SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNCIL STATEMENT OF CASE ON BEHALF OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY

Transcription

1 SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNCIL STATEMENT OF CASE ON BEHALF OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY Appeal by Mrs. S Biddle against the decision by South Northamptonshire Council to refuse planning permission for change of use of land to be used as a residential caravan site for two gypsy families each with two caravans (including one static mobile home), erection of a day room, laying of hardstanding and the erection of an acoustic fence at Sheepcot Bugbrooke Road Nether Heyford Local Authority Reference: S/2013/1542/FUL Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/Z2830/A/14/ STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Summary 3. The LPA s Case 4. Conclusion Appendix A: Evidence of SNC s Environmental Protection Officer Appendix B: Noise Assessment by RandTech Consulting Appendix C: Recent Planning History for Heyford Fields Farm Appendix D: Suggested Conditions

2 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This statement is made in response to the appellant s grounds of appeal and provides a reasoned justification of the Local Planning Authority s (LPA) reasons for refusing planning permission, with reference to prevailing planning policies and Government guidance, where appropriate. 1.2 For the avoidance of doubt, the following matters are addressed in the Statement of Common Ground: 2. SUMMARY The description of the site The description of the area The planning history of the site The relevant planning policies and guidance The plans and documents considered in the LPA s determination of the planning application 2.1. The LPA accepts that there is an un-met need for Gypsy and Traveller sites in South Northamptonshire and the appeal proposal would contribute to meeting that need The LPA also accepts that, in the context of this un-met need, the appeal site is not inappropriate in general location and transport terms However the LPA maintains that by reason of the appeal site s proximity to the complex of buildings at Heyford Fields Farm, there would be significant adverse impacts on the amenities of the occupiers of the appeal site as a result of noise, odour, dust and general disturbance from the farm, in particular noise from the grain dryers The appellant s noise assessment is considered to be out-of-date and un-reliable and therefore inadequate to demonstrate that the adverse noise impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated The significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the proposed residents is considered to give rise to an undesirable conflict of use with the farm which is likely to result in unreasonable restrictions being placed on the future operation and growth of the farm The proposed acoustic fence is considered to be inadequate to mitigate these adverse social and economic impacts, and would itself cause unjustified environmental harm to the character of the area Having regard to the NPPF and the PPTS, the harm caused by the appeal proposal is considered to outweigh the benefits of granting planning permission in this case. A temporary permission is not considered appropriate as this would not remove the risk of significant

3 adverse economic impacts on the farm occurring as a result of increased planning restrictions and statutory nuisance issues arising during the period of the permission. 3. THE LPA S CASE 3.1 The Statement of Common Ground identifies the following matters of specific disagreement between the LPA and the appellant: a) Whether the activities carried on at Heyford Fields Farm would unacceptably harm the amenities of the future occupiers of the appeal site b) The adequacy of the appellant's evidence (including the noise assessment prepared by Anglia Consultants dated September 2011) in assessing the potential for harm c) Whether the appeal proposal, if allowed, would unreasonably restrict the activities carried on at Heyford Fields Farm d) Whether the proposed acoustic fence would cause unacceptable harm to the rural character and quality of the area 3.2 This statement shall detail the LPA s case in respect of each of these matters in turn. It shall deal with a) and b) together as b) is necessarily linked to a). It shall then turn to what the LPA considers to be the fundamental issue in dispute, namely whether the need for gypsy accommodation outweighs the harm caused in this case such that it would be justified to grant planning permission. 3.3 THE AMENITIES OF THE FUTURE OCCUPIERS OF THE SITE (INCLUDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE NOISE ASSESSMENT) 3.4 The LPA s first reason for refusal is concerned with the appeal site s relationship to Heyford Fields Farm, and the potential for significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the future occupiers of the appeal site as a result of noise, odour, dust, vermin and general disturbance from the farm activities. Noise is a particular concern given the close proximity of the appeal site to a building used for drying grain, and so this issue shall be dealt with first. 3.5 The appellant s statement of case relies on the findings of the noise assessment carried out by Anglia Consultants in September On the basis of this assessment, the appellant argues that the proposed mobile homes would meet the World Health Organisation s internal and external noise guidelines when sited (as proposed) away from the grain dryers and with the provision of a 2.2 metre high acoustic fence along the southern boundary of the site. Furthermore, with the provision of the proposed acoustic fence, the appellant argues that the noise level of the grain dryers (as experienced on the appeal site) would be

