ReSolve Planning - rotherham.gov.uk · Planning permission has been granted (ref RB2011/1639 within...

STATEMENT FOR ROTHERHAM MBC IN SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING

APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR THE CHANGE OF USE OF THE LAND

FOR THE SITING OF CARAVANS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES FOR 6

NO. GYPSY PITCHES TOGETHER WITH HARDSTANDING ANCILLARY

TO THAT USE.

PLANNING STATEMENT

LAND ADJACENT TO A57 CHESTERFIELD ROAD SWALLOWNEST

ReSolve Planning Complex Cases : Creative Solutions

Eleanor Overton MRTPI

[email protected]

07887356493

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjNq4jizfjMAhWgHsAKHeIzAA4QjRwIBw&url=http://www.keyword-suggestions.com/d2VpZ2g/&bvm=bv.122676328,d.ZGg&psig=AFQjCNF_xDDrtOiKRwb1Ks2tDtFLYp0IKg&ust=1464381829414613

PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 2

Introduction

ReSolve Planning has been instructed to produce this Planning Statement in support of the

development proposed; that being:

‘The change of use of the land for the siting of caravans for residential purposes for 6

no. gypsy pitches together with the installation of hardstanding ancillary to that use’

Layout of the Statement

The statement will be structured as follows:-

Site and Surrounding Context

Relevant Planning History

Planning Policy Summary

Consistency of Local Plan Policies with the NPPF

Adverse Impacts/Harm

Sustainability

Material Considerations

Personal Need

Permanent or Temporary Consent

Summary and Conclusion

Site and Surrounding Context

The application sites comprises a segregated area of land of approximately 0.23 hectares

within a larger pastoral field. The site is situated parallel to the western boundary of the field

and continues for just over half its width. A row of mature trees and native hedgerow forms

this boundary. There is a gated access roughly three quarters of the way along the boundary,

which provides access to the land further west.

The site is accessed via an existing vehicular access and driveway/track which leads off the

Chesterfield Road, as illustrated on Fig. 2 and Fig. 5 below.

The site and surrounding land falls away in an eastern direction, resulting in it occupying a

lower position then the highway to the west.


Planning permission has been granted (ref RB2011/1639 within the eastern section of the

field in which the application site is situated, for the construction of a fishing pond and carpark

(for recreational use)). This development has commenced, but is not yet completed. The

fishing lake will span the width of the field and the land will be extensively re-graded and built

up to accommodate it. The associated car park proposes 22 spaces and will be sited just off

the existing access road adjacent to the southern boundary of the site.

The application site and surrounding land historically constituted a sewage treatment plant.

Immediately to the west, the site is bounded by agricultural land, to the east it is bounded by

recreational land (associated with its use as a fishing lake). The A57 wraps around the site to

the north, this is however screened by a mature belt of trees. The railway line runs adjacent

to the southern boundary of the site. This too benefits from a landscaped screen to both sides.

The site shares its access with Aston footpath number 5. Aston footpath number 6 runs along

the east of the application site [illustrated on Fig. 1 below].

Fig. 1

Further to the north and north west of the site is the settlement of Swallowsnest. This is a

service providing settlement of considerable size. On the opposite side of Chesterfield Road

is a large commercial site, host to ‘Sheffield Caravans’ and adjacent to that, to its south is a


new and expanding commercial site host to extensive warehouse units. Further south of the

Railway line is Rother Valley Country Park and to the west of this is the settlement of Beighton.

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Application Site

Application Site

Site Access


Fig. 4

Fig. 5 Site Access

Planning History

In April 1964 use of land for sewage disposal works was granted planning permission.

RB2010/1406 (FUL) “importation of materials and formation of fishing pond including

alterations to access” was refused in February 2011. The reasons for refusal were; that the

engineering works involved in the importation of materials to form the pond constitute

Application Site

Site Access


inappropriate development and that this would be detrimental to the openness of the

Green Belt. That insufficient information was submitted regarding ecology and access.

RB2011/1639 (FUL) “Reclamation and Construction of Fishing Pond and Car Park (former

sewage treatment plant)” was approved in March 2012.

RB2012/1741 “Application to discharge planning conditions attached to planning

application ref RB2011/1639 (FUL)” was approved in December 2013.

RB2016/0278 “Use of land for traveller site (use class Sui Generis) and formation of planted

bund at land adjacent to A57 Chesterfield Road Swallownest”. This was refused in April

2016.

Planning Policy Summary

The Core Strategy was adopted by the Rotherham MBC on the 10th September 2014 and

forms part of Rotherham’s Local Plan together with ‘saved’ policies from the Unitary

Development Plan (UDP) (noted in Appendix B of the Core Strategy).

The Local Plan Sites and Policies document is currently being prepared, once adopted this

will form part of the Local Plan and its policies will replace those within the Unitary

Development Plan. This was submitted to the Secretary of State on 24th March 2016 for

examination in public. Given its advanced preparation stage, the relevant policies contained

within it must be attributed weight in the decision making process.

For the purposes of determining this application the following policies are considered to be

of relevance:

Unitary Development Plan ‘saved’ policy (s)

HG4.9 Sites for Travelling People



ENV3.7 Control of Pollution




T7 Public Rights of Way


Core Strategy policy(s)

CS3 Location of New Development


CS4 Green Belt

CS8 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation


CS14 Accessible Places and Managing Demand for Travel


CS27 Community Health and Safety

CS33 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

The Rotherham Local Plan ‘Publication Sites and Policies - September 2015’


SP2 Development in the Green Belt

SP14 Gypsy and Traveller Sites

Gypsy and Traveller Needs Assessment

The most recent assessment of gypsy and traveller need is contained within the South

Yorkshire Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment 2011 to 2016. This

document identified a need of 9 Pitches between the years of 2011 - 2016. The contents of

this document have informed the proposed allocation and policy included within the


emerging Rotherham Local Plan ‘Publication Sites and Policies - September 2015’ document.

The contents of this document will be further explored within the accompanying document

on Gypsy and Traveller Need within the Borough. Notwithstanding this however, this

document is considered to be out-of-date and is floored in terms of its methodology and

content and as such the proposed allocations and policy informed by its content will be

inadequate to meet the existing and future needs of gypsy and travellers within the borough.

In respect of the existing position in regards to Gypsy and Traveller sites in Rotherham MBC,

the LPA set this out within their officer report associated with application RB2016/0278 “Use

of land for traveller site (use class Sui Generis) and formation of planted bund at land adjacent

to A57 Chesterfield Road Swallownest”


It is clear from the above assessment that the LPA are unable to currently demonstrate a

supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years’ worth of sites against locally

set targets. Whilst the site at Kiverton Park has been put forward as a suggested allocation,

there remains substantial objection to it and has not yet undergone Examination.


Furthermore, as stated, the Needs Assessment upon which the LPA’s gypsy and traveller

policies and allocations are based, is considered floored and will not cater for the needs of

this community. Even if the identified need for 9 pitches were accurate, this would only

provide for the requirement between the years of 2011 – 2016 and would not cater for the

need moving forward. The LPA have failed to meet this now, historic need and will also fail to

meet the need moving forward.

National Policy

Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) is the current National Policy in relation to provision

for gypsy caravan sites. On 31st August 2015 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local

Government issued a revised version of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. This replaces the

PPTS published in March 2012.

Elements of the policy with significant relevance to this application are:

The clear intention at paragraph 4 to increase the number of gypsy sites with planning

permission.

In Policy A at paragraph 7(c) the need for a ‘robust evidence base to establish

accommodation needs’

In Policy B at paragraph 10(a) the need to maintain a five year supply of sites.

Policy C which deals with traveller sites in the Countryside.

Policy E relates to traveller sites within the Green Belt. It identifies that such

development is inappropriate within the Green Belt and should not be approved,

except in very special circumstances.

Policy H which deals with determining applications.

Paragraph 24 which sets down some of the material considerations to be considered

by the decision maker.

In addition, SSCLG has withdrawn Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites – Good Practice Guide

(2008). However, in the absence of any replacement Guide, there is no indication that the

government intend to lower the standards applied to gypsy and traveller sites.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on Tuesday 27th March 2012

and came into effect immediately.


Key elements of the NPPF relevant to this application are:

Paragraph 14 relates to the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ which

should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-

taking.

Paragraph 32 of the NPPF sets out that development should only be prevented or

refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development

are severe.

