Phillip Brown Associates Our Ref: APP/K0235/A/12/2187276 74 Park Road Rugby Warwickshire Your Ref: 12/128 CV21 2QX
1 October 2014
Dear Sirs,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY MR THOMAS ALLEN ‘WAITING FOR THE SUN’ FARM, RUSHDEN ROAD, BLETSOE, BEDS MK44 1QN APPLICATION REF: 11/02690/S73
1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, John Felgate BA(Hons) MA, MRTPI, who held an inquiry on 29 May, 24 September, and 25–29 November, 2013; and 16–17 and 23–24 January, and 20-21 February 2014 into your client's appeal. The appeal was against a refusal to grant planning permission by Bedford Borough Council (“the Council”) under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions 1 and 2 attached to planning permission Ref 07/03706/FUL (Appeal ref APP/K0235/A/08/2082215) dated 24 June 2009, for change of use to a caravan site with 4 pitches, erection of two amenity blocks, hardstandings and landscaping. This limited permission to a temporary period ceasing on 23 June 2012.
2. On 7 August 2013, jurisdiction over the appeal was recovered by the Secretary of State by Direction because of the high level of objections at both application and appeal stages, the site’s planning history and the attendant controversy surrounding the appeal.
Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision
3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed, and permission granted, subject to conditions, for a further temporary period of two years. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s recommendation and has decided to dismiss your client’s appeal. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report.
Department for Communities and Local Government Tel: 0303 444 1627 Richard Watson, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework 1/H1, Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU
Post-inquiry submissions
4. Shortly after the close of the inquiry, (6th March 2014), the Government published new planning guidance. The Inspector invited written submissions from the parties on relevant matters arising from the guidance and the responses received were taken into account in his report.
Challenge to the appeal’s validity
5. The Council and other parties questioned the validity of the appeal on the basis that the submission date was outside the prescribed 28 day period, which applies where an enforcement notice has been served in respect of essentially the same development. The Planning Inspectorate exercised the discretion given to the Secretary of State pursuant to Article 33(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Development Management Procedure (England) Order 2010 and varied the time limit for the submission of the appeal. In considering whether to accept the appeal, the Planning Inspectorate took account of the fact that the most recent enforcement notice had not been served until after the refusal of the planning application; and also the fact that the effect of this, in reducing the deadline for any appeal, had not been specifically notified to the applicant by the Council.
Objection to the Secretary of State’s recovery Direction
6. The Secretary of State recovered the appeal on 7th August 2013. The stated reasons for recovery were: the high level of objections at both application and appeal stages, the site’s planning history and the attendant controversy surrounding the appeal. The appellant objected to the Direction by letter dated 22 November 2013 and requested the decision be returned to the appointed Inspector. The grounds of objection included concerns about the fairness of the process, and the potential for unlawful discrimination under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Planning Inspectorate responded to the objection in a letter dated 26 November 2013. The Direction remains in force.
Other procedural issues arising at the inquiry
7. The Council requested that all evidence should be taken on oath. The Inspector decided that on the evidence before him such action was unnecessary, however he reminded those present of the need for all evidence to be accurate and truthful.
8. Timetabling difficulties due to adjournments meant that it was necessary to depart from the usual order of evidence. Despite initial agreement it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that this was unfair and prejudiced his case. The Inspector reported no injustice was suffered as a result of the necessary change to inquiry procedures.
9. The Inspector utilised procedural rules to manage the inquiry’s length – imposing time limits to evidence and cross-examination and circumscribing the matters to be covered. The Inspector concluded that on no occasion did the measures taken to manage the inquiry’s length result in any unfairness to any party.
10. On behalf of the appellant it was alleged that some evidence had been obtained as a direct result of unlawful entry and was therefore inadmissible. The Council and Bletsoe
2
Parish Council/Bletsoe Residents’ Association (BPC/BRA) strongly refuted these allegations. The Inspector notes (IR21) that no one connected with the Council or BPC/BRA has been charged with, or found guilty of any offence in relation to these matters, and no ruling on these or any other matters relevant to this inquiry has been made in any court of law. The Inspector concluded (IR 21) that in the absence of any such ruling he did not consider it within his powers to determine whether an offence had been committed and, therefore, he had no basis on which to rule out any evidence put before him. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion.
11. On behalf of the appellant it was requested that two former Council officers who visited the appeal site should be required to give evidence by means of a witness summons. The Inspector raised concerns with the practicalities of such a procedure and concluded (IR21), that the matters on which those persons were likely to give evidence were unlikely to be decisive and consequently to compel them to attend the inquiry would be disproportionate to the nature of their contribution.
Policy considerations
12. In deciding the appeal, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan comprises the Bedford Borough Local Plan, adopted in 2002 (saved policies) (LP); the Core Strategy and Rural Issues Plan DPD, adopted in April 2008 (Core Strategy); and the Allocations and Designations Local Plan, adopted in July 2013.
13. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include: the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework), the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS), the planning guidance referred to in paragraph 4 above, the Written Ministerial Statements of 1 July 2013 and 17 January 2014, the Bedford Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment 2011 (GTAA), the Council’s non-statutory briefing note on Core Strategy policy CP14 updated in November 2013 and the Council’s Issues and Options document published in January 2014. The Secretary of State has also had regard to the fact that on 14 September 2014 the Government published a consultation document: ‘Proposed changes to national planning policy and Planning Policy for Traveller Sites’. However, given that the proposals are subject to consultation, he has given little weight to it in the determination of this appeal.
Main Issues
14. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues are those listed at IR189, namely:
I. Whether the continued use of the appeal site would accord with the relevant development plan policies, and whether the latter are consistent with national policy; II. Whether the continuation of the use would be acceptable having regard to the site’s accessibility to local facilities; III. Whether the continuation of the use would cause any significant harm in any other respect;
3
IV. Whether the continued use of the appeal site is necessary to meet a general need for traveller sites in the locality, either because of problems with the Council’s proposed site at Meadow Lane, or for any other reason; V. Whether the use of the appeal site should be allowed to continue because of the personal circumstances and needs of the site’s occupiers.
I. Compliance with the development plan and consistency between local and national policies
15. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the development plan policies most relevant to development in the countryside include Core Strategy policies CP13 and CP14 which generally seek to protect the countryside and Rural Policy Area from most forms of development. He agrees with the Inspector that there is no inconsistency between Policies CP13 and CP14 and relevant national policies in the Framework and PPTS. He agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given that the proposal involves a clear conflict with Core Strategy policies CP13 and CP14 and agrees that both policies should be given the full weight due to them as part of the development plan.
16. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the development plan policies most relevant to accessibility and sustainability are LP policy BE30 (v), Core Strategy policy CP2 (vii) which require consideration of, amongst other things, the extent to which proposed developments can be accessed by public transport, cycling and walking and CP9 criterion (v) which relates these concerns specifically to gypsy and traveller developments. He agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given that the relevant provisions of BE30, CP2 and CP9, relating to accessibility are up-to-date and consistent with national policy (IR202).
17. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the development plan policy most relevant to gypsy and traveller sites is Core Strategy policy CP9 which sets out a list of criteria for gypsy and traveller sites. He agrees with the Inspector that there is nothing in the PPTS to suggest that need is not a relevant consideration (IR205). He further agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given that there is no reason to give anything less than full weight to policy CP9.
18. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the other development plan policies most relevant to the proposal are LP policies BE30 (criteria i, ix and x), Core Strategy policy CP2 (iv and v) and CP9 (iii and iv) covering matters relating to the effects on the landscape, local distinctiveness and character, neighbouring occupiers, local communities, built heritage and village settings.
II. Site accessibility to local facilities
19. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that gypsy and traveller families need convenient access to schools, doctors, shops and leisure facilities and good planning requires that where possible such developments should be located so that sustainable transport choices are available. He agrees with the Inspector that Core Strategy policy CP9 (criterion v) continues to have force; and that the general policies LP policy BE30 (v) and Core Strategy Policy CP2 (vii) also apply equally to gypsy and traveller sites. He agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given (IR215), and finds that the appeal site performs very poorly against these policy aims for sustainable transport and
4
accessibility. The continuation of the site’s use as a gypsy and traveller site would therefore involve a significant conflict with these policies. The Secretary of State notes that in the 2009 appeal decision, the Inspector concluded that the limitations of the location in terms of sustainability weighed heavily against granting permanent permission. He agrees with the Inspector (IR216) that the finding in the 2009 appeal decision is an important consideration in the present appeal and that the site is no more sustainable now than it was in 2009. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the site’s shortcomings, in respect of the accessibility by sustainable modes of transport, continue to weigh heavily against any continuation of the use as a gypsy and traveller site (IR218).
III. Other alleged impacts
20. Concerning the effects on the character and appearance of the area and the landscape and the setting of the Conservation area, the Secretary of State notes in the 2009 appeal decision that the Inspector found: although the development would not directly harm the Conservation Area, it would detract from the area’s open and undeveloped character and encroach on a potentially historic field pattern, harming the perception of the village within the landscape, and thereby conflicting with Core Strategy policy CP9 criterion (iii). The Secretary of State notes that the Inspector broadly agrees with the previous Inspector’s opinion on some of these matters but in other respects his assessment differs from hers. He agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given that whilst the undeveloped nature of the landscape would be partly eroded, any perception of Bletsoe’s settlement form, or its relationship to the wider landscape, would not be adversely altered in any substantial way by the development (IR223). He agrees that the proposal would not cause material harm to the setting, or to the Conservation Area’s significance as a heritage asset. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion (IR225) that any significant adverse effects on the character and appearance of the area, including the Conservation Area, its setting and the landscape, would not be so significant as to justify refusal of permission and there is no conflict with Core Strategy policy CP9(iii), LP policy BE30(i and x) and Core Strategy policy CP2(iv and v).
21. Like the Inspector (IR229) the Secretary of State notes and appreciates the strength of feeling on both sides regarding effects on neighbouring occupiers and the local community. He agrees that those issues which involve allegations of breaches of planning control can be investigated and if proven, dealt with by enforcement action, whereas those issues that relate simply to the alleged behaviour or manner of individuals, are not directly linked to the appeal proposal, are not planning considerations and therefore cannot influence the outcome of the appeal. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s finding on this issue that the continuation of the use of the land for 4 traveller pitches would not in itself be likely to cause any material harm to neighbouring occupiers or to the local community, and in this respect, there would be no conflict with Core Strategy policy CP9’s criteria (iv) or (vi) nor with LP policy BE30 (ix) (IR230).
22. Concerning the effects on highway safety, the Secretary of State has considered the concerns of the BPC/BRA and other local residents with regards to the safety of the vehicular access from the A6. He notes the conclusion of the Inspector in the 2009 appeal that adequate safety could be ensured by imposing conditions. He notes that it is not disputed by the Council that all the access works required by the relevant
5
conditions have been carried out, except for an apparent discrepancy in the kerb radii which is a matter that can be addressed by the Council through its enforcement powers, if it considers such action expedient. He agrees with the Inspector (IR231) that although the traffic on the A6 is fairly heavy for the standard of the road, the alignment is reasonably straight and level and visibility good. He notes that there is no evidence of any significant accident record. Like the Inspector (IR233) he finds no conflict with Core Strategy policy CP9(ii) or LP policy BE30(iv or vi).
23. Concerning other impacts, the Secretary of State notes the concerns raised by BPC/BRA and Cllr Foster regarding possible contamination, resulting from the alleged use of unregulated road planings in the construction of the hardstanding and from possible damage to foul drainage pipes laid underneath that area. He also notes the possible impacts on wildlife alluded to. He agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given (IR 234) that these representations should carry only modest weight.
24. Overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the appeal proposal is contrary to the relevant policies of the development plan and the conflict with them carries considerable weight.
IV. General needs for traveller sites in the area
25. Based on the GTAA, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR237) that there is a current unmet need for 9 pitches and that this is an important consideration. He agrees with the Inspector that beyond the year 2017, the rate of growth is expected to rise to about 0.8 pitches per annum and that adding together the increase during the three year period 2014-2017, plus the two years 2017-2019 produces a requirement for a further 2.8 pitches and rounding that figure up to 3 and adding the existing shortfall results in overall need for about 12 new pitches in total by the end of the five- year period. He notes that the Council’s proposed development at Meadow Lane, which has planning permission and is expected to be delivered by February 2015, will provide 14 new pitches, which is more than sufficient to meet the District’s requirement for the 5-year period (IR236). The Secretary of State has considered the appellant’s criticisms of the methodology used in the GTAA. He notes the GTAA was subject to scrutiny at the public examination into the Allocations and Designations Local Plan 2013, which was only a few months before the opening of the inquiry, and it was found to be comprehensive, up-to-date and robust with the Inspector concluding that providing the Council’s plans for Kempston Hardwick and Meadow Lane came to fruition, sufficient provision could be made for needs up to 2021 (IR240). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given that the GTAA represents a reasonable estimate of the level of need for gypsy and traveller pitches in the Bedford area (IR247).
26. The Secretary of State notes the Inspector’s remarks concerning the Meadow Lane site at IR248-256. He further notes that planning permission for the development exists and a legal obligation has been entered into for its delivery by February 2015 (IR255). Whilst the Secretary of State has very carefully considered the Inspector’s remarks concerning noise, odour, surface water drainage, and the site’s location and the nature of the surroundings (IR256) he concludes that planning permission has been granted for the Meadow Lane site (when these issues would have been considered), and it is the Council’s responsibility to deliver acceptable living conditions for future occupiers. He notes the Council’s commitments to deliver acceptable living
6
conditions for future occupiers (IR92-100) and sees no reason why the Council will not meet its responsibilities.
V. Personal circumstances
27. The Secretary of State has given very careful consideration to both the evidence submitted and the Inspector’s remarks in respect of personal circumstances at IR258- IR276.
