Category : Letters

Appeal Decision

Hearing Held on 17 September 2019

Site visit made on 17 September 2019

by Andrew McGlone BSc MCD MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8 October 2019

Appeal Ref: APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

Land north of Crossways, off Main Street, Bathley, Newark, Nottinghamshire NG23 6DL

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Mr Ashley Dunne against the decision of Newark & Sherwood District Council.

• The application Ref 18/02219/FUL, dated 23 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 28 January 2019.

• The development proposed is a change of use of land to use as residential caravan site for one gypsy family with two caravans, including no more than one static caravan/mobile home, laying of hardstanding, construction of access and erection of ancillary utility building.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a change of use of land to use as residential caravan site for one gypsy family with two caravans, including no more than one static caravan/mobile home, laying of hardstanding, construction of access and erection of ancillary utility building at Land north of Crossways, off Main Street, Bathley, Newark, Nottinghamshire NG23 6DL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/02219/FUL, dated 23 November 2018, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Procedural Matters

2. The main parties agree, based on the evidence submitted to the Council during the course of the planning application, that the appellant and his wife are gypsies and travellers having regard to the definition set out in The Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS). I agree, based on the evidence before me and as a result of discussions held at the Hearing.

3. Since the Council refused planning permission, the Council has adopted its Amended Core Strategy (CS). Policies in the CS have largely amended those within the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD which the Council relied on in refusing planning permission. As a result, the CS policies now carry full weight. The CS along with the Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Document (DPD), adopted in July 2013, form the development plan for the administrative area of Newark and Sherwood. There has also been a revision to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). I note that both parties’ have, in their appeal submissions, set out their cases having regard to the CS, DPD and the Framework. At the Hearing, all parties addressed these policy documents.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

4. Despite submitting a signed Statement of Common Ground (SoCG), The Council, at the start of the Hearing, confirmed that they wished to strikeout paragraph 5.6 which stated “The findings of the traffic survey submitted on behalf of the appellant during the application process are not disputed.” I have considered the appeal on this basis.

Main Issues

5. The main issues are: (i) highway safety, with regards to the proposed access; (ii) whether the proposed development accords with development plan policy and the provisions of the PPTS for the location of such development; and (iii) whether any harm arising from the proposal would be outweighed by other considerations weighing in favour of the development, including the need for traveller sites, the availability of sites and the personal circumstances of the proposed occupiers.

Reasons

6. The appeal site lies to the west of Main Street roughly 55 metres to the north east of the crossroad junction of Main Street, Caunton Road and Vicarage Lane.

Caunton Road heads westward to Caunton, while Vicarage Lane extends eastwards to the A1 and North Muskham which is around a mile away. The settlements of Norwell and Newark-on-Trent are around 1.8 miles and 4.5

miles away respectively. Main Street continues southwards into the village of Bathley, around 450 metres away. This is the lowest ranking in the Council’s Settlement Hierarchy set out in CS Spatial Policy 1.

7. The site forms part of a larger land holding that is currently overgrown and enclosed by hedgerows. To the south is the residential property of ‘Crossways’.

Open fields are to the north and west. Away from the central area of Bathley, there are intermittent properties to the south, east and west of the site. The site lies within the open countryside, but not the Green Belt.

8. CS Spatial Policy 3 explains that development not in villages or settlements, in the open countryside, will be strictly controlled and restricted to uses which require a rural setting. Policies to deal with such applications are set out in the DPD. It was agreed at the Hearing that the proposal does not fall within the categories of development listed in DPD Policy DM8. However, the DPD does not allocate any land for new gypsy sites and, as a result, new sites can only come forward at present through the development management process.

9. CS Core Policy 4 sets out that the District Council will address future gypsy and traveller pitch provision in accordance with the most up to date Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) through all necessary means including: the allocation of new sites through the development plan; and the granting of planning permission for pitches on new sites in line with Core Policy 5. The dispute between the main parties, in respect of the first two main issues, focusses on criterion 2 and 3 of this policy. It is common ground that the proposal would accord with the remaining criteria of CS Core Policy 5. I have no reason to take a different view.

Highway safety

10. Criterion 3 of CS Core Policy 5, CS Spatial Policy 7 and DMD Policy DM5 jointly require development proposals to provide safe, convenient and attractive accesses for all, including the elderly and disabled, and others with restricted mobility, and provide links to the existing network of footways, bridleways and

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

cycleways so as to maximise opportunities for their use.

11. Main Street, from the crossroads and to the north of the site, undulates and curves to the right then the left. The roads alignment together with hedgerows and banking affect visibility to the north. The road is narrow at around 3.3

metres in width, but it does widen towards the junction. Main Street (to the south of the crossroads), Caunton Road and Vicarage Lane all appear to be wider than the country lane. A variety of vehicles use the local road network, including cars, buses and large farm vehicles. Cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders also use the roads near to the site which are generally unlit and subject of a national speed limit. There are no footways on any of the roads.

12. The appellant’s Transport Technical Note – March 2019 (TTN) contains a manual survey of traffic movements. The survey was undertaken between the hours of 07:00 and 13:00. In this time, 89 no. two-way traffic movements were recorded. Whilst the survey was not undertaken for the full day, it shows that, even if I were to assume a broadly similar set of movements for the evening rush hour period, the roads near to the site are lightly trafficked.

13. There is no dispute that the proposal would increase the use of the local road network. The extent of the increase varies between the main parties, but I agree with the Council’s version of the TRICS database category as it is far more representative of the proposed use. Even so, in applying this the Council have adopted figures that do not reflect the proposed occupation of the site by a single gypsy family, who would typically live within one static caravan/mobile home and use the touring caravan when travelling. Thus, it is reasonable to assume the proposal would generate around 3.56 vehicle trips per day, and if I were to adopt the Council’s view that 4 person trips per day would be generated, the total trips per day could be around 7.56. These number of trips would not be significant in the context of two-way traffic movements recorded in the TTN. The impact would be even less when a full day of two-way traffic movements is accounted for.

14. While I shall explore accessibility in greater detail in the next main issue, it is evident that future occupants of the site would be highly dependent on private vehicles to access facilities and services. The appellant explained at the Hearing that they would be most likely to turn out of the site towards the crossroads, and hence with the flow of morning traffic heading southbound, before going onto North Muskham, the A1 or Newark. This may well be true, but journeys to Norwell (turning left out of the site) cannot be ruled out. Nor could the time or direction of travel be controlled. It is, however, highly unlikely that every journey to and from the site would include towing a caravan. Even if it did, roads near to the site are already used by larger farm vehicles daily.

15. Main Street (to the south of the proposed access), Caunton Road and Vicarage Lane generally offer good forward visibility which allows drivers adequate opportunity to respond to meeting another road user. The respective widths of the roads also manage vehicle speeds. Visibility in each direction is good at the crossroads. Residents and the Council explained to me that the width of local roads can mean that vehicles need to manoeuvre and/or utilise grass verges or passing places to pass one another. This is not ideal, but it is a situation that does occur on rural roads. The proposal would not change this, though vehicle movements associated with the proposal would add to the likelihood of this situation occurring, which is an inconvenience to the flow of traffic. Even so, this is not the same as there being an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

16. I heard that there have been accidents or near misses near to the site. Some of the experiences were described anecdotally, others relate to incidents over ten years ago. While I have no reason to doubt that incidents have arisen, it is difficult based on the evidence, to go any further other than to recognise the potential for incidents to arise. None of the incidents described to me indicate that pedestrians, horses or cyclists have been involved. That said, the road conditions are not particularly appealing to use by these road users, or other vulnerable users during the hours of darkness or inclement weather. Interested parties explain that local roads are well used when the A1 is blocked. While it is suggested this happens on a weekly basis, there is no substantive evidence before me to support this. Nor was the effect on highway safety explained to me by the Highway Authority.