Paragraph 49 sets out that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be

considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year

land supply of deliverable housing sites.

Paragraph 58 of the NPPF stipulates that decisions should aim to ensure that

developments respond to local character.

Paragraph 59 which states that local planning authorities should consider using design

codes where they could help deliver high quality outcomes. However Design policies

should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and should concentrate on guiding the

overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, materials and access of new

development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally.

Paragraph 80 identifies the five purposes of the Green Belt

Paragraph 87 states that ‘inappropriate development’ is by definition, harmful to the

Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances

Paragraph 88 identifies that ‘substantial’ weight should be given to any harm to the

Green Belt and that ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential

harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly

outweighed by other considerations.

Paragraphs 89 and 90 identify acceptable forms of development within the Green Belt.

Paragraph 109 refers to protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.

Paragraphs 186 and 187 relates to decision-making of Local Planning Authorities and

all other levels. It states that decision-takers at every level should seek to approve

applications for sustainable development where possible.


Paragraph 206 states that planning conditions should only be imposed where they are

necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable,

precise and reasonable in all other aspects.

Paragraphs 208 to 216 which set out how weight should be attributed to Development

Plan policies.

Paragraph 215 states that following the 12 month period, due weight should be given

to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with

this Framework.

The NPPF makes it clear that development plan policies have to be considered in the light of

the publication of the NPPF

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) On 6 March 2014 the Department for

Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched this planning practice guidance web-

based resource. This was accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement which includes a

list of the previous planning practice guidance documents cancelled when this site was

launched.

Consistency of Local Plan Policies with the NPPF

Since the publication of the NPPF in March 2012 it is relevant to assess adopted policies with

regards to their conformity with the NPPF. The NPPF at paragraph 215 states due weight

should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency

with this framework (the closer the policies in the framework, the greater the weight that

may be given).

It must initially be highlighted that the Unitary Development Plan was adopted in 1999. As a

result of this, its policies will be based on the principles of revoked national and regional policy

and will be unlikely to be in conformity with the NPPF and its presumption in favour of

sustainable development. Consequently lesser weight should be attributed to the policies

within this document.

The following identified policies will be considered; those within the Core Strategy and those

within the emerging Rotherham Local Plan ‘Publication Sites and Policies - September 2015’

document.


Identified Policies



This is a criteria based policy which identifies various sustainability credentials which will be

taken into consideration in the allocation of development land. The comparable criteria

against which to assess the consistency of this policy is found within Policy B, paragraph 13,

Policy C and Policy H, paragraph 26 of the PPTS.

Criteria b of the local policy is concerned with a developments proximity to services, facilities

and employment opportunities suggesting sites will be considered more favourably the closer

they are to such. Policy C of the PPTS identifies traveller sites as appropriate uses in principle

within the countryside. By doing so, the national policy acknowledges that sites may be some

distance from services and facilities.

Criterion d of paragraph 13 of the PPTS seeks to ensure that the need for ‘long-distance’ travel

is reduced, criterion b suggests there should be access to appropriate health services and

criteria c seeks to ensure that children can attend school on a regular basis. The PPTS does

not prescribe that sites should be within close proximity of these facilities, but instead places

emphasis on the benefits that permanent sites will have on ensuring such. Consequently, in

this regard it is considered that this local policy places too much weight on a potential sites

proximity to local services and facilities and is therefore inconsistent in this regard.

Criterion C of the local policy relates to a sites proximity to public transport routes and the

frequency of such services. The PPTS does not include any comparable requirements in this

regard, however the NPPF at paragraph 29 seeks, through the promotion of sustainable

transport modes, to provide people with real choice about how they travel – however it is

recognised that solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Paragraph 30 continues

that LPA’S should support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so,

facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport. Paragraph 34 states that “decisions

should ensure that developments that generate significant movement are located where the

need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable modes of transport modes can be

maximised. However this needs to take into account of policies set out elsewhere in this


Framework, particularly in rural areas.” Based on the above it is considered that the NPPF,

whilst promoting the use of alternative modes of transport to the car, takes a more relaxed

and pragmatic approach recognising that such will not be able to be secured in all situations,

especially in rural areas. In this regard the local policy is considered inconsistent with the

NPPF.

Criterion D states that sites will be considered more favourably where they would help relieve

deprivation. There are no comparable requirements found within national policy.

Furthermore, the wording of this requirement is vague and would be difficult to measure.

Accordingly it is not considered consistent with the NPPF.

Criterion E seeks to attribute weight to quality design and development that respects heritage

assets and the open countryside. This requirement is overarching and is consistent with the

NPPF at paragraph 58 which seeks to secure good design. However, in regards to open

countryside, the criteria is considered too onerous as the NPPF at policy 109 only seeks to

protect and enhance ‘valued’ landscapes.

Criterion F is very vague and would be hard to apply in practice, ‘other environmental matters’

could constitute a broad range of factors.

In relation to criterion G, there is no requirement within national policy to create or maintain

links to Green Infrastructure, although criterion c of paragraph 26 of the PPTS does seek to

promote opportunities for healthy lifestyles, but this is in regard to on-site facilities.

Overall, owing to the inconsistencies identified this policy should be attributed lesser weight

in the decision making process.

CS4 Green Belt

On the whole the intensions of this policy are considered comparable with the requirements

of the NPPF. The final paragraph however is considered too restrictive in regards to the

consideration of opportunities to support and enhance the Green Belt. The policy only

identifies ‘enhancements of Green Infrastructure’ whereas paragraph 81 states that such

enhancements can also comprise of providing opportunities for sport and recreation, or to

improve damaged or derelict land. In this regard the local plan policy is not consistent and

reduced weight should be attributed as a result.



The initial part of this policy refers to the allocation of sites and whilst this general approach

to allocation is correct, it does not go far enough in identifying a sufficient number of sites as

required by Policy B of the PPTS. Furthermore, the entirety of the policy is considered out -of

–date. This is due to the fact that it is based upon an out-of-date Gypsy and Traveller needs

assessment. The content and floors of the need assessment will be considered in further

detail within the accompanying report on Gypsy and Traveller Need within Rotherham MBC,

however it is clear that this policy only provides for a five year need that is stagnant; it does

not seek to allocate sites to provide for future identified need. The Gypsy and Traveller Needs

Assessment only identifies need until 2016 and makes no recommendations in regards to

future need. The policy therefore fails to accord with the requirements of both criteria a and

b of Policy B of the PPTS.

In regards to the assessments of sites against Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy, it has been

expanded on above the ways in which this policy is considered too onerous in regards to the

provision of gypsy and traveller sites. As such these criteria should be attributed reduced

weight in the decision making process.

Overall this policy is considered to be wholly out-of-date, onerous and inconsistent in regards

to the criteria against which planning applications for gypsy and traveller applications should

be determined. For these reasons this policy should be attributed, at best, very limited weight

within the decision making process.


The overall thrust of this policy is the promotion and use of more sustainable modes of

transportation to the private car, achieved through a range of prescriptive requirements.

Whilst the NPPF also advocates the use of sustainable transport modes and recognises that

transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development, it

acknowledges that there will be circumstances where the uptake and use of more sustainable

modes of transport will be difficult to achieve and consequently that transport strategies

between urban and rural areas will need to differ.


The requirements of the NPPF are less prescriptive and more relaxed than the local policy;

rather than trying to force people into using more sustainable modes of transport, for

example by imposing requirements as included within criterion c – f of the local policy, the

NPPF encourages solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas and reduce

congestion and seek to provide people with a real choice about how they travel. Criterion c

of the local policy provides a clear example of how this policy is in direct conflict with national

policy. Criterion c seeks to ‘reduce car parking in town centres’ whereas paragraph 40 of the

NPPF states that ‘local authorities should seek to improve the quality of parking in town

centres.’

The test employed within criterion K of this policy is considered too high, when compared to

the similar requirements of national policy. This criteria does not allow for any new

development within Air Quality Management Areas unless impacts are appropriately

mitigated. Paragraph 124 of the NPPF does not seek to restrict development per se, but states

that planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values

or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality

Management Areas and states that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas

is consistent with the local air quality action plan. The local policy is vague and includes no

detail of the types of mitigation required or the threshold of development that will trigger

such. Furthermore, the wording of the requirement, that being ‘appropriately’ mitigated is

open to interpretation and would result in the policy being difficult to implement.