28. He notes that the appeal site has been the settled home of the appellant, his wife Natalie, and their three children, whose ages range from 3 to 10 years, since 2008. He has given significant weight to the personal circumstances of the family. The Secretary of State has also taken into account the best interests of the three children as a primary consideration. He notes that the appeal site provides a settled base and agrees with the Inspector that this is likely to contribute to family stability and to the welfare of the three children. He notes that the two older children are of school age and the third is approaching school age but that none of the children currently attend school (IR259). He agrees with the Inspector that the appellant and his wife have contributed to their own situation by giving up a pitch that the appellant had on his father’s site, moving onto the appeal site without planning permission, and by failing to make any alternative provision. He notes the appellant acknowledged that he has not looked for any other sites and has declined the opportunity to apply for a pitch on a Council site (IR261). He agrees with the Inspector that there is no reason why the family could not be re-accommodated now, either by the appellant’s father at his site at Irthlingborough or alternatively that the Council would try to find a pitch at the Kempston Hardwick traveller site and would give the family some priority because of their children (IR262). He notes the Inspector’s conclusion that there is nothing to suggest that the Kempston Hardwick site is not suitable for a family and that whilst the facilities for keeping horses there are minimal, there is nothing to stop the appellant continuing to keep his horses at both the appeal site and his other grazing land. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion that it is very unlikely that the appellant and his family would have to resort to roadside living (IR 262).
29. The Secretary of State notes the Inspector’s remarks at IR265-274 regarding other occasional and intermittent occupiers of the site. For the reasons given by the Inspector, he agrees that some weight should be given to the personal circumstances of Michael Moss and Michelle Stevens and Jim Draper and Wonny Jones .
30. The Secretary of State notes that apart from the appellant, his wife and Michael Moss that there is no evidence that any of the other present or former occupiers of the appeal site have gypsy and traveller status but agrees with the Inspector that this does not affect the weight that has been given to their housing needs or other personal circumstances.
Other matters
31. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s comments concerning the potential availability of sites at Ringstead at IR277. He agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given that it would not be appropriate to give significant weight to any capacity in Ringstead.
7
32. The Secretary of State notes and agrees with the Inspector’s comments concerning the fall-back position at IR 278.
Overall Conclusions
33. In deciding the appeal, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Secretary of State has had very careful regard to the Inspector’s balancing of considerations at IR 280-291. Weighing against the appeal, the Secretary of State has found at paragraph 24 above that the proposal is contrary to the relevant policies of the development plan and the conflict with them carries considerable weight. At paragraph 19, the Secretary of State has found that the site’s shortcoming, in respect of the accessibility by sustainable modes of transport, continues to weigh heavily against any continuation of the use as a gypsy and traveller site. At paragraph 28 the Secretary of State has found that it is very unlikely that the appellant and his family would have to resort to roadside living. In favour of the appeal, the Secretary of State has found at paragraph 25 that considerable weight should be given to the current unmet need for pitches, at paragraph 28 that considerable weight should be given to the personal circumstances of the appellant and his family, and at paragraph 29 that some weight should be given to the personal circumstances of Michael Moss and Michelle Stevens and Jim Draper and Wonny Jones. Overall, the Secretary of State concludes that in respect of a permanent permission the material considerations in favour of the appeal do not outweigh the policy conflicts with the development plan and therefore the appeal proposal should be determined in accordance with the development plan and permission refused.
34. The Secretary of State acknowledges that the refusal of planning permission would amount to interference with the rights of the appellant and his family and other occasional site occupiers under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and has taken account of the children involved as a primary consideration. He has gone on to weigh this against the wider public interest and concludes that dismissing the appeal against the refusal of permanent planning permission would strike an appropriate and fair balance.
35. The Secretary of State has gone on to consider whether a temporary permission would be appropriate and has had regard to the Inspector’s comments at IR 286-297. The Secretary of State agrees that paragraph 25 of the PPTS provides that if the Council cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites, that this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the grant of temporary planning permission. In respect of the length of any temporary permission the Inspector reports (IR290) that any temporary permission should be for 2 years to allow sufficient time for the Meadow Lane development to be completed in February 2015 and for the site to operate for between a year to 18 months before an assessment can be made whether the development provides suitable acceptable living conditions. The Secretary of State has found at paragraphs 25-26: that planning permission for the Meadow Lane development exists; that there is a legal obligation entered into for the delivery of the site by February 2015; that the site will provide 14 new pitches which is sufficient to meet the District’s requirement for a five year supply of deliverable sites; and that there is no reason why the Council will not meet its Responsibilities to deliver acceptable
8
living conditions for future occupiers from this date. Unlike the Inspector, the Secretary of State has found that an assessment can be made now that the Meadow Lane development will provide a satisfactory answer to the area’s unmet need for pitches from February 2015. In the interim, the Secretary of State has found at paragraph 28 that it is very unlikely that the appellant and his family will have to resort to roadside living and that there is no reason why the family could not be re-accommodated either by the appellant’s father at his site at Irthlingborough or alternatively the Council would try to find a pitch at the Kempston Hardwick traveller site.
36. In the circumstances of the case, the Secretary of State considers that the conflict with the development plan policies would remain and continue to carry substantial weight even in the case of a temporary permission for 2 years and would not be outweighed by the material considerations in favour of the appeal proposal.
37. In coming to this conclusion, the Secretary of State has very carefully considered the Inspector’s remarks at IR 292-297 concerning human rights and equality considerations. He acknowledges that the impact of this decision would interfere with the occupiers’ home and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of their property which are protected by Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHRs. The Secretary of State has also taken account of the rights of the children living on the appeal site and he considers the best interests of those children to be a primary consideration in the determination of this appeal. He has given this substantial weight. He has gone on to weigh this against the wider public interest and unlike the Inspector he concludes that dismissing the appeal would strike an appropriate and fair balance.
38. In making his decision, the Secretary of State has had due regard to the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Duty, in particular the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between those with protected characteristics and others. In this regard and in coming to his decision he has considered the following impacts on the protected group: the need for sites, the provision of an alternative site that is suitable, affordable and available, and human rights considerations. Having balanced these potential equality impacts against the conflicts with the development plan policies and the imminent provision of an alternative suitable site to meet the need of the appellants, the Secretary of State is of the view that his decision to dismiss the appeal is proportionate and justified in the circumstances.
Conditions
39. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s comments at IR 298-303 and his recommended conditions at Annex 3 of the IR as well as national policy as set out in the Framework and the planning guidance. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposed conditions are reasonable and necessary and would meet the tests of paragraph 206 of the Framework. However, he does not consider that they overcome his reasons for dismissing the appeal.
Formal decision 40. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby dismisses your client’s appeal and refuses
9
planning permission for change of use to a caravan site with 4 pitches, erection of two amenity blocks, hardstandings and landscaping without complying with conditions attached to planning permission Ref 07/03706/FUL (Appeal ref APP/K0235/A/08/2082215) dated 24 June 2009, in accordance with application ref: 07/03706/FUL.
Right to challenge the decision
41. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged.
42. A copy of this letter has been sent to Bedford Borough Council.
Yours faithfully
Richard Watson Authorised by the Secretary of State to sign in that behalf
10
Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by John Felgate BA (Hons), MA, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Date 23 April 2014
TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
BEDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL
APPEAL BY MR THOMAS ALLEN
Re:
LAND AT ‘WAITING FOR THE SUN’ FARM
RUSHDEN ROAD
BLETSOE
BEDFORDSHIRE
MK44 1QN
Inquiry held on: 29 May, 24 September, and 25-29 November, 2013; and 16-17 and 23-24 January, and 20-21 February, 2014
'Waiting for the Sun' Farm, Rushden Road, Bletsoe, Beds MK44 1QN
File Ref: APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations (v)
PRELIMINARY MATTERS Inquiry details 1 Sitting days and adjournments Site visits Clarification regarding the appellant Representation at the inquiry Post-inquiry submissions Challenge to the appeal’s validity 3 Objection to the Secretary of State’s recovery Direction 3 Other procedural issues arising at the inquiry 4 Request for evidence to be taken on oath Objections relating to matters of inquiry procedure Objection to evidence obtained by alleged unlawful entry onto land Request for witness summons
PLANNING BACKGROUND The development plan 6 Components of the development plan The Borough Local Plan (the BLP) The Core Strategy and Rural Issues Plan (the CSRIP) The Allocations and Designations Local Plan (the ADLP) Non-statutory and emerging policies 7 National policies 8 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (the PPTS) Planning Practice Guidance Provision for gypsies and travellers in the Bedford area 9 The RSS The 2010 GTAA The 2012 GTAA The ADLP Inspector’s report Kempston Hardwick Meadow Lane Roxton Fairhill Irthlingborough The appeal site and relevant planning history 11 ‘Waiting for the Sun’ Farm The existing permission Discharge of conditions Enforcement notices Horsekeeping and stables New dwelling at No 10 The Avenue
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page ii Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
THE PARTIES’ CASES The Case for the Council 14 Submissions on policy matters Submissions on accessibility and sustainability Submissions on local need Submissions on the Meadow Lane site Submissions on personal needs and circumstances Submissions on other matters
The Case for the Appellant 22 Submissions on policy matters Submissions on accessibility and sustainability Submissions on local need Submissions on the Meadow Lane site Submissions on personal needs and circumstances Submissions on other matters
The case for Bletsoe Parish Council and Bletsoe Residents’ Association 32
The submissions by other interested persons 34 Mr Alistair Burt MP Councillor Alison Foster Written representations
INSPECTOR’S CONCLUSIONS Main issues 36 Issue (i): Compliance with the development plan, and consistency between local and national policies 36
Policy considerations relating to development in the countryside Policy considerations relating to accessibility and sustainability Policy considerations relating to gypsy and traveller sites Policy considerations relating to other matters Issue (ii): The site’s accessibility to local facilities 40 Issue (iii): Other alleged impacts 40 Effects on the character and appearance of the area, the landscape and the setting of the Conservation Area Effects on neighbouring occupiers and the local community Effects on highway safety Issue (iv): General need for traveller sites in the area 43 Current and future needs based on the 2012 GTAA The appellant’s criticisms of the GTAA methodology Reliance on Meadow Lane Conclusion on local need
Issue (v): Personal circumstances 48 Mr & Mrs Allen Michael Moss and Michelle Stevens Jim Draper and Wonny Jones Steven and Sharon Smith Other occasional occupiers Other considerations relating to personal circumstances www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page iii Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
Other matters 52
Conclusions and recommendations 53 Conclusions regarding compliance with the development plan Conclusions with regard to other material considerations The planning balance Human rights and equality considerations Conditions Recommendation
ANNEXES Annex 1: Persons appearing at the inquiry 58 Annex 2: Application plans 58 Annex 3: Inspector’s recommended conditions 59 Annex 4: Inquiry documents 60
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page iv Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT
ADLP Allocations and Designations Local Plan
AW Anglian Water
BLP (Bedford) Borough Local Plan
BPC/BRA Bletsoe Parish Council/ Bletsoe Residents’ Association
BS British Standards
CA (Bletsoe) Conservation Area
CSRIP (Bedford) Core Strategy and Rural Issues Plan
DCLG The Department for Communities and Local Government
DPD Development Plan Document
EA Environment Agency
ECHR European Convention on Human Rights
EH English Heritage
EiP Examination in Public
ESP Emergency Stopping Place
GTAA Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment
HA Highways Agency
IDB (Beds & Ivel) Internal Drainage Board
KH Kempston Hardwick (travellers’ site)
ML Meadow Lane (travellers’ site)
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework
PPG Planning Practice Guidance
PPTS Planning Policy for Traveller Sites
RC Recommended Condition
RPA Rural Policy Area
RSS Regional Spatial Strategy
SoS The Secretary of State (for Communities and Local Government)
SCG Statement of Common Ground
SPA Settlement Policy Area
WHO World Health Organisation
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page v Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
File Ref: APP/K0235/A/12/2187276 ‘Waiting for the Sun Farm’, Rushden Road, Bletsoe, Beds MK44 1QN The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. The appeal is made by Mr Thomas Allen against the decision of Bedford Borough Council. The application Ref 11/02690/S73, dated 22 December 2011, was refused by notice dated 31 May 2012. The application sought planning permission for “change of use to caravan site with 4 pitches, erection of two amenity blocks, hardstandings and landscaping” without complying with conditions attached to planning permission Ref 07/03706/FUL (Appeal ref. APP/K0235/A/08/2082215), dated 24 June 2009. The conditions in dispute are Nos 1 and 2, which state: 1. The use hereby permitted shall be for a limited period being the period of 3 years from the date of this decision. At the end of this period, the use shall cease, all materials and equipment brought onto the land in connection with the use shall be removed, and the land restored to its former condition. 2. The restoration of the land to its former condition on or before the end of a period of 3 years from the date of this decision shall be in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved by the local planning authority within 30 months of the date of this decision. The reasons given for these conditions are: 1. Permanent permission would not be justified as there is a reasonable expectation that more sustainable and sequentially preferable sites will be identified through the Allocations and Designations DPD process. In view of the timetable for the adoption of the DPD, I consider that the need for the temporary consent should be reviewed at the end of 3 years. 2. Without the grant of further planning permission at the end of the temporary period, I consider that the land should be restored to its former condition. Summary of Recommendation: That the appeal is allowed, and permission is granted, subject to conditions, for a further temporary period of 2 years.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Inquiry details
Sitting days and adjournments 1. The inquiry opened on 29 May 2013, but was adjourned without hearing any evidence. The adjournment was in response to a request by the appellant for additional time to submit further evidence, firstly in response to the Council’s evidence relating to proposed developments at Meadow Lane and Fairhill, and secondly in response to recent case law relating to human rights and the rights of children. The inquiry was re-opened on 24 September 2013, but was again adjourned, due to a bereavement affecting one of the parties.
2. The inquiry began hearing evidence on 25 November 2013, and sat for five days during that month, but was not completed, due to the large amount of evidence and submissions by both the appellant and the Council. As a result, six further sitting days were held, at intervals during the next three months, finishing on 21 February 2014.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 1
Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
Site visits 3. I carried out an initial site visit to the appeal site at Bletsoe, accompanied by the parties, on 29 May 2013. On the same date, I also made an accompanied visit to the site known as Fairhill, which at that time was proposed by the Council as an alternative site for gypsy and traveller accommodation. On 21 February 2014, I carried out a further accompanied visit to the appeal site, followed by an accompanied visit to a neighbouring property, No 10 The Avenue. On the same day, I also made accompanied visits to three other existing and proposed gypsy and traveller sites, at Meadow Lane (ML), Kempston Hardwick (KH), and Irthlingborough.