4 reduced to 5-7dB(A) above background noise in the area. The appellant makes reference to a previous appeal decision (Appendix PBA4 of the appellant s statement of case) as evidence that a rating level of less than 10db(A) above background noise does not justify refusing planning permission. 3.6 The LPA s case relies on the evidence of the Council s Environmental Protection officers (attached as Appendix A to this statement), the noise assessment by RandTech Consulting dated 10 December 2013 carried out on behalf of Heyford Fields Farm (attached as Appendix B to this statement) and the recent planning history for the development of Heyford Fields Farm (attached as Appendix C to this statement). On the basis of this evidence the LPA contends that the appellant s noise assessment is unreliable and is out of date. Furthermore the LPA contends that the proposed acoustic fence would not reduce the noise level of the grain dryers to less than 10db(A) above background noise level. As such it is highly likely there would be a significant adverse noise impact on the amenity of the occupiers of the appeal site, such that a statutory noise nuisance would occur at times when the grain dryers are being operated. 3.7 The evidence of the Council s Environmental Protection officers (Appendix A) sets out in detail the reasons why the appellant s noise assessment is considered to be un-reliable. In summary this is because the assessment methodology used does not follow the best practice guidance contained in BS4142. It also sets out the reasons why the proposed acoustic fence is considered to be inadequate to mitigate the noise impact from the grain dryers to an acceptable level. This conclusion is informed by the noise assessment carried out on behalf of Heyford Fields Farm (Appendix B) which provides evidence that the noise impact from the grain dryers has noticeably increased since the appellant s noise assessment was carried out due to upgrading the grain dryer facilities. 3.8 With regard to the recent planning history for the development of Heyford Fields Farm (Appendix C), the most pertinent piece of evidence is the supporting statement submitted with the application for an extension to the grain store (ref: S/2011/1552/AGD). The LPA considers that, along with the noise assessment attached at Appendix B, this is important evidence that the applicant s noise assessment is out of date as it does not take account of the upgraded grain drying facilities. It is also evidence that the noise impact from the grain drying facilities, although seasonal, is likely to be experienced for prolonged periods of time, including continuously through the night. 3.9 Turning now to the potential for other adverse amenity impacts, Appendix C also demonstrates how the activities at Heyford Fields Farm have expanded and diversified over the course of the last 13 years, most recently to include the addition of livestock farming and the overwintering of cattle. This is evidence of a successful farm

5 enterprise, with every prospect of further growth in the future. The appeal site is immediately adjacent the farm complex and its proposed residential use would be especially sensitive to any problems of odour, dust, vermin and general disturbance resulting from the established and growing farm enterprise The appellant suggests that the likelihood of complaints from future residents of the appeal site would be limited if the farm operates in accordance with best practice. However it is not stated what best practice should be followed, and so the LPA cannot comment whether or not this would be sufficient to avoid adverse amenity impacts without imposing additional burdens on the farm operations. It should also be noted that there are currently very few planning conditions in force which regulate the nature, type or frequency of agriculture-related activities that can take place at the farm In respect of the appellant s statement that the cattle building would not be up wind of the proposed mobile homes or play area, the farm buildings are all located to the south and west of the appeal site. As such the LPA would contend that the appeal site is particularly vulnerable to the prevailing south-westerly wind direction. In any event, simply the close proximity of the appeal site to an established and growing farm business is considered likely to result in a variety of adverse amenity impacts on the proposed occupiers of the appeal site Policy G3(E) of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan states that: Planning permission will normally be granted where the development is neither of a hazardous nature nor likely to cause problems of pollution, noise, vibration, smell, smoke, discharge or fumes. Likewise paragraph 117 of the NPPF states that planning should: always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings and paragraph 123 states that planning should: avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development Specifically in respect of proposals for Gypsy and Traveller sites, policy H7 of the emerging West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy states that sites should: provide an acceptable standard of amenity for the proposed residents. Sites which are exposed to high levels of noise and air pollution are not acceptable. This is in accordance with paragraph 3.3 of the Government s Good Practice Guide for Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites which states that: sites should not be situated near refuse sites, industrial processes or other hazardous places, as this will obviously have a detrimental effect on the general health and well-being of the residents It is the LPA s view that the appeal site is clearly not suitable for residential development of any kind that is separate from the adjacent farm complex, particularly in light of the high risk of a significant adverse noise impact on the amenity of the proposed residents.

6 However the LPA recognises that there is an un-met need for gypsy and traveller sites in South Northamptonshire, and this need must be weighed against the harm that would be caused in this case. This issue is returned to at paragraph 3.24 of this statement THE IMPACT ON HEYFORD FIELDS FARM 3.16 As already noted at paragraph 3.9 of this statement, Appendix C demonstrates how the activities at Heyford Fields Farm have expanded and diversified over the course of the last 13 years, most recently to include the addition of livestock farming and the overwintering of cattle. This is evidence of a successful farm enterprise, with every prospect of further growth in the future However, currently the farm complex is some distance away from the nearest dwellings (excluding the farm house), and there are very few planning conditions which restrict the operation of the farm activities. If the appeal is allowed, it will introduce a residential use immediately adjacent the farm and this will become a material consideration in the determination of any future planning applications for further development at the farm. This could result in restrictions on the location, scale, nature and operation of future development that would not otherwise have been necessary (to ensure the residential amenity impacts are acceptable) and which could impede the growth and efficient operation of the farm Furthermore, it should be noted that currently the farm complex can take full advantage of the permitted development afforded by Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (the GPDO). If the appeal proposal is allowed it will restrict the application of Part 6 permitted development in so far as it will introduce a protected building within 400 metres of the farm complex In the LPA s view allowing a development which is highly likely to introduce a land use conflict that will lead to greater planning restrictions would be contrary to paragraph 123 of the NPPF which states that: existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established In addition to the above, and in the context of the evidence of the Council s Environmental Protection officers, the LPA is concerned that if the appeal is allowed and a noise complaint is subsequently made against the farm, it is highly likely it would amount to a statutory noise nuisance under Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended). The appellant cannot be prevented from making a complaint, and in such circumstances the Council may have to take action against the farm restricting its activities in order to resolve the nuisance. This could have considerable impact on the operation and

