Two-pitch traveller site at Winnies Woodland, Blindley Heath, Lingfield

The site and surroundings

The site lies in open countryside and the Metropolitan Green Belt, west of Eastbourne Road, with a stream, hedgerows, trees and direct highway access.

“The site is within the open countryside and Metropolitan Green Belt. The site is located to the west side of Eastbourne Road within the Green Belt to the south of but outside the settlement of Blindley Heath. The site is the southern part of a larger, roughly triangular area of land. Access to it is direct from Eastbourne Road (A22).”

“A stream, Ray Brook, with adjoining hedgerow runs around the western and northern boundaries of the site. There is a row of semi-mature trees along the southern boundary of the site. An earth bund was constructed along the A22 frontage and part of the southern boundary by a previous landowner, and this…”

Officer report

Earlier use and applications

The site had permissions for access and a stable extension, while certificates concerned its smallholding use and earth bunds, the latter being appealed.

“The application site has the following planning history of permissions granted or appeals:”

“2023/1194: Earth bunds at the height of 150cm have been constructed along the boundary running parallel to the A22. The site is used as a non-residential smallholding. (Certificate of Lawfulness for Existing use or development). Decision: refused and has an appeal.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because they considered the site previously developed land and found no substantial harm to Green Belt openness.

“Consideration of the planning history of the site and the location of development within the site lead to the conclusion that application site is PDL. The proposed development will not have a substantial impact on Green Belt openness, spatially or visually. Paragraph 154 (g) of the NPPF provides that development of PDL in the Green Belt is not inappropriate if it does not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.”

“All other planning considerations have been taken into account, including national and development plan policy. These either do not present objections to the proposed development, or any planning considerations they raise can be appropriately addressed by planning conditions and do not constitute reasons for refusal. All other material considerations, including third party comments, have been taken into account but none are considered to change the recommendation.”

Officer report

What residents said

Fifteen third-party comments objected over Green Belt and countryside harm, biodiversity, highway safety, flooding, services, sustainability, retrospective development and possible expansion.

“Third Party Comments: there have been 15 comments summarised below and raising objection based on:”

“Adverse impacts on the openness of the Green Belt and on open countryside • No very special circumstances demonstrated for development in the Green Belt • Loss of ancient hedgerows and other natural habitats which should be being conserved • Loss of on-site biodiversity through the development that has occurred, and this is not compensated for • Access to highway is concealed and dangerous • Increase in traffic movements at the site entrance represents a danger to other…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector spoke for the Horne Residents’ Association, a parish councillor spoke against, and an agent spoke for the applicant.

The committee’s concerns

Councillor Bolton sought refusal because of traveller-site concentration, an unsustainable location and alleged failure to meet Green Belt exceptions.

“The proposal taken cumulatively with the existing Gypsy and Traveller development in the rural locality, would result in an over concentration of Traveller pitches within the settled community which is contrary to paragraph 26 of the Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.”

“The proposal would fail to meet the exceptions under paragraph 154 or 155 of the NPPF. The site has lawful use as a non-residential small holding which is agricultural use and is therefore not considered as PDL as set out in the NPPF.”

Minutes

The vote

The refusal motions were proposed, seconded and approved by the committee.

“The motions were proposed by Councillor Sherry and seconded by Councillor Booth. Upon being put to the vote the motions were approved.”

Minutes