Memorandum by the London Borough of Bromley
(TF 65)
I refer to your letter dated 22 March 2000 and
in particular to the reference to Keston Showmans Park in the
submissions by Mrs J Montgomery.
The site referred to has been unlawfully occupied
by travelling showpeople since December 1996. Enforcement notices
have been upheld on appeal on several occasions, most recently
in June 1999. An earlier appeal against the refusal of planning
permission for the use of the land as permanent headquarters for
showmen was also dismissed by the Secretary of State in March
1999.
The site is subject to a current planning application
and additional evidence submitted by the applicant's agent is
being assessed with a view to reporting to the Council's Development
Control Committee. At this stage, the recommendation on the latest
application has not been formulated.
The adopted Bromley UDP does not contain a policy
relating to the provision of sites for travelling showmen. The
UDP is currently under review and the deposit draft may include
a new policy on gypsies and travelling showpeople. The absence
of a policy in the existing UDP is because of the significant
existing provision of pitches for travelling showmen which means
that the Council already complies with the advice in Circular
22/91.
In 1997, the Council resolved to take no further
action on another showmen's site in King Henry's Drive, approximately
150 metres west of the Keston Showmen's site. This is a long established
site adjoining the built up area of New Addington. The site is
screened, less prominent and better related to existing development
than the Keston site.
The Council considers that the existing site
at King Henry's Drive meets the local authority needs for sites
for travelling showmen in the local area and meets the relevant
requirements of Circular 22/91, (para. 7). Moreover the council
is concerned that other authorities in South East England may
not be making a similar provision within their areas.
The Council in resisting further provision has
been satisfied that insufficient justification has been put forward
to override the strong presumption against inappropriate development
in the Green Belt. In particular the appellants have not explained
why the existing spare capacity of the lawful site has not been
used. The two sites are very close to each other being on opposite
sides of Layhams Road. The Secretary of State concluded that the
use of the site by showpeople was in conflict with the openness
of the Green Belt and in particular with the objectives concerning
prevention of urban sprawl and safeguarding the countryside from
encroachment.
Bob McQuillan
Head of Development Control
March 2000
| 
