LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Date : 26th February 2013

Report of Assistant Director - Planning, Highways & Transportation

Contact Officer: Aled Richards Tel: 020 8379 3857 Andy Higham Tel: 020 8379 3848 Mr S. Newton Tel: 020 8379 3851

Ward: Chase

Application Number : P12-02537PLA

Category: Change of Use

LOCATION: DURWEN NURSERY, TINGEYS TOP LANE, ENFIELD, EN2 9BJ PROPOSAL: Change of use to caravan site for residential occupation by Traveller family with associated utility building , septic tank, fencing and landscaping. Applicant Name & Address: J LAVIN 1, EASTBURY AVENUE, ENFIELD, EN1 3NJ

Agent Name & Address: Alison Heine, Heine Planning Consultancy 10, Whitehall Drive Hartford Northwich Cheshire CW8 1SJ

RECOMMENDATION: The application is recommended for REFUSAL.

Application No:- P12-02537PLA

Durwen HouseTank

Nursery

MP.5

Development Control

Scale - 1:1250Time of plot: 10:29 Date of plot: 13/02/2013

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150m

© Crown copyright. London Borough of Enfield LA086363,2003

1. Site and surroundings 1.1 The application site, Durwen Nursery, is located at the western end of Tingeys Top

Lane, a narrow private lane on the western side of Theobalds Park Road. 1.2 The application site is approximately 370m west of the juncture with Theobalds Park

Road, at the end of narrow lane with various developments (commercial, residential, glass houses) along the lane.

1.3 The site is an irregular shaped plot that has a maximum depth of approximately 75m

along its northern boundary, and a width which varies from approximately 32m along its eastern boundary to approximately 19m along its western boundary. The total site area amounts to approximately 0.19ha.

1.4 Immediately to the north is Durwen House, a residential dwelling, screened from the

appeal site by mature woody vegetation whilst land to the south is used as grazing land for various animals. Immediately to the east are some residential dwellings.

1.5 The application site falls within an area designated as Green Belt and also within an

area designated within the Unitary Development Plan as the Crews Hill Defined Area. The latter designation recognises that this is a distinctive part of the Borough which is the major area for horticultural activity, although it is also recognised that ‘in recent years’ much of the former glasshouse industry has been replaced by garden centres.

2. Proposal 2.1 Permission is sought for the change of use to caravan site for residential occupation

by a Traveller family with associated utility building, septic tank, fencing and landscaping.

2.2 ‘Mobile Home 1’ is to be located towards the western end of the site in an area that

forms the narrowest part of the application site. The pitch will be positioned approximately 14m from the western boundary, and approximately 2.5m each from the north and south boundaries.

2.3 ‘Mobile Home 2’ is to be located within an area of the application site that widens to

its maximum extent. The pitch will be positioned towards the southern side of the site, approximately 3.5m from the southern boundary. The pitch is oriented in a north-south direction.

2.4 ‘Mobile Home 3’ is to be located in the south-eastern corner of the site,

approximately 3.5m from the southern boundary and no nearer than 3m from the eastern boundary. The pitch is oriented in an east-west direction.

2.5 The proposed utility building will be 5m wide, 4m deep and 3.56m in height to the top

of a pitched roof. It will contain a utility room, a bathroom and a wc, each of which can only be accessed via respective external doors. Located approximately 2m from the site’s northern boundary, the structure will be centrally positioned along that boundary, being 18m east of ‘Mobile Home 1’ and 30m west of the eastern boundary / site entrance. It is proposed that the finishing materials (roof tiles, brickwork, and woodwork) will be subject to approval from the Local Planning Authority.

2.6 An area between ‘Mobile Home 1’ and the utility block will be used for the storage of

1-2 touring caravans.

2.7 The existing hardstanding will be increased in area from approximately 914sqm to approximately 1400sqm. There will be two areas of amenity provision, the larger of the two (approximately 278sqm) will be to the rear (west) of ‘Mobile Home 1’ and the second (approximately 131sqm) along the length of the southern boundary between ‘Mobile Homes 1&2’ and that boundary.

