View
224
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
EleanorORP@outlook.com
07887356493
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 STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 3
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 4
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 5
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 6
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 15
CS27 Community Health and Safety
CS33 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
The Rotherham Local Plan ‘Publication Sites and Policies - September 2015’
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 16
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 17
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”
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 18
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 19
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 20
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 21
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 22
Identified Policies
Core Strategy policy(s)
CS3 Location of New Development
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 23
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 24
CS8 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation
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.
CS14 Accessible Places and Managing Demand for Travel
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 25
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 26
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 Rotherham Local Plan ‘Publication Sites and Policies - September 2015’
SP2 Development in the Green Belt
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.
SP14 Gypsy and Traveller Sites
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 27
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 28
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 29
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 30
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 31
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:
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
The Rotherham Local Plan ‘Publication Sites and Policies - September 2015’
SP2 Development in the Green Belt
SP14 Gypsy and Traveller Sites
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 32
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 33
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 34
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,
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 35
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”
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 36
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 37
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 38
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 39
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 40
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 41
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 42
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 43
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 44
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 45
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 46
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 47
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 48
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:
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 49
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 50
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 51
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 52
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 53
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 54
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 55
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 56
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 57
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:-
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
The Rotherham Local Plan ‘Publication Sites and Policies - September 2015’
SP2 Development in the Green Belt
SP14 Gypsy and Traveller Sites
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:-
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
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 58
The Rotherham Local Plan ‘Publication Sites and Policies - September 2015’
SP2 Development in the Green Belt
SP14 Gypsy and Traveller Sites
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.
PLANNING STATEMENT NOVEMBER 2016 59
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.
Recommended