Criterion l would be impossible to secure/achieve in practice. How would Park and Ride

schemes be promoted? What are the thresholds for determining whether or not other

sustainable transport choices can deliver similar benefits? The policy is therefore open to

interpretation and in this regard is not consistent with the NPPF.

Overall, although the premise of this policy is similar to that of National Planning Policy, its

criteria, general approach and stipulations are too prescriptive and onerous. As such, the

policy is not considered consistent with the NPPF and should be attributed reduced weight in

the decision making process as a result.

CS27 Community Health and Safety


This policy is broadly consistent with chapter 11 of the NPPF and can therefore be attributed

weight in the decision making process.

CS33 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

This policy is broadly consistent with paragraph 14 or the NPPF and can therefore be

attributed weight in the decision making process.



The most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. Impact on openness is directly

related to the quantum of development and not to the visibility of the site. Therefore

openness is best described as the absence of development.

Green Belt is a spatial designation and impact on openness is related to the quantum of

development rather than what you can or can’t see. Openness cannot therefore be impacted

upon by the visual impact of any development and this therefore logically means that how

high or visually prominent a development is cannot impact on openness.

Predominantly the local plan policy is a criteria based policy, listing design based

requirements and considerations which go beyond the intent of green belt policy (listed

within paragraph 80 of the NPPF). Design based considerations are accounted for in other

policies and therefore in this regard, the requirements of this policy are too onerous and not

consistent with the NPPF.


This policy is not considered to be consistent with the NPPF for the following reasons; It is

widely established that in principle, gypsy and traveller sites are acceptable uses within rural

or semi-rural settings subject to their scale not dominating the settled community (Policy C

PPTS) and even when they are in ‘open’ countryside, away from existing settlements or

outside areas allocated in the development plan, there is still scope for their development,

with Policy H of the PPTS stating they should be ‘strictly limited’ in these circumstances.

Furthermore paragraph 55 of the NPPF also allows for new residential development within


the countryside, subject to it not being isolated, and even in these circumstances, there are

exceptions.

The local policy only state that sites will be supported in towns or villages, on sites suitable

for residential uses. Given the specific spatial and cultural requirements associated with this

defined group of people, it is not possible, in planning terms to consider their needs and

requirements akin to those of the settled community. This is acknowledged through the

provision of a separate planning policy document, the ‘Planning Policy for Traveller Sites’

which includes applicable policy against which to consider such allocations/applications.

There will be many circumstances where a site is not deemed acceptable for conventional

housing, but may be considered acceptable for use as gypsy and traveller site and this is why

the development requirements of this group of people are considered separately within

national planning policy. By applying the same criteria to gypsy and traveller sites as to

conventional housing, as this policy does, the policy is not considered to be fair and does not

facilitate the traditional and nomadic life of travellers and the policy is not realistic and

inclusive, as advocated throughout the PPTS.

The consistency of policy CS3 with national planning policy has already been considered and

is not considered to be consistent for a number of reasons, and thus should be attributed

reduced weight within the decision making process as a result.

In regards to criteria a – e of this policy, these are considered both onerous in their

requirement and discriminatory towards this defined group of people, as a number of the

criteria and the thresholds imposed are not required to be met in the determination of

conventional housing applications.

Criterion e of policy B of the PPTS seeks to ensure that when developing such sites local

amenity and the environment is protected, paragraph 13 of this policy provides more clarity

on how this is to be achieved. Criterion d of policy 13 states that LPA’s should ensure their

policies ‘provide a settled base that reduces both the need for long-distance travelling and

possible environmental damage caused by unauthorised encampment’ and criteria e states

that policies should ‘provide for proper consideration of the effect of local environmental

quality (such as noise and air quality) on the health and well-being of any travellers that may


locate there or on others as a result of new development’. There is not specific mention of the

considerations mentioned within criterion (a) of the local policy.

Criterion (a) seeks to ensure there will be no significant harm to the built or natural heritage

including trees, hedgerows and biodiversity. In regards to the built environment, Chapter 7 of

the NPPF includes design related policy for the consideration of such issues. Paragraph 64

states that ‘permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the

opportunities available for improving that character and quality of an area and the way it

functions.’ Thus the tests employed by the local and national policy differ. In regards to the

natural environment, Chapter 11 of the NPPF provides the relevant policy. Initially, the

terminology used by this policy is not understood and could be interpreted in a number of

ways. For the purpose of this report however ‘natural heritage’ will be taken as meaning

‘natural environment’. In this regard, paragraph 109 of the NPPF only seeks to protect and

enhance ‘valued’ landscapes and not the general countryside per-se. In regards to trees and

hedgerows, paragraph 118 of the NPPF states that ‘planning permission should be refused for

development resulting in the loss of or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including

ancient woodland’. Furthermore, consent is only required for the removal of trees and

hedgerow in specific circumstances (such as where they are subject to a TPO, are within a

conservation area or comprise an ancient hedgerow of a certain length). In this regard the

requirements of this policy are onerous. In regards to biodiversity, the policy requirement is

generally consistent with the NPPF.

In regards to criterion (b) the policy requires there to be no significant harm to amenity,

infrastructure or agriculture. National policy contained within both the PPTS and the NPPF

seek to ensure there are no adverse effects on the health and well-being of travellers and on

others as a result of the new development in terms of noise and air quality (criterion e of

Policy B PPTS) and paragraph 109 of the NPPF seeks to prevent ‘new and existing development

from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by

unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution’. In regards to impacts on

infrastructure, criterion f of policy B of the PPTS states that there should not be ‘undue

pressure’ placed on such whereas the local policy requires there to be no ‘significant harm’.

When considering the application of these tests, it may be argued that a development could


result in ‘significant harm’ on infrastructure, but that this would not result in ‘undue pressure’

if the needs of the development were so great. In this regard, it could be argued that the

threshold imposed by the local policy is too high.

Finally criterion b requires no significant harm to agriculture. It is not known what is meant

by the phrase ‘agriculture’. Paragraph 112 of the NPPF relates to the development of

agricultural land, but does not state that there should be no ‘significant harm’ to this land.

Instead it states that where ‘significant’ development of agricultural land is demonstrated to

be necessary… areas of poorer land should be used in preference to that of higher quality. As

such this requirement is poorly phrased and onerous and is thus not consistent with national

planning policy.

In regards to criteria d of the local policy, there is no requirement within national policy for

good access to community facilities by non-car modes. Paragraph 29 of the NPPF seeks to

ensure policies provide people with choice about how they travel, but recognises that

opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural

areas and that you cannot ‘force’ people to use alternative modes of transport to the car.

Furthermore, why are only ‘community facilities’ specifically referenced? And not also access

to all services and facilities? This requirement is therefore considered to be onerous and

poorly phrased and in this regard is not consistent with national planning policy.

The local plan policy requires sites to meet the requirements of criteria f – h.

Criterion f identifies design criteria. Since the Good Practice Guide ‘Designing Gypsy and

Traveller Sites’ has been withdrawn, there is no up to date guidance on the design and layout

of such development. What is considered ‘sufficient’ space is open to interpretation along

with the phrase ‘safe circulation’. It goes without saying that all development should be well-

planned to accommodate the scale of development proposed, but the specific requirements

of each site will differ and as such this criteria should not be included within policy, but should

be included within supplementary guidance. Furthermore, by referencing specifics of a site,

such as ‘caravans’ and ‘play spaces’ this could be interpreted as meaning that other facilities

on such sites do not need to be provided with ‘sufficient’ space or ‘safe circulation’. This

requirement is therefore poorly phrased and has no policy back up at national level.


Paragraph 26 of the PPTS states that weight should be attached to ‘sites being well planned

or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively enhance the environment and increase

openness’ and ‘should promote opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate

landscaping and play areas for children’ but does not ‘expect’ sites to meet such requirements

as per the local policy.

There is no requirement within national planning policy that requires a site to have ‘good

existing screening’ or the ‘carrying out of suitable landscaping’ as required by criterion h of

the local policy. This criterion is considered discriminatory towards this recognised group of

people. Furthermore the requirement is at odds with national policy within the PPTS which

seeks to ensure that a ‘site and its occupants are not deliberately isolated from the rest of the

community’ and identifies the use of landscaping as a measure to positively enhance the

environment and increase its openness, and not as a means of ‘screening’ a site. This

requirement is there for wholly inconsistent with the approach of national planning policy.

