protection throughout the implementation of thescheme.

Reason: To ensure the provision and maintenance of trees, other plants and grassedareas in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Mole Valley Local Planpolicy ENV25 and policies CS14 and CS15 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy

13. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall becarried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the approval of the

landscaping scheme, and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the scheme die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Reason: To ensure the provision and maintenance of trees, other plants and grassed areas in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV25 and policies CS14 and CS15 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy

Informatives

1. The Council would encourage ecologically responsive development and appropriateenhancements for all approved schemes. This should be regarded as an integral part ofthe design process and developers are expected to take positive steps to achieve suchenhancements for all schemes

2. The applicant is advised that there is a difference between agricultural use (i.e. onlygrazing) and “horsiculture” (i.e. riding, grooming, keeping equipment etc), a use whichwould require planning permission

3. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that the electricity supply is sufficient tomeet future demands and that any power balancing technology is in place if required.Please refer to: http://www.beama.org.uk/resourceLibrary/beama-guide-to-electric-vehicle-infrastructure.html forguidance and further information on charging modes andconnector types.

4. The occupants of the site are strongly advised to subscribe to the Environment Agency’sFlood Line service.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision Inquiry opened on 14 January 2020

Accompanied site visit made on 14 January 2020

by Philip Major BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 3rd February 2020

Appeal Ref: APP/C3620/W/18/3205739

Land at River Lane, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 0AU

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an

application for planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country PlanningAct 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject towhich a previous planning permission was granted.

• The appeal is made by Mr R Amer and Others against Mole Valley District Council.• The application Ref: MO/2017/1932 is dated 27 October 2017.• The application sought planning permission for the use of land as a gypsy and traveller

site with 4 pitches. without complying with conditions attached to planning permission

Ref: MO/2016/0587/CC, dated 16 December 2016.• The conditions in dispute are Nos 1 and 2 which state that:

1. The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by the following: Mr Roy and MrsMargaret Amer; Mrs Rose Doherty; Mr Charlie and Mrs Melissa Doherty; Mr and MrsSimon and Sarah Doherty, and Mr Simon Doherty and Ms Susan King, and theirresident dependants, and shall be for a limited period being the period of 3.5 yearsfrom the date of this decision, or the period during which the premises are occupied

by them, whichever is the shorter.Reason: A strictly personal permission is granted in this case having regard to thespecial circumstances appertaining to this case, in accordance with Policy CS1 of theMole Valley Core Strategy and the advice contained in the National Planning PolicyFramework.

2. When the site ceases to be occupied by those maned in condition 1 above, or at theend of 3.5 years, whichever shall first occur, the use hereby permitted shall cease

and all caravans, buildings, structures, materials and equipment brought on to theland, or works undertaken to it in connection with the use shall be removed and theland restored to its condition before the development took place.Reason: Permission is given in this case, having regard to the circumstancesappertaining to the site in question, but only on a strictly limited basis so that theposition may be reviewed in the light of circumstances prevailing at the expiry ofpermission in accordance with Policy CS1 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy and

advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Preliminary Matters

1. I have given a short description of development above which reflects the

situation on the ground, albeit that one of the pitches has been described ascontaining 2 plots. All parties are well aware of the actuality of the

development. The current time limited permission was granted in 2016

following an application to remove conditions attached to appeals decisionsissued in 2013 (APP/C3620/C/12/2172090 being cited in the Council’s decision

notice).

APPENDIX


Appeal Decision APP/C3620/

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

2. The Council has not taken issue with the gypsy status of the site occupants.

Although some doubt was expressed in relation to whether one person was

resident at the site I do not find that the evidence is sufficient for me to decide,on the balance of probabilities, that the person concerned has ceased to be a

site occupant. I accept gypsy status of all the current occupants.

3. The proposal was originally running alongside a separate application for the use

of a smaller area of land for the stationing of 4 gypsy and traveller pitches.

This was withdrawn during the course of the inquiry in light of the Council’snascent proposals for future accommodation provision, which I explain in more

detail below.

4. Occupation of this site has been carried on for some 17 years and the land has

a complex planning history since that time. A time limited permission was first

granted on the land the subject of this appeal in 2007 for a period of 4 years,by which time it was expected that the Council would have progressed its

development plan and provided for gypsy and traveller accommodation. That

did not happen and a series of time limited planning permissions has followed,

the current one being the fourth, granted by the Council in 2016.