17. Given the visibility to the north of the proposed access, there could be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. To address this, the appellant proposes to set the access back from the lane, clear the vegetation and form a visibility splay of 2.4 metres by 43 metres in either direction. This would provide a safe and convenient access to the highway network and ensure the safety of road users, subject to the imposition of a planning condition. A plans condition could also ensure the first ten metres of the access is formed with a sealed surface so that vehicles can enter and leave the appeal site safely.

18. The proposal would lead to tension between achieving safe, convenient and attractive accesses for all and providing links to the existing network of footways so as to maximise opportunities for their use. However, this would equally apply to properties near to the site and Framework paragraph 103

explains that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Taking into account the proposed visibility splay, the short distance to the crossroads and the use of the local road network, the proposal would not materially increase traffic problems and the nature of traffic generated would be appropriate for the highway network in the context of its existing use. While vehicles may need to manoeuvre so that road users can pass one another, this would only inconvenience the flow of traffic and not harm highway safety.

19. Drawing these matters together, I consider that the proposal, given its scale, would not lead to an unacceptable impact on highway safety or cause severe residual cumulative impacts on the road network. Thus, I conclude, in respect of this issue that, despite the tension outlined above, the proposal would accord with criterion 3 of CS Core Policy 5, CS Spatial Policy 7 and DMD Policy DM5 along with Framework paragraphs 103, 108 and 109. Jointly, among other things, these seek proposals to provide safe and convenient access to the highway network; and development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

Location of the development

20. Policy H of the PPTS seeks to very strictly limit new traveller site development in the open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. The phrase ‘away from’ is not defined. Just like CS Core Policy 5, the PPTS does not rule new traveller development in the countryside. The Council interpret ‘away from’ as meaning that sites should be within (or immediately adjacent to) a rural or semi-rural settlement. On the other hand, the appellant suggests that ‘away from’ infers a significant degree

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

of detachment and relies on an appeal decision at Sparrow Cottage (Ref: APP/L3245/A/14/2215836). I consider the Council’s take on ‘away from’ to be too narrow, due to the site’s proximity to the community of Bathley which is also likely to include the occupants of Crossways and other properties to the south, east and west.

21. Criterion 2 of CS Core Policy 5 requires: the site to be reasonably situated with access to essential services of mains water, electricity supply, drainage and sanitation and to a range of basic and everyday community services and facilities – including education, health, shopping and transport facilities. There is no definition of the term ‘reasonably situated’ so a judgement is required. CS

Spatial Policy 7 seeks to encourage and support development proposals that minimise the need for travel and through the provision or enhancement of local services and facilities.

22. The site is detached from Bathley, yet the intervening distance is modest, and the site lies next to Crossways. There are minimal facilities and services in Bathley, and the bus stop is just beyond the distance that the Highway Authority recommend. Caunton offers slightly more facilities and services, but having regard to Document 1, journeys to North Muskham, Norwell and Newark-on-Trent would all be required to reach a range of everyday community services and facilities, such as education, health, shopping and transport facilities. I do, however, agree with the Council that the proposal would not place undue pressure on local services and facilities. Future occupants would be likely to make a modest contribution to these. There is also no evidence that the site is not reasonably situated with access to essential services of mains water, electricity supply, drainage and sanitation.

23. Future occupants of the site may be able to walk to or flag down bus services which pass the site. However, while these services would be an option available to the occupants, they are not frequent, and I understand low patronage numbers mean that they are under threat.

24. Journeys on foot would be shared with other road users. Future occupants could walk to and from Bathley, but this journey would not be attractive during the hours of darkness or inclement weather. Journeys on foot to other nearby settlements would be unattractive for the same reasons or because they are too far away. Cycling would be an option, despite the Council’s safety concerns, given the sign at the crossroads which advocates a cycling ‘loop’ route. Even so, these matters do not change my view that, as with other occupants in Bathley or nearby, there would be a high dependency on private vehicles by future occupants of the site to access facilities and services further afield such as education, health and shopping facilities. As set out earlier, the proposal would, in this respect, lead to tension with CS Spatial Policy 7, DPD Policy DM5

and Framework paragraph 108.

25. At the Hearing, the Council referred to a recent appeal decision in which that scheme was held to be isolated. However, I have no details of the scheme or the appeal decision before me to establish whether the circumstances are directly comparable to the proposal. Thus, I afford this matter no weight.

26. I note the Council’s view about whether the proposal would be sustainable development, especially in relation to the concerns raised about highway safety. While there are shortcomings with the proposal, in terms of its location and how future occupants would access facilities and services, in the round, I

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

do not consider that the site would be isolated.

27. On this issue, I conclude that the proposed development would, on balance, accord with development plan policy and the provisions of the PPTS for the location of such development. Thus, the proposal would accord with CS Spatial Policy 7, criterion 2 of CS Core Policy 5 and as a result CS Core Policy 4 along with PPTS Policy H. Together, these seek to very strictly limit new traveller site development in the open countryside that is away from existing settlements; to minimise the need for travel; and for proposals to provide access to essential services and a range of basic and everyday community facilities and services.

Other considerations

Need for gypsy sites

28. Notwithstanding my findings on the first two main issues, given the tension that I have recognised, the PPTS requires that the level of local provision and need should be considered when dealing with proposals for gypsy sites. It is common ground that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of permanent traveller pitches.

29. The Inspector examining the CS considered that the GTAA is very likely to have underestimated need. As a result, main modifications were made to then draft CS Core Policies 4 and 5 prior to their adoption. I note that the Council are in the process of preparing a new GTAA but work on this document is not yet complete or at a stage whereby future pitch requirements have been established. An Amended Allocations and Development Management DPD is also being prepared which will include a revised pitch requirement and site allocation(s) to meet any residual need. This is, however, some time off from being ready to for Examination.

30. Hence, the most recent GTAA (2016) forecast a total unmet need in the District for the provision of 39 no. permanent pitches. These figures assume that 86 no. pitches will become available in each five-year period (i.e. a total of 258

pitches) as a result of turnover on existing sites. The Council was unable to confirm at the Hearing how many of these pitches have been delivered.

31. Given the unmet need and the Examining Inspector’s clear view that this assessment underestimates the need, I disagree with the Council’s view about the lack of land supply not being relevant given the speculative nature of the application. Through questioning at the Hearing, the Council explained that this is due to the appellant not being local to the area. However, the appellant, his wife and small child have recently moved into the District and they have made a planning application with the intention to live on the site. I understood the Council’s point about needing to address the District’s need and inward and outward migration, but any assessment of need is not made particular to individuals. Furthermore, the proposed site could be occupied by any gypsy and traveller providing they met the PPTS definition. Given this, and as the PPTS sets out the Government’s aim to promote more private traveller sites, this adds moderate weight in favour of the proposal.

Availability of gypsy site and personal circumstances 32. The appellant and his wife have a young daughter. Prior to the Hearing, the appellant and his family lived in Kent. The appellant found work in the south-east of England when living in Kent and travelled along the east coast to the East Midlands. Written evidence submitted stated the site in Kent was his

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

father’s, but at the Hearing it was confirmed to be his uncle’s site. Either way, I was informed that this site had recently been sold, though there was no substantive evidence of this.

33. For three days prior to the Hearing, the appellant and his family have lived on the roadside north of Newark-on-Trent. The appellant confirmed that there was no opportunity to go back to Kent, where they had just come from, and that they would continue to live on the roadside pending the outcome of the appeal.

