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

Transcription

1 Appeal Decisions Hearing held on 7 July 2015 Site visit made on 7 July 2015 by Sara Morgan LLB (Hons) MA Solicitor (Non-practising) an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 14 August 2015 Appeal A: APP/F4410/C/15/ Land at The Thistles and Meadow View, Selby Road, Askern, Doncaster DN6 0ES The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act The appeal is made by Mr Anthony Durant against an enforcement notice issued by Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council. The notice was issued on 13 November The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission, the material change of use from agricultural land to a residential gypsy and traveller caravan (sic) subdivided into 2 pitches The Thistles and Meadow Way (sic) by the construction of driveways, hardstandings and the siting of 5 caravans. The requirements of the notice are (i) Cease the use of the site for (sic) as a gypsy and traveller residential site. (ii) Permanently remove from the land all static mobile homes, touring caravans, structures, hardstandings, driveway(s) and materials associated with the unauthorised use together with any rubble arising from compliance with this step and step (i). (iii) Reinstate the land to its condition prior to the breach by levelling the ground and reseeding with grass. The period for compliance with the requirements is Step (i) 6 months; Step (ii) 6 months; Step (iii) to complete reseeding before the end of the next available planting season (a planting season is October to March of the calendar year) following the completion of Step (ii). The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(a) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Appeal B: APP/F4410/W/15/ Land at The Thistles and Meadow View, Selby Road, Askern, Doncaster DN6 0ES The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land carried out without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. The appeal is made by Mr Anthony Durant against the decision of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council. The application Ref 13/01111/WCC, dated 20 May 2013, was refused by notice dated 11 November The application sought planning permission for the change of use to a gypsy caravan site for two families, including laying of hard-standing and erection of two wooden amenity buildings, at the Thistles and Meadow Way (sic), Selby Road, Askern, without complying with conditions attached to planning permission Ref 09/02083/RET, granted on appeal on 1 April 2011 under reference APP/F4410/A/10/ The conditions in dispute are Nos 1, 2 and 3 which state that:

2 (1) The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Anthony and/or Rebecca Durant and Jessey and/or Rosemarie James and their resident dependants and shall be for a limited period, being the period of 3 years from the date of this decision, or the period during which the premises are occupied by them, whichever is the shorter. (2) When the land ceases to be occupied by Anthony and Rebecca Durant and Jessey and Rosemaire James and their resident dependants or at the end of the specified temporary period, whichever shall first occur, the use hereby permitted shall cease and all materials and equipment brought onto the land in connection with the use shall be removed. (3) No later than 6 months following the cessation of the use by Anthony and Rebecca Durant and Jessey and Rosemarie James and their resident dependants the land shall be restored in accordance with a scheme of work previously submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The restoration works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. The reasons given for the conditions are: A 3 year temporary permission would allow for the identification of gypsy sites in the Site Allocations DPD and for sites to be brought forward for development (condition 1). At the end of the 3 years, or when the appellants and their resident dependants vacate the site, whichever is the sooner, the use shall cease (conditions 2, 3). Decisions Appeal A 1. The enforcement notice is corrected as follows: (i) (ii) (iii) In paragraph 1 delete 171A(1)(a) and replace with 171A(1)(b). delete the whole of paragraph 3 and replace it with: THE BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL ALLEGED: Failure to comply with condition 2 attached to planning permission 09/02083/RET granted on appeal on 1 April 2011 under reference APP/F4410/A/10/ for the change of use to a gypsy caravan site for two families, including laying of hardstanding and erection of two wooden amenity buildings at The Thistles and Meadow Way, Selby Road, Askern, which states that: 2. When the land ceases to be occupied by Anthony and Rebecca Durant and Jessey and Rosemarie James and their resident dependents or at the end of the specified temporary period, whichever shall first occur, the use hereby permitted shall cease and all materials and equipment brought onto the land in connection with the use shall be removed. Replace paragraph 5 (i), (ii) and (iii) with: Comply with condition 2 attached to planning permission 09/02083/RET by permanently ceasing the use of the land as a gypsy caravan site and removing all materials and equipment brought onto the land in connection with the use. 2. The enforcement notice is varied by deleting Steps (i), (ii) and (iii) in paragraph 5 and replacing them with: 12 months after this notice takes effect. 3. Subject to these corrections and variations the appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld, and planning permission is refused on the 2