4. At various other times during the inquiry, I made a number of unaccompanied tours, which took in: the village of Bletsoe itself; the nearby villages of Sharnbrook, Riseley, Clapham and Milton Ernest; the A6 and other roads connecting the appeal site to those villages and to Bedford; the views of the appeal site from the A6; the general environs of the KH and ML sites; the villages of Willington, Cople, Cardington and Shortstown, and the major new developments at RAF Cardington and The Wixams, to which I was referred in the context of the ML and KH sites; and also to the two gypsy and traveller sites at Ringstead which were referred to by an interested party.
Clarification regarding the appellant
5. For the avoidance of doubt, it was confirmed at the opening of the inquiry that the applicant and appellant is Mr Thomas Allen (junior). This had been a point of some confusion, because the address given in the application form was that of the appellant’s father, also named Thomas Allen. This was stated to be an error.
Representation at the inquiry 6. As well as the appellant and the Council, the inquiry heard evidence from Bletsoe Parish Council and Bletsoe Residents’ Association (BPC/BRA) who appeared jointly as a Rule 6 party, and from the local Member of Parliament Mr Alistair Burt MP, and from one other individual Councillor and local resident. Written submissions were received from Sharnbrook, Milton Ernest, and Melchbourne & Yelden Parish Councils, together with a total of about 70 other written representations, mainly from local residents.
7. Because of difficulties with timetabling and availability, following the first two adjournments in May and September 2013, BPC/BRA had legal representation at the inquiry up to 26 November only. Thereafter, the group was represented by its members, including Mr Lance Feaver, who also appeared as a witness. BPC/BRA’s evidence also includes a statutory declaration from the late Mrs Gillian Venn1, who sadly died in an accident, together with her husband, before BPC/BRA was able to present its case at the inquiry. Her declaration remains as a written representation.
Post-inquiry submissions 8. Shortly after the close of the inquiry, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) published new web-based Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
1 Doc. BPC-8 (Mrs Venn’s statement) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 2 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
in live mode. Written submissions were invited on relevant matters arising from that guidance, and the responses have been taken into account in my report.
Challenge to the appeal’s validity
9. Prior to the inquiry, the validity of the appeal was questioned by the Council and others, on the basis that the date of submission was outside the prescribed period of 28 days, which applies where an enforcement notice has been served in respect of essentially the same development.
10. However, in considering whether to accept the appeal, the Planning Inspectorate took account of the fact that the most recent enforcement notice was not served until after the refusal of the planning application; and also the fact that the effect of this, in reducing the deadline for any appeal, had not been specifically notified to the applicant by the Council. On this basis, the Inspectorate exercised the discretion given to the SoS2 to vary the time limit for the submission of the appeal.
Objection to the Secretary of State’s recovery Direction 11. Jurisdiction over the appeal was recovered by the Secretary of State (SoS) in a Direction dated 7 August 2013 3. The stated reasons for recovery were the high level of objections at both application and appeal stages, the site’s planning history, and the attendant controversy surrounding the appeal.
12. In a letter dated 22 November 2013 4, the appellant objected to the Direction and asked for the decision to be transferred back to the appointed Inspector. The grounds for the objection included concerns about the fairness of the process, and the potential for unlawful discrimination, bearing in mind the appellant’s rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR). The Planning Inspectorate responded to the objection in a letter dated 26 November 2013 5. The Direction remains in force.
13. At the inquiry, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant6 that the SoS’s dual role in gypsy and traveller matters, as both policy maker and decision maker, breaches the appellant’s right to a fair and independent tribunal. It was also submitted that the recovery of the present appeal, and other gypsy and traveller proposals, in circumstances where a proposal for housing on a similar scale would not be recovered, gives the appearance of discrimination and bias against the gypsy and traveller population. Further, it was submitted that the appeal does not fall within the Secretary of State’s own published criteria for recovery.
14. I undertook to report these submissions. Having done so, any further comment on these matters would be outside the terms of my appointment, which is only to make a recommendation on the appeal, for the SoS’s decision.
2 Article 33(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 3 Doc. GEN-16 (The SoS’s Direction) 4 Doc. APP-6 (Mr Brown’s letter 22 November 2013) 5 Doc. GEN-17 (PINS letter 26 Nov 2013) 6 Doc. App-18 (Mr Masters’ closing submissions, Part 1, especially paras 1.1.1 – 1.1.5) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 3 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
Other procedural issues arising at the inquiry Request for evidence to be taken on oath 15. Prior to any evidence being given, the Council requested that all evidence should be taken on oath. However, other than in an enforcement case, that course of action would have been unusual, and the evidence before me at the start of the inquiry did not justify making such a ruling. Nevertheless, those present were reminded of the need for all evidence to be accurate and truthful. I have no reason to think that this requirement would not have been clear to any of those giving evidence. Objections relating to matters of inquiry procedure 16. Because of the timetabling difficulties caused by the adjournment of the inquiry in September 2013, it was necessary to depart from the usual order of evidence, in that the appellant was required to present the majority of his case before hearing the Council’s witnesses. Despite having initially agreed to this course of action, the appellant later submitted that this change was unfair and had prejudiced his case. The appellant requests that I note his objection in my report. However, the appellant was allowed to bring further evidence, including recalling three witnesses and calling one additional witness, in rebuttal of the Council’s case. The relevant procedural rules7 give Inspectors discretion over such matters, subject to the requirements of natural justice. In this case, I am satisfied that the appellant did not suffer any injustice as a result of the necessary changes to inquiry procedures.
17. On a number of occasions, it was necessary to curtail the length of the appellant’s evidence or cross-examination, by imposing time limits, or circumscribing the matters to be covered. On various other occasions, it was necessary to refuse requests by the appellant for adjournments to consider evidence or take instructions. On yet other occasions, of a significant number, I was requested by the appellant to require the Council to produce further information from their files, but I chose not to do so. All of these procedural rulings were objected to by the appellant, and again he asks specifically that his objections be noted in my report.
18. However, the reason for these courses of action was because in all cases I considered that devoting further time to the matters in question was unlikely to assist me in my report. Again, such matters are within the powers given to Inspectors within the relevant procedural rules. In deciding how best to use those powers, I was conscious of the need to use inquiry time effectively, in the public interest. I also considered it right to ensure that other parties, including BPC/BRA and members of the public, were not excessively disadvantaged by allowing the inquiry to become disproportionately long, especially bearing in mind that the time originally allocated for it was ultimately exceeded by a considerable amount. In any event, I am satisfied that on no occasion did the measures taken to manage the inquiry’s length result in any unfairness to any party.
7 The Town & Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 4 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
Objection to evidence obtained by alleged unlawful entry onto land
19. During the inquiry, it was argued vigorously on behalf of the appellant that certain Council officers who had entered onto the appeal site without pre- arrangement, and without written authorisation, had done so unlawfully, and that these amounted to acts of criminal trespass. It was further contended that, as a result, any evidence based on observations made during such visits was inadmissible8. Similar allegations were made by the appellant in respect of photographs produced by BPC/BRA, which were said to have been taken from within the appellant’s land, without permission. In this connection, reference was made to legal principles established through case law9. It was also argued that the evidence in question should be disregarded, and that in allowing such evidence to be heard, I had opened myself to the possibility that my judgement might be tainted. It was therefore suggested by the appellant that I should stand down, and that the inquiry should be re-started under a different Inspector.
20. As far as the Council’s evidence is concerned, the Council refutes these allegations, and has presented its own legal submissions10. It is argued that officers acted at all times within their authority, and within the law. When they entered the site, it is said that the officers in question did so through an open gate, and knocked on the doors of caravans with a view to making enquiries. Although there was a sign on the gate prohibiting unauthorised entry, that did not prevent Council officers from making such visits in the course of their duties. With regard to BPC/BRA’s photographs, the Rule 6 group contends that these were taken from adjoining land, or if not, that they were taken on occasions when entry onto the site was permitted by the owner.
21. For my part, as far as I am aware, no one connected with the Council or BPC/BRA has been charged with, or found guilty of any offence in relation to these matters, and no ruling on these or any other matters relevant to this inquiry has been made in any court of law. In the absence of any such ruling, I do not consider it to be within my powers to come to any view as to whether an offence has been committed. I therefore have no basis on which to rule out any of the evidence which has been put before me. Accordingly, my report makes reference to these matters where appropriate, in so far as I consider them relevant.
Request for witness summons
22. In connection with the above, it was requested on behalf of the appellant that two former Council officers who visited the appeal site should be required to give evidence by means of a witness summons. Whatever the practicalities of such a procedure, my view was, and still remains, that the matters on which those persons were likely to be able to give evidence were unlikely to be decisive. Consequently, to compel them to attend the inquiry, even if that were possible, would be disproportionate to the nature of their contribution. I have therefore taken no action in response to this request.
8 Doc. APP-18 (Mr Masters’ closing submissions, section 2.1.12) 9 Docs. APP-19 and APP-20 (Tchenguiz and UL High Court judgements) 10 Docs. COU-29 (R Green legal opinion) and COU-31 (Mr Druce’s closing submissions, esp. para 6.6) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 5 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
PLANNING BACKGROUND
The Development Plan
Components of the development plan
23. For the purposes of the appeal, the development plan comprises: o the Bedford Borough Local Plan, adopted in October 2002 (saved policies): o the Core Strategy and Rural Issues Plan DPD, adopted in April 2008; o the Allocations and Designations Local Plan, adopted in July 2013. 24. At the date when the application was determined by the Council, the development plan also included the East of England Plan 2008 (the Regional Spatial Strategy or RSS), including a single-issue revision relating to gypsy and traveller provision, approved in July 2009 11. However, that plan was revoked on 3 January 2013.
The Borough Local Plan (the BLP)
25. In the BLP12, saved Policy H26 states that housing development in the open countryside will not be permitted, except for certain specific types, none of which are relevant to the appeal. The explanatory text, at paragraph 5.60, defines the open countryside as all land outside Settlement Policy Areas (SPAs). The appeal site is outside the Bletsoe SPA. The same paragraph also states that in the countryside there is to be a strategy of rural restraint, and a general presumption against development.
26. Saved Policy BE30 sets out various considerations which are to be taken into account in all development proposals. These include (i) visual impact and the effects on the landscape and local distinctiveness; (iv) and (vi) access and traffic considerations; (ix) effects on neighbours and the local community; (x) the natural environment and built heritage; and (v) the extent to which the development can be accessed by public transport, cycling or walking.
The Core Strategy and Rural Issues Plan (the CSRIP)
27. The CSRIP13 divides the district into two policy areas, the Growth Area and the Rural Policy Area (RPA). The Growth Area includes the urban area of Bedford and other areas allocated for significant new development. The appeal site and its surroundings villages are in the RPA.
28. Policy CP2 states that the development and use of land should accord with sustainable development principles. These include (iv) regard for the settings of settlements, (v) preserving local landscape character; and (vii) encouraging the use of public transport, walking and cycling.
29. Policy CP13 states that development in the countryside will only be permitted where it is consistent with national policies. Policy CP14 provides that where there is a proven need for development to be located in the RPA, such
11 Doc. COU-1A, Appx 13 (East of England Plan Revision, July 2009) 12 Doc. GEN-1 (Borough Local Plan) 13 Doc. GEN-2 (Core Strategy and Rural Issues Plan) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 6 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
development should be located in or around the edges of the key service centre villages. Bletsoe is not one of these. In other settlements defined by an SPA, development is to be restricted to that which is required to meet local business or community needs or to maintain vitality.
30. Proposals for gypsy and traveller sites are dealt with at Policy CP9. This states that, where a need has been identified through the RSS or a GTAA, sites will be allocated or permitted within or adjoining the urban area or SPAs; or if no such sites are available or suitable, then in the countryside. All developments must also satisfy a number of other requirements. These include: (i) evidence of local need; (ii) satisfactory vehicular access; (iii) minimum impact on the character and appearance of the area; (iv) no unacceptable harm to neighbouring occupiers; (v) schools, shops and community facilities within reasonable travelling distance, and preferably accessible by foot, cycle or public transport; and (vi) the scale of the development not dominating the settled community or putting pressure on local infrastructure.
The Allocations and Designations Local Plan (the ADLP)
31. In the ADLP14, paragraphs 1.24 and 1.25 summarise the current position with regard to provision for gypsies and travellers, based on the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) carried out in 2012 15, and taking account of developments already completed or planned. On this basis, paragraph 1.25 states that the Council proposes to make no further provision for any new gypsy and traveller pitches up to 2021.
32. In the light of this, paragraphs 1.26 – 1.29 give updated guidance on the application of CSRIP Policy CP9, having regard also to current national policy. These paragraphs advise that applications should still be considered against the existing policy, and that permissions may be granted where the relevant criteria are met. Following the revocation of the RSS, local need (criterion ‘i’) is to be assessed with reference to the GTAA.
Non-statutory and emerging policies 33. In 2009, the Council published a non-statutory Briefing Note16 on CSRIP Policy CP14, which gave advice on how and where the policy should be applied, and how ‘need’ should be interpreted. The Note was updated in November 2013 17, in the light of the NPPF. The Briefing Notes are not part of the development plan, and therefore have limited weight. 34. In January 2014 the Council published an Issues and Options18 document, as the first stage towards the preparation of a new Local Plan. Paragraph 7.1 states that a new GTAA will be carried out. Paragraph 10.1 states that the plan will identify land for new housing, including gypsy and traveller sites. Respondents are invited to suggest possible sites for consideration. The consultation document is a material consideration, but in view of its early stage, it carries little weight.
14 Doc. GEN-11 (Allocations and Designations Local Plan) 15 Doc. GEN-5 (2012 GTAA) 16 Doc. GEN-18 (Policy CP14 Advice Note - original version) 17 Doc. GEN-19 (Policy CP14 Advice Note - Nov 2013 version) 18 Doc. GEN-28 (Local Plan 2032: Issues & Options Paper); and Doc. GEN-27 (Note on Local Plan consultation) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 7 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
National policies
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 35. National policy in the NPPF seeks to encourage sustainable development, and paragraph 14 presumes in favour of such development. The core planning principles, at paragraph 17, include the need for development to be plan-led, to meet identified needs, to recognise the character and beauty of the countryside, and to manage patterns of growth so as to focus developments in locations which are sustainable.