3. Relevant planning history 3.1 An Enforcement Notice (ref: CON/5627) was issued in February 2009 in respect of

the unauthorised positioning of two caravans, a portacabin and the erection of a wooden structure. The Notice was upheld on Appeal (PINS ref: APP/Q5300/C/09/2099349), although the Inspector varied the Notice to refer to “the unauthorised positioning of two caravans for residential purposes” and the requirement to remove the portacabin. The “wooden structure” which was being used to house 4 goats was allowed to remain because it was considered to be permitted development. A site visit by Planning Enforcement on November 23, 2010 revealed that the portacabin and wooden structure had been removed from the site. A further site visit undertaken on November 30 confirmed that the caravans had been removed.

3.2 An Enforcement Notice (ref: CON/4882) was issued in August 2002 in respect of the

unauthorised storage of motor vehicles, skips and wood. The Notice was upheld on Appeal PINS ref: APP/Q5300/C/02/1099995). In relation to the Ground (a) Appeal (that planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the Notice), the Inspector noted that whilst the Appellant operated an arboricultural business, it was not related to a “forestry” use (an appropriate use) as claimed and there was no compelling reason why the business required a countryside location. Moreover, he also concluded that the site is an isolated one and therefore not in a sustainable location. A final concern of the Inspector was the adequacy of the lane and the increase in activity along it from commercial vehicles impacting upon residential occupiers.

4. Consultation 4.1 Statutory and non-statutory consultees Environment Agency

4.1.1 No objections are raised. In addition, the Applicant is advised of the different types of

infiltration systems available. English Heritage (GLAAS)

4.1.2 The Archaeology Adviser considers that in light of the limited groundwork involved,

there is no need for archaeological intervention in this instance.

4.2 Public response 4.2.1 Letters were issued to 171 neighbouring residential and commercial properties in

addition to statutory site and press publicity. 191 letters of objection (inclusive of proforma letters) and one petition against the development (47 signatures) have been received. The Crews Hill Resident’s Association also object to the application. The objections raise some or all of the following points:

Green Belt principle

• Inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

• There is a presumption against all forms of inappropriate developments, which by definition includes residential development, unless there are very special circumstances why that presumption should be overruled.

• The Applicant has not demonstrated any very special circumstances why that site should be granted residential consent.

• If approved, the development would set a precedent for breaches in Green Belt policies in an area where the Council have successfully prevented inappropriate encroachment and where such policies have been consistently supported by successive Government Departments.

• If granted, it would be detrimental to the open character of the Green Belt. Highways

• Tingeys Top Lane is the only access to the site. It is a narrow, single track owned by those people currently living along the track. The junction with Theobalds Park Road has poor sightlines and is dangerous. It is not suitable for commercial vehicles and for much of its length cannot be widened.

• There is a restricted bus service which does not operate at school times. Residential Amenity

• The permanent structures would be out of keeping with the characteristics of the local, semi-rural area.

Other concerns raised

• The site does not have any mains water, drainage, sewerage, gas or electricity supplies, nor any means of obtaining these. The septic tank is a tank that sits on the surface which overflows onto the ground.

• Despite claims in the Supporting Statement, Crews Hill does not have any shops and there is only one primary school.

5 Relevant Policy

5.1 Local Plan

At the meeting of the full Council on 10th November 2010, the Core Strategy, which forms part of the Local Plan, was approved. The following policies are considered of relevance:

CP2: Housing supply and locations for new homes CP3: Affordable housing CP4: Housing quality CP5: Housing types CP6: Meeting particular housing needs CP20: Sustainable energy use and energy infrastructure CP21: Delivering sustainable water supply, drainage and sewerage infrastructure CP22: Delivering sustainable waste management CP25 Pedestrians and cyclists CP26: Public transport CP30: Maintaining and improving the quality of the built and open environment CP31: Built and landscape heritage CP32: Pollution CP33: Green Belt and countryside