His wife’s family live in the Leicester area on a site with three pitches, but each pitch is occupied by family members. There may be space for the appellant’s touring caravan, but I have no reason to doubt that this would not be a suitable long-term arrangement.

34. The appellant is looking for a site in the Newark area, close to his wife’s family, where he can enrol his child into nursery and then school. While, the appellant’s circumstances have recently changed, the lack of a settled and fixed base will prevent the child from attending nursery. In the next year or so, the security of a settled base and a fixed address would help encourage and maintain school attendance. This is an important matter that adds substantial positive weight in favour of the proposal.

35. I heard anecdotal evidence from the main parties and interested parties about a site on Tolney Lane. I was informed by the appellant that there are no pitches available on this site. The Council said that pitches may be available but could not offer any substantive evidence to show this. In any event, this site is subject to flood events which cause residents to be evacuated as it is cut off. While points have been made about this site expanding without the benefit of planning permission, this is a matter outside the scope of this appeal.

Neither party has provided substantive details of any other alternative site in the District. Given the appellant’s aspiration to be within the East Midlands, the Council suggested that alternative sites across the East Midlands should be considered. However, even if I were to adopt such an approach, the Council did not offer any substantive evidence of any other sites. Thus, the only alternative open to the appellant and his family would be, as he explained to me at the Hearing, to live at the roadside and wait for a pitch to come forward through the Council. This factor adds significant weight in favour of the proposal but given my findings in respect of need and alternative sites, the evidence points to a general planning permission.

Other matters

36. Interested parties are concerned that the number of caravans could increase over time. However, a planning condition could be imposed to control this, and any increase would need to be subject of a further planning application. If there was a change in the number of caravans without the benefit of planning permission, it would be a matter for the Council to consider initially.

37. The dayroom would be part of the accommodation available to the occupants and offer a shower room, toilet and a space that the occupants could use.

There is sufficient scope within either the dayroom or within the site itself for refuse and recycling to be stored.

38. I note the views of interested parties in terms of community interaction, the fear of crime, anti-social behaviour and criminal behaviour, but there is no substantive evidence to suggest that these concerns would become a reality.

The existing and proposed boundaries would help assimilate the proposed

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

development into its surroundings and ensure that there would be no adverse effects on the living conditions of the occupants of Crossways.

39. Concerns about a precedent being set are generalised and not specific to any particular site or sites. In any event, it would be very unlikely that any other site would have the same relationship to nearby settlements, the road network and facilities and services. While, it is suggested that there are brownfield sites elsewhere, I do not have details of any such sites. Furthermore, despite the refusal of two previous schemes on the site historically for different uses1, I have determined the appeal scheme on its own planning merits.

The Planning Balance

40. I have concluded that the proposal would not, on balance, cause harm in terms of highway safety or through its location having regard to the development plan policies and the Framework, which is a material consideration. The proposal would bring about benefits relating to an unmet need, the lack of alternative accommodation and the personal circumstances of the appellant and his family. These would, in the context of providing a further gypsy site, only further tip the balance in favour of the appeal. As such the balance is clearly in favour of the grant of permanent permission.

Conditions

41. I have had regard to the list of suggested planning conditions, and the comments of the main parties and interested parties at the Hearing. In the interests of certainty, I have imposed an approved plans condition. I have imposed a planning condition about materials to be used for the day room in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. For the same reason, despite the existing hedgerows, I have amalgamated and imposed a condition to secure details of hard and soft landscaping to assimilate the development into its surroundings.

42. Given the case advanced by the appellant, the work that they undertake and the support provided by the other considerations, I have imposed planning conditions to control: the occupation of the pitch; the number and type of caravans on the pitch; to prevent commercial activities and the parking of a commercial vehicle over a particular weight. These controls are necessary, in the interests of certainty, the character and appearance of the area, and to address an unmet need. A condition is necessary, in the interests of highway safety so that the visibility splays are implemented and maintained thereafter.

Conclusion

43. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Andrew McGlone

INSPECTOR

1 Council Refs: E/32/27 and 3279661

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: site layout plan; proposed day room floor plan; proposed front elevation of day room; proposed rear elevation of day room; proposed side elevations of day room; PBA2; and 24773_08_020_01.

3) The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the materials detailed as part of the planning application.

4) Prior to the occupation of the site full details of hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include:

• a schedule (including planting plans and written specifications, including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) of trees, shrubs and other plants, noting species, plant sizes, proposed numbers and densities. The scheme shall be designed so as to enhance the nature conservation value of the site, including the use of locally native plant species;

• an implementation and phasing programme;

• means of enclosure;

• car parking layouts and materials; and

• hard surfacing materials;

The approved landscaping shall be completed during the first planting season following the first occupation of the site, or in accordance with the implementation and phasing programme. Any trees/shrubs which, within a period of five years of being planted die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

5) The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers as defined in Annex 1 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites or its equivalent in replacement national policy.

6) No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the storage of materials. No more than one commercial vehicle shall be kept on the land for the use by the occupiers of the caravans hereby permitted and this vehicle shall not exceed 3.5 tonnes in weight.

7) No more than two caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 as amended, of which no more than one shall be a static caravan, shall be stationed on the site at any time.

8) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the 2.4 metre by 43 metre access visibility splays shown on plan Ref: 24773_08_020_01 have been implemented. The area within the visibility splays referred to in this condition shall thereafter be maintained free of any obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres in height for as long as the development exists.

END OF SCHEDULE

 

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Ashley Dunne

Appellant

Philip Brown

Philip Brown Associates

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Nicolla Ellis

Newark and Sherwood District Council

Matthew Tubb

Newark and Sherwood District Council

Stella Euerby

Nottingham County Council

Clare Walker

Newark and Sherwood District Council

Laura Gardner

Newark and Sherwood District Council

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Councillor Bruce Laughton

Mark Hunter

John Cross

Brian Cross

Nigel Harris

Boyer Planning

Julie Pulford

David Gatiss

Rita Davison

Malcolm Davison

Mick Dixon

D Dixon

Christine Johnson

Wendy Smalley

Philippa White

David Hemstock

Mark Addison

J Ellis and J Ellis

Deborah Jaines

J H and A P Lynn

R Bolt

Sally Grogan

Natalie Dunn

S Andrews

Jim Hawkins

Mrs J Hawkins

DOCUMENTS

Documents submitted at the Hearing

1 Table of current settlement facilities; map of Public Rights of Way; and map of street lighting

2 Bus timetable for services 332, 333 and 335

3 Bus timetable for services 37, 39 and 77

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10

Dear Sirs

 

I am writing on behalf of Bathley Parish Council (BPC) regarding the hearing conducted by members of the planning department and the information received by the council prior to the hearing.  BPC would like to point out the following issues:

1. Originally the Parish Council had been told that the hearing had been arranged for the 17^th September and that the council were appointing their own representative to speak at the hearing. Subsequently, BPC was told that the hearing had been downgraded to an informal meeting so there would be no independent representation from the Council.  At the next Parish Council meeting BPC was informed that there is no such thing as an informal meeting and the hearing was going ahead in any case without independent representation from the council.  BPC conclude that there has been misrepresentation regarding this hearing.
2. At the hearing there was a panel of members of the planning committee and a highways representative from the County Council constituting 4 people. Space was not made available for the BPC representative that had contacted the Planning Inspectorate prior to the hearing, so he should have had a place on the panel from which he could speak on our behalf.  Also, the speaker system did not work in the room, consequently residents could not hear what the panel were saying.  The Planning Inspector had to rearrange the seating in order for the attendees to hear the proceedings.
3. Point 1 On the Agenda (which BPC were not given prior to the hearing)

Statement of Common Ground.  There was a dispute that the council had not addressed or commented on so the statement had to be struck from the meeting and discussed at a later date.