3 application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended. Appeal B 4. The appeal is dismissed. Site description and background 5. The appeal site, which is the same in both appeals, is located on the west side of Selby Road (A19), beyond the northern edge of Askern. It is a long rectangle of land, and between the appeal site and Selby Road there are several small fields, one of which was in use for grazing horses at the time of my visit, and on one of which is sited a stable block. 6. On the southern part of the site, known as The Thistles, at the time of my site visit there was a static mobile home, two touring caravans, a wooden shed and a small wooden playhouse, as well as various items of domestic paraphernalia. The area in front of the static caravan had been tarmac d, and much of the remainder of the site was gravelled. A small wall had been constructed between the tarmac area and the static caravan. 7. To the north of this area, and separated from it by a post and rail fence, is an area of grass. Beyond that, and separated from it by a close boarded fence, is the area known as Meadow View 1. At the time of my site visit Meadow View also contained one static caravan and two touring caravans, and a shed. Much of this part of the site comprised mown grass, and a gravelled drive ran from an entrance into the site at the north-east corner to a gravelled parking area in front of the static caravan. 8. On 1 April 2011 planning permission was granted on appeal for the change of use of the appeal site to a gypsy caravan site for two families, including laying of hard-standing and erection of two wooden amenity buildings. That planning permission was granted subject to conditions, three of which are the subject of Appeal B. These limited the permission to a period of three years, restricted occupancy of the appeal site to the appellant, his wife and dependents and Mr Jessey James and Mrs Rosemarie James and their dependents, and required the use to cease at the end of the three-year period or when the site ceased to be occupied by the named persons, whichever was sooner. 9. In addition, condition 4 restricted the number of caravans to be stationed at any time on each of the two pitches thereby approved to two, of which no more than one should be a static caravan or mobile home. Condition 5 required the use to cease and all caravans, structures, equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purpose of the use to be removed within 28 days of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in that condition. The first of those requirements was the submission to the Council for its approval of a scheme for the internal layout of the site. 10. The mobile home at The Thistles is now occupied by the appellant Mr Anthony Durant and his family. The mobile home at Meadow View is occupied by his brother Mr Horace Durant and his family. The three-year period for which permission was granted has now expired. It was confirmed at the hearing that the scheme for the internal layout of the site referred to in condition 5 has not been submitted to the Council. 1 Referred to as "Meadow Way" in the section 78 appeal application and in the 1 April 2011 planning permission. 3

4 11. The Council agrees that the current occupiers of the appeal site are Gypsies, and I have no reason to disagree. It is clear from the evidence provided that they live a nomadic way of life. The same view was taken by the Inspector who dealt with the previous appeal. Appeal A: the allegation in the enforcement notice 12. The enforcement notice alleges a material change of use of the site from agricultural land to a residential gypsy and traveller caravan site 2. However, as can be seen from the background, the change of use of the appeal site to a residential gypsy and traveller caravan site took place some time before April , and was authorised on a temporary basis between 1 April 2011 and 31 March The continuation of use after the expiry of a planning permission granted for a limited period is not development. 13. The Council pointed out that section 171A(1)(a) of the 1990 Act provides that carrying out development without the required planning permission constitutes a breach of planning control. It was argued that as the use as a residential caravan site has not been authorised since the temporary period expired, the use as a caravan site has been carried out since that date and consequently that amounts to a breach of planning control. However, development is defined in section 55(1) as the making of a material change of use, not the continuation of a material change of use. 14. I consider that what has happened in this case is not the making of a material change of use after the expiry of the temporary period, but a breach of condition, which amounts to a breach of planning control by virtue of section 171A(1)(b). The notice should allege the failure to comply with condition 2 attached to the 2011 planning permission. The requirement would as a consequence need amending to a requirement to comply with that condition. 15. The appellant acknowledged that no injustice would be caused to him if the notice were to be amended, as it was clear what the enforcement notice was aimed at. However, the Council argued that it would suffer an injustice if the notice was corrected in this way, because it would not be possible, in alleging a breach of condition 2 alone, to require restoration of the land. That is a requirement of condition 3, which only arises once the land ceases to be occupied by Anthony and Rebecca Durant and Jessey and Rosemarie James. It was also pointed out that Jesse and Rosemarie James did not now occupy the site 4 and that consequently conditions 1 and 3 were being breached. 16. I have wide powers to correct an enforcement notice, provided that no injustice is caused to any party. I also have an obligation to get the enforcement notice in order if I can. In this case, it is not a matter of choosing whether to enforce against a material change of use or a breach of condition. I consider that it is wrong to say that there has been a material change of use as a result of the expiry of the temporary period. Consequently, I am not in a position to uphold the enforcement notice as it stands. The choice is between correcting the notice and quashing it. 17. In my view, no injustice would be caused to the Council by correcting the enforcement notice. Condition 3, which requires restoration of the site, 2 The word "site" has been omitted from the allegation, but it is clear that this is a typing error. 3 An enforcement notice relating to the unauthorised use of the site as a residential caravan site was issued in April it is unclear from the information provided whether they ever did occupy the site. 4