CP36: Biodiversity CP46: Infrastructure contributions

5.2 Saved UDP Policies After the adoption of the Core Strategy, a number of UDP policies are retained as material considerations pending the emergence of new and updates policies and development standards within the Development Management Document. The following are of relevance

(II)G11 New developments in the Green Belt (II)G24 To permit dwellings in connection with agricultural and horticultural

units (II)G34 To resist any extension of the existing residential estate in the Crews

Hill Defined Area (II)G35 To resist any residential development in the Crews Hill Defined Area (II)G36 To impose conditions for residential development granted pursuant to

Policy (II)G24. (II)G37 To examine carefully proposals for new dwellings in the Crews Hill

Defined Area which have resulted from the reorganisation of land holdings

(II)G38 To permit only in exceptional circumstances and in relation to acceptable uses, the use of land for the stationing of mobile caravans or mobile homes

(II)G39 To resist the winter storage of caravans (II)GD3 Aesthetics and functional design (II)GD3 Aesthetics and functional design (II)GD6 Traffic (II)GD8 Site access and servicing (II)H8 Privacy (II)H9 Amenity Space (II)T16 Adequate access for pedestrians and people with disabilities (II)T19 Needs and safety of cyclist

5.3 The London Plan

Policy 3.3 Increasing housing supply Policy 3.4 Optimising housing potential Policy 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments Policy 3.6 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities Policy 3.8 Housing choice Policy 3.9 Mixed and balanced communities Policy 3.11 Affordable housing targets Policy 3.12 Negotiating affordable housing Policy 3.13 Affordable housing thresholds Policy 3.14 Existing housing Policy 5.1 Climate change mitigation Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction Policy 5.5 Decentralised energy networks Policy 5.6 Decentralised energy in development proposals Policy 5.7 Renewable energy Policy 5.8 Innovative energy technologies Policy 5.9 Overheating and cooling Policy 5.10 Urban greening

Policy 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs Policy 5.13 Sustainable drainage Policy 5.14 Water quality and wastewater infrastructure Policy 6.3 Assessing the effects of development on transport capacity Policy 6.9 Cycling Policy 6.12 Road network capacity Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.1 Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment Policy 7.3 Designing out crime Policy 7.4 Local character Policy 7.6 Architecture Policy 7.14 Improving air quality Policy 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes Policy 7.16 Green Belt Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature

5.4 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS, March 2012) 5.4.1 In March 2012, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued new

policy for Traveller sites. To achieve the Government’s overarching aim of ensuring an equal treatment for Travellers in a way that facilitates their traditional and nomadic way of life while respecting the interests of the settled community, the following aims are set:

• that local planning authorities should make their own assessment of need for the purposes of planning.

• to ensure that local planning authorities, working collaboratively, develop fair and effective strategies to meet need through the identification of land for sites

• to encourage local planning authorities to plan for sites over a reasonable timescale.

• that plan-making and decision-taking should protect Green Belt from inappropriate development.

• to promote more private Traveller site provision while recognising that there will always be those Travellers who cannot provide their own sites

• that plan-making and decision-taking should aim to reduce the number of unauthorised developments and encampments and make enforcement more effective.

• for local planning authorities to ensure that their Local Plan includes fair, realistic and inclusive policies.

• to increase the number of Traveller sites in appropriate locations with planning permission, to address under provision and maintain an appropriate level of supply.

• to reduce tensions between settled and Traveller communities in plan-making and planning decisions.

• to enable provision of suitable accommodation from which Travellers can access education, health, welfare and employment infrastructure.

• for local planning authorities to have due regard to the protection of local amenity and local environment.

5.4.2 Policy B (“Planning for Traveller sites”), advises that LPAs should set pitch targets

and a supply of deliverable sites and also protect local amenity.

5.4.3 Policy E (“Traveller sites in Green Belt”) reiterates the inappropriateness of Traveller sites within Green Belt locations. These policies also help to ensure that development occurs in locations allocated in the development plan.