Presumption in favour of sustainable development

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF makes it clear that the “presumption in favour of sustainable

development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making

and decision taking.”

“For decision taking this means:

Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without

delay; and

Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date,

granting permission unless:

-Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the

benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework as a whole; or

specific policies in this Framework indicate that development should be restricted.”

The first bullet point of the decision taking part of Paragraph 14 of the NPPF and the

presumption of favour applies to all developments.


The altered balancing exercise of the second bullet point of the decision taking part of

Paragraph 14 of the NPFF (which many refer to as the presumption in favour of sustainable

development) has been applied by Inspectors in a number of gypsy cases.

Some examples are: Mr T Brazil v Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Mr M Thorne v Waverley

Borough Council and Mr Paul Brooks v Shropshire County Council.

Clearly if there is concluded to be an unmet need and the plan making process is not likely to

meet that need (through the allocation of additional sites) then the second limb of the

decision-making part of this test is engaged as the development plan can be described as

silent or absent.

Equally if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year supply of gypsy and traveller sites (as they

clearly cannot) then paragraph 49 of the NPPF is engaged.

If paragraph 49 is engaged then any relevant housing supply policy has to be given significantly

reduced weight as a result of being out-of-date.

The following Local Plan policies are considered to constitute housing supply policies:



CS4 Green Belt






In the recent case of Mark Wenman v SSCLG and Waverley Borough Council, the Secretary of

State sought to argue in the High Court that paragraph did not apply to caravans. Lang J

disagreed and clearly held that paragraph 49 applies to caravan sites including gypsy sites

where a five year supply cannot be demonstrated. The Secretary of State has obtained

permission to appeal this judgement to the Court of Appeal, but it is worth noting that Lang


J reached her conclusion without even considering the probable breach of the public sector

equality duty that would occur if paragraph 49 was not to apply to caravans and therefore

gypsy sites.

Therefore, either as a result of the lack of a five year land supply or as a result of a policy

framework that is clearly absent or silent in its means to deliver pitches that are needed,

the 2nd bullet point of the decision taking part of paragraph 14 is engaged in this case and

the benefits of the development (meeting an identified need, providing suitable,

acceptable, affordable accommodation, providing a mechanism to meet that need and

contributing towards a five year land supply) would have to be significantly and

demonstrably outweighed by any adverse impacts if the application were to be refused.

Adverse Impacts/Harm (Planning Considerations)

Principle of Development –Impact on Green Belt

The application site is situated just outside (approximately 100m) of the settlement boundary

of Swallownest, which is identified as a Principal Settlement within the Rotherham Local Plan

‘Publication Sites and Policies - September 2015’ document. As a result, the site does fall

within the countryside and is also situated within an area designated as Green Belt.

When considered against both the adopted and emerging local plan policies, by virtue of the

site’s location within the Green Belt and countryside, there would be policy conflict and so,

harm in this regard.

It is accepted that as a matter of principle gypsy and traveller sites are normally considered

to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and therefore other considerations

sufficient to outweigh the harm by virtue of inappropriateness and any other harm so that

‘very special circumstances’ exist, must be identified if this harm is to be outweighed.

As per paragraph 88 of the NPPF there is substantial harm by virtue of inappropriateness.

In addition to the harm associated with the ‘inappropriateness’ of the development within

the Green Belt, there is other harm caused to the ‘openness’ of the area.

The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land

permanently open. Impact on openness is directly related to the quantum of development


and not to the visibility of the site. Therefore openness is best described as the absence of

development. As a result, openness cannot therefore be impacted upon by the visual impact

of a development, and thus, how high or visually prominent a development is cannot impact

on openness.

The development of this 6 pitch gypsy site will therefor result in harm on the openness of the

area, as a result of the introduction of development on an area of land that is currently host

to no development. To ascertain the weight to be attached to this harm, the development

proposed must be evaluated against the five purposes of the Green Belt, as listed within

paragraph 80 of the NPPF.

1) To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas

The application site comprises a small area of land (0.23ha) within a larger, enclosed area of

paddock land. The wedge of Green Belt land within which the application site is situated

comprises a belt of land between the settlements of Swallownest to the north east and

Beighton to the west. This area of Green Belt is also host to Rother Valley Country Park. In

regards to the sites position within the Green Belt, it is directly adjacent to the settlement

boundary of Swallownest. When considering the size of the site in relation to the substantial

area of Green Belt in which it sits, along with its position adjacent to a settlement, the

development is considered to result in limited harm in relation to the first purpose of the

Green Belt.

2) To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another

Similar to the above, as a result of the scale of the site and its position within this area of

Green Belt, its development would not undermine the second purpose of the Green Belt and

would therefore at worst result in very limited harm in this regard.

3) To safeguard the countryside from encroachment

Given that the site is currently undeveloped, the development proposed would result in

encroachment within the countryside. The harm associated within this would however be

reduced as a result of the scale of the development proposed and the sites position, directly

behind a mature boundary hedge (which would physically provide a barrier to further


encroachment). Furthermore, whilst the application site is designated as countryside, as a

result of it being situated between a mature boundary hedge to its west and a recently

approved recreational fishing lake to its east, its development will be physically curtailed and

as a result any harm associated with encroachment will be limited.

4) To preserve the setting/special character off historic towns

Neither of the towns adjacent to this area of Green Belt are classified as ‘historic towns’ as

such the development will result in no harm in this regard.

5) To assist in urban regeneration

There are no suitable sites within the settlement boundaries of either Swallownest or

Beighton that would be suitable/available for the proposed use. Consequently, the

development of this site will not undermine the fifth purpose of the Green Belt.

Therefore in regards to impacts upon the openness of the Green Belt, the harm is considered

to be moderate.

As stated within the adopted Core Strategy 72% of land within Rotherham MBC is classified

as Green Belt. This has served its purpose in bringing about the regeneration of brownfield

sites within settlement boundaries however as also acknowledged within the Core Strategy

“the majority of the derelict land has now been reclaimed and is once again in

productive use. The down-side of this success is that the need for future development

land cannot be satisfied within the built-up areas of Rotherham alone.” (page 67)

In accordance with policy CS4 of the Core Strategy, along with the production of the Sites &

Policies document, a green belt review has been undertaken. This identified that there was

no available land to allocate for gypsy and traveller sites that was not within the Green Belt.

Taking this into account it is clear that the existing need for such sites will have to me met

through the development of Green Belt land.

As this site was historically host to a sewage treatment works, in terms of impacts upon

openness and specifically encroachment, impacts would be no worse, and would indeed be

lesser. Furthermore, although the site does not fall within the definition of brownfield land,


its specific quality is lesser than green field land and thus the harm associated with developing

if for another use would therefore be reduced.

In regards to the applicable Local Plan policies, there would be harm associated with policy

conflict in this regard, however, the weight to be attached to the applicable policies is

considered to be reduced in this case, both as a result of the inconsistencies identified with

the NPPF, as elaborated on above and as a result of them comprising housing supply policies.

In this regard therefore, it is considered that more weight should be attached to policies

within the NPPF.

When considered against NPPF policies, as identified the development is considered to result

in substantial harm in terms of inappropriateness and moderate harm in terms of openness.

Notwithstanding the above however, it is considered in this case there are very special

circumstances that will outweigh the harm associated with the inappropriateness of the

development within the Green Belt and that with its impact upon openness. These factors

will be considered in further detail below.

Impact on the Countryside

Emerging policy SP14 states that Gypsy and Traveller sites will be supported in towns and

villages. As the proposed site is situated within the countryside, there will be conflict with this

emerging plan policy. Notwithstanding this, weight to be attached to this policy must be

reduced for the following reasons:- it is not yet an adopted policy, its content is inconsistent

with the applicable national planning policy and it constitutes a housing supply policy (which

is relevant given that the LPA are unable to demonstrate a five year supply of gypsy and

traveller sites).

In this case therefore, more weight should be attributed to the relevant national policy; the

PPTS.

Policy C of the PPTS states:

“When assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning

authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest

settled community”


Paragraph 25 of Policy H states:

“Local Planning Authorities 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. Local Planning Authorities should ensure that sites in rural areas

respect the scale of, and do not dominate, the nearest settled community, and avoid

placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure.”