5. It is agreed that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of sites for

gypsies and travellers. It is also agreed that the need for sites within thedistrict is high1. I held a round table session to discuss need in the district at

the start of the inquiry, and through that discussion the differences between

the parties narrowed. It is clear that there is disagreement about themethodology each party has used to assess need, but the result is that both

accept a level of need which is quite closely aligned.

6. The assessment of need is not, nor could it be, an exact science. The authors

of the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) of 2018 have

clearly used best endeavours to establish the need for sites now and in thefuture. That the assessment results in a need lower than that assessed by the

Appellants advisers is to be expected simply because each side has access to

different information. The GTAA assessment is inevitably likely to find it moredifficult to engage over a relatively short time with the traveller community

compared with those working directly with that community over a number of

years.

7. As a result, and as I have found elsewhere, the true picture is not certain, but

is likely to be at a figure close to that assessed by the Appellants’ advisers. Inany event that is not a figure which differs so significantly from the GTAA that

it would result in greater weight in the planning balance. In short, I am

satisfied that there is an immediate unmet need for gypsy and traveller pitches

which carries significant weight in this case.

8. The appeal site is located in the Green Belt, and it is common ground that thedevelopment is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The National

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) points out that such harm should carry

substantial weight in the planning balance. That is a matter which is not

disputed.

1 The description used by the Council’s witness in relation to need.




Decision

9. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the use of land as

a gypsy and traveller site with 4 pitches at land at River Lane, Leatherhead,

Surrey in accordance with the application Ref: MO/2017/1932 dated 27

October 2017, without compliance with condition numbers 1 and 2 previouslyimposed on planning permission Ref: MO/2016/0587/CC dated 16 December

2016 and subject to the conditions set out in the schedule at the end of this

decision.

Main Issues

10. The main issues in the appeal are:

(a) The impact of the proposed development on the character and

appearance of the area;

(b) Whether there are any considerations which clearly outweigh the harm

to the Green Belt, and any other harm, such that very special

circumstances exist sufficient to justify the grant of planning permission

without the need for the disputed conditions.

Policy Background

11. The development plan includes the Mole Valley Core Strategy, which was

adopted in 2009. A number of policies have been agreed to be relevant to this

appeal. Policies CS1 and CS2 are spatial policies which seek to directdevelopment to particular locations. In relation to housing it is clear that they

aim to provide development on previously developed land where possible, and

within defined built up areas. The policies do not strictly follow the morebalanced approach of the NPPF but can still be afforded significant weight to

the extent that they are relevant in this case.

12. Policies CS13 and CS14 deal with landscape and townscape. They are more

prescriptive in tone than the NPPF but nonetheless allow for a balanced

assessment to be made. These policies can attract significant weight whererelevant.

13. Policies ENV22 and ENV23 set out criteria which it is expected development

proposals will respond to. These criteria are closely aligned with the

aspirations of the NPPF, necessitate judgement being exercised, and can be

afforded full weight even though their phraseology is slightly different to theNPPF.

14. Policy CS5 deals specifically with gypsies, travellers and travelling showpeople.

Its main aspiration is to make provision in a later development plan document

for these groups. The Council has failed to implement this policy in that

regard. However the policy also includes criteria to be considered whenplanning applications are being considered. The Appellant accepts that the

policy is broadly consistent with the NPPF and with a single exception, with

Planning Policy For Traveller Sites (PPTS) published in 2015. This, togetherwith Policies CS13 and ENV22, are the most important policies for determining

this case.

15. It is notable that the Council is preparing to publish its proposed Local Plan (LP)

for consultation very soon. It was approved for publication by the Council’s

Cabinet during the inquiry. Of particular note in the draft LP is Policy H9, which




seeks to address the need for gypsy and traveller pitches by allocating some

sites alongside a criteria based approach. One of the sites proposed for

allocation is the appeal site. The draft allocation has been made following a review of the Green Belt. The draft LP is at a very early stage and cannot be

afforded any weight as yet. Nonetheless it is material in that it provides

information on the evidence the Council has used to date to seek to address

the need for gypsy and traveller pitches in the district.

Reasons

Character and Appearance

16. The Mole Valley Landscape Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was

produced in 2013. The appeal site lies within the Lower Mole Landscape

Character Area (LCA). Key characteristics of this area include the broad meandering valley with a moderately open landscape, small woodland pockets,

a strong hedgerow pattern and pockets of unkempt land around urban fringes.

It is identified as an important landscape corridor between Leatherhead and Fetcham.

