Gypsy and Traveller site at Land South Of Pear Tree Lane Pear Tree Lane, Shorne

What was proposed

The application sought a change of use for two static homes, two touring caravans, a shared day room and associated landscaping.

“SUMMARY REPORT Application Ref: 20250110 Site Address: Land South Of Pear Tree Lane Pear Tree Lane Shorne Gravesend Application Description: Change of use of the land for the stationing of 2 static homes, 2 touring caravans and shared day room for Gypsy/Traveller occupation. Associated hard and soft landscaping.”

“It is recommended that the proposed change of use of the land for the stationing of 2 static homes, 2 touring caravans and shared day room for Gypsy/Traveller occupation and the associated hard and soft landscaping is GRANTED planning permission, subject to the planning conditions set out in this report.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is in the Green Belt east of a public house car park, with fencing, mature planting, hard surfacing, a container, shed and an occupied mobile home.

“The application site lies in the Green Belt immediately east of the car park serving the See Ho public house on Pear Tree Lane, Shorne, Kent. As shown on the adopted Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy Policies Map (September 2014), the boundary between the application site and the public house car park also forms the boundary between the ‘inset’ rural settlement of Shorne Ridgeway and the ‘washed over’ Green Belt beyond.”

“The site is a rectangular area measuring approximately 48m x 28m. Boundary fencing has been erected around the site and there is mature conifer planting along the northern boundary and vehicular access which is gated. A post and rail fence divides a smaller section to the east and more conifers have been planted along the eastern boundary. The majority of the site has been laid with unbonded surfacing which has been levelled and flattened.”

Officer report

Why approval was advised

Approval was advised because the site was assessed as grey belt, the borough had unmet traveller pitch need, and key effects could be acceptable with conditions.

“The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of Gravesham. Therefore, the proposal would comply with criterion (a) of paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).”

“As set out the Council’s Five-Year Gypsy and Traveller Pitch Supply Statement 2024- 2029 (March 2024), the council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable pitches. Therefore, there is a clear and significant shortfall in past delivery and future supply. Consequently, for the purposes of criterion (b) of paragraph 155 of the NPPF, there is a demonstrable unmet need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches within the Borough.”

Officer report

Main objections

Objections concerned Green Belt harm, overdevelopment, landscape character, traffic, parking, drainage, biodiversity, lighting, noise, amenity and the site’s sustainability.

“Extra traffic in a narrow rural lane • Inappropriate development in the green belt • Inappropriate stationing of a traveller’s site in a rural housing area • Would harm the landscape character of the area with particular regard to the Shorne Woodlands Landscape Area • Does not comply with Policy E of the government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites that states traveller sites are inappropriate in Greenbelt areas • No approve provision in this area for traveller sites…”

“Local Ward Councillors were also consulted, and all three councillors objected with the following summarised comments; • Contravenes the Council’s policy to protect the green belt • Overdevelopment and inappropriate development of a site in land classified as green belt • In appropriate use • Highways concerns • Encroachment on the green belt • No test for very special circumstances • Not in keeping with the area • Not in keeping with the surrounding properties • No…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Committee heard one registered speaker supporting the application and two registered speakers opposing it.

What members discussed

Members discussed ecology, caravan numbers and size, the duration of use, landscaping, personal conditions, space standards and the site’s character.

“Members queried the length of time caravans would be present on site should they chose to leave. The Head of Planning explained that condition 9 of the report covered this matter and only came into force if the use of the site was discontinued. • Members questioned the size of the caravans permitted on the site. The Head of planning referred the Committee to condition 7, which was intended to limit the number of caravans and mobile homes.”

“The number of pitches on the site were restricted due to the layout requirements of condition 1. • It was not appropriate to restrict permission via personal conditions as the location was a grey belt site and there was an unmet need for traveller provision. As such, the unmet need for travellers was being addressed with the application rather than personal circumstances of an individual family.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The Committee granted planning permission subject to conditions, with authority to finalise the decision and conditions delegated to the Head of Planning.

“The Committee were informed that the recommendation of the Planning Committee, which had previously been presented the Committee on 11 June 2025 remained; to grant permission subject to the conditions set out in the initial report and the supplementary report. In addition, to grant the Head of Planning delegated authority to issue the decision and finalise planning conditions (including to make any necessary modification, deletion or addition to the proposed conditions).”

Minutes