5 remains to be enforced if not complied with. I shall therefore correct the allegation and requirements accordingly. I shall consider Appeal A ground (a), and the deemed planning application, on the basis that it seeks permission to use the site as a gypsy caravan site for two families without complying with condition 2 attached to the 2011 planning permission. Appeal B 18. The section 78 appeal application seeks the variation of conditions 1, 2 and 3 attached to the 2011 planning permission to remove the reference in conditions 1 and 2 to the limited period of permission, and replace the names of Jessey and Rosemarie James in the three conditions. If a permanent planning permission is not granted, a further temporary planning permission of three years is sought. 19. Originally, the application sought to allow occupation of Meadow View by Mr Durant s parents. However, now Meadow View is occupied by Mr Durant s brother and his family and the appeal seeks to regularise that use. 20. Although at the time of my site visit one static and two touring caravans were sited on each part of the appeal site, it was confirmed that the hearing that permission is only sought for one static caravan and one touring caravan on each pitch. I shall consider the appeal on that basis. Appeal A - the ground (a) appeal and the deemed planning application, and Appeal B Main Issues 21. The site is located within the Green Belt. There is no dispute that the use of the site as a gypsy caravan site is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Consequently, the main issues are: (1) the effect of the change of use on the openness of the Green Belt, and whether there is other Green Belt harm in addition to the harm caused by reason of inappropriateness; (2) the effect of the change of use on the character and appearance of the local area; (3) whether there are other material considerations that weigh in favour of permitting the change of use to continue; (4) whether the other material considerations weighing in favour of the development clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify granting permission for the development for a further permanent or temporary period. Reasons Effect on openness 22. The Inspector who determined the 2011 appeal found that the stationing of four caravans on the appeal site, together with the associated ancillary buildings and vehicular parking, would reduce the openness of the site to a significant extent. I could see on my site visit that this indeed was the case, even taking account that only one touring caravan would be permitted on each pitch if the appeals were allowed. 5

6 23. It is also clear from aerial photographs of the appeal site before the unauthorised change of use took place, that the land was originally in agricultural use and was undeveloped. Now the site in its current use results in development encroaching into the countryside, and consequently the scheme is also contrary to one of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. Effect on character and appearance 24. The appeal site is beyond the main built-up part of Askern. It is in a gap between several short ribbons of development on this side of Selby Road. It is in the countryside, and as the previous Inspector noted, before the material change of use took place it was an agricultural field and would have contributed to the rural character of the local area. 25. The effect of the development has been to alter the character and appearance of this part of Selby Road. Even though the site is set back from the road, because the surrounding land is very flat, and because there is little in the way of screening vegetation for a significant length of Selby Road, the development on the appeal site, particularly on The Thistles, is very visible from the road. 26. I agree with the judgement of the previous Inspector that the siting of caravans on the appeal site makes this part of Selby Road appear much more built-up than would have been the case before it was occupied. The caravans stand out, as would the vehicles parked on the extensive hard surfacing on the appeal site, having an incongruous appearance in these rural surroundings and appearing unrelated to the existing small pockets of development nearby. 27. There must also have been a change to the outlook from nearby residential properties, although as these are purely private views less weight should be attached to that consideration. The site is well screened from other directions, and any views from higher advantage points would be over a significant distance, given the flatness of the immediately surrounding fields, and would not be material. 28. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that gypsy sites can be sited in the countryside, government advice in Planning policy for traveller sites (PPTS) advising only that local planning authorities should strictly limit new traveller site developments in open countryside that is away from existing settlements. With further screening to assimilate the development into its surroundings, it is said that there would only be limited visual harm. 29. This site is not in open countryside that is away from existing settlements. But the site is in the Green Belt, and the development is visually intrusive in the Green Belt. At the moment, very little in the way of soft landscaping has been provided to the development, and consequently the caravans have a stark and unrelieved urban appearance even when seen against the backdrop of the hedgerows on the western boundary of the site. 30. Planting of indigenous species could be carried out along the boundaries of the site to soften the appearance of the caravans, sheds and on the site, although no details of any proposed landscaping have been provided. That planting would take some time to be effective. Even when fully mature, it would be unlikely to soften the appearance of the development sufficiently during winter months to overcome its incongruous appearance. 31. In my opinion, the mobile homes and caravans on the site would continue to appear out of place in this Green Belt location even with mature indigenous 6