17. Within this overall context the appeal site is affected by a number of factors,

and these factors have in part changed over recent years. First, there is

nearby development which imparts a strong urban influence. Most notable is

the Leatherhead Youth Football Club on the opposite side of River Lane. This includes hard surfaces, buildings and tall floodlighting, bringing a distinct

perception of built development. The development of the football club is a

significant change to the situation previously considered, certainly at the time

of the appeal in 2006/7. The club is used during daylight and dark hours, and when the new floodlights are on (as seen by me during the inquiry period) the

club site has no characteristics associated with a rural location. Secondly the

nearby business park has a similar though slightly less pronounced urbanising impact. Thirdly the side is bounded to the south-east by a row of poplar trees

underplanted by a tall coniferous hedge which form the common boundary with

an extensive crematorium. This is not a typical characteristic of the LCA but is more attuned to an urban edge location.

18. Taking these matters together I agree with the Appellant that the site exhibits

characteristics which can be generically described as being typical of an urban

fringe location. Whatever the situation at the time the land was first developed

(and I accept that it was different) there has been a marked change in the intervening period. The land is now less sensitive to development. Given that

it is sandwiched between the football club and the crematorium its sensitivity

to development is low.

19. The impact of the development on character is mitigated to some extent by the

planting which has taken place, albeit that it includes a coniferous hedge to River Lane and internally to the site. But the key characteristics of the LCA

identified in the SPD are not apparent around the appeal land. It does not

form part of a moderately open landscape, nor does it include pockets of

woodland. The only native hedgerow of note flanks River Lane, but some of this has been lost to football club development, and most of the rest has

become degraded and outgrown. The land is relatively well self-contained and

its role in separating Leatherhead and Fetcham has been diluted by the stronger influence of the football club. All of these matters mean that the

impact of the proposal on the Lower Mole LCA are minor.




20. The site is visible through the native planting alongside Randalls Road, but this

is likely to be perceived only in fleeting glimpses by passing motorists or other

road users. If pedestrians use the road they are likely to be using it to gain access to other locations, and not as a leisure route. That said, the lower part

of River Lane, where it approaches the river itself, is likely to be used for

leisure purposes. In this location River Lane has a very different feel to the

area between the football club and the appeal site. It is rural in ambience and has pleasant surroundings for a walk close to the river. In this locality the site

is barely visible, being limited to minor glimpses of features on site. This

means that recreational walkers, who have the highest sensitivity to development change, would be minimally affected by the development. When

approaching the appeal site the development becomes more readily perceived,

but the football club has a significantly greater visual impact.

21. Taking these matters together it is my judgement that the appeal development

has a minor impact, bordering on negligible, on the character of the Lower Mole LCA, and a similarly minor impact on the visual amenities of the locality. The

Council accept that criteria 1 a. to d. of Policy CS5 are met, and I agree with

the Appellant that criterion e. is also met. Parts 2 and 3 of that policy are not

applicable here and as a result I find that this proposal accords with the policy as a whole. The development would respect the surrounding landscape and

the character and appearance of the area, which could be further ensured by

condition. Hence there is also no conflict with Policies CS13 and ENV22.

Green Belt Balance

22. As noted, it is accepted that substantial weight attaches to the harm by

inappropriateness. The development also impacts on the openness of the Green Belt. In this case I regard the loss of openness to be moderate in spatial

terms, though the perception of loss of openness is greater. It is inevitable

that 4 gypsy and traveller pitches with their attendant caravans and ancillary

structures will impart that perception, notwithstanding any perimeter planting undertaken. Put simply the land has ceased to be open and is now occupied

and clearly seen as such with its structures and hard surfaces.

23. The site also encroaches into the Green Belt, in conflict with one of the

purposes of Green Belts set out in the NPPF. I do not have any evidence of the

circumstances pertaining to the development of the adjacent football club, but it seems to me that that development has a far greater impact on

encroachment than the appeal site. It is more extensive and visible,

consequently leading to a greater impression of urban development.

24. It may be that the football club has been deemed to be a ‘not inappropriate’

development in the Green Belt, and I am not engaging in a comparative exercise. However, the mere presence of the extensive football club

development reduces the perceived impact of the appeal development both in

terms of loss of openness and encroachment. For these reasons, and contrary to findings in previous decisions, I find that the loss of openness and

encroachment should attract no more than moderate weight.