4. On the questioning by the Planning Inspector regarding various issues, ie facilities and services in Bathley, the panel were consistently not able to answer the questions put forward to them due to lack of preparation and lack of knowledge of the site in question. Namely: Regarding the facilities in Bathley and surrounding villages.  The council were of the opinion that there is a church in Bathley.  There is no church in Bathley.   They wrongly stated that there is a shop in the neighbouring village of North Muskham.  There is no shop in North Muskham it is now a hairdressing salon.  What local transport ie buses are available in the area, the council were unable to answer as they did not have the relevant information to hand.  What catchment schools and primary schools are available to the residents of Bathley – the council were unable to answer, what planning applications have been put forward in Bathley for new housing.  The planning department failed to inform the Inspector that the new houses that have been built in Bathley were merely extensions of existing buildings and as such were not new buildings.  This would have an effect on any decision the Planning Inspector reached and was not pointed out by the planning department.  The planning department were unaware of previous planning applications on that particular parcel of land that had been rejected. This was brought up by one of the residents.

 

5. The highways issue was not sufficiently dealt with as a suitable road traffic survey had not been made available. The panel were also not aware of any accidents or incidents relating to the site in question.  This was brought up by one of the residents.

 

6. Regarding the need for gypsy and traveller pitches – the council had no figures for available pitches at alternative sites ie Tolney Lane so were unable to comment. The council were also unable to comment on how many pitches are available to travellers in the East Midlands area.

 

Bathley Parish Council would like to report that it is not satisfied with the Council’s handling of this hearing and that BPC would like to request a further hearing so the Planning Inspector can have a broader view on the issue.  BPC feels that it has not been fairly represented by the council due to lack of preparation for the meeting and lack of knowledge of the site, even in the highways department, as the Highways department representative was only briefed on the case the day before the meeting.

 

I welcome your comments on the above.

 

Yours faithfully

S Grogan

Clerk to Bathley Parish Council on behalf of Brian Cross, Chair of BPC

 

 

 

 

Dear Sirs

I am writing on behalf of Bathley Parish Council (BPC) regarding the hearing conducted by members of the planning department and the information received by the council prior to the hearing.  BPC would like to point out the following issues:

1. Originally the Parish Council had been told that the hearing had been arranged for the 17^th September and that the council were appointing their own representative to speak at the hearing.  Subsequently, BPC was told that the hearing had been downgraded to an informal meeting so there would be no independent representation from the Council.  At the next Parish Council meeting BPC was informed that there is no such thing as an informal meeting and the hearing was going ahead in any case without independent representation from the council.  BPC conclude that there has been misrepresentation regarding this hearing.
2. At the hearing there was a panel of members of the planning committee and a highways representative from the County Council constituting 4 people.  Space was not made available for the BPC representative that had contacted the Planning Inspectorate prior to the hearing, so he should have had a place on the panel from which he could speak on our behalf.  Also, the speaker system did not work in the room, consequently residents could not hear what the panel were saying.  The Planning Inspector had to rearrange the seating in order for the attendees to hear the proceedings.
3. Point 1 On the Agenda (which BPC were not given prior to the hearing)

Statement of Common Ground.  There was a dispute that the council had not addressed or commented on so the statement had to be struck from the meeting and discussed at a later date.

1. On the questioning by the Planning Inspector regarding various issues, ie facilities and services in Bathley, the panel were consistently not able to answer the questions put forward to them due to lack of preparation and lack of knowledge of the site in question.  Namely: Regarding the facilities in Bathley and surrounding villages.  The council were of the opinion that there is a church in Bathley.  There is no church in Bathley.   They wrongly stated that there is a shop in the neighbouring village of North Muskham.  There is no shop in North Muskham it is now a hairdressing salon.  What local transport ie buses are available in the area, the council were unable to answer as they did not have the relevant information to hand.  What catchment schools and primary schools are available to the residents of Bathley – the council were unable to answer, what planning applications have been put forward in Bathley for new housing.  The planning department failed to inform the Inspector that the new houses that have been built in Bathley were merely extensions of existing buildings and as such were not new buildings.  This would have an effect on any decision the Planning Inspector reached and was not pointed out by the planning department.  The planning department were unaware of previous planning applications on that particular parcel of land that had been rejected. This was brought up by one of the residents.
2. The highways issue was not sufficiently dealt with as a suitable road traffic survey had not been made available.  The panel were also not aware of any accidents or incidents relating to the site in question.  This was brought up by one of the residents.
3. Regarding the need for gypsy and traveller pitches – the council had no figures for available pitches at alternative sites ie Tolney Lane so were unable to comment. The council were also unable to comment on how many pitches are available to travellers in the East Midlands area.

Bathley Parish Council would like to report that it is not satisfied with the Council’s handling of this hearing and that BPC would like to request a further hearing so the Planning Inspector can have a broader view on the issue.  BPC feels that it has not been fairly represented by the council due to lack of preparation for the meeting and lack of knowledge of the site, even in the highways department, as the Highways department representative was only briefed on the case the day before the meeting.

We welcome your comments on the above.

Yours faithfully

S Grogan

Clerk to Bathley Parish Council on behalf of Brian Cross, Chair of BPC

Appeal Decision

Hearing Held on 17 September 2019

Site visit made on 17 September 2019

by Andrew McGlone BSc MCD MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8 October 2019

Appeal Ref: APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

Land north of Crossways, off Main Street, Bathley, Newark, Nottinghamshire NG23 6DL

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Mr Ashley Dunne against the decision of Newark & Sherwood District Council.

• The application Ref 18/02219/FUL, dated 23 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 28 January 2019.

• The development proposed is a change of use of land to use as residential caravan site for one gypsy family with two caravans, including no more than one static caravan/mobile home, laying of hardstanding, construction of access and erection of ancillary utility building.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a change of use of land to use as residential caravan site for one gypsy family with two caravans, including no more than one static caravan/mobile home, laying of hardstanding, construction of access and erection of ancillary utility building at Land north of Crossways, off Main Street, Bathley, Newark, Nottinghamshire NG23 6DL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/02219/FUL, dated 23 November 2018, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Procedural Matters

2. The main parties agree, based on the evidence submitted to the Council during the course of the planning application, that the appellant and his wife are gypsies and travellers having regard to the definition set out in The Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS). I agree, based on the evidence before me and as a result of discussions held at the Hearing.

3. Since the Council refused planning permission, the Council has adopted its Amended Core Strategy (CS). Policies in the CS have largely amended those within the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD which the Council relied on in refusing planning permission. As a result, the CS policies now carry full weight. The CS along with the Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Document (DPD), adopted in July 2013, form the development plan for the administrative area of Newark and Sherwood. There has also been a revision to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). I note that both parties’ have, in their appeal submissions, set out their cases having regard to the CS, DPD and the Framework. At the Hearing, all parties addressed these policy documents.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

4. Despite submitting a signed Statement of Common Ground (SoCG), The Council, at the start of the Hearing, confirmed that they wished to strikeout paragraph 5.6 which stated “The findings of the traffic survey submitted on behalf of the appellant during the application process are not disputed.” I have considered the appeal on this basis.

Main Issues

5. The main issues are: (i) highway safety, with regards to the proposed access; (ii) whether the proposed development accords with development plan policy and the provisions of the PPTS for the location of such development; and (iii) whether any harm arising from the proposal would be outweighed by other considerations weighing in favour of the development, including the need for traveller sites, the availability of sites and the personal circumstances of the proposed occupiers.