7 planting at these times. The visual harm and the harm to the rural character of the area and the Green Belt is significant now, and would continue to be significant even if an appropriate landscaping scheme were to be implemented. Other material considerations Whether there is a need for gypsy and traveller sites in the Borough 32. The Inspector who determined the 2011 appeal concluded that there was at that time an unmet need for additional gypsy and traveller sites in the borough, albeit unquantified. 33. The Inspector s report to the Secretary of State on an appeal relating to a gypsy and traveller site at Ten Acre Farm, Norton Common Road 5, which is very close to the appeal site, identified a five-year pitch requirement of 155 on the basis of the December 2013 household survey. Considerable reliance then was placed on sites coming forward in accordance with policy CS13 of the Council s Core Strategy adopted in May 2012, a criteria based policy. The Inspector s conclusion then was that there was a considerable unmet need. 34. At the time the Council submitted its hearing statement for this appeal, it argued that its five-year requirement for gypsy and traveller pitches was 41, and that as planning permission had been granted for a permanent gypsy site providing 10 pitches at Gibbons Lane Thorne, there was a net requirement of 31 pitches. These were to be met through the determination of applications in accordance with Policy CS Since that date, a further Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment (GTANA) has been produced, dated March This document, which has been independently reviewed, identifies a net surplus of 12 pitches over the next five years. 36. It is clear that the Council has gone to a great deal of trouble not merely to count the number of caravans and pitches, both authorised and unauthorised, within the Borough, but also to talk to the residents to determine numbers of concealed households. The Council has also had regard to the waiting list for pitches and planning applications for sites. A review of the waiting list involving contacting those on it has resulted in the numbers on it being reduced from 30 to two. 37. There has not been a recent survey of the gypsy and traveller population as a whole, including those living in bricks and mortar housing. According to the Council, the independent review of their methodology advised that the Council should assume that the needs for pitches of gypsies and travellers living in conventional housing are cancelled out by those who would wish to move into such housing from gypsy sites. It is not clear what the evidence is behind that assumption, given the advice in government guidance that efforts should be made to assess the needs of those gypsies and travellers living in houses. 38. On the other hand, the low numbers of people now on the Council s waiting list, and the difficulty it had initially in filling the new pitches it provided recently, is an indicator of limited demand, as is the relatively low number of applications for planning permission in recent years. In this regard I note that, according to the Council, a planning permission for a change of use to a gypsy site for a temporary period at Flashley Carr Lane has not been implemented. However, using waiting lists for pitches and numbers of planning applications is unlikely 5 APP/F4410/A/13/ The Ten Acre Farm hearing took place in January