The application proposes 6 pitches, as such it could not be considered to dominate the

nearest settlement of Swallownest and would not place undue pressure on the local

infrastructure. Furthermore, by virtue of its proximity to the settlement of Swallownest, the

site is not within open countryside that is away from existing settlements. The proposal is

therefore consistent with national planning policy in regards to its location within the

countryside.

Impact on Character and Appearance

In order to determine impacts in this regard, a character appraisal of the surrounding area

must be undertaken.

As stated within the introductory paragraphs of this report, the application site comprises a

parcel of pastoral land situated between an area of land which is currently being developed

for use as a recreational fishing lake and a further parcel of agricultural land to the west. The

development of the fishing lake has resulted in considerable engineering works along with

the construction of a hard surfaced parking area. As such the previous undeveloped

characteristics of the land have been eroded.

Within its wider context, the site falls within a heavily developed area, which is host to a range

of land uses and forms of operational development. There is a modern and expanding

industrial estate and restaurant to its west, ‘Sheffield Caravans’, an extensive caravan sales

and storage site to the north west and the principal, service providing settlement of

Swallownest to the north.

The railway line runs adjacent to the southern boundary of the site, and further south of this

is Rother Valley Country Park, a large open space.


In terms of highway infrastructure, the site takes its access off a primary route, that being the

A57, which then provides direct access to the M1.

Given the considerable variation in the form, design and scale of surrounding development,

it could not be argued that there would be significant harm caused to the character of the

area by the ancillary, operational development associated with the proposed use. The

operational development would comprise of the installation of hard bases on which to site

the caravans and the laying of an internal access road and parking areas. The hard-surfacing

proposed would not be reflective of the immediately adjoining land, however, the

development would not be seen within the context of this, as a result of its siting behind a

mature hedge.

Furthermore the ancillary development proposed is considered to be essential in general to

enable the development of gypsy and traveller sites, which national planning policy consider

to be acceptable uses in principle within the countryside.

Appearance is considered in relation to views of a site from public vantage points.

From the strategic highway network, which surrounds the site, there would be at best very

limited views of the development. This is as a result of the mature planting belts which

surround the site, along with the presence of the internal, mature boundary hedge, aside

which the development is proposed, and as a result of the developments siting a considerable

distance from the surrounding roads.

Furthermore, the receptors in these circumstances would be generally fast moving, which

would further reduce impacts.

Similarly there would be at best, very limited views of the site from the railway line as a result

of the mature planting alongside it and the fast moving nature of the receptor.

There would be views of the site from public footpaths number 5 and number 6, and the

receptors here would be slow moving. This said, the development, given its confined nature

would not be viewed within the context of an undeveloped landscape and thus its harm in

terms of appearance would be reduced.


Paragraph 26 of the PPTS does not advocate that sites should be completely screened or

isolated from the rest of the community, but states that they should be ‘well planned or soft

landscaped’…. to ‘positively enhance the environment and increase its openness’.

As such, if there were to be considered to be harm in regards to the appearance of the site, a

condition could be imposed requiring the submission of a sympathetic landscaping scheme

to help soften the appearance of the development and assimilate it within its setting.

The ‘actual’ harm in terms of character and appearance is therefore considered to be minimal.

In terms of local plan policies, the most applicable policy in regards to considerations of

character and appearance is emerging policy SP14 - Gypsy and Traveller Sites. This policy

includes a number of design based criteria which should be given consideration in such

developments. The proposed development is not considered to conflict with any of the

relevant considerations in regards to design and appearance. Notwithstanding this however,

even if there were conflict, the weight to be attributed to this policy is reduced by virtue of

its status as an emerging policy, its inconsistencies with national planning policy and as it

comprises a housing supply policy.

The development is considered to be in accordance with the relevant local and national

planning policies in regards to character and appearance.

Residential Amenity

In regards to residential amenity, emerging policy SP14 requires that gypsy and traveller sites

do not result in significant harm on local amenity and requires that sites provide sufficient

space for caravans, commercial vehicles, play space, amenity blocks and for the safe

circulation of vehicles.

CS27 Community Health and Safety requires that new development should be suitable and

appropriate for its location, and it should be considered whether proposed development is

put at unacceptable risk from pollution and whether mitigation could overcome this.

The NPPF at paragraph 109 seeks to prevent both new and existing development from

contributing to or being but at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by

unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution.


The closest residential properties to the site, would be those on the opposite side of the A57

to the north of the site. As a result of the significant distance between the two, along with the

presence of a main road and extensive landscaping, the site would have no impacts on the

amenity of these dwellings.

The site is within close proximity of both the railway line to its south and the road network to

its north and west. As a result, the residence may suffer impacts associated with the noise of

these.

A noise impact assessment has been submitted in support of the application. This concludes

that there will be no materially harmful impacts associated with either of these noise sources

upon the proposed residents of the site.

Given that the site was historically operated as a sewage works, there could be some potential

for ground contamination. The investigation of this along with any mitigation could however

be subject to a planning condition, if considered necessary. This was the approach taken in

relation to the previous application for a 12 pitch traveller development on the same site, as

stated within the officer report:-

In regards to the layout of the development, the submitted site plan illustrates that there is

adequate space on site to host the proposed development, that there is adequate parking

and circulation space and that there will be remaining space in which children can play.

As such, the proposal is considered consistent with the intension of both local and national

planning policy in this regard, however, due to the inconsistences identified with policy SP14,

along with its status, it is to be attributed lesser weight in the decision making process.

Highway Safety

The development is to be served by an existing, surfaced access leading from the A57

(Chesterfield Road). This access previously served the former sewage works on the site and

has more recently been considered acceptable to serve the recreational fishing lake to the


east of the site. Furthermore, and of more relevance to this application, the access has been

considered suitable (subject to improvements secured by way of condition) for use in

association with a 12 pitch gypsy and traveller site proposed on the same parcel of land as

that proposed by this application. This is confirmed within the officer report associated with

this application:- (extract below)

As identified within the introduction of this report, the internal access road is also shared

with public footpath number 5. The LPA have previously raised concerns in regards to the

potential conflicts between the users of this and the vehicular traffic. To overcome these

conflicts, conditions were recommended in regards to the proposal for 12 gypsy and

traveller pitches on the site. The relevant extract from the officer report is provided below:-

Whilst conditions were recommended to overcome the potential conflicts, it is not considered

that such would be necessary or reasonable and therefore would not be in accordance with

the tests identified within paragraph 206 of the NPPF.

Initially, UDP policy T7 is not considered consistent with the NPPF and is therefore to be

attributed lesser weight within the decision making process. Secondly, is not considered

reasonable to impose the condition given the previous lawful use of the access in associated


with the sewage works, along with the fact that no such conditions were required in

associated with the use of the site as a recreational fishing lake. These uses would result in a

considerable number of vehicle movements and thus potential conflict with pedestrians using

the footpath. It is not considered that the movements associated with this proposal would

result in any material increase in vehicle movements over and above the approved uses that

would result in a level of harm that would necessitate the proposed conditions.

In terms of highway safety therefore, the proposal would not result in any materially harmful

impacts and would be in accordance with both national planning policies and local plan

policies (where they are to be attributed weight).

Sustainability

The NPPF at paragraph 7 sets down the three dimensions to sustainable development, these

being economic, social and environmental.

Policy B (paragraph 13) of the PPTS ‘Planning for Traveller Sites’ sets out that local planning

authorities should ensure that traveller sites are sustainable, economically, socially and

environmentally.

Both paragraph 7 of the NPPF and paragraph 13 of the PPTS have to be considered in the

round to come to a conclusion that a site is considered to be sustainable or not sustainable.

Paragraph 152 of the NPPF also notes the three dimensions of sustainability and its

consideration as a balancing exercise, particularly that: ‘Local planning authorities should seek

opportunities to achieve each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of

sustainable development, and net gains across all three.’

The Inspector in the appeal decision Mr J Cash v Three Rivers District Council at paragraph 35

states that ‘Paragraph 7 of the NPPF states that there are three dimensions to sustainable

development: economic, social and environmental. This paragraph then goes on to expand on

the aspects of each dimension. It is evident therefore then when considering development it is

not just a matter of building a strong and competitive economy or supplying housing to meet

required needs or protecting the environment but a balance between each of these roles.

Hence when considering sustainability it needs to be looked at in the round and not just on the


basis of distance to services and facilities. However this is one factor that should be assessed

in terms of environmental impact’.