Reasons

6. The appeal site lies to the west of Main Street roughly 55 metres to the north east of the crossroad junction of Main Street, Caunton Road and Vicarage Lane.

Caunton Road heads westward to Caunton, while Vicarage Lane extends eastwards to the A1 and North Muskham which is around a mile away. The settlements of Norwell and Newark-on-Trent are around 1.8 miles and 4.5

miles away respectively. Main Street continues southwards into the village of Bathley, around 450 metres away. This is the lowest ranking in the Council’s Settlement Hierarchy set out in CS Spatial Policy 1.

7. The site forms part of a larger land holding that is currently overgrown and enclosed by hedgerows. To the south is the residential property of ‘Crossways’.

Open fields are to the north and west. Away from the central area of Bathley, there are intermittent properties to the south, east and west of the site. The site lies within the open countryside, but not the Green Belt.

8. CS Spatial Policy 3 explains that development not in villages or settlements, in the open countryside, will be strictly controlled and restricted to uses which require a rural setting. Policies to deal with such applications are set out in the DPD. It was agreed at the Hearing that the proposal does not fall within the categories of development listed in DPD Policy DM8. However, the DPD does not allocate any land for new gypsy sites and, as a result, new sites can only come forward at present through the development management process.

9. CS Core Policy 4 sets out that the District Council will address future gypsy and traveller pitch provision in accordance with the most up to date Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) through all necessary means including: the allocation of new sites through the development plan; and the granting of planning permission for pitches on new sites in line with Core Policy 5. The dispute between the main parties, in respect of the first two main issues, focusses on criterion 2 and 3 of this policy. It is common ground that the proposal would accord with the remaining criteria of CS Core Policy 5. I have no reason to take a different view.

Highway safety

10. Criterion 3 of CS Core Policy 5, CS Spatial Policy 7 and DMD Policy DM5 jointly require development proposals to provide safe, convenient and attractive accesses for all, including the elderly and disabled, and others with restricted mobility, and provide links to the existing network of footways, bridleways and

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

cycleways so as to maximise opportunities for their use.

11. Main Street, from the crossroads and to the north of the site, undulates and curves to the right then the left. The roads alignment together with hedgerows and banking affect visibility to the north. The road is narrow at around 3.3

metres in width, but it does widen towards the junction. Main Street (to the south of the crossroads), Caunton Road and Vicarage Lane all appear to be wider than the country lane. A variety of vehicles use the local road network, including cars, buses and large farm vehicles. Cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders also use the roads near to the site which are generally unlit and subject of a national speed limit. There are no footways on any of the roads.

12. The appellant’s Transport Technical Note – March 2019 (TTN) contains a manual survey of traffic movements. The survey was undertaken between the hours of 07:00 and 13:00. In this time, 89 no. two-way traffic movements were recorded. Whilst the survey was not undertaken for the full day, it shows that, even if I were to assume a broadly similar set of movements for the evening rush hour period, the roads near to the site are lightly trafficked.

13. There is no dispute that the proposal would increase the use of the local road network. The extent of the increase varies between the main parties, but I agree with the Council’s version of the TRICS database category as it is far more representative of the proposed use. Even so, in applying this the Council have adopted figures that do not reflect the proposed occupation of the site by a single gypsy family, who would typically live within one static caravan/mobile home and use the touring caravan when travelling. Thus, it is reasonable to assume the proposal would generate around 3.56 vehicle trips per day, and if I were to adopt the Council’s view that 4 person trips per day would be generated, the total trips per day could be around 7.56. These number of trips would not be significant in the context of two-way traffic movements recorded in the TTN. The impact would be even less when a full day of two-way traffic movements is accounted for.

14. While I shall explore accessibility in greater detail in the next main issue, it is evident that future occupants of the site would be highly dependent on private vehicles to access facilities and services. The appellant explained at the Hearing that they would be most likely to turn out of the site towards the crossroads, and hence with the flow of morning traffic heading southbound, before going onto North Muskham, the A1 or Newark. This may well be true, but journeys to Norwell (turning left out of the site) cannot be ruled out. Nor could the time or direction of travel be controlled. It is, however, highly unlikely that every journey to and from the site would include towing a caravan. Even if it did, roads near to the site are already used by larger farm vehicles daily.

15. Main Street (to the south of the proposed access), Caunton Road and Vicarage Lane generally offer good forward visibility which allows drivers adequate opportunity to respond to meeting another road user. The respective widths of the roads also manage vehicle speeds. Visibility in each direction is good at the crossroads. Residents and the Council explained to me that the width of local roads can mean that vehicles need to manoeuvre and/or utilise grass verges or passing places to pass one another. This is not ideal, but it is a situation that does occur on rural roads. The proposal would not change this, though vehicle movements associated with the proposal would add to the likelihood of this situation occurring, which is an inconvenience to the flow of traffic. Even so, this is not the same as there being an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

16. I heard that there have been accidents or near misses near to the site. Some of the experiences were described anecdotally, others relate to incidents over ten years ago. While I have no reason to doubt that incidents have arisen, it is difficult based on the evidence, to go any further other than to recognise the potential for incidents to arise. None of the incidents described to me indicate that pedestrians, horses or cyclists have been involved. That said, the road conditions are not particularly appealing to use by these road users, or other vulnerable users during the hours of darkness or inclement weather. Interested parties explain that local roads are well used when the A1 is blocked. While it is suggested this happens on a weekly basis, there is no substantive evidence before me to support this. Nor was the effect on highway safety explained to me by the Highway Authority.

17. Given the visibility to the north of the proposed access, there could be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. To address this, the appellant proposes to set the access back from the lane, clear the vegetation and form a visibility splay of 2.4 metres by 43 metres in either direction. This would provide a safe and convenient access to the highway network and ensure the safety of road users, subject to the imposition of a planning condition. A plans condition could also ensure the first ten metres of the access is formed with a sealed surface so that vehicles can enter and leave the appeal site safely.

18. The proposal would lead to tension between achieving safe, convenient and attractive accesses for all and providing links to the existing network of footways so as to maximise opportunities for their use. However, this would equally apply to properties near to the site and Framework paragraph 103

explains that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Taking into account the proposed visibility splay, the short distance to the crossroads and the use of the local road network, the proposal would not materially increase traffic problems and the nature of traffic generated would be appropriate for the highway network in the context of its existing use. While vehicles may need to manoeuvre so that road users can pass one another, this would only inconvenience the flow of traffic and not harm highway safety.

19. Drawing these matters together, I consider that the proposal, given its scale, would not lead to an unacceptable impact on highway safety or cause severe residual cumulative impacts on the road network. Thus, I conclude, in respect of this issue that, despite the tension outlined above, the proposal would accord with criterion 3 of CS Core Policy 5, CS Spatial Policy 7 and DMD Policy DM5 along with Framework paragraphs 103, 108 and 109. Jointly, among other things, these seek proposals to provide safe and convenient access to the highway network; and development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

Location of the development

20. Policy H of the PPTS seeks to very strictly limit new traveller site development in the open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. The phrase ‘away from’ is not defined. Just like CS Core Policy 5, the PPTS does not rule new traveller development in the countryside. The Council interpret ‘away from’ as meaning that sites should be within (or immediately adjacent to) a rural or semi-rural settlement. On the other hand, the appellant suggests that ‘away from’ infers a significant degree

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

of detachment and relies on an appeal decision at Sparrow Cottage (Ref: APP/L3245/A/14/2215836). I consider the Council’s take on ‘away from’ to be too narrow, due to the site’s proximity to the community of Bathley which is also likely to include the occupants of Crossways and other properties to the south, east and west.