5.4.4 Policy H (“Determining planning applications for Traveller sites”) confirms that unless

material considerations indicate otherwise, applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan, have a presumption in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies in the NPPF and in the planning policy for Traveller sites. More specifically, it advises that weight should be attached to the following: a) effective use of previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land b) sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively

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

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

impression may be given that the site and its occupants are deliberately isolated from the rest of the community

5.4.5 Policy H also advises that the use of conditions should be considered to overcome

planning objections. 5.5 Other Relevant Material Considerations

Enfield Housing Market Assessment (2010) National Planning Policy Framework (April 2012)

Section 106 Supplementary Planning Document (Nov 2011) Equality Act 2010 Human Rights Act 1998

6 Analysis 6.1 Impact on the Green Belt 6.1.1 The PPTS advice at paragraph 14 confirms that Traveller sites in the Green Belt,

whether temporary or permanent, is inappropriate development. 6.1.2 The NPPF confirms that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt policy is to prevent

urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence (para.79).

6.1.3 The purposes of including land in the Green Belt are to:

• check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

• prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

• assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

• preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

• assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

6.1.4 It also confirms that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and

should only be approved in very special circumstances (para.87) and substantial weight must be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of its

inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations (para.88).

6.1.5 The construction of new buildings, as advised at paragraph 89, is inappropriate in the

Green Belt unless it is one of the exceptions as outlined below:

• Buildings for agriculture and forestry;

• Provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;

• The extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;

• The replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces;

• Limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or

• Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

6.1.6 Chapter 5.6 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) has specific polices relating to

the Crews Hill Defined Area and policies (II)G34 to (II)G45 all remain extant, although not all are applicable to the current application. At the time of the adoption of the UDP (March 1994), it was recognised that much of the former glasshouse industry had been replaced by garden centres. Policies specific to the Defined Area have the overall aim of controlling development to ensure it remains a useful and integral component of Enfield’s Green Belt (chpt.5.6.3).

6.1.7 The development is considered to not satisfy any of the purposes of including land

within the Green Belt or satisfy any of the exceptions tests.

Impact on Openness / Visual Amenity 6.1.8 The development includes provision for x3 mobile homes and a utility block. It is

difficult to accurately describe the dimensions of the mobile homes because the Applicant asserts that the appearance and design can not be prescribed because they can be changed like a motor vehicle. However, near to the site are four static caravans that can be used as a gauge to the potential size. The aforementioned static caravans are approximately 12m long, 6m wide and approximately 3.5m in height. The potential footprint of each mobile home, estimated from the size of the individual pitches, is approximately 90sqm and they would be equivalent in height to the adjacent static caravans. The proposed structures do not satisfy any of the exceptions listed in para.89 of the NPPF and must therefore be justified.

6.1.9 The development site comprises of some area of hardstanding upon which is sited

two detached buildings used primarily for storage purposes and a raised concrete pad (referred to as a “loading bay” on the submitted plans), all of which would be demolished should planning permission be granted. The existing area of hard standing amounts to approximately 0.083ha (43%) of the total site area and it is proposed to increase this to 0.151ha (78%). It should be noted that the majority of the site, particularly the area towards the rear of the existing built structures, is devoid of any topsoil because this had been scraped away, as also noted by the

Inspector considering the 2009 Appeal against an Enforcement Notice (section 3 of this report, ref: CON/5627).

6.1.10 The creation of hardstanding is an engineering operation, which is inappropriate in

Green Belt terms unless openness is preserved and there is no conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt (NPPF, para.90).

6.1.11 The siting of the mobile homes into parts of the site that are currently absent of any

authorised built structure amounts to further encroachment into the Green Belt, thereby conflicting with one of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. No special circumstances have been advanced to justify this element, other than that the site is needed to accommodate the needs of the Applicant (discussed below).