36. Paragraph 32 advocates that decisions should take account of opportunities for sustainable modes of transport, and paragraph 34 states that developments that generate significant movement should be located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable modes maximised.
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (the PPTS)
37. The PPTS seeks to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers, in a way that facilitates their traditional and nomadic way of life, while respecting the interests of the settled community (paragraph 3). To that end, paragraph 4 sets out the Government’s aims, which include: encouraging authorities to work collaboratively to meet needs; planning for sites within a reasonable timescale; increasing the numbers of sites in appropriate locations, and addressing under- provision; promoting more private sites, while also recognising the needs of those travellers who cannot provide their own; making provision in locations where travellers can access education, health, welfare and employment facilities; reducing tensions between communities; and protecting local amenity and the environment. Paragraph 6 requires authorities, in assessing local needs, to secure effective community engagement, including co-operation with travellers and their representative bodies, and to ensure that their evidence base is robust.
38. Paragraph 11 asks authorities, in making their plans, to ensure that traveller sites are sustainable, economically, socially and environmentally. To that end, sites should, amongst other things, promote peaceful and integrated co- existence; provide travellers with a settled base; have regard for local environmental quality and its effects on travellers’ health and well-being; avoid areas of high flood risk; and allow scope for some travellers to live and work from the same location.
39. Paragraph 22 states that, in considering planning applications, authorities should consider the existing level of provision, and the need for sites; the availability of alternative accommodation, and any other personal circumstances of the applicant; and any locally specific criteria. Authorities should also not require applicants to have local connections.
40. Paragraph 23 states that in the open countryside away from settlements, traveller sites should be strictly limited. In terms of their scale, such developments in rural areas should not dominate nearby communities, or place undue pressure on local infrastructure.
Planning Practice Guidance 41. The PPG contains no specific guidance on gypsy and traveller developments. Guidance on other relevant matters is referred to below where appropriate.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 8 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
Provision for gypsies and travellers in the Bedford area
The RSS 42. The RSS was based on a GTAA for the whole of Bedfordshire and Luton, carried out in 200619. Bedford Borough’s existing provision at the base date of April 2006 was said to be 20 pitches. For the period 2006-11, the RSS requirement was for an additional 25 new pitches, giving a total provision of 45 pitches by April 2011, as set out in Policy H3 20.
43. Of the 25 new pitches required, a maximum of 15 pitches (adjusted from 13) were to meet the District’s own needs. The remainder resulted from the EiP Panel’s preference for a redistribution between districts, to reflect differences in terms of their respective opportunities and constraints. In this respect Bedford was seen as having a relatively large amount of unconstrained land compared to neighbouring authorities, particularly those in Cambridgeshire, and greater opportunities due to the quantity of planned housing development21.
The 2010 GTAA22 44. The 2010 GTAA for Bedford Borough assessed the district’s current need, as at September of that year, as 24 pitches. Future need for the period 2010-21 was calculated to be an additional 12 pitches. The overall provision sought by 2021 was therefore 36 pitches.
45. Existing provision as at September 2010 was 16 pitches. There was also an existing planning permission for 2 additional pitches, making a total identified supply of 18 pitches. There was therefore an immediate shortfall of 6 pitches, and an overall projected shortfall of 18 by 2021.
The 2012 GTAA23 46. At its base date of July 2012, the 2012 GTAA found a current need for 29.8 pitches. For the future, the additional need was calculated to be a further 1.9 pitches up to March 2017, and a further 4.0 pitches to March 2021, giving a total requirement in 2021 of 35.7 pitches.
47. Against this, the existing supply at July 2012 was still 16 pitches. However, there were now a further 20 pitches with planning permission, giving an overall potential supply of 36 pitches.
48. There was therefore an immediate requirement for about 14 pitches, and an overall requirement for about 20 pitches by 2021. But in numerical terms, both of these requirements could be met from the sites already identified and permitted. This is the reason for the conclusion in the ADLP, that no further sites need to be identified at the present time24.
49. Further details of the surveys and assessments underlying the 2012 GTAA are provided in the GTAA Methodology report25.
19 Doc. COU-2A, Appx 9 (2006 GTAA) 20 Doc. COU-1A, Appx 13 (the RSS Revision 2009, Policy H3) 21 Doc. COU-2A, Appx 13 - paragraphs 4.129 and 4.130 (East of England Panel Report 2008) 22 Doc. Cou-2A, Appx 2 (2010 GTAA) 23 Doc. GEN-5 (2012 GTAA) 24 Doc. GEN-11 (the ADLP – para 1.25) 25 Doc. COU-2A, Appx 5 (GTAA methodology report) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 9 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
The ADLP Inspector’ report
50. The Inspector who conducted the examination into the ADLP, in November 2012 to January 2013 26, found the plan’s evidence base, including the GTAA, to be comprehensive, up-to-date and robust (paragraphs 22-23). Paragraph 46 records that the GTAA was the subject of discussion at a hearing session in January 2013. The inspector commented that:
“ 47. In my view the new GTAA includes a reasonable analysis of the need for sites… Although inevitably there are various assumptions, ...they are justified on the basis of the available evidence …Provided additional permanent pitches at Kempston Hardwick (6 pitches) and Meadow Lane (14 pitches) are made available, there should be no need to allocate further permanent pitches to meet anticipated need in the period to 2021.
50. I conclude that, provided the 14 additional permanent pitches… are provided at the Meadow Lane site, together with the 6 additional pitches at Kempston Hardwick, sufficient provision can be made for sites for gypsies and travellers in the period to 2021”.
Kempston Hardwick 51. The Kempston Hardwick (KH) gypsy and traveller site27 is an existing facility, owned and managed by the Council. The original site had 16 permanent pitches. A 6-pitch extension was completed in 2013, making a total of 22 on the site. The 6 new pitches are part of the planned provision identified in the 2012 GTAA.
Meadow Lane 52. The Meadow Lane (ML) site is Council-owned, currently vacant land. Planning permission was granted in March 2012, for 14 permanent gypsy and traveller pitches and related facilities (Ref. 12/00148/DC3)28. In November 2013, a non- material amendment to the scheme was approved (Ref. 13/01911/NMA)29.
53. Provision for the implementation of the development is made in a deed of variation30 to a Section 106 agreement31 between the Council and Bellway Homes. The latter are developing the former RAF site at Cardington, for a mixed use development comprising residential and commercial development, community facilities and open space. The variation, executed on 20 December 2013 32, requires Bellway to carry out the necessary works to provide a permanent gypsy and traveller site at the ML site, including the laying out of 14 pitches, the construction of 14 day units, a manager’s office, access road and ancillary works (shown on Drawing No. A477.A.002 33), and to complete those works by 28 February 2015. These works are in lieu of part of the previously agreed social housing.
54. The ML site also has nine existing pitches which are designated for use as an Emergency Stopping Place (ESP), where the maximum length of stay is 28 days. The ESP was first opened in June 2013, but was closed in November of the same year for repairs, following damage caused by unauthorised occupiers. It
26 Doc. GEN-14 (ADLP Inspector’s Report) 27 Doc. COU-1A, Appx 17 (Kempston Hardwick planning permission and approved plans) 28 Doc. GEN-8 (Meadow Lane planning permission and approved plans) 29 Doc. GEN-25 (Meadow Lane – non material amendment) 30 Doc. GEN-21 - clause 6.1 (RAF Cardington - deed of variation) 31 Doc. GEN-20 (RAF Cardington – original Section 106 obligation) 32 Doc. GEN-24 (Email 13 January 2013 re the deed of variation) 33 Doc. GEN-22 (Meadow Lane works - plan attached to deed of variation) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 10 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
currently remains closed. The Council intends to review the ESP’s future, with a view to re-opening it, once the new permanent pitches are built and occupied34.
Roxton 55. In an appeal decision dated 8 March 2013, planning permission was granted for a development to provide 4 permanent gypsy and traveller pitches on land at Bedford Road, Roxton35.
56. This decision has been challenged by the Council by way of an application to the High Court to quash the permission36. On 19 November 2013, the Secretary of State consented to judgement37. However, as at the close of the present inquiry, the Council’s challenge was still being contested by the original appellants in that case, Thomas and Kelly Brown. A Court hearing has been scheduled for late March 2014. That date is after the close of the present inquiry.
Fairhill 57. At the time when the Council prepared its case for the present inquiry, proposals were in hand for a 14-pitch gypsy and traveller site on land known as Fairhill, off Cut Throat Lane, Bedford. Subsequently however, two planning applications for the development were refused38. At the inquiry, the Council confirmed that it no longer intends to pursue this scheme.
Irthlingborough 58. During the inquiry, extensive reference was also made to a large site at Station Road, Irthlingborough, which is owned by the appellant’s father, Mr Allen (Snr). The site is outside the Borough of Bedford, in the district of East Northamptonshire, but is only about 10 miles by road from the appeal site at Bletsoe.
The appeal site and relevant planning history
‘Waiting for the Sun’ Farm
59. ‘Waiting for the Sun’ Farm is a holding of about 2 ha, located just outside the village of Bletsoe. On its southern and eastern boundaries, the holding abuts the extended gardens of residential properties in The Avenue. To the north and west are larger agricultural fields. Access to the land is from Rushden Road (the A6), where there is a tarmacked and gated entrance, leading to a gravel driveway which extends into the site for about 100m.
60. Prior to about 2008, the holding was used for agricultural purposes. Caravans were first brought onto the site in January of that year. Initially it appears that the caravans were dispersed over the holding. However, when planning permission was granted in 2009, the approved layout required them to be concentrated in the central part, amounting to approximately one third of the overall site. That part is now surfaced with hardcore, and a sewage treatment plant, drainage and lighting have been installed. At the time of my final site visit
34 Oral evidence of Mr Pollard and Mr Kyle 35 Doc. COU-1A, Appx 14 (Roxton appeal decision) 36 Doc. COU-1A, Appx 16 (Roxton High Court challenge - grounds) 37 Doc. COU-15 (Roxton High Court challenge - Consent Order) 38 Doc. GEN-26 (Fairhill refusal notice) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 11 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
in February, there were 8 touring caravans stationed on this part of the site, and two mobile toilet/utility blocks. The latter are said by the appellant to be a temporary measure, pending the outcome of the present appeal.
61. The remainder of the holding is mainly grassed, with hedged boundaries. The southern section of the site contains various structures or parts thereof. Firstly there is a former agricultural building (referred to in some of the evidence as the goat shed or the milking barn). At the time of my visit in February this was being used for storing hay. Beyond this there are the foundations of another barn, which was apparently commenced in the 1980s, in accordance with a planning permission granted at that time, but was never completed. Closer to the main driveway, foundation trenches have been dug for a stables building which was permitted in November 2012 39.
62. Bletsoe is a small village, with a church, a village hall and a nearby pub. Part is designated as a Conservation Area (CA). There is a bus stop in The Avenue, with limited services to Bedford and St Neots.
The existing permission
63. Planning permission was granted on appeal40 in June 2009 for ‘change of use to caravan site with 4 pitches, erection of two amenity blocks, hardstanding and landscaping’. The appeal was considered in the context of, amongst other things, the RSS, which has since been revoked, and Circular 01/2006 which is now cancelled.
64. The Inspector found that the appeal site’s impact on the landscape would be limited during the summer, but in winter the development would harm the area’s open and undeveloped character (paragraph 14). She considered that the proposal would not harm the CA or important views, but it would nevertheless bring development into the small, potentially historic field pattern around the village, and dilute the perception of a compact nucleated settlement within a wide landscape (paragraph 15). It would also introduce an urbanised form of development into the agricultural landscape outside the settlement (paragraph 16). Consequently the scheme would fail to meet Policy CP9’s criterion (iii). The Inspector also found that the limitations of the location in sustainability terms weighed heavily against a permanent permission (paragraph 27).
65. With regard to need, the Inspector noted that both parties accepted the RSS requirement as the figure that had to be met (paragraph 6). Although new sites were expected to be allocated in the ADLP, these would not be ready within the RSS timescale of up to 2011 (paragraph 8). The KH and ML developments alone would not meet the whole of the RSS’s numerical requirement (paragraph 10). The ‘need’ element of Policy CP9, including criterion (i), was therefore engaged (paragraph 13).
66. But looking beyond 2011, the Inspector concluded that the alternative sites that were being considered through the DPD process appeared sequentially preferable to the appeal site (paragraphs 8 and 11). There was a reasonable prospect that the DPD would eventually bring these or other sites forward for development
39 Doc. COU-1A, Appx 11 (Stables – planning permission ref 12/01700/FUL) 40 Doc. COU-1A, Appx 7 (Previous appeal decision, June 2009: APP/K0235/A/08/2082215) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 12 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
(paragraph 30). The Inspector therefore granted a temporary permission, for a period of 3 years, expiring in June 2012.
Discharge of conditions 67. A number of the conditions on the 2009 permission require the approval of further details before development takes place, or within a specified timescale. Details relating to conditions Nos 7 and 11 were approved by the Council in November 2009 (ref. 09/02230/AOC)41 and February 2010 (ref. 09/02229/ AOC)42. These include the materials for the proposed amenity blocks, and a layout plan (referred to as the ‘development scheme plan’) showing the siting of caravan pitches, hardstanding, parking and amenity areas, fencing, gates, soakaways, surface water drainage, sewage treatment and lighting. None of the other details required, under conditions Nos 2, 6, 10, 14 and 16, appear to have been formally approved, but the Council takes no issue over these in the present appeal. It is not argued, either by the Council or others, that the lack of such approvals has any bearing on the lawfulness of the implementation of the permission as a whole. In the circumstances of this case, I see no reason to disagree.