21. Criterion 2 of CS Core Policy 5 requires: the site to be reasonably situated with access to essential services of mains water, electricity supply, drainage and sanitation and to a range of basic and everyday community services and facilities – including education, health, shopping and transport facilities. There is no definition of the term ‘reasonably situated’ so a judgement is required. CS

Spatial Policy 7 seeks to encourage and support development proposals that minimise the need for travel and through the provision or enhancement of local services and facilities.

22. The site is detached from Bathley, yet the intervening distance is modest, and the site lies next to Crossways. There are minimal facilities and services in Bathley, and the bus stop is just beyond the distance that the Highway Authority recommend. Caunton offers slightly more facilities and services, but having regard to Document 1, journeys to North Muskham, Norwell and Newark-on-Trent would all be required to reach a range of everyday community services and facilities, such as education, health, shopping and transport facilities. I do, however, agree with the Council that the proposal would not place undue pressure on local services and facilities. Future occupants would be likely to make a modest contribution to these. There is also no evidence that the site is not reasonably situated with access to essential services of mains water, electricity supply, drainage and sanitation.

23. Future occupants of the site may be able to walk to or flag down bus services which pass the site. However, while these services would be an option available to the occupants, they are not frequent, and I understand low patronage numbers mean that they are under threat.

24. Journeys on foot would be shared with other road users. Future occupants could walk to and from Bathley, but this journey would not be attractive during the hours of darkness or inclement weather. Journeys on foot to other nearby settlements would be unattractive for the same reasons or because they are too far away. Cycling would be an option, despite the Council’s safety concerns, given the sign at the crossroads which advocates a cycling ‘loop’ route. Even so, these matters do not change my view that, as with other occupants in Bathley or nearby, there would be a high dependency on private vehicles by future occupants of the site to access facilities and services further afield such as education, health and shopping facilities. As set out earlier, the proposal would, in this respect, lead to tension with CS Spatial Policy 7, DPD Policy DM5

and Framework paragraph 108.

25. At the Hearing, the Council referred to a recent appeal decision in which that scheme was held to be isolated. However, I have no details of the scheme or the appeal decision before me to establish whether the circumstances are directly comparable to the proposal. Thus, I afford this matter no weight.

26. I note the Council’s view about whether the proposal would be sustainable development, especially in relation to the concerns raised about highway safety. While there are shortcomings with the proposal, in terms of its location and how future occupants would access facilities and services, in the round, I

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

do not consider that the site would be isolated.

27. On this issue, I conclude that the proposed development would, on balance, accord with development plan policy and the provisions of the PPTS for the location of such development. Thus, the proposal would accord with CS Spatial Policy 7, criterion 2 of CS Core Policy 5 and as a result CS Core Policy 4 along with PPTS Policy H. Together, these seek to very strictly limit new traveller site development in the open countryside that is away from existing settlements; to minimise the need for travel; and for proposals to provide access to essential services and a range of basic and everyday community facilities and services.

Other considerations

Need for gypsy sites

28. Notwithstanding my findings on the first two main issues, given the tension that I have recognised, the PPTS requires that the level of local provision and need should be considered when dealing with proposals for gypsy sites. It is common ground that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of permanent traveller pitches.

29. The Inspector examining the CS considered that the GTAA is very likely to have underestimated need. As a result, main modifications were made to then draft CS Core Policies 4 and 5 prior to their adoption. I note that the Council are in the process of preparing a new GTAA but work on this document is not yet complete or at a stage whereby future pitch requirements have been established. An Amended Allocations and Development Management DPD is also being prepared which will include a revised pitch requirement and site allocation(s) to meet any residual need. This is, however, some time off from being ready to for Examination.

30. Hence, the most recent GTAA (2016) forecast a total unmet need in the District for the provision of 39 no. permanent pitches. These figures assume that 86 no. pitches will become available in each five-year period (i.e. a total of 258

pitches) as a result of turnover on existing sites. The Council was unable to confirm at the Hearing how many of these pitches have been delivered.

31. Given the unmet need and the Examining Inspector’s clear view that this assessment underestimates the need, I disagree with the Council’s view about the lack of land supply not being relevant given the speculative nature of the application. Through questioning at the Hearing, the Council explained that this is due to the appellant not being local to the area. However, the appellant, his wife and small child have recently moved into the District and they have made a planning application with the intention to live on the site. I understood the Council’s point about needing to address the District’s need and inward and outward migration, but any assessment of need is not made particular to individuals. Furthermore, the proposed site could be occupied by any gypsy and traveller providing they met the PPTS definition. Given this, and as the PPTS sets out the Government’s aim to promote more private traveller sites, this adds moderate weight in favour of the proposal.

Availability of gypsy site and personal circumstances 32. The appellant and his wife have a young daughter. Prior to the Hearing, the appellant and his family lived in Kent. The appellant found work in the south-east of England when living in Kent and travelled along the east coast to the East Midlands. Written evidence submitted stated the site in Kent was his

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

father’s, but at the Hearing it was confirmed to be his uncle’s site. Either way, I was informed that this site had recently been sold, though there was no substantive evidence of this.

33. For three days prior to the Hearing, the appellant and his family have lived on the roadside north of Newark-on-Trent. The appellant confirmed that there was no opportunity to go back to Kent, where they had just come from, and that they would continue to live on the roadside pending the outcome of the appeal.

His wife’s family live in the Leicester area on a site with three pitches, but each pitch is occupied by family members. There may be space for the appellant’s touring caravan, but I have no reason to doubt that this would not be a suitable long-term arrangement.

34. The appellant is looking for a site in the Newark area, close to his wife’s family, where he can enrol his child into nursery and then school. While, the appellant’s circumstances have recently changed, the lack of a settled and fixed base will prevent the child from attending nursery. In the next year or so, the security of a settled base and a fixed address would help encourage and maintain school attendance. This is an important matter that adds substantial positive weight in favour of the proposal.

35. I heard anecdotal evidence from the main parties and interested parties about a site on Tolney Lane. I was informed by the appellant that there are no pitches available on this site. The Council said that pitches may be available but could not offer any substantive evidence to show this. In any event, this site is subject to flood events which cause residents to be evacuated as it is cut off. While points have been made about this site expanding without the benefit of planning permission, this is a matter outside the scope of this appeal.

Neither party has provided substantive details of any other alternative site in the District. Given the appellant’s aspiration to be within the East Midlands, the Council suggested that alternative sites across the East Midlands should be considered. However, even if I were to adopt such an approach, the Council did not offer any substantive evidence of any other sites. Thus, the only alternative open to the appellant and his family would be, as he explained to me at the Hearing, to live at the roadside and wait for a pitch to come forward through the Council. This factor adds significant weight in favour of the proposal but given my findings in respect of need and alternative sites, the evidence points to a general planning permission.

Other matters

36. Interested parties are concerned that the number of caravans could increase over time. However, a planning condition could be imposed to control this, and any increase would need to be subject of a further planning application. If there was a change in the number of caravans without the benefit of planning permission, it would be a matter for the Council to consider initially.

37. The dayroom would be part of the accommodation available to the occupants and offer a shower room, toilet and a space that the occupants could use.

There is sufficient scope within either the dayroom or within the site itself for refuse and recycling to be stored.

38. I note the views of interested parties in terms of community interaction, the fear of crime, anti-social behaviour and criminal behaviour, but there is no substantive evidence to suggest that these concerns would become a reality.

