Appeal 6000691

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form describes the applicant as [name], but the appeal is made using the surname of Monkton. It has been confirmed that [name] was in fact the original applicant. I am therefore satisfied that the appellant can make the appeal.

The main issue is whether the appeal development accords with the Council’s spatial strategy for development in the countryside.

The site consists of a field, accessed from a shared private drive and with mature vegetation on its boundaries. Although there are houses and their gardens adjoining the site, built form hereabouts is sporadic, and the site lies in the countryside. The application seeks permission to site a caravan on the land for a temporary period, for its repair rather than as living accommodation. The application has been made retrospectively, and so I shall deal with the appeal on this basis.

Policy COM2 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan (TVLP), adopted January 2016 provides the spatial strategy for the area. It covers all types of development, and not just new housing. The policy seeks to focus new development on identified settlements, to ensure sustainable access and to respect the environment. There is no dispute that the caravan is outside of such a settlement and is not of a type identified as appropriate by another TVLP policy.

TVLP policy COM2 also permits development where a countryside location is essential, such as for occupational accommodation. However, I see little reason why refurbishment of the caravan could not be carried out at an established storage yard, for example, rather than requiring a rural location. As such, its siting here is not essential, and so policy COM2 is not met.

The remote location of the site means that access to undertake the refurbishment works is only likely to be achievable by private vehicle. Consequently, continued siting of the caravan conflicts with the policy aim of achieving a sustainable pattern of development, even on a temporary basis. Nor would retention of the caravan, and its essentially domestic and utilitarian appearance, respect the countryside surroundings of the site.

For the reasons given above, the appeal development does not accord with the Council’s spatial strategy for development in the countryside and conflicts with TVLP policy COM2. For the same reasons, it does not accord with the similar aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The caravan would only remain for a relatively short period whilst its renovation is carried out. I understand that the appellant has no other means of storing it. The caravan is of a large size and may be in a poor condition, and its relocation would have financial implications for the appellant.

However, few details of the extent of repair and the costs of relocation are before me. Furthermore, such circumstances are essentially a private matter, rather than being of public interest, thus carrying very limited weight. The appeal form refers to the development type as being a ‘minor traveller caravan’. That said, as the caravan is only located here for repair rather than occupation, any gypsy/traveller status does not change my conclusions. Accordingly, there are no strong grounds to justify the appeal development against the conflict identified.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with it. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.