In the same appeal decision the Inspector also stated at paragraph 36 ‘More detailed guidance

on the application of sustainability principles as they relate to gypsy and traveller sites can be

found at paragraph 11 of the PPTS. This sets out 8 factors that should be incorporated into

planning policies. Whilst they are not strictly related to decision-taking they are a clear

indication of those matter which the Government considers important in achieving the aim of

ensuring that development is sustainable, economically, socially and environmentally’.

As such the sustainability of the site will be considered in relation to both its proximity to local

services and in accordance with the criteria identified within paragraph 13 of the PPTS.

Local Services

The application site is directly accessed off the strategic highway network, (A57) which

provides easy access to the M1.

The site is approximately 100 metres to the south of the settlement boundary of the

service providing settlement of Swallownest (direct) or 180 metres along the road.

The nearest shop is the co-op in Swallownest, which is 809 metres from the site.

The Primary School in Swallownest is 895 metres from the site.

Swallownest Health Centre is 1.27km from the site.

Aston-cum-Aughton Leisure Centre is 1.34km from the site.

The closest secondary school, Aston Comprehensive School is 1.54km from the site.

In terms of public transport, there are two bus stops (on either side of the

carriageway) to the south west of the site access. These are between 112 and 161

metres from the site access. These stops are served by bus numbers 27, 28 and 675.

These routes provide an hourly service between Rotherham and Crystal Peaks. (via

Rotherham hospital)

As demonstrated the site is within a short distance of a comprehensive range of services and

facilities and is within close proximity of public transport, which provides good links to the

wider area.


In relation to acceptable walking and cycling distances, PPS13 (now withdrawn) provided

guidance in regards to such. In the absence of any replacement, it is considered logical and

reasonable to attach weight to such. This document defined 2km as an acceptable walking

distance and 5km as an acceptable cycle distance. These are long established distances in

terms of what is acceptable. It is also accepted that the distances identified can be combined

in a multi-mode journey.

Given the short distance of both Swallownest and the nearby bus stops to the site, it is

considered that the site provides access to local facilities and services in accordance with the

identified distances. It could be argued however that despite its proximity to the settlement

of Swallownest, the site would not provide ‘safe’ pedestrian access to the settlement as a

result of the lack of roadside footway between the two.

To demonstrate that this would not be the case, OS sitemaps have been provided below to

prove that the site benefits from various pubic rights of way (PROW) which would provide

access to both the settlement of Swallownest and the nearby bus stops.

The Green dashed line on the maps denote a PROW. The maps illustrate that the application

site is very well connected via such to the nearby settlements and bus stops.

The following route could be used to travel to the bus stops to the south west of the site:-

Follow footpath number 6 in a western direction for 300 mtrs, then follow the

pavement to the side of Chesterfield Road in a southern direction for roughly 115

mtrs, next follow the pavement in an eastern direction (roughly 100 mtrs) to the point

where it meets the bus stop on the A57.

The combined journey length for the above route is 515 mtrs or 0.5km. This is an acceptable

walking distance.

The following route can be used to travel to the settlements of Swallownest and Aston

Common:-

Follow PROW number 6 roughly 340 mtrs to the south east, then follow PROW number

5 to the north east for 220 mtrs. For Aston Common follow the PROW roughly 300

mtrs. For Swallownest follow the PROW roughly 370 mtrs to the north west.


The longer of these two routes, to Swallownest is approximately 930 metres or 0.9km which

is considered to be an acceptable walking distance.

As discussed above, the application sites provides choice in regards to alternative modes of

transport to the private car, as advocated within national planning policy.

Maps Illustrating PROW Surrounding Application Site

Application Site

Application Site


Image Illustrating PROW to Chesterfield Road

Image Illustrating Pavement from PROW along Chesterfield Road

Paragraph 13 Criteria

Criterion a) Peaceful and integrated co-existence

Overtime, unless there are specific social problems associated with sites, as a result of

increased contact and reduced fear, gypsy and traveller sites become acceptable within the

wider community. Permanent sites are far more accepted than the alternative of

unauthorised encampments, which result in significant community tensions.

This position was acknowledged by the Inspector in the case of Brooks v Shropshire Council

‘Integration happens gradually through communication between the site occupants and the

settled population this takes place through contact at schools, shops, post offices, pubs and

so on’ (paragraph 24).

Criterion b) Access to Health


The site has easy access to both the local doctors in Swallownest and the hospital in

Rotherham. A permanent base makes it possible for site occupants to register with the local

doctors, which would not be possible in the alternative of a temporary base or unauthorised

encampment.

Criterion c) Access to schools

The site is within close proximity to both a primary and a secondary schools. Furthermore,

the school bus (number 675) collects from the bus stop to the south west of the site. The

provision of a permanent base makes it possible for children to be registered at the local

schools and makes it more likely that they will attend and provides them with stability on this

regard. A large proportion of the traveller population are of school age and thus it is essential

that they have a permanent base from which to access education.

Criterion d) Reduction of long-distance travelling and environmental damage caused by

unauthorised encampment

It has been demonstrated that the site is within close proximity of a range of services and

facilities which will reduce the need to travel long distances to access such. Furthermore

through the provision of a settled base, it will be easier for the site occupants to register with

local services including health, dentists, leisure and schools etc. Consequently long-distance

travel will be reduced in this regard.

In addition, the approval of more permanent sites, result in the reduction of unauthorised

encampments and the associated damage. The provision of a permeant base will allow the

site occupants to establish more localised catchment areas for their commercial enterprises,

which will also reduce travel and associated unauthorised encampments in this regard.

Criterion e) Environmental Quality

The provision of a permeant site ensures that occupants are not locating in areas which would

result in unacceptable impacts in term of their health and well-being or on that of those living

within close proximity. The planning application process provides a mechanism in which to

assess potential impacts (through the submission of investigative reports, where issues may

arise) and to require necessary mitigation to ensure that sites are acceptable in this regard. If

there are an inadequate number of permanent sites, travellers may be forced to occupy land


in an unauthorised manner which has not been subject to the necessary investigation and

may therefore result in negative environmental impacts.

Criterion f) Undue pressure on local infrastructure and services

Given minor scale of the site proposed (6 pitches) in relation to the considerable size of the

closest settlement (Swallownest) there would be no undue pressure cased to local

infrastructure or services.

Criterion g) Flooding

The site does not fall within an area of high floodrisk. The provision of permanent sites are

beneficial in regards to unauthorised encampments which are far more likely to be situated

within areas of high flood risk.

Criterion h) Traditional Lifestyles

The location of this site is perfectly positioned to provide the site occupants with easy access

to the strategic highway network, which would be advantageous to the nature of many of the

traditional business enterprises which they operate. Furthermore, the sites location at the

edge of a settlement, as appose to in its centre is also advantageous in this respect.

Additionally, given the space available on this out of settlement site, there would be the

opportunity to combine business enterprises (associated with horse breeding and dealing

(eg)) with the residential use of the site, which would not be possible within a built up area.

In this regard, sustainability would therefore be increased.

Based on the above appraisal it is consider that the sites performs positively in relation to

criterial a – h of policy B of the PPTS.

A summary in accordance with the three strands of sustainability is provided below:-

Economic

The development will provide economic benefits to the area in the short and long term

through the site residents’ economic contribution to the area and in relation to the

development of the site. In terms of this limb the proposal’s effect is assessed to be positive.

Social


The development will help meet a significant social need for gypsy and traveller sites in an

area where there is a persistent record of under-delivery and inadequate provision in place

to meet those needs. Furthermore as the site is considered positively in terms of the health

and well-being of its residents, will enable its residents to access health and educational

services and will help facilitate and install the traditional lifestyle of gypsies and travellers

through the ability to provide for associated commercial enterprise on the site and as a result

of the proximity of the site to the strategic highway network.

The need for sites in the borough, the lack of suitable, acceptable, affordable alternative sites

and failure of policy in terms of providing sites of LPAs are further considered below.

In terms of the social aspect the proposal is assessed to be very positive.

Environmental

The proposed development would provide access to vital services within walking distance,

and via public transport. This would reduce the need for the use of a private vehicle as a

means of accessing these services.

In terms of impacts upon the character and appearance of the area, this has been considered

and it has been concluded that there would be no harm associated with such that would

render the proposal unacceptable.

In terms of residential amenity, both of the proposed occupants of the site and those existing

within the nearby area, it has been considered that there would be no materially harmful

impacts in term of noise or contamination that would render the site unacceptable.