8 to give a full picture of the need for additional pitches from those not currently occupying pitches in the Borough, although I recognise the difficulty of reaching those people. 39. Some of the sites included within the list of authorised private traveller sites are not subject to a gypsy occupancy condition. In addition, some sites have the benefit of certificates of lawful use, and so there are no occupancy restrictions. But although a degree of caution is needed when dealing with such sites, if they are occupied by gypsies and travellers at the time of the survey it is not unreasonable to take them into account. In respect of the vacant pitches on such sites, it is also fair to assume, if they have been used for gypsies and travellers in the past, that they will continue to be so used in the future in the absence of any indication to the contrary. The appellant referred to anecdotal information that pitches at Stockbridge Lane had been occupied by foreign non-gypsy or traveller workers, but those pitches were still vacant at the time of my site visit. 40. The GTANA does not take into account vacancies arising on private sites. But the Council relies for its future supply on Council pitches becoming vacant in the future. There is no information as to whether those leaving these sites are moving within the Borough onto a private site or leaving the Borough altogether. In the former case, the gain through the vacant pitch would be offset by the loss of a private vacant pitch. Only in the latter case should the vacancies be regarded as part of the future supply. 41. The GTANA assumes that planning permission will be granted for additional pitches at Tilts Farm in the next 12 months. This site is in the Green Belt and would also need to satisfy the sequential test for location of sites in areas at risk of flooding. The Council appears to be very confident that these pitches will materialise, and discussions have been held between the owner and the local planning authority already. However, the site s location in the Green Belt and in an area at risk of flooding is a significant obstacle to be overcome, and there must be some doubt as to whether these pitches will be provided. 42. The Council s track record in the last 12 months in predicting sites to come forward has been good, with the vast majority of the 59 sites identified to come forward in 12 months being delivered. There are 70 unauthorised pitches in the Borough, but many of those involve sites which breached conditions but where the Council would support a formalisation of the position. If the Council is trying to formalise the situation, these sites would not add to the demand. On the day of the count of pitches there were no unauthorised roadside encampments. The GTANA also points to the rate of take-up for pitches which become vacant, which ranges from between immediate re-let to 10 or more months, as an indicator of limited demand. 43. The Council says there are a number of vacant pitches, a small number on the two Council sites and the remainder on private sites. Some of those pitches are subject to personal occupancy conditions or section 106 obligations, and so would not be immediately available (Glen Bungalows, Pony Paddocks and Hacienda). However, the Council says it is working with the owners at the Hacienda site, where there were 14 vacant plots in March 2015 and are now 20, to have those restrictions removed. Additional pitches have been provided at the Council s sites. Additional pitches have also been formed at Millfield caravan site, The Stables and Dun Roamin and Tilts Farm, all of which require 8

9 regularisation. The Council anticipates all the necessary regularisation being achieved within the next 12 months 44. To summarise, I do not agree with all of the criticisms made by the appellant about the GTANA. The Council is clearly making great efforts to establish need and to achieve the provision of sufficient sites. However, the fact that no survey of gypsies and travellers has been carried out since 2007 and no assessment has been made of demand from people not currently living on gypsy pitches undermines the Council s conclusion as to need. It is also not clear on the basis of the information provided that the figures for vacancies likely to arise on Council sites in the future should be counted towards supply of new sites. In addition, there is a reliance on the regularisation of unauthorised pitches taking place which may be overly optimistic. My conclusion on balance, taking all these matters into account is that the Council has not yet demonstrated that it has a five-year supply of sites, although further work may resolve the uncertainties I have identified. Whether there has been a failure of policy 45. There are no sites allocated for gypsies and travellers in the adopted development plan. Policy CS13 is restrictive in not permitting small family sites within the countryside protection area, which covers all the countryside outside the Green Belt. The Site Allocations DPD referred to in the reason for granting a temporary permission in 2011 has been withdrawn. 46. The Council is working hard to secure the provision of sites and to resolve issues such as the presence of restrictive occupancy provisions and the regularisation of unauthorised sites (something encouraged by policy CS13). Nonetheless, it has not, on current available evidence, demonstrated a five year supply of sites. It is also clear, from the previous appeal decisions referred to, that this situation has been continuing for some years. There has therefore been a failure of policy to bring forward sites over a number of years. Is other accommodation available to the occupiers of the site? 47. The Council says there are vacancies on a number of sites. This includes a small number on the Council s own sites, White Towers and Land s End, as well as 22 at Stockbridge Lane, five at Holmwood Lane, two at Glen Bungalow, three at Tilts Farm, three at Pony Paddocks and 20 at Hacienda. Occupancy restrictions at Glen Bungalow, Pony Paddocks and Hacienda mean that those sites could not be said to be available now, although some or all may become available in the near future if the Council resolves the occupancy issues. 48. The appellant said that the pitches at Glen Bungalow had been reserved for future occupiers and those at Pony Paddocks were not actually available as the occupiers were away travelling. He also said that personal relationships with the owner of the Holmwood site ruled out that as an option, and I accept that. However, that still leaves a number of sites where pitches are available. 49. The appellant says that the standard of the sites at Stockbridge Lane and Lands End would rule them out as suitable accommodation. Stockbridge Lane is said not to have any buildings on the site with facilities, although according to the Council there is a water supply. Lands End is a Council run site which, the Council says, provides up to standard pitches, including 12 new pitches. This site was criticised in 2014 by the Inspector dealing with the 10 Acre Farm appeal as having a poor family environment. There is no evidence before me 9