68. Some of the other conditions also require various works to be carried out before the start of development, or before particular operations take place, or within a given timescale. Of these, I saw on my visit that the works approved under condition 11 have largely been completed, and that most of the works relating to the site access, required by conditions Nos 13 and 15 have also been carried out. The Council points out that the entrance kerbs do not appear to provide the specified 10m radius, and that the temporary toilet/utility blocks currently on site do not match the details approved under condition 7. But again, it is not argued that the lawfulness of the development itself is at stake as a result of these discrepancies. Again, I concur with this approach. No other issues are raised with regard to compliance with any other pre-development requirements, including conditions Nos 10 and 16.
69. With regard to the remaining conditions, some issues relating to compliance are disputed, either by the Council or by BPC/BRA, and where relevant, these are dealt with elsewhere in my report. None of these other compliance issues has any bearing on the lawfulness of the existing development for the purposes of the present appeal. Based on the evidence before the inquiry, I see no reason to doubt that, at the date when the application was made, the 2009 permission had been validly implemented, and that its duration was capable of being extended as proposed.
Enforcement notices 70. An enforcement notice was issued on 6 March 2009, covering the whole of the land holding43. The alleged breaches of planning control included the use of the land for stationing caravans for residential occupation. At the same time, a stop notice was also issued against the same alleged breaches. An appeal against the enforcement notice was lodged, but was withdrawn following the grant of the temporary planning permission on part of the site in June 2009. Notwithstanding
41 Doc. GEN-29 (approval of details under condition 7) 42 Doc. COU-1A, Appx 7 (approval of details under Condition 11) 43 Doc. COU-1A, Appx 8 (1st Enforcement Notice and Stop Notice, March 2009) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 13 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
the permission’s temporary nature, the Council accepts that its effect is to override the enforcement and stop notices, as far as they relate to that part of the land. However, the notices remain in force on the remainder of the holding (the ‘blue land’).
71. A second enforcement notice was issued on 31 August 2012, relating only to the land covered by the 2009 planning permission44 (the ‘red land’). The alleged breach includes the change of use of the land to a residential caravan site, and associated works. The notice was not appealed against, and is now in force.
Horsekeeping and stables 72. Planning permission was granted in 1999 for the keeping of horses on the land, and the erection of two stables (ref. 99/01224/FUL), and in 2003 a further permission for a stable was granted (ref. 03/00094/FUL)45. However, those stables were not built, and there is no evidence as to whether the horse-keeping use was ever carried on during the life of the permissions.
73. More recently, as noted above, permission was granted on 28 November 2012 (Ref. 12/01700/FUL) for the erection of a stables to the south of the driveway, together with hardstanding, fencing and gate, for use with the keeping of horses46. Condition No 3 prevents the use of the stables in connection with any form of commercial activity.
New dwelling at No 10 The Avenue 74. In May 2011, planning permission was granted (ref. 11/00534/FUL) for the erection of a detached dwelling in the side garden of No 10 The Avenue, Bletsoe47. The curtilage of the original property abuts the present appeal site. That of the new dwelling is close to the appeal site but does not directly abut it.
THE PARTIES’ CASES
The case for the Council
Submissions on policy matters 48
75. The Council’s case is that a permanent permission at the appeal site would conflict with the aims of CSRIP Policies CP2, CP13, and CP14 and BLP Policy H26, in that these are all intended to protect the countryside from development. With regard to Policy CP13, in the Council’s view, the development is not one that can be said to be consistent with national policies. In relation to Policy CP14, the proposal fails on all counts: there is no reason why the development could not be located in the Growth Area; Bletsoe is not a key service centre; the site is outside the SPA; and the development is not required for the vitality or other needs of the local community. The proposal therefore does not come within any of the allowable exceptions.
44 Doc. COU-1A, Appx 10 (2nd Enforcement Notice, August 2012) 45 Doc. COU-1A, Appx 5 (Planning history schedule) 46 Doc. COU-1A, Appx 11 (Stables application and permission) 47 Doc. APP-1, Appx 7 (Planning permission for dwelling at 10 The Avenue) 48 Docs. COU-1 (Mr White’s proof, esp. sections 5 and 7); and COU-31 (Closing submissions, esp. section 3) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 14 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
76. Although Policy CP9 allows for gypsy and traveller developments in the countryside in some cases, the Council argues that this does not apply here, because a need has not been established. In addition, as the site is neither within nor adjoining the Bletsoe SPA, it is therefore in a location of last resort. And in any event, the requirement in criterion (v) is not met, with regard to accessibility to schools, shops and community facilities.
77. In addition, the Council contends that the site’s lack of accessibility, and its consequent unsustainability in terms of transport links, conflicts with the aims of CSRIP Policy CP2 and BLP Policy BE30.
78. In the Council’s submission, all of these development plan policies are consistent with the aims of current national policies. The ADLP Inspector’s endorsement of Policy CP9 shows that he found no inconsistency in that respect.
79. With regard to the PPTS, the Council does not accept that the policies in that document indicate any in-principle acceptance of gypsy and traveller sites in the countryside. In this respect, national policy has changed since the 2009 appeal. Circular 1/06, which was in force then, took a permissive stance towards development in the countryside, but paragraph 23 of the PPTS seeks to strictly limit gypsy and traveller sites in the open countryside away from settlements. That is primarily a restrictive rather than permissive approach. In the Council’s view, the appeal site is in the open countryside, and away from the settlement of Bletsoe. It is also outside any area allocated in the development plan, such as the designated Growth Area. The proposal therefore conflicts with paragraph 23.
The Council’s submissions on accessibility and sustainability 49
80. The Council argues that the nearest schools, shops and medical facilities are at the village of Sharnbrook, which is about 3km (2 miles) away. This distance is too far to expect people to walk, and there is no bus service. The route, partly along the A6, is not safe for walking or cycling. And although Sharnbrook has a small convenience shop, there is no large supermarket.
81. Although there are bus services to Bedford and St Neots, the Council contends that these are of little practical use50. The service into Bedford runs only 3 times a day at most, and the last return journey leaves Bedford at 17.45. At weekends the service becomes even less frequent, or non-existent. The St Neots service is once a week. In both cases, the stop in Bletsoe village is about 600m from the appeal site entrance, or 700m from nearest caravan pitch. This greatly exceeds the 400m maximum suggested in relevant DfT guidance51.
82. As a result, the Council regards the appeal site as an unsustainable location, and agrees with the 2009 Inspector that it is not suitable for permanent residential use.
The Council’s submissions on local need 52 83. The Council relies on the GTAA published in August 2012 and the completed and planned developments at Kempston Hardwick and Meadow Lane. Although the
49 Doc. COU-1 (Mr white’s proof, esp. paras 2.7-2.11 and7.23-7.28) 50 Doc. COU-1A, Appx 4 (Bletsoe bus timetables) 51 Doc. COU-1A, Appx 3 (DfT: ‘Inclusive Mobility’) 52 Docs. COU-1 (P White proof, section 6); COU-2 (J Pollard proof); and COU-31 (closing submissions, section 5) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 15 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
GTAA showed a shortfall of pitches in 2012, and further needs continuing to arise after that time, part of the shortfall has already been met by the 6 new pitches at KH, and the remaining needs up to 2021 can all be met by the 14 proposed pitches at the ML site.
84. The ML development has planning permission, and the Council contends that the agreement with Bellway Homes means that the site will be delivered by February 2015. A supply of sites therefore exists to meet the identified needs for the relevant five-year period, and beyond.
85. The possible problems at the ML site with regard to noise, surface water drainage and flooding are recognised, and the development has been carefully designed to overcome these issues. The potential for odours arising from nearby land uses has also been fully taken into account. Technical studies have been carried out into these matters and put before the inquiry53. In the light of all this evidence, the Council considers that the ML gypsy and traveller site will offer a satisfactory living environment for future residents.
86. In the Council’s view, the GTAA is soundly based and robust54. The methodology was tailored to the District’s circumstances, and takes account of all reasonable needs, as far as these can be foreseen. The study makes provision for some in- migration, and indeed more than any of the neighbouring authorities. Consultation was carried out with those other authorities, and the duty to co- operate has been fully complied with. In any event, the GTAA was accepted and found sound by the ADLP Inspector, only a few months ago55.
87. The Council has a good record in providing for gypsies and travellers. The existing Council-owned site at KH is well managed and popular. Families who have stayed there before often return; two did so recently56. There is space available at the site for grazing horses, and for the parking of horse boxes and larger commercial vehicles of up to 7.5 tons57. These facilities allow residents to pursue a traditional gypsy and traveller lifestyle if they choose. The Council carries out annual surveys which show a high level of satisfaction amongst occupiers58. The Council would aim to achieve a similar high standard at ML59.
88. Although the ADLP does not make any new land allocations for gypsy and traveller sites, that is because the Council has already acted quickly to bring forward the KH and ML schemes. These actions have enabled the need to be met in a reasonable timescale, and in a manner that accords with the borough’s overall planning strategy. The KH and ML sites are both in the Growth Area, and are well located for access to the town centre and to other existing or planned facilities, including those at the major developments at The Wixams and RAF Cardington (adjacent to the existing village of Shortstown), and planned future development in the Willington/Cople area60. As such, KH and ML are seen as sequentially appropriate locations, unlike the present appeal site.
53 Docs. COU-3, COU-4, and COU-12 (Evidence of Mr Parker, Mr P Allen, and Dr Bull) 54 Docs. COU-2 (Mr Pollard’s proof, esp. sections 4 and 5); and COU-31 (closing submissions, section 5) 55 Doc. GEN-14 (ADLP Inspector’s report) 56 Oral evidence of Mr Kyle 57 Oral evidence of Mr Kyle 58 Oral evidence of Mr Kyle 59 Oral evidence of Mr Pollard 60 Oral evidence of Mr White www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 16 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
89. Whilst there is no identified provision for any gypsy and traveller sites on private land, the Council argues that there is no specific policy requirement to do so, provided that the overall need is met. The PPTS acknowledges that there will always be a need for public provision. And in any event, the Council says that the long term ownership, tenure and management structure for the ML site are not yet decided, and need not necessarily replicate the traditional public-sector model as currently operated at KH.
90. The Council also points out that, for the time being at least, the planning permission granted in the Roxton appeal still stands, and if the Council’s legal challenge continues to be defended by the original applicants, there is no certainty as to the outcome. In the meantime, and until or unless the permission is quashed, the site contributes a further 4 lawful private pitches that count towards the Borough’s supply.
91. In the Council’s submission, it is for the appellant to show an overriding need, rather than the reverse. The authority contends that no such need has been demonstrated.
The Council’s submissions on the Meadow Lane site
92. With regard to odour issues61, although the ML site is close to Bedford’s main sewage works, the Council points to the fact that the operator, Anglian Water (AW), is currently carrying out a £20m programme of upgrading and improvements. These include the decommissioning of the most odorous processes, including the sludge drying tanks, sludge pads and anaerobic digesters, and their replacement with more modern equipment, which will also be largely enclosed. This work is likely to result in a considerable improvement in the odour environment. The dispersion modelling carried out th 3 for AW predicts a 98 percentile value at the ML site of less than 1.5 oue/m (European Odour Units). This would meet the Environment Agency’s (EA’s) guidance for even the most offensive odour types, which is the most stringent standard available.
93. Furthermore, if the sewage works were judged to cause a nuisance to residential occupiers, the Council considers that there is still scope for further measures beyond the works currently in hand. If necessary, AW could be compelled to take such further action; additional works would be expensive but not prohibitively so. AW is evidently aware of the risks in this regard, and chose not to object to the proposals for the ML site. In the Council’s view, this indicates that AW is confident that its current improvement programme will be sufficient.
94. The Council accepts that the odour level on part of the access route along 3 Meadow Lane itself would exceed 1.5 oue/m . However, this would be a transitory experience, for which there are no applicable standards. And in any 3 event, the level would still be below 3 oue/m for 98% of the time. 95. The adjoining abattoir is regulated by the EA. The terms of its environmental permit require the operator to use the best available technology to prevent or control odours, in a number of specified ways. An odour management plan
61 Docs. COU-12 (Dr Bull’s proof) and COU-31 (Closing submissions, paras 7.13-7.16); and Dr Bull’s oral evidence www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 17 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
has been agreed with the EA. In the Council’s view, this gives a reasonable amount of confidence that odours from this source will not be unacceptable. Overall, the Council considers that the risk of occupiers at the ML site being exposed to unacceptable odours, from any source, is low.
96. Turning to noise62, the Council accepts that the ML site suffers from noise from the A421. However, Condition 13 of the existing planning permission secures the provision of an acoustic barrier. Details have subsequently been approved, which provide for a solid fence, in a position close to the road carriageway. In this position the fence would be well away from the proposed caravan pitches, and in the Council’s view, would not adversely affect living conditions at the site63.
97. The proposed acoustic fence is calculated to bring the external noise levels
down to around 58-60 dB (LAeq16hr) in the daytime, and 50-55 dB (LAeq8hr) at night. This would be slightly above the recommendations of the World Health Organisation (WHO)64 and BS8233 65, which suggest an upper limit for gardens of 55 dB. However, in the Council’s opinion, such levels are common in much modern residential development, and should therefore not be seen as unacceptable. Inside the caravans, the internal night-time levels with windows closed and trickle vents open are predicted to be 32-37 dB. In the day-rooms, the daytime level would be below 40 dB. These levels broadly accord with the WHO and BS standards. The Council therefore regards the site as capable of providing acceptable acoustic conditions for future occupiers.
98. With regard to flood risk66, the Council accepts that some small parts of the ML site are within flood zones 2 and 3, but the proposed caravan pitches would be clear of those areas. Where necessary, the remaining land, including parts of the access route and internal roadway, would be raised to a minimum level of 23.5m, to make the development safe for occupation. This would exceed the level recommended by the Bedfordshire and River Ivel Internal Drainage Board (the IDB) by some 380mm, providing a more than adequate safety margin. Compensatory flood water storage would be provided within the site, with a capacity calculated to exceed the volume lost, so as to ensure that no flood water would be displaced off-site. The scheme has been designed in the light of detailed flood mapping carried out by the EA and the IDB. These authorities are happy with the proposals.
