Agenda item

Part retrospective: change of use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for 5 no. gypsy pitches (10 statics) including formation of hardstanding and landscaping at Little Lily, Toms Lane, Kings Langley.

Recommendation: that part-retrospective planning permission be approved.

The application was part retrospective for change of use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for 5 no. gypsy pitches (10 statics) including formation of hardstanding and landscaping at Little Lily, Toms Lane, Kings Langley.

For the benefit of the committee, the Planning Officer summarised that the application followed the grant of planning permission in 2025 for a change of use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for five pitches with a brick-built day room.  When assessed against national planning policy at the time, the development was considered to comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  However, there were Very Special Circumstances which led to its approval, subject to a personal condition to named individuals and their resident dependents. The principle of the use of the land as a traveller site had therefore already been established.

With regard to the current application, the site was no longer considered to be inappropriate in the Green Belt following the introduction of the December 2024 version of the NPPF.   Instead, the site was considered to be Grey Belt whilst also meeting paragraph 155 of the NPPF. On this basis, the officer recommendation excluded the personal condition, as personal circumstances were no longer material to the acceptability of the scheme. 

In terms of the differences between the previously permitted scheme and the current application, the Planning Officer clarified that there would be no increase in the number of pitches, which would remain at five.  However, each pitch would no longer include one static caravan and one touring caravan, but instead two static caravans, with one providing residential accommodation and the other ancillary day room facilities. Accordingly, the previously permitted brick-built day room was no longer proposed as part of this application.  In total the application sought to permit ten static caravans across the application site, equating to the five pitches as previously permitted, with recommended conditions to control the use and number of caravans.

Committee Members asked questions about the details of the application which were responded to by officers.  The Committee’s discussions included the following:

·        Concerns had been raised locally about both the number of caravans and the number of people who would be residing at the site.  The Planning Officer confirmed that an existing enforcement case was open, and additionally that the site would likely be subject to ongoing monitoring by Environmental Health as part of the regular licencing arrangements for traveller sites.  In the event that it was found during such a visit that residency or accommodation limits were being exceeded, then the recommended conditions would enable the local planning authority to serve breach of condition notices, against which there was no right to an appeal.  The Planning Officer also commented that the site layout was constrained by the distances between the caravans themselves.  Any additional caravans above the permitted number for the site would potentially breach fire safety regulations and result in enforcement action on the grounds of fire safety concerns.

·        With regard to residents’ concerns about noise and disturbance, the Planning Officer reported that these were matters which could be addressed by Environmental Health, rather than planning considerations. 

·        A Committee Member commented that the previous approval had been for five families, who would likely be quieter than groups of individuals.  The Planning Officer responded that whilst the personal condition was no longer applicable, those residing at the site would still need to meet the definition for Gypsies and Travellers set out within the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites and this was controlled by condition.  No change was proposed to the number of pitches (5) which had already been approved.  Additionally, Condition 4 sought to prevent and control any non-residential uses of the site.

·        In response to a Committee Member’s question about the potential for caravans to be sited very close to the back boundary with the nearest residential neighbour, and the potential for this to cause noise and disturbance to the neighbour, the Planning Officer clarified that boundary planting was proposed in order to mitigate privacy issues.  Several Committee Members drew attention to the need to ensure that this planting scheme was implemented.  However, with Gyspy and Traveller sites the permission arguably related to use of the land, and so the static caravans would be able to be re-positioned or re-orientated within the site.  However, should there be any attempt to move too many of the caravans close to the boundary this would contravene fire regulations (which required the caravans to be kept at least 6m apart), and probably also the site licence.  In response to a further question, the Planning Officer confirmed that a requirement to submit details of the boundary planting (principally in relation to the north-western boundary with the nearest residential neighbour) could be conditioned.

·        A Committee Member raised concerns about the over-intensification of the site and expressed the view that the provision of 10 static caravans would result in greater occupancy than would the case with one static caravan and one touring caravan per pitch, and additionally that the static caravans may be used to accommodate more people than was intended.  The Committee Member stated that the site had already been subject to significant environmental health problems, including a rat infestation due to the failure to dispose of rubbish, and site access issues, both of which would be exacerbated by the over-intensification.  Additionally, removing the touring caravans in favour of static caravans represented a move away from the principles and rules for gypsy and traveller sites and would make future control of the use of the site more difficult.  The Committee Member also commented that whilst the weight given to the emerging local plan was limited, it set out that the size and scale of gypsy and traveller sites (either alone or in combination with other sites) should respect the size and density of the local settled community and not be dominant, which was not considered to be the case with this application. 

·        The Planning Officer responded that there was potential to condition bin storage and waste management on site and to require the placement of bins away from residential boundaries to facilitate collection by waste management services.  However, the application needed to be determined according to what was proposed and not what might (or might not) happen.  It was suggested that the wording of Condition C2 could be tightened to require ‘no more than 5 caravans to be solely used as primary living accommodation and no more than 5 caravans to be used solely to accommodate ancillary day room facilities.’  The Planning Officer also highlighted that there was a control in the fact that should the static caravans which were provided for day amenity instead be used for residential accommodation then the site would lack sufficient amenity, rendering the accommodation level sub-standard.  In further debate it was suggested that the condition should refer only to accommodation (not ‘primary accommodation’) and that the reason for the condition should clarify why the day amenity provision was required.

·        A number of Committee Members highlighted the need to restrict the over-use of the site.  Concerns were also raised with regard to the use of large vehicles at the site, parking arrangements, and the potential disruption and loss of amenity to neighbouring residents arising from noise.  In response to a question, the Planning Officer confirmed that an emergency vehicle access route would be required to be provided under the terms of the site licence.

·        A Committee Member expressed the view that unless the development addressed unmet need it would not be appropriate development in the Green Belt. The issue of whether or not the proposal would meet unmet development need was therefore key.  Given that the emerging Local Plan had identified sufficient pitches across the district to meet the existing need, it was not considered that the additional caravans proposed within this application were required and therefore that it represented over-intensification.  In response, the Planning Officer reported that officers were of the opinion that the site was Grey Belt and met the tests at Paragraph 155 of the NPPF.  Additionally, as the emerging Local Plan had not yet reached the Regulation 19 stage and there was no clarity about when it would be adopted, there was still unmet need on the basis of the current evidence base.  This view had been supported by recent appeal decisions.

Councillor Giles-Medhurst moved, and Councillor Mitchell seconded, that the application be refused due to the impact on neighbouring amenity and impacts on visual amenity of the area through the intensification of additional static caravans across the site in conjunction with associated paraphernalia and activities, a lack of soft landscaping and poor waste management.

Councillor Cooper moved that the reasons for refusal should also include that the proposal was inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it did not meet unmet need.  This was not accepted by the mover of the substantive motion on the basis that the proposal did not change the existing capacity of the site.  The amendment was not seconded and therefore fell.

On being put to the vote the substantive motion was carried, the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused due to the impact on neighbouring amenity and impacts on visual amenity of the area through the intensification of additional static caravans across the site in conjunction with associated paraphernalia and activities, a lack of soft landscaping and poor waste management.