•
The application Ref 05/0258/1/PY, dated 28
February 2005, was refused by notice dated 21 August 2006.
• The development proposed is change of use from residential
to a mixed use of residential use and use as a gypsy caravan
site. Summary of Decision: The appeal is allowed, and planning
permission granted subject to conditions set out below in the
Formal Decision.
Procedural Matters
1. There is a minor error on the decision notice. It should
refer to criteria (c) and (d) of Policy CS2(iii) of the Draft
Core Strategy. The appellant has correctly identified this policy
and I do not consider that his case was prejudiced.
Background
2. The appeal site is situated in a predominantly residential
area immediately to the west of the M1 motorway. The motorway
is in a deep cutting. The site, which is roughly triangular,
is occupied by a chalet bungalow that is sited
behind a footway and a bus stop lay-by. It has a wide road frontage
that extends in front of the adjoining house. This is the eastern
half of a pair of semi-detached houses (Nos 79 & 81). This
adjoining house has a single storey side and rear extension,
incorporating a garage, close to the common boundary. The pair
is set well back from the road such that the front elevation
of Nos 79 & 81 is to the rear of the back wall of the appeal
property.
3. It is proposed that two residential caravans and two touring
caravans would be sited in the rear garden. The residential
caravans would be occupied by the appellant’s mother and
sister respectively. There are parking and turning facilities
to the front; there is vehicular access to the rear.
Planning Policy
4. The development plan includes the Leicestershire, Leicester
and Rutland Structure Plan 1996-2016 and the Blaby District
Local Plan 1999. Structure Plan Housing Policy 6 sets out criteria
for the provision of gypsy caravan sites, including criterion
(d) which says that they should be capable of sympathetic assimilation
into their surroundings.
5. Local Plan Policy R7 says that planning
permission will only be granted for the development of gypsy
caravan sites if the proposal satisfies various requirements.
These include that it does not conflict with the aims of any
subclauses
of Policy R1. That policy relates to development within primarily
residential areas, where permission will be granted for residential
development except where that development would have an unsatisfactory
relationship with other nearby uses that would (i) be significantly
detrimental to the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of those
properties; (ii) result in residents of the proposed development
being unable to enjoy a reasonable level of residential amenity
due to such factors as noise; and (iii) be significantly out
of keeping with the character or appearance of the area.
6. Emerging plans include the Council’s Local Development
Framework Draft Core Strategy (Preferred Options) (April 2006).
Policy CS2(iii) says that sites will be identified for gypsies’
accommodation where necessary and that planning
permission will be granted where certain criteria are met. This
plan is being revisited and the Council conceded that at present
this policy carries no weight.
Main issues
7. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development
on (i) the pattern of development in the area: (ii) the living
conditions of occupiers of the adjoining property, No 79 Hinckley
Road with particular regard to the effect on
outlook and of any noise and disturbance; and (iii) the living
conditions of future residents with particular regard to existing
background noise levels.
Reasons
Pattern of development
8. The proposed residential caravans would introduce living
accommodation into the rear garden of the appeal property; the
Council considers that this would be an undesirable form of
tandem development out of keeping with the established character
of the area and contrary to Policy R1(iii). The area mainly
comprises detached and semi-detached houses and bungalows fronting
the roads and having large rear gardens; I saw no examples of
tandem or backland development in the vicinity of the appeal
site.
9. Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) advises that
local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing
on the basis of the different types of households that are likely
to require housing over the plan period; this
should include the need to accommodate gypsies and travellers.
The Government’s key housing policy is to ensure that
everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent home; to achieve
this it is seeking to create sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities
in all areas, both urban and rural.
10. In this case it seems to me that the impact of the development
on the character of the area would be relatively minor. There
are solid gates between the dwelling and its boundary with No
79 so only the top third or so of the closest residential caravan
would be likely to be visible from Hinckley Road. There are
no other public views of the site. The other caravans would
be largely hidden from public view.
In these circumstances I consider that while the development
would not wholly accord with the established pattern of development,
it is capable of sympathetic assimilation into the surroundings.
In my opinion there would be no unacceptable harm to the character
or appearance of the area. The development would thus accord
with Housing Policy 6(d) and there would not be any unacceptable
conflict with Policy R1(iii).
Effect on living conditions of occupiers of adjoining
property
11. Concerning outlook, the only occupiers likely to be affected
would be those at No 79. This dwelling is set back behind the
appeal property. The common boundary with the garden of the
appeal property is at an oblique angle. I saw that the only
views from habitable rooms likely to be affected by the development
would be from the two first floor bedrooms on the rear elevation.
These rooms face down the garden of No 79 and towards the garden
of No 81 rather than towards the appeal site. From the eastern
bedroom there are only limited views over the rear part of the
curtilage of No 77 due to the oblique angle of the common boundary.
From the main bedroom the views are too oblique to be significant.
From a landing window there are direct views into the appeal
site; from the garden there would be limited views of the upper
parts of the caravans. The caravans would be sited a minimum
of 3m from the boundary; due to a combination of the boundary
fence and planting in the curtilage of No 79, I do not consider
that the visual impact would be unduly overbearing.
12. Concerning noise and disturbance, there could be some noise
emanating from within the residential caravans, particularly
noise from televisions and audio equipment in the evenings.
I consider that provided suitable measures are incorporated
within the caravans to limit the noise, there is no reason why
such noise should be unacceptably out of the ordinary in a residential
area. I do not consider that there is any significant conflict
with Policy R1(i).
Effect on living conditions of future occupiers of the development.
Continued
Page 2
| 