The proposal’s effect with regard to the environmental limb is therefore positive.

On balance therefore, the proposal is considered to constitute sustainable development.

Material Considerations in Favour of the Application

There are a number of substantial material considerations in favour of the application that

could be used to outweigh any harm if the LPA considered there to be conflict with either the

local or national planning policies.

These material considerations are:


Unmet need in the Borough

Lack of available, suitable, acceptable and affordable alternatives

Lack of a five year supply of deliverable sites

Failure of policy

Likely location of sites within the Borough

Personal circumstances (personal need) of the intended site occupants.

A number of appeal decisions are referenced below that provide an idea of the weight

attributed to material considerations in various gypsy and traveller cases.

Local and National Need

Need for sites within Rotherham MBC

The LPA have confirmed that it currently has an unmet need for the provision of gypsy and

traveller sites in the borough. There is no up-to-date Gypsy and Traveller Needs Assessment

to inform this need. The most recent needs assessment is the South Yorkshire Gypsy and

Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment 2011 to 2016. This document identified a need

of 9 Pitches between the years of 2011 - 2016. The need identified within this document has

not been met. This existing unmet need within Rotherham MBC needs to be met.

The clear immediate unmet need in the Borough adds substantial weight in favour of the

application.

Availability of Alternative, Suitable, Acceptable and Affordable Sites

In assessing possible alternatives the decision maker should assess not just availability but

also affordability, acceptability and suitability. This is the approach followed by the Inspector

in the Angela Smith v Doncaster MBC case (at paragraph 40).

This Inspector’s decision however is clearly drawn from the judgment in Chapman ECHR in

2001, at paragraphs 103 and 104. This formulation of words was subsequently upheld in the

High Court.

It is established case law (South Cambs v SSCLG & Brown) that there is no burden of proof on

an appellant to prove that there are no alternatives available.


In regards to the availability of alternative accommodation; within the committee report

associated with application 16/00577/APP it is stated:

“The availability or lack of alternative accommodation is a relevant consideration. To

be a realistic alternative, accommodation has to be suitable, affordable, available

and acceptable. It is reasonable to consider whether alternative accommodation is

available and to its suitability. In this context, it is confirmed that there are no public

sites available at the current time. In addition, there are no available alternative

private sites with planning permission or identified land for which an application for

permission can be made for the applicants/occupiers. In the absence of any strong

evidence to the contrary, in all probability no alternative accommodation is likely to

be available to the applicants at the present time. There is a general unmet need for

and provision of gypsy and traveller sites nationally, regionally and, specifically, in

the area as set out above. The development would go some way to meeting that

need and in this case would make a meaningful contribution to the supply, delivering

19 of the 31 pitches required to be provided by 2018. This is a matter to which

significant positive weight can be attributed in favour of the development”.

It is clear from the available information that there are no alternative, available sites for

gypsies and travels within the Borough. Although a site ‘Kiverton Park’ has been proposed for

allocation within the emerging Rotherham Local Plan ‘Publication Sites and Policies -

September 2015’. This site is subject to examination and there remain unresolved objections

to it. Furthermore, if allocated this site will only accommodate part of the identified need and

will constitute of a public site, which may be unacceptable for many travellers to reside upon

due to its spatial constrains and does not provide the opportunity for travellers to own their

own site, which for many is a cultural must. This site is therefore not considered to be

currently available (as it is un-adopted and is still host to its existing use) and is not suitable

or acceptable.

The lack of any alternative, available, suitable, acceptable and affordable sites comprises very

significant weight in favour of this application. In the Angela Smith v Doncaster MBC decision,

this was sufficient with need, and lack of progress in identifying sites, to form very special

circumstances for permanent permission to be awarded in the green belt.


Furthermore, in the Yvette Jones v South Gloucestershire DC decision, unmet need, lack of

alternatives and lack of progress in identifying sites sufficiently outweighed the harm to the

Green Belt in general, that a permanent permission was granted without a personal

condition.

The Court of Appeal Judgement in the case of Butler v Wychavon, which reversed a High Court

decision to quash a grant of temporary consent is also significant. The Court upheld the

Inspector’s judgement that the very substantial weight he attached to the lack of an

alternative site could outweigh the combined harm in a green belt case to the extent that a

temporary consent could be granted.

The Inspector in the James Sykes v Brentwood BC appeal decision at paragraph 57 states that:

“Given the widespread and significant shortage of authorised gypsy and

traveller sites across the Eastern Region, as discussed above, even if Mr Sykes

had unlimited funds and a willingness to move some considerable distance this

would not assist him: if there are no available alternative sites (and no party

could point to any) then there is little point in making a fruitless search for

them. Because of his personal circumstances there is a negligible chance of him

being offered a pitch on a Council-own site, even if one were to become

available. He has a reasonable desire to live on a gypsy and traveller caravan

site within relatively easy access of his children. Such a site is unlikely to be

found in an urban area. While not all of the rural area within 30 minutes drive

time of Harlow is in the Green Belt, much of it is, especially the nearer parts,

and realistically, almost any alternative, suitable and affordable gypsy and

traveller site would be”.

The Inspector in the appeal decision, Mr James Lee v South Staffordshire District Council,

applied significant weight in favour of the appeal based on the existing substantial unmet

need in the district and the timescale in which sites would be provided by the LPA to meet

that need.


The Secretary of State in the appeal decision, Amer & ors v Mole Valley DC gives significant

weight after finding that there are ‘no identified alternative sites in the district for travellers

in general’.

Clearly in this case the lack of suitable alternative sites is a material consideration of

significant weight.

Failure of Policy

The failure of policy in this case is absolute as the council do not currently have any allocated

gypsy and traveller sites, and the proposed site for allocation will not accommodate the

identified future need and in many aspect is not considered suitable. As there is an existing

unmet need and as there will be future unmet needs, it is clear cut that there will be a failure

of policy. The LPA will fail to provide these additional pitches.

The importance of failure of policy is ascertaining the likelihood of the LPA successfully

addressing need in the future; it is not seeking to punish the LPA.

It is considered that the council will fail to meet the housing needs of this group of people and

furthermore, the LPA is not complying with the PPTS requirement to maintain a five year

supply of sites.

In the Crawt v Guildford Borough Council case the Secretary of State sets out at paragraph 21

that ‘this failure to progress the delivery of the necessary sites is a matter of considerable

weight in favour of the appeal’.

In the Stanley v St Alban’s City and District case the Secretary of State at paragraph 17 states

that ‘the failure of the development plan to meet the need weigh significantly in favour of the

appeal’.

In the Amer & Ors v Mole Valley case the Secretary of State at DL13 identifies that a failure to

progress with the identification of sites through the LDF process and slippage in programs

means that there has been a material failure of policy and he gave it significant weight.

The failure of policy adds substantial weight in favour of the application.


Lack of Five Year Land Supply

Rotherham MBC is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable land for gypsy and

traveller sites, which is a national requirement.

The lack of a five year land supply is a matter that should attract significant weight in favour

of a grant of planning permission, either on a temporary or a permanent basis. The point that

it applies to consideration in both temporary and permanent permissions has been made

clear by the Secretary of State in the recent Amer & Others v Mole Valley decision at DL20.

The Secretary of State gives this lack of a 5 year land supply significant weight in addition to

the significant weight afforded to the material failure of policy he finds (DL13), or the separate

issues of need and lack of alternative sites, to which he afforded separate weight.

In the Brooks v Shropshire appeal decision the Inspector follows this approach of the Secretary

of State at paragraph 67.

As set out in paragraph 25 of the PPTS, there appears to be no reason that the lack of a five

year land supply should not attract significant weight in this application, in favour of a

permanent permission.

Likely Location of Gypsy Sites in the Borough

As stated within the adopted Core Strategy 72% of land within Rotherham MBC is classified

as Green Belt. This has served its purpose in bringing about the regeneration of brownfield

sites within settlement boundaries however as also acknowledged within the Core Strategy

“the majority of the derelict land has now been reclaimed and is once again in

productive use. The down-side of this success is that the need for future development

land cannot be satisfied within the built-up areas of Rotherham alone.” (page 67)

In accordance with policy CS4 of the Core Strategy, along with the production of the Sites &

Policies document, a green belt review has been undertaken. This identified that there was

no available land to allocate for gypsy and traveller sites that was not within the Green Belt.