6.1.12 In relation to the hardstanding and from the figures given above, 43% of the existing

site is given over to hard standing. Whilst much of the remainder of the site would not be suitable for agricultural purposes due to the top layer of soil having been scraped away, this would not justify any increase in hardstanding or even formalising that which does exist. Moreover, it is not accepted that an increase in hardstanding is essential to support the proposed use of the site. Whilst it may be accepted that a concrete pad could be needed as a base upon which to sit the mobile home / touring caravans, no reason has been provided as to why they could not all be sited upon the existing hard standing. The hardstanding would not be visible outside of the application site, however harm arises wherever the openness of the Green Belt is diminished. Harm to the visual amenities of the Green Belt can also occur even where the site cannot be viewed from public vantage points because in the Green Belt an inappropriate use, that diminishes openness, does not become acceptable because it cannot be seen (PINS Ref: APP/Q5300/C/03/1121907, para.19). Whilst by itself, the hardstanding causes a limited degree of harm, when used for its intended purpose for the parking / storage of mobile homes / caravans will lead to an unacceptable harm to the openness of the Green Belt through the siting of those structures and any vehicles.

6.1.13 The existing grassed area of the site covers an area of approximately 378sqm and

the unmade ground covers approximately 835sqm. It is proposed that the area to the rear (west) of Mobile Home 1 will be reinstated with natural vegetation and a small area along the southern boundary to the rear of Mobile Home 3 would also be retained as such. Whilst the re-introduction of natural vegetation is welcomed, the total area of “natural vegetation” is approximately 418sqm, an increase of approximately 40sqm. It is considered that little weight can be attributed to this.

6.1.14 The site has a history of enforcement action against unauthorised uses. Those

unauthorised uses do not lend any weight to the site being previously developed land.

6.1.15 It is also accepted by the Applicant that the development constitutes inappropriate

development, therefore, it is necessary to consider whether there are very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the harm arising from the inappropriate nature of the development in the Green Belt.

6.2 Special Circumstances 6.2.1 As advised above, Traveller sites (permanent or temporary) in the Green Belt is

inappropriate development. Inappropriate development in the Green Belt should only be approved in very special circumstances. It is for the Applicant to demonstrate why the harm to the Green Belt is outweighed by other considerations. Paragraphs 7.7 to

7.9 of the submitted Supporting Statement advances some special circumstances to justify the development. This includes:

(a) The Applicants rely on their Gypsy-Traveller status. They are Irish Travellers. (b) They have lived most of their lives in caravans. (c) They have previously stopped on a socially provided site until it was closed. In

recent years have had to resort to housing but have struggled to adapt to living in bricks and mortar.

(d) Their travelling is in abeyance due to age, poor health and other family issues. (e) They have a need to be settled so that the children can attend school. (f) They are a close family who want to live together in accordance with their cultural

preference to do so. (g) The planning system recognises that Gypsy-Travellers have particular

accommodation needs that should be met. There are considerable benefits to the family of a settled site where they can live in their caravans.

(h) There are clear and considerable benefits to society as a whole of having families settled given the conflict and distress associated with unauthorised developments and encampments.

(i) This also frees up housing Travellers do not want but which other families, who do not want to live in caravans or are homeless, are desperate for.

(j) There is no alternative accommodation that is suitable, deliverable and lawful for this family in the district or neighbouring districts (such as Hertford).

(k) The Council has failed to make provision. (l) Compliance with locally specific criteria within the Core Strategy for new sites. (m) Need to determine applications from any Traveller. (n) A sustainably located site. (o) Weight to be attached to matters of Human Rights is more pressing due to Policy

failure. (p) The duty of public Authorities under the Equality Act.

6.3 Assessment of Special Circumstances advanced 6.3.1 From the points advanced above for a very special circumstances case, it is

considered that these can be divided into two groups under the umbrella heading of “need”. The argument for ‘need’ is considered to cover two principle aspects: the need for site provision; and the need(s) of the Applicant inclusive of those considerations under the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act.

Need - Site Provision

6.3.2 The Councils Housing Market Assessment at section 6.9 states the following:

“The London Borough's 2008 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment concluded that there was no need for any pitches in Enfield on its 'minimum need' calculation. However it did estimate two gypsy and Traveller households with a 'psychological aversion' to bricks and mortar housing might require appropriate accommodation over the next decade”.