25. I turn now to other considerations advanced in support of the development. It

is accepted by the Council that the Appellants and other occupants of the site

have nowhere else to go. It was acknowledged that if this appeal were to be dismissed then the Council would need to decide whether to seek to take

enforcement action at the end of the current time limited permission (in June




2020). Furthermore it is accepted by the Council that there are no identified

alternative sites which are suitable, available, affordable and acceptable. This

is a significant material consideration in favour of the appeal.

26. It is abundantly clear to me that the Council has been afforded many years in

which to seek to resolve the issue of gypsy and traveller site provision. It has signally failed to do so notwithstanding that planning permission has been

granted on occasion. It has in particular failed to implement its own policy

(CS5) by bringing forward a land allocations development plan document. The assurances give in previous public inquiries have not been acted upon in a

manner which has provided the necessary site provision. Whilst I accept that

the emerging LP is in the process of bringing forward proposals for

consultation, the past performance of the Council amounts to a demonstrable failure of policy. This in itself is a significant consideration in favour of the

proposal.

27. There are a number of children resident on the site, many of whom have been

born and grown up there. It is patently their settled home. I heard evidence

relating to the attendance of children at school and to the serious health difficulties which require specialised treatment for at least 2 children. The best

interests of any child are of course a primary consideration in the appeal. It

cannot be the case that removing a settled base from which the children concerned can access both education and healthcare can in any sense be in

their best interests. This matter is of substantial weight.

28. Furthermore there are a number of adults on the site who benefit from a

settled base from which to access medical facilities. This adds further weight

to the balance in favour of the proposal.

29. PPTS points out that subject to the best interests of the child, personal

circumstances and unmet need are unlikely to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt so as to establish very special circumstances. But there is nothing

to suggest that such a situation could not arise. And in this case the best

interests of children are highly material, along with other matters.

30. Refusal of the proposal would interfere with the Article 8 rights of the site

occupants. In this case, because of its particular circumstances, interference would not be proportionate, with particular reference to the best interests of

the children. Dismissal of the appeal would result in the site occupiers having

no home after a period of many years residing in this location following a serious failure of policy by the Council. I agree with the Appellant that such a

course would be wholly disproportionate in this case.

31. The balance here is abundantly clear. The harm to the Green Belt carries

substantial weight, but the substantial weight to be given to the best interests

of the children on site, together with the failure in policy over many years, and the lack of any alternative sites available to the Appellants, carry yet more

weight. Other considerations clearly outweigh the harm by inappropriateness

and the minor impact on the character and appearance of the area, and very

special circumstances have been established. It follows that I have decided that planning permission should be granted.

32. I turn then, to whether the conditions in dispute should be removed, or

whether a further time limited permission would be required.




33. Successive time limited planning permissions have been granted on this site.

It is clear that that is not good practice. Planning Practice Guidance makes it

clear that granting more than a single temporary permission is to be avoided unless there is a specific reason justifying such a course. At some point

temporary planning permissions must come to an end and given the weight

attached to the considerations which result in very special circumstances here I

see no justification for imposing yet another time limit on site occupation. To do so would be unreasonable. Albeit that the planning balance would be

different it is my judgement that circumstances here are clearly sufficient to

justify a permanent planning permission.

34. I observe here as a non-determinative matter that it is clear that Council’s

officers and Cabinet, in resolving to recommend consultation on a draft LP which would take this site out of the Green Belt and allocate it for its present

use (with a higher number of pitches) have taken a similar, parallel judgement.

35. For all the above reasons I am satisfied that the case has been satisfactorily

made for the removal of the disputed conditions.

Other Matters

36. The Written Ministerial Statement of December 2015 relating to intentional

unauthorised development was raised at the inquiry. That statement clearly

indicates that the new policy to which it relates applies to planning applications and appeals received since 31 August 2015. Although this appeal falls after

that time it is part of an ongoing series of cases and the original development

took place about 17 years ago. It would seem unreasonable to seek to apply

the policy on intentional unauthorised development in such a retrospective manner. In any event this is a matter which would not have changed my

judgement on the outcome of the appeal.

37. Residents of River Lane have expressed concern about a number of matters.

Whilst I understand their concerns they are largely related to non planning

issues. In particular the matter of escaped horses from the adjacent paddocks is not something I can give weight to. The fact that there have been instances

of incorrect addressing of mail, or even the use of addresses in a manner which

might be thought to be fraudulent, are also not matters to which I can give weight in the planning balance. River Lane beyond the site and football club is

lightly used by vehicles (it is a dead end) but I understand the concerns

relating to the traffic at the Randalls Road junction. However this is not a matter of concern for the Council and from the information available to me it is

clear that traffic is at its heaviest during the times of use of the football club.