99. Foul drainage from the site would be piped under the A421 to the existing main sewer on the far side, and surface water drainage would be discharged to an existing highway ditch67. Two small pumping stations would be needed, and holding tanks would also be installed at ground level to attenuate the flows to these systems. However, these would not significantly affect the site’s capacity with regard to flood water, because they would not be within the areas that are liable to flooding. In engineering terms, the Council sees all of these works as relatively straightforward.
62 Docs. COU-4 (P Allen proof) and COU-31 (Closing submissions, paras 7.10-7.11); and Mr Allen’s oral evidence 63 The visual effects of the fencing, including acoustic fencing were addressed in oral evidence by Mr Pollard 64 WHO: ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’ 65 Doc. COU-27 (BS 8233:1999) 66 Docs. COU-3 (Mr Parker’s proof) and COU-31 (Closing submissions, paras 7.2-7.4); and Mr Parker’s oral evidence 67 Mr Parker’s oral evidence; and Doc. COU-31 (Closing submissions, paras 7.5 -7.7) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 18 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
100. Whilst the agreement of the Highways Agency (HA) is needed for the acoustic fencing and some of the drainage works, within the boundary of the A421, detailed discussions have taken place, and the Agency is content for work to start in advance of a formal agreement under the Highways Act68. Some details are still being finalised, but the Council is confident that a range of acceptable solutions are available69. In the Council’s view, all of these ancillary works are either covered by the existing planning permission, or fall within permitted development, and most of the pre-development conditions on the permission have now been discharged70. The Council anticipates that the ML works will be started before the end of February 2014, and completed by early 2015.
The Council’s submissions on personal needs and circumstances
101. The Council argues that the evidence relating to the personal needs and circumstances of the site’s occupiers has been inconsistent, contradictory and unreliable71. Initially, despite numerous requests72, no information of any kind was provided as to the identities of the occupiers, or their individual circumstances, until the exchange of proofs in May 201373. Further information and evidence was then provided in July74, September75 and November 201376, and in February 201477, but on each occasion, not only did the list of claimed occupiers change, but in many cases the new information suggested that the previous evidence must have been incorrect or incomplete. Witness statements purported to be made by a Mr Robert Jones and a Mr Steven Smith were not supported by appearances at the inquiry, and in the end were not relied on by the appellant. Requests during the inquiry for further clarification, including a direct question from the Inspector, were met with a refusal to answer78. As a result, in the Council’s view, it is not clear whose personal circumstances the appellant seeks to rely on. And in any event, the Council has had no proper opportunity to carry out any reasonable investigations of its own.
102. Furthermore, the Council’s Mr Kyle, or his assistants Mr Ferguson and Mr Plater, visited the site 12 times during 2013, and on all but two of these occasions there was no-one present on the site. In Mr Kyle’s experience, this is unusual for an occupied site. On a number of visits between August and November of that year, it appeared that the site was not being occupied at all. On one visit, in September, a man named Val was present, who claimed to be living on the site, and said that he was not aware of anyone else living there79.
68 Oral evidence of Mr Parker 69 Oral evidence of Mr Parker 70 Oral evidence of Mr Parker and Mr Pollard; and COU-31 (Closing submissions, paras 7.18 -7.19) 71 Doc. COU-13 (Closing submissions, paras 6.1 – 6.5) 72 Docs. COU-8, Enc 8 (letter to Agent, 13 March 2013) and Enc 7 (Requisitions for information, 2 April 2013); COU-14 (letters to occupiers, 23 May 2013); and COU-10, Attachment 1 (letter 23 July 2013) 73 Doc. APP-1 (Mr Brown’s proof, paras 5.32-5.34) 74 Docs. APP-2 and APP-3 (witness statements of T Allen and R Jones) 75 Doc. APP-4 (witness statement of M Moss) 76 Oral evidence of Mr T Allen, Mr Moss and Mr Brown 77 Docs. APP-12- APP-16 (witness statements of J Draper and S Smith, and further statement of M Moss); and oral evidence of Messrs Draper, Moss and T Allen 78 Doc. COU-13 (Closing submissions, para 6.3) 79 Doc. Cou-13 (MR Kyle’s supplementary proof); and Mr Kyle’s oral evidence www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 19 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
103. On Mr Kyle’s visit in November, a number of additional caravans were present on the site which were clearly unoccupied. It appeared that the site was being used mainly for storing caravans. On 9 January 2014, the site was empty of caravans except for Mr Allen’s own two. On 16 January, the day of the national biannual caravan count, there were 6 caravans. It was also noted that there was an increase in the number of caravans whenever the inquiry was due to sit80. For Council Tax purposes, the site is registered only as two family units81. All together, these observations cast doubt as to whether the site has been continuously or fully occupied. In the Council’s submission, these matters further diminish any weight that should be given to the claimed occupiers’ personal circumstances.
104. With regard to Mr Allen (Jnr) and his family, the Council accepts that they meet the definition of gypsies or travellers, as set out in the PPTS, and that they live at the appeal site. But despite their stated desire to send their children to one of the local schools, at Riseley, they have not attempted to do so. If the family were to have to leave the appeal site, it is probable that they would quite quickly be able to get a pitch at the KH site, where there is a regular turnover, and the Council would do all it could to help with this. Although there is a waiting list of about six or seven families at present, the allocation is according to need, and none of those currently on the list are regarded as having a particularly high priority82. Alternatively, it is likely that the family could be accommodated at Mr Allen’s father’s site in Irthlingborough. By next year, pitches will also be available at ML, and in that case the Council would be able to delay taking any action until that site was ready83. Either way, the family would not be homeless.
105. The gypsy status of Mr Moss is also accepted. However, on his own evidence, Mr Moss is not a permanent resident at the site. At most, he claims to have lived on the site since about the spring of 2013. However, he was not mentioned in Mr Brown’s proof, which was written at the end of April, so it appears that the period may in fact have been shorter than this. Before that, he was not living in the area, or even in the same County. In any event, Mr Moss says that he plans to leave the appeal site in the Spring, to go travelling, and he admits there is no certainty that he will return. From the evidence presented, the Council considers that Mr Moss’s connection with the Bedford area is only a transitory one. As such, it is argued that his circumstances carry little weight in the appeal84.
106. As far as Mr Draper is concerned, it is now said that he has lived on the site, for around two years, and yet there was no mention of his existence until January 2014. There is no clear evidence that either Mr Draper or his partner Wonny Jones have gypsy status, nor whether they have any local connections. Similar considerations apply to Mr Steven Smith, except that he did not give evidence at the inquiry, and it was accepted that no reliance could be placed on his unsigned statement.
80 Mr Kyle’s oral evidence 81 Doc. COU-1A, Appx 22 (Email re Council tax records, 26 April 2013) 82 Doc. COU-7 (Mr Kyle’s proof) ; and Mr Kyle’s oral evidence 83 Oral evidence of Mr White 84 Doc. COU-31 (closing submissions, para 6.7) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 20 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
107. No direct evidence has been given by any of the other persons said to be occasional or intermittent occupiers, and the information given about them has no credibility.
108. There is no evidence of any persons other than the Allen family and Mr Moss having gypsy status, nor that any apart from the Allens have any local connection to the Bedford area. If any of the claimed occupiers had a history of resorting to the area or living on the roadside or other unauthorised encampments, it is likely that they would be known to the Council, but the Council has no records or knowledge of any of these people85. None has applied to go on any Council waiting list, or to use any other Council service86. Mr and Mrs Allen expressly rejected a waiting list application form when one was offered. None of the occupiers other than Mr Allen, Mr Moss and Mr Draper, who gave evidence at the inquiry, have ever been seen, and their existence is not proven.
109. No particular circumstances have been put forward in support of any particular health or education needs in respect of any of the alleged or proposed occupiers. Apart from the Allens, none of the other households alleged to be living on the site now are alleged to have any dependent children.
110. The Council accepts that refusal of planning permission would interfere with the human rights of any occupiers now living on the site, but such an infringement is necessary and proportionate, and is outweighed by the desirability of upholding the policies of the development plan.
The Council’s submissions on other matters
111. In the Council’s view, there is little in the argument that Mr Allen needs to live at the appeal site to tend to his horses there. At most, officers have only rarely seen any horses on the site, nor any signs of animal feed, tack, or equipment, and the stables permitted in 2012 have not progressed beyond a token start. The appeal site is also remote from Mr Allen’s larger areas of grazing land, at Irthlingborough, Yelden and Barnwell87.
112. If the appeal were dismissed, the use of the land for grazing horses could continue, and the stables could be built. But the stables cannot lawfully be used for any commercial activity, and Mr Allen’s horse-keeping is for the purposes of buying and selling. The only lawful use of the land is agricultural, and the site would need to be restored to its former condition for that use. The Council therefore gives little weight to any fall-back use.
113. With regard to the planning permission granted for a dwelling at No 10 The Avenue, the Council argues that that site is within the Bletsoe SPA boundary, and the permission therefore accorded with development plan policies. Had an application been received for a caravan pitch on that site, the Council would have applied the same policies, and would probably have granted permission. Similarly, if an application had been made at the present appeal site for four houses, or even for a single house, it would have been refused, on policy grounds. The Council therefore believes that it has taken an even-handed
85 Oral evidence of Mr Kyle 86 Oral evidence of Mr Kyle 87 Doc. COU-23 (map of appellant’s grazing land locations) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 21 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
approach to gypsy and traveller developments compared to other housing schemes88.
114. The Council also submits that weight should be given to the need for consistency in planning decisions89. In the 2009 appeal, the Inspector found the site to be unsuitable for a gypsy and traveller site on a permanent basis. The sustainability considerations that led her to that view have not changed since then. On the other hand, Circular 01/2006, which said that rural sites were acceptable in principle, has been cancelled and replaced by the PPTS, which requires such sites to be strictly limited. And in addition, the Council has now taken decisive action to meet the Borough’s unmet need, through the extension of the KH site, and the imminent development at ML. In the Council’s view, these changes of circumstance clearly weigh against any renewal of the previous temporary permission.
The case for the Appellant
Submissions on policy matters
115. The appellant submits that paragraph 23 of the PPTS does not seek to strictly limit all gypsy and traveller developments in the countryside, but only those that are in ‘open’ countryside, and away from settlements. Elsewhere in the countryside, both paragraph 23 and also paragraph 12 of the PPTS should be seen as permissive in principle90. Whilst the appellant accepts that the appeal site is in the countryside, in his view it is not open countryside, and nor is it away from the settlement of Bletsoe.
116. The appellant argues that the PPTS defines sustainability only in terms of the factors listed in paragraph 11. Proximity to local facilities, and accessibility by different modes of transport do not feature in the list. This shows that those considerations are no longer seen as important in gypsy and traveller proposals91. This interpretation is supported by an appeal decision on a site at Slapton, in Buckinghamshire, where the Inspector held that sustainability should be judged on a broader basis than simply in relation to transport92. It is argued that this represents a change from the previous policy under Circular 01/2006.
117. In the appellant’s submission, the reference in PPTS paragraph 4 to promoting private traveller sites should be read as a requirement to promote private sites over public; and as an instruction to break down the assessment of demand into these different types, and to make provision accordingly93. This interpretation is supported by an appeal decision at East Malling, in Kent, in which the Inspector held that the assessment of need should include qualitative as well as quantitative aspects94.
88 Oral evidence of Mr White 89 Doc. COU-31 (Closing submissions, paras 2.4 – 2.5) 90 Doc. APP-1 (Mr Brown’s proof, paras 3.6 and 5.7-5.9); and Mr Brown’s oral evidence 91 Doc. APP-1 (Mr Brown’s proof, paragraph 5.26); and Mr Brown’s oral evidence 92 Doc. APP-5, Appx 2 (Slapton appeal decision, paras 47-60) 93 Doc. APP-18 (Closing submissions, para 2.1.8 (5)); and oral evidence of Mr Brown 94 Doc. APP-5, Appx 1 (East Malling appeal decision, paras 17-18) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 22 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
118. In addition, the appellant contends that this approach is supported by paragraph 50 of the NPPF, which encourages authorities to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, to widen opportunities for home ownership, and to plan for the needs of different groups in the community95. In the appellant’s submission, this paragraph must apply equally to gypsy and traveller provision as to other housing, as otherwise the policy would be discriminatory. In that context, the appellant argues that paragraph 50 requires GTAAs to address the differing requirements of particular sections of the gypsy and traveller community.
119. In the light of the above, it is submitted by the appellant that CSRIP Policy CP9 is inconsistent with national policy in certain respects96. Firstly, CP9 makes it a pre-requisite that there should be a proven quantitative need. The appellant argues that there is no such requirement in the PPTS; and nor is there an equivalent requirement in relation to housing for the settled population. Secondly, CP9 does not provide for differing qualitative needs or preferences, such as tenure. Thirdly, the reference to local need in criterion (i) could be taken to mean that applicants must have a local connection. And fourthly it is argued that, in imposing a requirement as to accessibility to facilities, criterion (v) is out of date. The appellant also criticises CP9’s sequential preference as unrealistic.
120. But nevertheless, the appellant maintains that Policy CP9 does not rule out sites in the countryside or the rural policy area in principle. It is argued that, in the circumstances of the present case, the appeal proposal complies fully with CP9, or alternatively that it complies with all those of its criteria that are consistent with national policy97.
121. With regard to Policy CP13, relating to development in the countryside, it is argued that the appeal proposal complies with all relevant national policies, and thus meets CP13’s requirements.
122. In the case of Policy CP14, the policy admits development in the rural area where there is a need. Although the Council’s briefing notes98 do not specifically mention gypsy and traveller needs in this context, the appellant submits that it would be discriminatory to interpret the policy in a way that excluded those groups. And whilst the policy prioritises key service centres, it does not rule out sites at smaller villages. The briefing notes make it clear that the criteria relating to developments in these latter cases may be applied with some flexibility. The permission granted for a dwelling at No 10 The Avenue relied on a flexible approach. In the appellant’s view, it would be discriminatory to apply a different approach to the appeal proposal99.
123. The appellant submits that, because the proposal is substantially compliant with relevant local and national policies, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 14.