6.3.3 The PPTS clearly confirms that local authorities should set pitch targets to address

the accommodation needs of Travellers in their area (Policy B). Enfield Council has not set any targets or identified any sites, the rationale being that a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment (GTANA) undertaken in March 2008 identified Enfield as having the third lowest need for sites in London and that there was no justification in allocating sites until an assessment of pitch numbers is carried out as part of a revised London Plan (Core Strategy, para.5.50). It is important to

note that the Core Strategy was adopted in November 2010 and the London Plan was adopted in July 2011.

6.3.4 The London Plan however did not include any specific needs assessment as it was

considered that this is more appropriately done locally. Paragraph 10 of the PPTS goes on to state that where there is no indentified need, “criteria-based policies should be included to provide a basis for decisions in case applications nevertheless come forward…” Core Policy 6 of the Core Strategy provides this criteria:

• There is vehicular access from the public highway and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site to ensure road safety for occupants and visitors;

• There is no harm to visual amenity and there is adequate landscaping and planting, with appropriate trees and shrubs;

• The site has good access to shops, health care, school and other education facilities;

• The site is not in an area at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains; and

• The size of the site is appropriate to its local context, and in relation to the local infrastructure and population size and density.

6.3.5 Whilst the 2008 GTANA assessment identified the Borough as having a low need for

provision, the low level of need was supported by the findings within the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, which identified a need for at least two families for the 10 years following the publication of the report. The Council has a duty to allocate sites. Considerable weight must therefore be attached to the lack of provision.

6.3.6 The site is accessed via a private lane on the western side of Theobalds Park Road

and there is informal parking provision within the site, discussed further below. It is considered that this locational criterion is met and therefore some weight should be attributed to this.

6.3.7 Whilst the proposed development confirms that some of the land will be returned to

natural vegetation, it is considered that there is visual harm to the Green Belt, for reasons discussed above at section 6.2 of this report. This locational criterion is considered to not be met, which is considered to weigh against the proposal.

6.3.8 It is considered that the interpretation of ‘shops’ is for those that offer convenience

goods such as those offered by news agents. The nearest such shop (Co-op) is located adjacent to the Gordon Hill National Rail station, which, in a straight line, is approximately 2.5km away. The nearest parade of shops is located on Lancaster Road, which is classified as a ‘Large Local Centre’ in the hierarchy of town centres (Core Strategy table 6.3, p87), with the nearest element of this centre being approximately 1.9km distant. The application site is considered to not have good access to shops, which weighs against the proposal..

6.3.9 In relation to health care, the site is not conveniently located to a GP clinic, the

nearest being at Bincote Road approximately 2.8km away in a straight line. However, there is no requirement that a person must attend the nearest GP clinic, therefore little weight is given to this criterion. The specialist care required by some members of the family and which can only be found in specialist hospitals does not weigh against the application because as with such care, any member of the wider public would potentially have some distance to travel for specialist treatment.

6.3.10 In terms of proximity to schools, the nearest school to the site is St Johns C of E

School, approximately 550m from the entrance with Tingeys Top Lane. However it is

advised that one of the grand children is due to start at a school which is approximately 2.4km away (in a straight line). With the Government emphasis on greater choice for education, little weight is given to the need of the Applicant to have to travel further than the nearest school.

6.3.11 The site is not in an area of high flood risk, neither is it located on a functional

floodplain. 6.3.12 In terms of a density assessment, the site area is approximately 0.19ha and each

mobile home would have 3 habitable rooms (two bedrooms and a lounge). This equates to a density of 468hr/ha in an area which due to a low public transport accessibility (PTAL) score of 1a (on a scale of 1 to 6 with 6 considered “excellent”), suggests that an appropriate level of density would be 150 - 200hr/ha. This therefore suggests that the proposed development would be an overdevelopment of the site. However, a numerical assessment is not the only determining factor as the circumstances of the surroundings must also be considered. The surrounding is sparsely populated with 8 dwellings located along the lane. Looking at the adjacent static caravans, these have density levels ranging from approximately 114hr/ha to 130hr/ha. These fall below the suggested density range and is considered appropriate given the Green Belt location and the remoteness of the site. On balance, it is considered that the proposal would result in an over intensive use of the site and therefore constitutes overdevelopment, therefore weighing against t he development. Should planning permission be granted however, it would be considered appropriate to limit the number of pitches by condition to not exacerbate the situation.