The existing and proposed boundaries would help assimilate the proposed

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

development into its surroundings and ensure that there would be no adverse effects on the living conditions of the occupants of Crossways.

39. Concerns about a precedent being set are generalised and not specific to any particular site or sites. In any event, it would be very unlikely that any other site would have the same relationship to nearby settlements, the road network and facilities and services. While, it is suggested that there are brownfield sites elsewhere, I do not have details of any such sites. Furthermore, despite the refusal of two previous schemes on the site historically for different uses1, I have determined the appeal scheme on its own planning merits.

The Planning Balance

40. I have concluded that the proposal would not, on balance, cause harm in terms of highway safety or through its location having regard to the development plan policies and the Framework, which is a material consideration. The proposal would bring about benefits relating to an unmet need, the lack of alternative accommodation and the personal circumstances of the appellant and his family. These would, in the context of providing a further gypsy site, only further tip the balance in favour of the appeal. As such the balance is clearly in favour of the grant of permanent permission.

Conditions

41. I have had regard to the list of suggested planning conditions, and the comments of the main parties and interested parties at the Hearing. In the interests of certainty, I have imposed an approved plans condition. I have imposed a planning condition about materials to be used for the day room in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. For the same reason, despite the existing hedgerows, I have amalgamated and imposed a condition to secure details of hard and soft landscaping to assimilate the development into its surroundings.

42. Given the case advanced by the appellant, the work that they undertake and the support provided by the other considerations, I have imposed planning conditions to control: the occupation of the pitch; the number and type of caravans on the pitch; to prevent commercial activities and the parking of a commercial vehicle over a particular weight. These controls are necessary, in the interests of certainty, the character and appearance of the area, and to address an unmet need. A condition is necessary, in the interests of highway safety so that the visibility splays are implemented and maintained thereafter.

Conclusion

43. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Andrew McGlone

INSPECTOR

1 Council Refs: E/32/27 and 3279661

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: site layout plan; proposed day room floor plan; proposed front elevation of day room; proposed rear elevation of day room; proposed side elevations of day room; PBA2; and 24773_08_020_01.

3) The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the materials detailed as part of the planning application.

4) Prior to the occupation of the site full details of hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include:

• a schedule (including planting plans and written specifications, including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) of trees, shrubs and other plants, noting species, plant sizes, proposed numbers and densities. The scheme shall be designed so as to enhance the nature conservation value of the site, including the use of locally native plant species;

• an implementation and phasing programme;

• means of enclosure;

• car parking layouts and materials; and

• hard surfacing materials;

The approved landscaping shall be completed during the first planting season following the first occupation of the site, or in accordance with the implementation and phasing programme. Any trees/shrubs which, within a period of five years of being planted die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

5) The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers as defined in Annex 1 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites or its equivalent in replacement national policy.

6) No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the storage of materials. No more than one commercial vehicle shall be kept on the land for the use by the occupiers of the caravans hereby permitted and this vehicle shall not exceed 3.5 tonnes in weight.

7) No more than two caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 as amended, of which no more than one shall be a static caravan, shall be stationed on the site at any time.

8) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the 2.4 metre by 43 metre access visibility splays shown on plan Ref: 24773_08_020_01 have been implemented. The area within the visibility splays referred to in this condition shall thereafter be maintained free of any obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres in height for as long as the development exists.

END OF SCHEDULE

 

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/W/19/3225352

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Ashley Dunne

Appellant

Philip Brown

Philip Brown Associates

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Nicolla Ellis

Newark and Sherwood District Council

Matthew Tubb

Newark and Sherwood District Council

Stella Euerby

Nottingham County Council

Clare Walker

Newark and Sherwood District Council

Laura Gardner

Newark and Sherwood District Council

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Councillor Bruce Laughton

Mark Hunter

John Cross

Brian Cross

Nigel Harris

Boyer Planning

Julie Pulford

David Gatiss

Rita Davison

Malcolm Davison

Mick Dixon

D Dixon

Christine Johnson

Wendy Smalley

Philippa White

David Hemstock

Mark Addison

J Ellis and J Ellis

Deborah Jaines

J H and A P Lynn

R Bolt

Sally Grogan

Natalie Dunn

S Andrews

Jim Hawkins

Mrs J Hawkins

DOCUMENTS

Documents submitted at the Hearing

1 Table of current settlement facilities; map of Public Rights of Way; and map of street lighting

2 Bus timetable for services 332, 333 and 335

3 Bus timetable for services 37, 39 and 77

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10

Dear Ms Smith

Re: APP/B3030/W/19/3225352 – Land north of Crossways, Main Street, Bathley, Newark on Trent, Nottinghamshire, NG23 6DL

We write in regards to the above-mentioned appeal and on behalf of Bathley Parish Council who wish to raise objection to the proposed change of use of the land to use as a residential caravan site
including 2no. caravans, laying out of hardstanding, construction of access and erection of ancillary utility building.

Reasons for Refusal

The application, which this appeal is the subject of, was refused under reference number 18/02219/FUL on 28 January 2019 for the reasons stated below:

In the opinion of the District Council, the access to the site cannot accommodate additional volumes of traffic which is not considered to provide a safe ingress or egress for vehicles. Furthermore, the proposal does not offer reasonable and practical ways of accessing the site other than by private car/van, and is therefore contrary to the principles of Spatial Policy 7 of the Core Strategy in that it fails to provide safe, convenient and attractive accesses for all, including the elderly and disabled, and others with restricted mobility, and does not provide links to any existing network of footways, bridleways and cycleways. The proposal is not appropriate for the highway network in terms of the volume and nature of traffic generated, and is likely to adversely affect the convenience and free flow of traffic using the highway. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the aims of Policy DM5 of the DPD, Spatial Policy 7 and Core Policy 5 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF.

Statement of Case

Per Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004, the Council determined the application in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicates
otherwise.

As can be seen in the above reasons for refusal, the application was refused on the grounds of incompliance with Policy DM5 of the Allocations & Development Management Development Plan
Document (DPD), Spatial Policy 7 and Core Policy 6 of the Core Strategy (CS) and the NPPF.

Access and Accessibility

During the application consultation process comments were received from Nottinghamshire County Council’s Highway Department which concluded that “the location of the development is such that it can only be accessed via a minor narrow country lane, away from any village centre”. The single track lane is narrow, achieving a width of about 3.3m and only widening to a sufficient extent to allow two vehicles to pass one another close to the junction with Caunton Close, which is approximately 50m to the south of the proposed access.

Swept path diagrams accompanied the appellant’s Statement of Case, and claims to demonstrate that a luxury 4×4 vehicle with a twin axle towing caravan can enter and egress the site safely, using
the existing highway without overrunning the adjacent verge. Whilst the proposed access may be designed with a 4.5m width, the width of the narrow country lane (3.3m) is such that were two
opposing vehicles to meet at least one would be forced onto the verge, particularly if one or both of the vehicles were towing caravans.

This, therefore, clearly demonstrates that the road dimensions are not appropriate for accommodating the additional usage that would be incurred by the proposed use of the land.

Indeed, this issue is referred to in Nottinghamshire County Council Highway Department’s comment for the application wherein it is stated that “the proposal is not appropriate for the highway network in terms of the volume and nature of traffic generated, and is likely to adversely affect the convenience and free flow of traffic using the highway”.