10 as to why that might be, or as to whether the criticism is still justified, but the site is somewhat remote. 50. The occupiers of the appeal site clearly have a preference to stay where they are rather than go onto any of the sites where there are vacancies, and have raised various generalised objections to the other alternatives suggested. But the evidence strongly suggests that there are other sites available which they could occupy, albeit not in Askern where they have local ties and wish to live. 51. The appellant criticises the lack of choice available, particularly of small familyowned sites. But there appears to be a reasonable number of different sites available or likely to become available for occupation within the near future. There is no convincing evidence that those sites would not be regarded objectively as acceptable, even if the appellant might not regard them as acceptable to him. 52. I am not satisfied that the only reasonable alternative for the families if planning permission were refused would be on the roadside or on another unauthorised site. This is in contrast to the situation in 2011, when the Inspector gave substantial weight to the likelihood that the family would have to resort to unauthorised camping if planning permission was refused. Personal circumstances 53. Living on the site in addition to the four adults, are one teenager who has left school and one who is about to leave school, four school-age children all attending schools in Askern, and two children below school age. Mr Horace Durant travels in the summer for several weeks at least, and while he is away his school-age children have attended schools on their travels, organised by their Askern school. 54. The occupiers are gypsies, and the public sector equality duty is relevant to my consideration of this appeal. Living on the site enables the occupiers to maintain their gypsy way of life. The occupiers of the two mobile homes are closely related and living so closely together allows the wider family to keep in close contact and provide mutual support. There would be benefits from the families remaining on the site in terms of them being able to follow their traditional way of life, but there is no convincing evidence that they could not do this on the other available sites. 55. Clearly, having a settled base at Askern enables the children to attend schools in Askern, where there are a number of children with a similar background. It is important for the children to be able to attend school regularly, and the local school is able to facilitate the children s ongoing education when the families are travelling. However, if they were living on other sites where there are vacancies that would not necessarily preclude them attending schools in Askern 6, although they would have further to travel to school. 56. All of those living on the site are registered with doctors in Askern. They are all in reasonable health. Permanent access to health care is important in maintaining health, and this is undoubtedly facilitated by the families living on the appeal site, although there is no evidence that access would be lost if they lived on another site. 6 According to one ward councillor children from the Hacienda site, where Mr Horace Durant was living and where his father still lives, attend Askern schools. 10

11 The planning balance 57. The use of the appeal site as a residential caravan site is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances 7. The development significantly reduces openness. It also conflicts with the Green Belt purpose of assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. I attach substantial weight to this harm to the Green Belt. I also attach significant weight to the harm to the rural character and appearance of the area and to this part of the Green Belt caused by the development. 58. On the other side of the balance, the Council has not demonstrated that it has a five-year supply of sites for gypsies and travellers, and development plan policy has failed over a number of years to deliver the number of sites required. I attach significant weight to these considerations. However, the written ministerial statement of July 2013 makes it clear that the single issue of unmet demand for traveller sites is unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the very special circumstances justifying appropriate development in the Green Belt. 59. Refusing to grant a permanent planning permission would result in the occupiers having to leave the site and find alternative accommodation. This would lead to significant disruption to their home and family life, even given the availability of other sites. There would be cultural benefits for the occupiers if they continued to live on the site. There would be benefits to the school-age children currently living on the site, who would have convenient access to the local schools. The best interests of the children are a primary consideration in this appeal 8, and it would be in their best interests to have a settled home base from where they could go to school and access healthcare and other social facilities. In addition, the adults living on the site would also benefit from continuation of the access they currently enjoy to health service facilities. But I attach only moderate weight to these considerations, as I am not satisfied on the available evidence that there are no other sites available for the current occupiers, if they were required to leave the appeal site. In addition, I am not satisfied that, if the families moved to another site, access to education and healthcare would be lost or they would be unable to continue to live their traditional way of life. 60. I also attach only limited weight to the wishes of the occupiers to live in the Askern area, where they have local ties, and their desire for their children to grow up together. There is no overriding right to a home in a particular desired location, regardless of planning policy considerations. 61. Putting all these matters into the balance, therefore, I conclude that these other considerations together do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the other harm identified, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify granting a permanent permission. Consequently, the variation of conditions sought in both appeals would conflict with policies CS3 and CS13 of the Core Strategy and with saved policy ENV3 of the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan, which contain a presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including the provision of gypsy and traveller pitches, other than in very special circumstances. It would also 7 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) paragraph Zoumbas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC

12 conflict with national policy relating to Green Belts contained in the Framework and in PPTS. Temporary permission 62. The appellant has argued that, if a permanent permission is not justified, consideration should be given to granting planning permission for a further temporary period. Granting a temporary permission would not reduce the amount of harm the development would cause, but would limit it to a fixed period. PPTS in paragraph 25 advises that, if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five-year supply deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration when considering applications for the grant of a temporary planning permission. 63. The Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) advises that it may be appropriate to grant a temporary permission where it is expected that planning circumstances will change in a particular way at the end of the temporary period. The original planning permission the subject of this appeal was granted for a temporary period, on the basis that it was likely that over the following couple of years the Council s Site Allocations Development Plan Document would identify sites to meet the unmet need. That DPD has now been withdrawn, and it is not possible to say with certainty when sites other than those already identified and in existence would be likely to come forward, although I acknowledge the work the Council is doing in this regard. Consequently, it is not clear that planning circumstances will change over the period of a further temporary permission, other than that existing sites with occupancy restrictions seem likely to have those restrictions removed. 64. In any event, however, my conclusion is that there are other sites available for the occupiers to move to, albeit not in their chosen location and not a site owned by them. There is no evidence that, if a further temporary permission was granted, a site would come forward which would meet their aspirations. Consequently, granting a further temporary permission would conflict with national policy guidance. 65. The harm to the Green Belt from a temporary permission of three years would still be substantial and the harm to character and appearance would still be significant. Under the circumstances, it would not be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify even a temporary planning permission. 66. Dismissing the appeal would interfere with the human rights of the occupiers of the site, because they would lose their home and their family life would be disrupted as a result. However, the protection of the Green Belt is a legitimate planning policy consideration, and the interference with the occupiers human rights would be no more than is necessary to control the use of the site in the general public interest. It would not be disproportionate. 67. I also consider that none of the aims of the public sector equality duty to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations would be furthered by granting planning permission, either temporary or permanent, for this site, given the planning policy objections to it. 12

13 Appeal A: the ground (g) appeal 68. As I propose to correct the notice in order to reflect the correct breach of planning control, the sole requirement of the notice will be to comply with condition 2 attached to the 2011 planning permission. The notice originally required the use of the site as a residential gypsy and traveller caravan site to cease within six months. The appellant argues that this period of time would be inadequate, and seeks a period of 18 months. 69. In order to comply with condition 2, the use as a gypsy and traveller site is required to cease and all materials and equipment brought onto the land in connection with the use to be removed. The appellant will need to make arrangements to move the two static caravans currently on the site and seek alternative accommodation, and that will cause significant disruption. 70. In my view, a period for compliance of 18 months would be excessive, bearing in mind the harm that continues to be caused to the Green Belt through the siting of caravans on it. However, bearing in mind what is required in arranging for the removal of the caravans, I consider that a more reasonable period of time for compliance would be 12 months. This would achieve an appropriate and proportionate balance between the need to remedy the breach of planning control without unnecessary delay in the interests of protection of the Green Belt, and the need to avoid any more disruption than is necessary to the lives of the appellants. To that extent, the appeal succeeds. Overall conclusions 71. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeals should be dismissed. In respect of Appeal A, I shall uphold the enforcement notice with corrections and variations and refuse to grant planning permission on the deemed application. Sara Morgan INSPECTOR 13

14 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr Philip Brown Mr Anthony Durant Mr Horace Durant Mr Horace Durant senior Philip Brown Associates Appellant Appellant s brother Appellant s father FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Ms Saira Kabir Sheikh QC Mr Andy Brown Mr Garry Hildersley Mr Richard McKone Mr Gareth Stent Of Counsel Doncaster MBC Doncaster MBC Doncaster MBC Doncaster MBC INTERESTED PERSONS: Councillor Austin White Councillor Allan Jones Councillor Iris Beech Ward Councillor Ward Councillor Ward Councillor DOCUMENTS 1 Council s letter of notification of the hearing 2 Bundle of letters of support handed in by the appellant 3 Site location plan submitted with section 78 appeal application 4 Supplementary statement handed in by the appellant 5 Appeal decision APP/F4410/A/05/ OS field 5566, Hall Villa Lane, Toll Bar, Doncaster, handed in by the appellant 6 Appeal decisions APP/H2265/A/12/ & land at Orchard farm, Wells Street, East Malling, handed in by the appellant 7 Bundle of photographs of Stockbridge Lane 14