6.3.13 Having regard to the criteria as set out in Core Policy 6 of the Core Strategy, whilst

the location of the site does not necessarily discount it in terms of the assessment against some of the above criteria, the fact that it is not near to any convenience-type shops, the already indentified harm to the visual amenity of the Green Belt, and to what is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site, it is considered that on balance, the development does not sufficiently satisfy the locational criteria.

6.3.14 The Applicant contends that there is no requirement on families to demonstrate that

there is no suitable alternative provision. This is taken from an Appeal Decision (12 April 2006) relating to a Travellers application in South Cambridgeshire where the Inspector stated that “there is no requirement in planning policy, or case law, for an Applicant to prove that no other sites are available or that particular needs could not be met from another site. Indeed such a level of proof would be practically impossible. The case of Simmons, relied upon by the Council, establishes no such requirement, even in the Green Belt” (para.74). The view of the Inspector was supported in a subsequent Appeal Court (Civil Division) Judgement ([2008] EWCA Civ 1010).

6.3.15 There is no dispute that should permission be granted in this instance, or another site

is made available, the existing house of the Applicant would be made available to other families. Some weight can be given to this.

Needs of the Applicant

6.3.16 The Human Rights Act 1998 came into effect in the UK in October 2000. Article 8 of

the Act confirms the right to have respect for private and family life without interference by a public authority except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the

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

6.3.17 Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) confirms that a person is entitled to the

enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

6.3.18 The definition of “Gypsy” and “Traveller” is provided at Annex 1 of the PPTS:

Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling showpeople or circus people travelling together as such.

6.3.19 When assessed against the above definition, and having regard to the history of the

Applicants in terms of where and how they were previously accommodated, it is considered that there is no cause to dispute their “Traveller” status.

6.3.20 Within the supporting documents for the application, the Applicant reminds the

Council of its duty to facilitate the “Gypsy- Traveller way of life”. The Applicant is also of the view that the concerns of the Council could be dealt with by condition. It is suggested that conditions could be imposed to control the number of caravans, a personal condition could be imposed to “reflect the strong local connections of the Applicant to the locality and their health / educational needs, and a temporary permission could be considered as any harm would be short lived because the land could be restored.

6.3.21 It is acknowledged that the Applicant is feeling constrained by living in regular ‘brick

and mortar’ accommodation, they have longstanding ties to Enfield and they want to live together in accordance with their cultural preference. It is also agreed that should planning permission be granted, conditions would need to be imposed to secure such potential matters as restricting the number of pitches / families. However, a temporary permission, as advised by Circular 11/95 (‘Use of conditions in planning permission’) “will normally only be appropriate either where the Applicant proposes temporary development, or when a trial run is needed in order to assess the effect of the development on the area” (para.109). The Circular goes on to advise at para.110 that a temporary permission could be justified where it is expected that the planning circumstances will change in a particular way at the end of that period.

6.3.22 Having regard to the advice within Circular 11/95, it is considered that the granting of

a temporary permission is not justified in this instance as there is no reasonable chance that sites will come forward and the identified harm to the Green Belt can not be overcome even with a temporary permission. Moreover, the Council has been reviewing its Green Belt boundaries and there is no proposal to remove the application site from the Green Belt.

6.4 Human Rights Act 2008 / Equalities Act 2010 6.4.1 Having regard to the provisions of the aforementioned Acts, it is considered that the

needs of the Applicant have been properly assessed. Unlike some instances where the refusal of a planning application would result in the Applicants effectively becoming homeless, in this instance, although it is unfortunate that the Applicant is

not housed in a form of accommodation that they would like to be, they would not be made homeless and therefore not suffer from undue hardship.