This is not a matter which weighs against the proposal.

38. I am also aware that there is a good deal of support from the local community

for the residents on the site, as indeed was the case as far back as 2006/7. Site residents have made contacts and integrated with the community.

Conditions

39. A new planning permission is created on the granting of planning permission.

A number of conditions were suggested in the event of the appeal being permitted on a permanent basis.

40. Although I have decided that this site is acceptable partly on the basis of the

needs of the current site occupants it is apparent that the need in the district is




wider. In addition the Council officers, supported by Cabinet, have identified

the site as being capable of accommodating a development of this type (albeit

that there is no guarantee that it would be in the final version of the Local Plan). As a result, subject to restricting the site to gypsies and travellers, I see

no necessity to limit occupation to named residents.

41. At the present time I agree that it would be necessary to specify the limit on

the number of caravans on site. Any future permission granted as a result of

changing circumstances could vary this number. As agreed at the inquiry it would be reasonable to change the balance of mobile homes to touring

caravans, but not the overall number. This would protect the amenities of the

locality.

42. In order to ensure that the appearance of the area is protected to the greatest

degree a condition restricting development beyond that shown on the submitted drawing is necessary, as is a condition requiring the approval and

implementation of a landscaping scheme, and a further condition restricting

use of the paddock areas on site. For the same reason it is necessary to

impose conditions restricting the use of the site for commercial purposes, and the stationing of commercial vehicles over a specified limit.

43. Finally a condition requiring mobile homes to be set at a minimum floor height

is necessary to avoid any possibility of harm to living conditions of site

occupants.

44. I do not find that it would be necessary to impose a condition relating to the

erection of buildings on the site as these can be controlled by other regulations

and there are no relevant permitted development rights applicable to traveller sites.

Overall Conclusion

45. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will

grant a new planning permission without the disputed conditions but restating

and substituting others.

Philip Major

INSPECTOR




SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS

1) The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and

travellers as defined in Annex 1: Glossary of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (or its equivalent in replacement national policy).

2) No more than 11 caravan(s), as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control

of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 as amended (of

which no more than 6 shall be static caravans) shall be stationed on the site at any time.

3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no fences, gates,

walls or other means of enclosure shall be constructed and no areas of

hard surfacing installed, other than as hereby permitted and shown on drawing No 12_485B_002 (Existing Site).

4) Within 6 months of the date of this decision there shall be submitted to,

for approval in writing by the local planning authority, a scheme of

landscaping. The scheme shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, identify those to be retained and set out

measures for their protection throughout the implementation of the

scheme.

5) 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 approval of the landscaping scheme, and any trees or plants

which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the scheme die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced

in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

6) No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the external storage of materials.

7) No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on this

site.

8) The paddock areas shown on the approved plan shall only be used for the

purposes of grazing.

9) The internal floor levels of each mobile home on the site shall be set at

least 300mm above local ground level and shall thereafter be retained as such.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Ms E Lambert Of Counsel

She called

Mr S Jarman Opinion Research Services Ltd, took part in the

round table session on need

Ms E Temple Director, ET Planning Ltd

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr A Masters Of Counsel

He called

Sarah Doherty Site resident

Rose Doherty Site resident

Roy Amer Appellant and site resident Susan King Site resident

Mr M Green Green Planning Studios Ltd gave evidence and

took part in the round table session on need

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Mrs S Wood Local resident

Mr R Wood Local resident Mrs J Moor Local supporter

Fr J Chadwick Margaret Clitherow Trust

DOCUMENTS HANDED IN DURING THE INQUIRY

1 Opening submissions on behalf of the Council

2 Extract of the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment for Mole Valley (January 2020)

3 Extract of the Green Belt Review for Mole Valley (January 2020)

4 Extract of the proposed Consultation Draft Local Plan for Mole Valley (Future Mole Valley 2018 – 2033)

5 Extract of the Mole Valley Local Plan Landscape Supplementary

Planning Document (July 2013)

6 Copy of Planning permission reference MO/2019/0369/PLA 7 Suggested planning conditions

8 Signed and dated statement of common ground

9 Bundle of witness statements from site occupants 10 Table of site occupants

11 Letter of support from the Margaret Clitherow Trust

12 Closing submissions on behalf of the Council 13 Notes of closing submissions on behalf of the Appellants


Planning Application 2 PLANNING OFFICER REPORT

Documents

Transcript of Planning Application 2 PLANNING OFFICER REPORT