Taking this into account it is clear that the existing need for such sites will have to me met

through the development of Green Belt land.


As explained above, the ‘actual’ harm to the ‘openness’ of this area of green belt is only

considered to be moderate and is easily overcome by the material considerations in favour of

the proposal.

Furthermore as this site has been historically used as a sewage farm and has been subdivided

into smaller parcels of land through the introduction of internal hedgerow, it does not

function as ‘open’ land in the sense of the meaning of green belt and due to its siting at the

edge of the green belt and adjacent to a settlement, its development would not result in

harmful encroachment within the countryside.

It is accepted that technically the site is situated within the green belt, however when it is

considered that there is no land available for such purposes on non-green belt land, the

development of this site is considered to provide an acceptable compromise.

The Secretary of State in Mr M Kiely v Central Bedfordshire Council at paragraph 17 of his

decision letter afforded weight in favour of the proposal on the basis that there was a

likelihood that some future provision will take place in the Green Belt.

This is a material consideration of weight in favour of the proposal.

Personal Circumstances

Personal circumstances only need to be considered if the decision maker finds a departure

from policy and/or other harm and then finds that the other material considerations are

insufficient to outweigh the identified harm.

Gypsy Status of the Future Site Occupants

The gypsy status of the site occupants is only relevant if the decision taker concludes that it

is necessary to include personal circumstances in the balancing exercise.

It has been demonstrated that the material considerations identified would constitute ‘very

special circumstances’ and would override any harm to the green belt in this case. Given the

considerable material considerations in favour of the development, there is considered no

reason to consider personal circumstances at this point.


Permanent or Temporary Consent

This application should be considered in the following stages: Initially, it has to be considered

whether the proposal conforms with the applicable planning policy, if so, permanent planning

permission must be granted. Secondly, if there is some departure from policy, in that ‘harm’

follows, in accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF, it has to be considered whether any

adverse impacts of granting the permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh

the benefits… when considered against the NPPF as a whole or where specific polices indicate

development should be restricted.

In this case the housing supply policies of the Local Plan, including the Green Belt policies are

considered to be out-of-date by virtue of the inability of the LPA to demonstrate a five year

supply of gypsy and traveller sites. As such, weight attributed to these policies must be

reduced. Notwithstanding this however, the NPPF identifies that gypsy and traveller

development is an ‘inappropriate’ form of development within the Green Belt and that only

‘very special circumstances’ would override this harm. In addition, moderate harm has also

been identified in terms of the sites impact upon openness. This harm would need to be

overcome by material considerations in favour of the proposal and in this case, these material

considerations would need to provide for ‘very special circumstances’ if the proposal were to

be found acceptable.

As per the appeal decisions provided above, there have been many circumstances where the

general material considerations have amount to ‘very special circumstances’ to overcome the

harm to the green belt and any other harm to allow the grant of permanent planning

permission. It is not considered that the circumstances relating to this case are any different

and as such, it is considered that planning permission should be granted on this basis.

If however the LPA do not agree with this, in that it was felt that the general material

considerations did not provide for ‘very special circumstances’ and outweigh the harm to

the green belt in this case. Personal circumstances could also be added for consideration.

Following this, if it was considered that the material considerations and personal

circumstances did not outweigh the identified harm sufficient to grant permanent planning

permission, temporary consent would need to be considered.


As established within case law McCarthy v SSCLG & South Cambridgeshire DC [2006] EWHC

3287 and more recently Moore v SSCLG & LB Bromley [2013] EWCA Civ 1194 temporary

consent means the harm is reduced.

In line with the NPPG, temporary consent should be long enough to ensure that planning

circumstances will have changed in a particular way at the end of that period. This would be

when alternative sites become available following a Site Allocations DPD.

The minimum time for a Site Allocations/ Gypsy and Traveller DPD from commencement to

adoption, is between 3 and 5 years (based on national evidence).

Rotherham MBC do have a proposed site for allocation which is at the latter stages of the

process (with EiP taking place in November 2016). However, as mentioned, even if this site is

allocated, it will not provide for the full needs identified and will be unsuitable for occupation

by many of the gypsy and traveller community, who do not aspire to reside on a public site.

Therefore it seems highly unlikely that the LPA will be able to meet the outstanding need in

the district in the foreseeable future.

It is widely accepted that a period of 12 to 18 months will be necessary following the adoption

of a site allocations DPD for sites to be made available, obtain planning permission and for

any pre-occupation work to be carried out.

Even if the LPA are able to adopt a sites allocation DPD, the need figure is still unquestionably

an underestimation meaning the LPA would still not have a mechanism in place to meet the

overall need in the district. Therefore if a temporary consent was to be given it will need to

be for a minimum of 5 years to allow the LPA to revise their allocations and have them

implemented.

Clearly an issue can arise if it is considered that circumstances are unlikely to change or

unlikely to change sufficiently within a reasonable timeframe. However in these

circumstances rather than a permanent consent being refused, logic suggests that greater

weight should be attached to the issue of failure of policy as what will have been determined

is that the LPA do not have the policies in place to meet the need in their area.

It is the appellant’s case that at this stage a realistic likelihood does not currently exist and

therefore if a long temporary consent is being considered, a permanent consent should be


returned to. The significant length of time required for circumstances to change is also clearly

an issue.

Summary and Conclusion

An overview of the site context and relevant planning history has been provided.

Detail of the relevant local and national policies have been provided.

The local plan policies have been evaluated in terms of their consistency with the NPPF and

PPTS. In accordance with paragraphs 215 and 216 of the NPPF, these policies should be

attributed reduced weight within the decision making process. The following local plan

policies are not considered to be consistent with the national planning policies:-



CS4 Green Belt






The policies have also been considered in regards to whether they would constitute housing

supply policies for the purpose of paragraph 49 of the NPPF. If the LPA are unable to

demonstrate a five year supply of gypsy and traveller pitches, these policies should be

considered to be out-of-date and attributed less weight within the decision making process

as a result. The following policies are considered to constitute housing supply policies:-



CS4 Green Belt







When this site is considered against the relevant local and national planning policies there are

considered to be no harms identified.

A planning appraisal is subsequently undertaken to identify any harms.

It is considered that the proposal results in ‘policy’ harm as a result of the development

proposed comprising ‘inappropriate’ development within the green belt.

In terms of ‘actual’ harm to the green belt, it is considered that the proposal would result in

moderate harm in terms of openness.

No material harms are identified in terms of character and appearance, residential amenity,

highway safety or pollution in terms of noise or land contamination.

A sustainability appraisal is then undertaken. In terms of the location of the development in

relation to services and facilities, it has been demonstrated that the site is within walking

distance of all main services.

In terms of the provision of alternative modes of transport to the car, it is considered that the

future site residents would have either the choice of walking to the services, via the PROW

route illustrated or could use the bus service which is conveniently located within a short

distance from the site entrance.

The site scores positively in relation to the economic, social and environmental strands of

sustainability and therefore when considered in the round is concluded as comprising

sustainable development.

In accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF, the development is considered to constitute

‘sustainable development’ however, there are policies within the NPPF (relating to the green

belt) which suggest that it should be refused unless very special circumstances are

demonstrated.


The material considerations in support of the proposal have been identified and the weight

to be attached to these, within the decision making process has been further described and

backed up by the inclusion of relevant appeal decisions.

It is considered that the identified material considerations would in this case constitute

‘very special circumstances’, would override the identified harm to the green belt and

would allow a permanent consent to be granted.

If the LPA did not agree with this, it is considered that the personal circumstances of the site

occupants could be taken into account along with the consideration of a temporary consent.

The appeal site is clearly in compliance with the NPPF and PPTS with regard to its location

within the countryside and is deemed sustainable in line with the approach advocated by

paragraph 7 of the NPPF and paragraph 13 of the PPTS.

The site complies with development plan policy and national policy and should be granted

permanent planning permission.

Additional permanent provision of gypsy sites, particularly where they can be provided by the

gypsies themselves, is, and has been since 1994, the clear intention of government.

This site would make a contribution towards meeting the clear and immediate need for

additional permanent privately owned gypsy and traveller sites within the Borough.

Consequently, as per the reasons discussed within this statement, planning permission should

be granted.

Date post:	10-Mar-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhkhue
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

ReSolve Planning - rotherham.gov.uk · Planning permission has been granted (ref RB2011/1639 within...

Documents