6.5 Impact on Neighbours 6.5.1 The development, due to the isolated nature of the site and the size and scale of

structures proposed would not unduly impact on the existing amenities of occupiers along Tingeys Top Lane in terms of loss of light, outlook and privacy. In addition, additional noise and disturbance, in relation to general domestic noise should not be at a level that would be unacceptable.

6.6 Sustainability Biodiversity 6.6.1 The immediate site offers little in the way of biodiversity, primarily as a result of the

scraping away of the soil, as previously discussed. The Applicant has proposed that some of the land can be restored as amenity garden. Should the application be approved, conditions would therefore be considered to secure biodiversity enhancements.

BREEAM 6.6.2 It is considered that as the development is seeking to establish structures on the site

to be used for habitable purposes, it would need to meet with some housing standards. Whilst the Applicant has not provided any information on its sustainability credentials, it is considered that the mobile homes should meet with BREEAM Bespoke 2011 New Construction Very Good, or relevant equivalent.

Drainage 6.6.3 The site is not within an area of high flood risk, however water runoff is a potential

issue due to the very limited permeability of the ground as a result of the top soil being scraped away. However, it would not be any worse than currently exists, although improvements to this situation could be sought via conditions..

6.6.4 The site is already served by a septic tank and it is proposed that a second tank is

installed. There are no objections to this. Depending upon the type of infiltration system to be employed, additional permission may be required from the Environment Agency under the permitting regime.

6.7 Traffic / Highways Considerations 6.7.1 The track onto which the site opens is an unmade private road which serves a

number of businesses and dwellings. Because of its status as a private road, rights of access issues would have to be resolved through private means.

6.7.2 In terms of the access from Theobalds Park Road, it has been advised from Traffic &

Transportation that the existing junction of Tingeys Top Lane with Theobalds Park Road has good visibility along both sides and the low level of traffic using the access would not require any upgrading or improvements.

6.7.3 Tingeys Top Lane is a narrow private road, with little opportunity for passing except

at the entrances to the various properties along the Lane and a formal passing bay established outside of Kings Oak Nursery, just before the dog-leg in the road. The

proposed use is for three residential dwellings so vehicle movements to and from the site is not expected to be high. In addition, due to the sites location, the development would not prejudice the current servicing or access arrangements for the existing commercial and residential dwellings.

6.7.4 Transportation of the mobile homes could be a potential issue due to the narrowness

of the Lane, however given the presence of four static caravans along the Lane, should not be insurmountable. Traffic movement along the Lane will obviously be restricted whilst the mobile homes are transported onto site but this disruption would only be for a short period and therefore not unacceptable.

6.8 CIL

6.8.1 The Mayoral CIL applies for each new dwelling created and for a net increase in floor

area of 100sqm or more, and the Council collects the levy on behalf of the Mayor. The liability of the Applicant to the levy is unclear and Members will be updated at Committee.

7. Conclusion 7.1 The development does not raise any issues in relation to neighbour amenity or to

road safety concerns. 7.2 The special circumstances advanced by the Applicant to amount to the very special

circumstances have been considered. Whilst there is a lack of any identified, lawful sites available and the personal needs of the Applicant is acknowledged, the harm to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt is not outweighed.

7.3 Although it is unfortunate that the Applicant is not in accommodation more suited to

their cultural preference, they would not be made homeless as a result of a refusal, they would in the immediate future be nearer to social facilities such as the grand daughter’s school, shops and medical care because the application site is not a sustainable one.

7.4 A temporary permission has been considered but again, it is considered that given

the location of the site, there is no likelihood of mitigating the identified harm to the Green Belt. The use of conditions would not overcome the identified harm.

8 Recommendation 7.5 Having regard to all of the above, the application is recommended for refusal for the

following reason:

1. The proposal would result in inacceptable harm to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt and therefore constitutes inappropriate development. The special circumstances advanced to demonstrate the very special circumstances necessary to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt is considered to not outweigh the identified harm. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Core Policies 6 & 33 of the Core Strategy, Policy 7.16 of the London Plan and national guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.