95 Doc. APP-18 (Closing submissions, paras 2.1.8 (1-2) and 2.1.10 (2)) 96 Doc. APP-1 (Mr Brown’s proof, esp. para 5.14); and Mr Brown’s oral evidence 97 Doc. APP-1 (Mr Brown’s proof, paras 5.5 - 5.31); and Mr Brown’s oral evidence 98 Docs. GEN-18 and GEN-19 (Briefing Notes re Policy CP14) 99 Mr Brown’s oral evidence www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 23 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
Appellant’s submissions on accessibility and sustainability
124. Notwithstanding the appellant’s submission that criterion (v) of Policy CP9 should be given little weight, it is also argued that in any event the policy does not specify any maximum distance from local facilities. Nor does it say that access by foot, cycle, or public transport, is essential.
125. The appellant contends that the range of facilities at Sharnbrook is good, including primary and upper schools, a doctor’s surgery, post office, small supermarket, chemist and other shops. Alternatively, there is a choice of schools at other local villages, including Milton Ernest, Riseley, Clapham, and Oakley, which together cover all age ranges. The primary school at Milton Ernest is only 2.4 km from the appeal site, which is closer than the one at Sharnbrook. Between them these villages provide for all necessary facilities, within a radius of no more than 6-8 km. These distances are not unreasonable in comparison to most other gypsy and traveller sites, or indeed for any development in rural areas.
126. In addition, it is submitted that the local bus services, although limited, have some scope for replacing car journeys; and that Sharnbrook and the other nearby villages are well within cycling distance; and that the relevant section of the A6 has a continuous footway on its eastern side. But in any event, it is argued that it is not unusual for gypsy and traveller sites to have a relatively high dependency on the car, and indeed this should not be regarded as unacceptable, because a high car usage is a necessary part of the traditional nomadic way of life.
127. The appellant also contends that, if sustainability is judged instead against the criteria in PPTS paragraph 11, the appeal site scores well, because it provides a settled base for its occupiers, with good environmental conditions, free from any flood risk, and does not place undue pressure on local infrastructure. The site also provides Mr Allen himself with a home where he can keep some of his horses close to him, particularly those that are in foal or needing extra attention, reducing his need to travel, and facilitating an activity which is said to provide about half of his income, and which is an important part of the gypsy culture.
128. It is further argued that the permission for a dwelling at 10 The Avenue shows that the Council must have considered development at Bletsoe to be acceptable from a sustainability point of view. The appeal site abuts the end of No 10’s garden, and it would therefore be illogical, as well as discriminatory, to treat it differently.
129. Attention is drawn to appeal decisions at Abthorpe, in Northants100, and at Sykehouse, in the Borough of Doncaster101, in which it appears that similar considerations were involved, and where the sites in question were judged sufficiently sustainable.
100 Doc. APP-1, Appx 2 (Abthorpe appeal decision) 101 Doc. APP-1, Appx 3 (Sykehouse appeal decision) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 24 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
The appellant’s submissions on local need
130. The appellant submits that the 2012 GTAA fails to reflect the full extent of the need for gypsy and traveller sites in the area. Firstly, this is because it deals only with the administrative area of Bedford Borough102. In the RSS, need was looked at on a regional and sub-regional basis, and adjustments were made to reflect the varying constraints and opportunities of each area. The Panel Report recognised that other parts of Bedfordshire, now known as Central Bedfordshire District, had large areas subject to Green Belt and flooding. The constraints in adjoining counties such as Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire were also taken into account. The allocation to Bedford reflected these wider considerations. That approach was tested through a public examination and was found to be robust103. When Bedford Council became responsible for its own assessments, the requirement dropped dramatically. The appellant suggests that this is because the Council has ignored the needs of the surrounding authorities. That approach is contrary to the PPTS’s policy of encouraging collaboration between authorities, and contrary to the DCLG guidance on GTAAs104. The appellant’s criticisms of the GTAA in this respect were supported by the Inspector in the appeal decision relating to the Roxton site105. The constraints in Central Beds are illustrated by a recent decision at Heath & Reach, in which the Secretary of State granted a temporary permission despite the site being in the Green Belt106.
131. Secondly, the appellant argues that the GTAA methodology is unreliable because it is based on only a limited amount of primary survey data, and without the involvement of gypsy and traveller organisations, again contrary to the DCLG guidance. This is said to make it impossible to accurately estimate the demand arising from households wishing to move out of bricks-and-mortar housing, and from in-migration to the district. The GTAA is also criticised for not surveying travellers on unauthorised sites, nor any of the occupiers of the appeal site; and for being conducted during the summer months when some families are likely to be travelling; and for not treating planning applications (such as those at Roxton, Upper Staploe and the present appeal site) as indicators of need. In the appellant’s view, these alleged flaws must mean that the overall need figure is an under-estimate107. Again, some of these points are echoed in the Roxton appeal decision108.
132. Thirdly, it is argued that the GTAA is flawed for mathematical reasons. These include the assumption of a 2:1 ratio of caravans to pitches, and a lack of factoring-up of the household formation figures, to take account of families not covered by the survey sample109.
133. In addition, having regard to the submissions outlined above regarding matters of national policy, the appellant contends that the GTAA should have attempted to break down the overall need figure, to identify separately the
102 Mr Brown’s oral evidence 103 Doc. APP-1 (Mr Brown’s proof, para 5.22) 104 Doc. COU-2A, Appx 3 (DCLG Practice Guidance on GTAAs) 105 Doc. APP-1, Appx 6 (Roxton appeal decision, paras 18-22) 106 Doc. APP-5, Appx 3 (Heath & Reach appeal decision) 107 Mr Brown’s oral evidence 108 Doc. APP-1, Appx 6 (Roxton appeal decision, para 17) 109 Mr Brown’s oral evidence www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 25 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
demand for private sites as opposed to public110. Once again, this point was accepted in the Roxton case111. In this context it is argued that the Council’s proposed supply is dependant on the sites at KH and ML which are both owned and managed by the Council itself, and that such sites suffer drawbacks which make them unpopular or unsuitable for many prospective occupiers. These alleged drawbacks include the need to continue paying full rent to reserve a pitch while travelling; a lack of proper facilities for keeping horses; difficulties with mixing different racial groups; and inadequate management. It is further argued that the Council’s failure to allow gypsies and travellers a choice between public and private sites is discriminatory, because such a choice is open to members of the settled community. It is also said that this is contrary to aspects of the DCLG practice guidance112.
134. Although the GTAA was endorsed by the ADLP Inspector, in the appellant’s submission that does not mean that it is no longer open to criticism. The GTAA is not part of the ADLP itself, and no gypsy and traveller policies or proposals were proposed. The ADLP examination did not have to deal with any serious objections relating to gypsy and traveller matters. The GTAA was therefore not examined in detail, and it is open to the Secretary of State to consider its shortcomings in the context of the present appeal113.
135. In any event, the GTAA shows that, as of now, there is an immediate unmet need for at least 14 pitches. In numerical terms, that need might be met by the ML development, but that is yet to be seen; that development does not provide an option for travellers needing accommodation now. There is no certainty as to when the planned new pitches will be delivered, and therefore the Council cannot claim a 5-year supply.
136. In addition, the appellant argues that the sites that the Council relies on are unsatisfactory. ML is subject to unacceptable noise, flood risks and odours, for reasons discussed below. KH is in an unsatisfactory location, between a main road and a railway, and isolated from other residential development. The site also has a record of poor tenant relationships. In recent times, there was trouble that resulted in the electricity supply being cut off for three weeks114. Roxton cannot be relied on, because the permission granted on appeal is still subject to the Council’s legal challenge, which is unresolved. The only other site considered by the Council was the Fairhill site, which again was on Council-owned land, and was eventually rejected because of its poor environment. The fact that this site was ever proposed at all shows that the Council has little regard for living conditions on its gypsy and traveller sites115.
137. The appellant submits that, despite clear evidence of unmet needs, the Council has consistently failed to allocate any new gypsy and traveller sites through the development plan process. This represents a failure of past and present policies116. The allocations that were expected at the time of the 2009 appeal failed to materialise. Now that the ADLP has been adopted, the opportunity
110 Doc. APP-1 (Mr Brown’s proof, para 5.21) 111 Doc. APP-1, Appx 6 (Roxton appeal decision, para 19) 112 Mr Brown’s oral evidence 113 Mr Brown’s oral evidence 114 Doc. APP-7 (Note from Mr Paul Ferguson) 115 Mr Brown’s oral evidence 116 Doc. APP-1 (Mr Brown’s proof, paras 5.59-5.60), and Mr Brown’s oral evidence www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 26 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
has disappeared. Even if any allocations are made in the proposed new local plan, that will take some years. But no such allocations are currently envisaged by the Council. In the absence of any such allocations coming through the development plan route, the only way of providing any new gypsy and traveller sites is through planning applications, in accordance with Policy CP9, as acknowledged by the ADLP Inspector117.
Appellant’s submissions on the Meadow Lane site
138. In the appellant’s submission, the ML site is unsuitable, unsustainable, and unacceptable for residential occupation, for a number of reasons. The first is odour118. The site is downwind of Bedford’s main sewage works and adjacent to a commercial abattoir. Originally, the site was recommended for deferral. That recommendation was based on ‘sniff tests’, and advice from the Environmental Health Officer that the Council would be open to a finding of statutory nuisance. Planning officers advised that the level of residential amenity on the site would be unacceptable119. The recommendation was overturned, without any new or convincing evidence.
139. The Council’s evidence at this inquiry does not dispel the original concerns. Despite Anglian Water’s statements120, it is not clear whether further improvements to the sewage works are to be undertaken, and what the effect of such works will be. It is accepted by the Council that odour levels on Meadow Lane itself, and the access road into the proposed site, would exceed the threshold of acceptability. Access to or from the site on foot would therefore be unpleasant. And in addition, odours arising from the abattoir have never been measured or properly considered by the Council. The lairage, which is one of the most odour-producing parts of the abattoir site, is directly adjacent to the proposed site121.
140. Secondly, the ML site is subject to noise from the dual carriageway A421. Even after the introduction of additional acoustic fencing, the Council predicts daytime noise levels of 58-60 dB(A)122. This is effectively double the ‘desirable’ level of 50dB in BS8233123. It is argued that such a level would be especially harmful to gypsy and traveller families and their children, because their lifestyle often involves spending a good deal of time out of doors124. In addition, the Council’s own evidence shows that the acoustic fence would need to be at least 2.8m high, and would run for several hundred metres. The appellant argues that the effect of this on the proposed traveller site would be visually oppressive and isolating125.
141. Thirdly, the appellant contends that there are issues with the ML development in relation to surface water drainage and pluvial flooding126. The ML site has been observed to be permanently waterlogged, with parts being under water
117 Doc. GEN-14 (ADLP Inspector’s report, para 51) 118 Docs. APP-1 (Mr Brown’s proof, para s 5.50 -5.58); and APP-18 (Closing submissions, paras 2.1.11 (5-6)) 119 Doc. APP-1, Appx 11 (Officers’ report on Meadow Lane application) 120 Docs. COU-10, Attachs 4 and 5 (Anglian Water letters); and COU-11, Appx 4 (AW statement Aug 2013) 121 Doc. APP-10 (Abattoir site layout plan) 122 Doc. COU-4, Appx 1.2 (Spectrum Consultants’ noise report, paragraph 6.3) 123 Doc. COU-27 (BS8233:1999) 124 Doc. APP-18 (Closing submissions, paras 2.1.11 (3-4)) 125 Mr Brown’s oral evidence 126 Doc. APP-18 (Closing submissions, paras 2.1.11 (7-8 and 10-11)) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 27 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
for much of the year. Although the Council proposes to install surface water drainage for the new pitches and roadways, they acknowledge that the remainder of the larger site will continue to have standing water on it during wet weather127. This will be a potential danger to children and other occupiers, as well as creating a poor visual setting for the development. Although the Council now intends to provide secure fencing to prevent access to the floodable area, in the appellant’s view this will exacerbate the development’s isolation and its poor residential environment128.
142. The proposed pumping stations and storage tanks associated with the surface and foul drainage systems will be sited in the waterlogged area. These structures and their footings and excavations will cause the displacement of water which currently lies either on the ground or in it. This will raise the level of the standing water across the site, and in the appellant’s view, this will increase the risk of flooding to the new traveller pitches. Although the part of the site where the new pitches will be is classed as a low flood risk area, that is only because of the proposed changes to site levels. The appellant contends that the Council has not considered this issue or carried out any calculations of the volumes of water, nor has it identified any possible solutions. Caravans are a highly vulnerable form of development and the occupants will be at risk.
143. Furthermore, with regard to the required off-site drainage works and acoustic fencing, the appellant argues that there is no certainty as to whether or when the necessary agreements with the Highways Agency will be concluded, and it is unclear whether these works can be carried out without involving other third-party landowners. The works that are needed beyond the A421 may also require a further planning permission, which has not yet been applied for. It is suggested that, at the very least, these uncertainties put the timing of the ML development in doubt, if not the whole delivery of the project itself129.
144. The appellant also points to the danger to children from the dual carriageway road130; the proximity of the ESP site, where incidents have taken place involving violence and damage to property131; the fact that the site is isolated from any existing residential community; and the potential visibility from Meadow Lane of animal carcasses and waste products being transported within the abattoir site. In the appellant’s submission, these factors will contribute to ML being unpopular with travellers, as well as environmentally unacceptable132.
145. In addition the appellant notes that, at the site visit, the Council drew attention to the presence on the ML site of New Zealand Pygmyweed, listed by DEFRA as an invasive, non-native species, and insisted on precautions to prevent its transmission elsewhere. It is suggested that this is a notifiable plant and a bio-hazard, and that the need to take precautions is likely to adversely affect the day-to-day life of the site’s occupants133.
127 Oral evidence of Mr Parker 128 Oral evidence of Mr Brown 129 Doc. APP-18 (Closing submissions, para 2.1.11 (9)) 130 Doc. APP-18 (Closing submissions, para 2.1.11 (15)) 131 Doc. APP-11 (press item); Doc. APP-18 (Closing submissions, para 2.1.11 (13)); and oral evidence of Mr Kyle 132 Mr Brown’s oral evidence 133 Doc. APP-18 (Closing submissions, para 2.1.11 (2 and 12)) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 28 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
146. It is further suggested by the appellant that, if occupiers of the ML site were to bring an action for statutory nuisance, in respect of either the odour or noise problems, the result could be that the Council had no choice but to close the gypsy and traveller site134.