As such, the proposal does not comply with the requirements of Criterion 1 of DPD Policy DM5, which deems that “provision should be made for safe and inclusive access to new development”.
Sustainability

Bathley is the nearest settlement to the appeal site, the centre of which is approximately 1km to south, and which is considered to be an ‘Other Village in Newark & Sherwood’. This is the lowest
ranking in the Settlement Hierarchy as stated in CS Spatial Policy 1. There are extremely limited bus services which serve the settlement, with the nearest bus stops to the appeal site being located in the centre of Bathley, offering few and infrequent service into and out of Newark. Other than a public house located approximately 1km to the south of the appeal site there are no services nor facilities within 2km (including healthcare, education, retail and transport) with the nearest primary school being located in North Maskham some 2.5km to the east. The appeal site is located in the open countryside.

As such, the appeal site is clearly detached from key services and facilities, therefore requiring use of the private vehicle as the only mode of transport feasibly available to the occupants of the
proposal. The proposal is, therefore, in opposition to the aspirations of the NPPF and in particular Section 9 of the Framework which seeks to promote sustainable transport through the planning
system by actively managing patterns of growth and capitalising on opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use.

The principles and aspirations of CS Spatial Policy 7 are to encourage and support development proposals which promote non-car modes as a means of access to services and facilities whilst
providing safe, convenient and attractive accesses for all, including the elderly and disabled, and others with restricted mobility. The majority of key services and facilities are located well outside of comfortable walking distance, and as there are no nearby and regular public transport services in the locality, private vehicular modes of transport will be required by the occupants of the proposal for all trips generated.

As is stated in the Nottinghamshire County Council Highway Department comment for the application, “the proposal does not offer reasonable and practical ways of accessing the site other
than by private car/van, and is therefore contrary to the principles of Spatial Policy 7 of the LDF Core Strategy in that it fails to provide safe, convenient and attractive accesses for all, including the
elderly and disabled, and others with restricted mobility, and does not provide links to any existing network of footways, bridleways and cycleways”.

In conclusion, the proposal fails to provide a safe and convenient access to the highway network as the country lane used to access the proposal is considered unsuitable for additional vehicular access and is not wide enough to ensure safe transit for caravan users, which the proposed scheme would inherently generate. Access to key services and facilities is poor from the appeal site, and can only realistically be achieved by routine private vehicle trips, which is in opposition to the aspirations of CS Spatial Policy 7 as well as Section 9 of the NPPF.

Other Issues

The proposal is contrary to the aspirations contained in CS Core Policy 4 to focus the additional provision of pitches in and around the Newark Urban Area. The site is clearly separate from the
wider urban area enveloping Newark, and has poor accessibility to the services and facilities located in the town by any other means apart from the private vehicle. Further to this, the site is sufficiently separated from the existing built form of Bathley that it is in the open countryside. Therefore, the proposal should be assessed against the requirements of CS Spatial Policy 3 ‘Rural Areas’ and DPD Policy DM8 ‘Development in the Open Countryside’.

The proposal is located approximately half a mile from the edge of the built form of Bathley, which itself has a highly limited amount of services and facilities. It is also poorly related, both by proximity and by accessibility by public transport, to the Newark Urban Area, any nearby Service Centres and Principal Villages.

Whilst it is acknowledged that there is a need for additional pitch provision in the District, this proposal is clearly contrary to the direction of travel as stated in CS Core Policy 4, as is referred to
above, which directs the focus for additional provision to in and around the Newark Urban Area.

In response to a comment raised in the Appellant’s Statement of Case, where it was stated that “there is no relevant previous planning history” information was obtained from the Council by Bathley Parish Council which established that the appeal site has, in fact, been the subject of two applications. Firstly, an application to “erect smallholding with bungalow” was approved on 26th April 1961 (application reference: E/32/27) and secondly an application for a “horticultural business” was refused on the parcel of land which this appeal is the subject of on 31st July 1979 (application reference 3279661).

Summary

For the reasons stated above, we consider it prudent that the Planning Inspectorate concord with the decision made by the Council regarding the original application, and refuse the appeal.

Yours sincerely
Ian Long (MRTPI)
Planner
Tel: 01509 278 664 / 07514 970 011

Bathley Parish Council would like to make residents aware that an appeal has been lodged regarding the land at Crossways as detailed below.

Appeal:  19/00015/DEC | Change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site for one Gypsy family with 2 No. caravans (including no more than 1 No. static caravan/mobile home), laying out of hardstanding, construction of access and erection of ancillary utility building | Land North of Crossways Off Main Street Bathley Nottinghamshire

https://publicaccess.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/online-applications/appealDetails.do?keyVal=POXAH7LB04F00&activeTab=summary

Original Application  18/02219/FUL

https://publicaccess.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=PIYD7WLB0DL00

There will be an informal meeting on the 17^th September at 10am at the Newark and Sherwood District Council Offices, Castle House, Newark to discuss the appeal.

Your support is vital if we are to object to this appeal, strength in numbers is very important to show our commitment and concern about this application and the Parish Council would greatly appreciate your support by attending the meeting on the 17^th.   Residents are invited to speak at the meeting and are strongly encouraged to do so.  If anyone would like to speak they need to inform planning of their intention to do so by the 28^th August. Comments and notice of intention to speak can be made via email to nicolla.ellis@nsdc.info or planning@nsdc.info or direct to the planning website by registering.  We would like to encourage as many residents as possible to attend the meeting, even if they would rather not speak, to add weight to our concerns.

Bathley Parish Council would like to make residents aware that an appeal has been lodged regarding the land at Crossways as detailed below.

Appeal: 19/00015/DEC | Change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site for one Gypsy family with 2 No. caravans (including no more than 1 No. static caravan/mobile home), laying out of hardstanding, construction of access and erection of ancillary utility building | Land North Of Crossways Off Main Street Bathley Nottinghamshire

https://publicaccess.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/online-applications/appealDetails.do?keyVal=POXAH7LB04F00&activeTab=summary

Original Application: 18/02219/FUL  https://publicaccess.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=PIYD7WLB0DL00

There will be an informal meeting on the 17^th September at 10am at the Newark and Sherwood District Council Offices, Castle House, Newark to discuss the appeal.

Your support is vital if we are to object to this appeal, strength in numbers is very important to show our commitment and concern about this application and the Parish Council would greatly appreciate your support by attending the meeting on the 17^th.   Residents are invited to speak at the meeting and are strongly encouraged to do so.  If anyone would like to speak they need to inform planning of their intention to do so by the 28^th August. Comments and notice of intention to speak can be made via email to nicolla.ellis@nsdc.info or planning@nsdc.info or direct to the planning website by registering.  We would like to encourage as many residents as possible to attend the meeting, even if they would rather not speak, to add weight to our concerns.

Dear Ann

RE:  Noticeboard

I am writing on behalf of Bathley Parish Council to thank you for offering to paint our new noticeboard and for getting it done so quickly.

It certainly enhances the board and makes Bathley stand out.  It is so nice to see that we have residents who are proactive in helping to make the village a pleasant place to live and who are prepared to go out of their way to do so.

Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to paint the sign, we, the council greatly appreciate it as, I am sure, do all the other residents of Bathley.

Many thanks.

Kind regards

 

Brian Cross

On behalf of Bathley Parish Council.

Dear Mr Franklin

RE:   HEDGE CUTTING REQUEST

It has been brought to the attention of Bathley Parish Council that your hedges are overhanging the public highway thereby restricting visibility and causing an obstruction to vehicles.

The Council respectfully asks that the hedges be cut back so as to enable vehicles to pass without impediment.  This needs to be done before March in line with the breeding season.

If you have any queries regarding this letter please do not hesitate to contact me on salg23@outlook.com.

The Council thanks you in anticipation of your co-operation.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Sally Grogan

Clerk to Bathley Parish Council