7 viability of the farm, as noted at paragraph 9.2 of the Council s report to the Development Control Committee meeting on the 13 March 2014 (supplied with the appeal questionnaire) APPEARANCE OF THE ACOUSTIC FENCE 3.22 The proposed acoustic fence would necessarily be of solid construction and appearance, and would exceed the height of what could be erected as permitted development under Part 2 of the GPDO. The appellant suggests that its visual impact could be mitigated by additional planting, limiting views of the fencing from outside the appeal site. Whilst this may be successful to a degree, the LPA considers that this does not justify a type and height of fencing which, in itself, is an alien and industrial form of development in the countryside and which would serve to emphasise the site s physical separation and isolation from, rather than integration with, the existing environment. This would be contrary to paragraph 24(d) of the PPTS Furthermore, as detailed at paragraph 3.7 of this statement, the LPA does not accept that the proposed fencing would achieve its intended purpose of adequately mitigating the appeal site against external noise. As such, the LPA considers that the fencing is unjustified and harmful built development in the countryside THE NEED FOR GYSPY ACCOMMODATION 3.25 Having made its case as to why the appeal proposal is considered to cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of the proposed occupiers, to place unreasonable restrictions on the future operation and growth of the adjacent farm business, and fails to integrate the development into the surrounding environment, it is important to set out the reasons why the LPA considers the need for gypsy accommodation does not outweigh the harm in this case As set out in the Statement of Common Ground, having regard to the West Northamptonshire Travellers Accommodation Needs Study 2013 (this can be viewed online using the following link: Id= ), the LPA accepts that there is an un-met need for Gypsy and Traveller sites in South Northamptonshire. The LPA also accepts, in the context of this un-met need and having regard to the relative small-scale nature of the appeal proposal, the site s relative proximity to two of the District s more sustainable settlements, and the travelling lifestyle of the intended occupiers, that the appeal site is not inappropriate in general location and transport terms as a temporary Gypsy and Traveller site In respect of the appellant s personal need for a site, the evidence relied upon in the planning application was that submitted with the previous application in 2011 (ref: S/2011/0568/FUL). In determining the

8 appeal proposal the LPA considered that this was inadequate to establish the immediate need for a settled site in this location as no information was given as to how the appellant s circumstances had changed in the intervening period, or what their current living arrangements were The appellant s statement of case does not, in the LPA s view, elaborate much further on this. In particular it does not detail the appellant s current living arrangements, and it does not provide up-todate evidence about how the medical and special educational needs of the appellant s family are currently being met in the local area. As such the LPA is not persuaded that the appellant has demonstrated an immediate personal need for a settled site in this location Nevertheless, in view of paragraph 25 of the PPTS and the accepted un-met need for Gypsy and Traveller sites in South Northamptonshire, the LPA would have been prepared to consider a temporary permission were it not for the high risk it has identified of significant conflicts arising between the residential use of the appeal site and the business activities at Heyford Fields Farm In the LPA s view, a temporary permission would only be justified in the circumstances if the Inspector is satisfied that a statutory nuisance is unlikely to arise, and that it will be possible to monitor and assess the impacts without unreasonably restricting the operation and development of Heyford Fields Farm. For the reasons given in this statement, the LPA is firmly of the view that this is not the case. In particular even a temporary permission would (for the duration of that permission) restrict the farm s ability to utilise permitted development under Part 6 of the GPDO in respect of its livestock enterprise in particular, and the Council would remain duty bound to investigate any nuisance complaints received during the period of the temporary consent and, if a statutory nuisance is confirmed, take appropriate action to resolve that nuisance Paragraph 7 of the NPPF identifies the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 8 goes on to state that: these roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The appeal proposal would evidently deliver a social gain in terms of contributing to meeting a need for Gypsy and Traveller sites in South Northamptonshire, and the PPTS is clear that this should be a significant material consideration However the LPA considers this is countered not only by the significant harm it has identified to the amenity of the proposed occupiers and the harm to the surrounding environment, but also the high risk of harm to the economic role of Heyford Fields Farm. Paragraph 19 of the NPPF

9 states that: Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. The LPA would maintain that, taking all these issues together, the social gains are outweighed by the social, economic and environmental harm in this case. 4. CONCLUSION 4.1. The LPA maintains that having regard to all the material considerations relating to the site and the appellants grounds of appeal, the proposal is contrary to adopted policy and national planning guidance for the reason set out in its decision notice dated 14 March 2014, as expanded upon in the Council s report to the Development Control Committee meeting on 13 March 2014 and the LPA s statement of case above The Inspector is respectfully requested to dismiss the appeal.