147. Comparing the ML site to the present appeal site at Bletsoe, the appellant contends that the appeal site does not suffer any of the problems of the ML site with regard to environmental quality. And although the Council considers the appeal site poorly located for access to facilities, in reality the appellant suggests the ML site is no better. It is therefore suggested that ML is clearly the less suitable of the two sites, and the less sequentially preferable. It is further argued that in these respects the ML site is so poor that it is unlikely that planning permission would have been granted for housing, and that the Council’s decision to pursue a development there for gypsies and travellers was discriminatory. In the light of all these considerations, the appellant argues that planning permission for the ML site should not have been granted, and that little weight should be given to it as an alternative to the appeal site
Appellant’s submissions on personal needs and circumstances
148. Mr Allen gave evidence135 that he is a Romany Gypsy, and grew up on his father’s caravan site at Irthlingborough. He states that he travels for about 6 months a year, doing groundworks and demolition, and dealing in scrap. He also earns part of his living from breeding and trading horses. After marrying his wife Natalie in 2003, he needed to move away from Irthlingborough because of differences with Mr Allen (Snr), and purchased ‘Waiting for the Sun’ Farm from his father because it offered the opportunity to keep some of his horses there.
149. He and Natalie have lived at the appeal site off and on since 2003, and it has been their settled base since 2008. They now have three children whose ages range from 3 to 10 years. The couple want their elder children to attend one of the local schools when their future in the area is settled, but until then the older two have had home tutoring. The family is registered with the local doctors’ practice in Sharnbrook.
150. Mr Allen states that he and his father have invested over £60,000 in works to the appeal site, with the initial site clearance and building repairs, and later works to comply with planning conditions, including installing a sewage plant and drainage, hardstanding, access improvements, fencing, lighting and landscaping. He also states that he has no other home, and no more capital to start again. He would not want to live on a Council site because it would be impractical to keep his horses close by, and because rent would have to be paid even when he was away travelling. He lets the three spare pitches at the appeal site to travellers who he knows, and they come and go for a few weeks or months, often returning at intervals. In total, Mr Allan states that at least 20 or 30 families or individuals have stayed on the site, and whenever a vacancy arises, it is usually filled within a week.
134 Doc. APP-1 (Mr Brown’s proof, para 5.57); and Doc. 135 Doc. APP-2 (Mr Allen’s witness statement) and Mr Allen’s oral evidence www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 29 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
151. Mr Michael Moss gave evidence136 that he and his partner Michelle Stevens currently occupy one of the pitches at the appeal site, for which they pay a weekly rent to Mr Allen. Mr Moss states that he is a Romany Gypsy by birth, has always travelled, and has never lived any other lifestyle. By trade he is a roofer, and travels to find work for about 7 or 8 months a year. Although he is originally from Cornwall, the Bedford area has been part of his regular travelling route for the last few years. On some occasions he has stayed at Mr Allen (Snr)’s site at Irthlingborough, where he is registered with a doctor, but when that site was full, he started coming to Bletsoe instead. On this occasion, he and his partner came to the appeal site in the early summer of 2013, and have kept a pitch there ever since, although they have spent some time travelling during that period.
152. Mr Moss states that he and Ms Stevens now intend to make Bletsoe their main base, where they will stay through the winter, and also return at intervals during the summer. They also hope to start a family, and when that happens, they will travel less and send their children to one of the local schools. Mr Moss prefers private sites, because Council sites can involve conflicts with the other residents, and maintenance problems, and the pitch has to be paid for all year round, even when the tenant is away travelling. The Bletsoe site is peaceful and well managed, and he and his partner can pursue their way of life more easily.
153. Evidence was also given by Mr Jim Draper137. He and his partner Wonny Jones also currently rent a pitch at the appeal site. Mr Draper states that he works as a tree surgeon and travels to find work, both locally and further afield. He and Wonny first came to the appeal site about two years ago, and although they have often left to go travelling for a few weeks at a time, they have always left one of their caravans on the appeal site to reserve their pitch for when they return. They regard it as their main base, and feel settled there. They have no other home. Mr Draper has lived in the Beds/Northants area, off and on, for around 13 years. He has a family connection with the Varey family of travellers, who also frequently stay at the appeal site. Ms Jones has a sister in Northampton. Mr Draper dislikes Council sites, because they are often in poor locations, whereas the appeal site offers fresh air and a good environment.
154. The fourth pitch at the site is said to be occupied by Mr and Mrs Steven and Sharon Smith, who are both from the Beds/Northants area, and have a daughter and grandson at Ringstead138.
155. The names of about a dozen or so other travellers who had lived or stayed on the site at various times were mentioned in oral and written evidence to the inquiry. These included Mr Robert Jones139, William and Lisa McAllister, Henry and Fiona Varey, William and Sarah Varey, Michael Smith, Kevin Smith, Henry Kroll, ‘Noddy’ (or Muddy) Parker, and a Mr O’Neil and a Mr Winter140. In general, the appellant argues that this pattern of usage is fairly typical of small privately rented sites, and that the high turnover and the number of return
136 Docs. APP-4 and APP-17 (Witness statements of Mr Moss); and Mr Moss’s oral evidence 137 Doc. APP-16 (Mr Draper’s witness statement); and Mr Draper’s oral evidence 138 Doc. APP-13 (Draft witness statement of Steven Smith) 139 Docs. APP-3 and APP-8 (witness statements of R Jones) 140 Oral evidence of Mr Allen and Mr Brown; and Doc. APP-1 (Mr Brown’s proof, paras 5.32 and 5.34) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 30 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
visits shows that there is a need for a facility of this type in the area. Most of those who use the appeal site do so in preference to public sites such as KH because the environment and management are better, and the terms are more flexible.
156. The Council’s allegation that the site was unoccupied or under-occupied at various times is disputed. Mr Allen maintains that, at the times when officers visited in 2013, the site was fully occupied; the occupiers may have been travelling, or at work, or the officers may simply have been mistaken as to what they saw. The three occupiers who gave evidence all testified that they were living on the site throughout January 2014.
Appellant’s submissions on other matters
157. The appellant suggests that the previous Inspector, in 2009, found no significant harm to the CA or its setting, or to the area’s character and appearance, or residential amenity, or highway safety. It is submitted that nothing has occurred to justify taking a different view on any of these matters.
158. It is also argued that the 2009 Inspector made the initial permission temporary only because she thought that other preferable sites were likely to come forward through the development plan process, in addition to ML and KH. The sites that were being looked at by the Council at that time were in the Willington and Cople area. Since then, those sites did not come forward, and are no longer being pursued; and no other new sites have taken their place. The Fairhill site has been considered, but has now been abandoned.
159. A number of other circumstances have changed since 2009. Those to which the appellant draws particular attention include: the introduction of the NPPF and PPTS; the adoption of the ADLP; High Court judgements relating to the proportionality test141 and the obligation to give weight to the best interests of children142; the granting of the planning permissions for a dwelling at No 10 The Avenue; the permission for the new stables at the appeal site, and the effects of this in providing a fallback use of the site, for horse-keeping.
160. With regard to human rights, it is argued that any refusal of permission would be an interference with the rights of the present occupiers, in terms of the right to respect for private and family life, and the right to enjoyment of the ownership of land; and a breach of the obligation to facilitate the gypsy way of life; and that such interference would be disproportionate.
161. If permanent planning permission is refused, the appellant requests that a further temporary permission should be granted, and that such permission should be for at least 3 years.
141 Doc. APP-1, Appx 8 (‘AZ’ judgement) 142 ZH (Tanzania) v SoS, February 2011 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 31 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
The case for Bletsoe Parish Council and Bletsoe Residents’ Association
162. In general, the Rule 6 Group endorses the case made by the Council on policy and sustainability grounds, and in terms of the issues relating to need and alternative sites, as set out above143.
163. In addition to these issues, the Group contends that ever since the present caravan site was established, the development has failed to promote peaceful co-existence as sought by the PPTS144. Local residents have been subjected to nuisance due to unauthorised commercial activities, fires, dogs, excessive lighting, aggressive behaviour, abuse and intimidation. These incidents are recorded in the declaration made by Mrs Venn before her death, and in the Log which she kept on behalf of BRA, and the photographs which now accompany it145. The goat shed was rebuilt without planning permission, and was fitted with a vehicle inspection pit and lifting gear, and an industrial electrical supply. The activities on the site have caused serious harm to the amenities of the village and of local residents. Mrs Venn and her husband moved away solely because of the distress they were suffering.
164. As well as unauthorised uses and development, BPC/BRA points to numerous breaches of planning conditions146. The limit on the number of caravans has been exceeded, and commercial vehicles larger than the permitted size have been kept at the site. The access improvements were carried out without getting the necessary detailed approval, and by a non-approved contractor. The visibility splays have never been properly provided147. The hardstanding was constructed without proper approval, using road planings, which may have caused contamination148. Keeping track of these activities and ensuring compliance has been a drain on the Council’s resources, and a worry for local residents. If the development is allowed to remain, the appellant’s past record gives no confidence regarding compliance with planning requirements in the future.
165. Concern about the potential for contamination is also expressed in relation to the facilities provided for sewage disposal, drainage, and present and past commercial uses149.
166. Given the location, it is argued that the development could only be made economically sustainable by allowing it to include a mix of other uses, and in BPC/BRA’s view, any such additional uses would cause further harm. Paragraph 18 of the PPTS specifically advises that mixed uses are not appropriate on rural exception sites (although here it is not accepted that the appeal site should be seen as an exception site anyway). Consequently, it is argued that the site is incapable of being sustainable.
167. The Group also argues that the development harms the setting of the Bletsoe CA150. In 2009 the Inspector found that the impression of a compact
143 Docs. BPC 6 (Mr Feaver’s statement); and BCP-9 and BPC-14 (opening and closing submissions) 144 Docs. BPC-6 (Mr Feaver – paras 24, 27, and 31-36); BPC-7 (declaration by Claire Woodward); and BPC-8 (declaration and exhibits - Gillian Venn) 145 Docs. BPC-8, Exhibits 1 and 2 (Mrs Venn’s log and photographs) 146 Doc. BPC-6, Appx 1 (Mr Feaver - note on discharge of conditions) 147 Doc, BPC-6 (Mr Feaver’s statement, paragraph 37) 148 Doc. BPC-6, Appx 7 (Note re asphalt planings) 149 Doc. BPC-7 (Claire Woodward’s declaration) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 32 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
settlement in the landscape would be diluted. Since then, English Heritage has published new guidance on the setting of heritage assets151. Similar advice also appears in the new PPG. In the light of this guidance, the effect identified by the Inspector now constitutes significant harm.
168. The wildlife survey carried out in 2008 found two rare species, and said that with sympathetic management the site could in time develop into a wildlife site of county importance152. The objectors contend that the continuation of the present use would make the realisation of that aim unlikely.
169. With regard to the site access, it is argued that the appellant’s failure to complete all of the required improvements have left the access lacking proper visibility. Given the speed of the traffic on the A6, the objectors consider that the access in its present condition is dangerous. This situation is exacerbated by dogs from the development straying onto the highway.
170. The objectors submit that housing for the settled community would never be permitted on the appeal site, because of its location in the countryside. It is argued that treating gypsy and traveller developments differently, solely because of the applicant’s race or ethnicity, is contrary to the PPTS’ aim of ensuring fair and equal treatment, thus breeding resentment and disharmony.
171. In the light of the appellant’s evidence, it is argued that the appeal site has functioned as a transit site for travellers who have no connection with the area, and who have no intention of seeking a long-term home in one place153. This is said to invalidate any case based on the needs of the individual occupiers.
172. Furthermore, from figures provided by East Northants District Council, it appears that over the last 5 years there has always been spare capacity at Mr Allen (Snr)’s site at Irthlingborough154. The Rule 6 Group argues that any of those now occupying the appeal site, or who have occupied it at various times, could equally well be accommodated there.
173. If permanent planning permission is granted at the Bletsoe site for the four pitches now proposed, BPC and BRA are concerned that this could become a precedent for a larger number in the future. The original application was for eight pitches, and the appellant has always made it clear that he considers that the site could accommodate a larger number.
174. It is alleged that an earlier award of costs to BRA (resulting from the withdrawal of the appeal against the first enforcement notice) was never settled, and that attempts to secure payment were aggressively rebuffed155. This is cited by BPC/BRA as a further example of the lack of peaceful co- existence and integration with the existing community.
175. With regard to any rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, the objectors submit that neither the appellant nor any other occupiers have ever had the right to
150 Doc, BPC-6 (Mr Feaver’s statement, paras 28-30); and BPC-6, Appx 4A (plan of CA and village boundaries) 151 ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets: English heritage Guidance’ 152 Doc. BPC-8, Exhibit 3.1 (Wildlife Survey) 153 Doc BPC-14 (closing submissions) 154 Doc. BPC-12 (Irthlingborough caravan counts) 155 Docs. BPC-9 (Opening submissions, para 9); and BPC-10 and 11 (Process Servers’ statements) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 33 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
regard the appeal site as their permanent home, because the permission granted was only for a temporary period156.
The submissions by other interested persons
Mr Alistair Burt MP 157
176. Mr Burt supports the submissions presented by the Council and BPC/BRA. In particular, he contends that Bletsoe is an unsuitable and unsustainable location for a permanent gypsy and travellers’ development. The appeal site is only accessible via a busy main road, and has no facilities near. Temporary planning permission was granted only because of the lack of alternative sites at that time. The Inspector made it clear that the permission that she granted was not to be seen as a precedent for allowing the use to become permanent.
177. Since that previous appeal decision, the Meadow Lane site has been shown to be fit for purpose, and there is a firm commitment by the Council to secure its early provision. That will be sufficient to cater for the Borough’s needs, as demonstrated by the latest assessment. The GTAA has been found sound by the ADLP Inspector. There is therefore no longer any need for the previously proposed gypsy and traveller sites plan, or for any additional sites.
178. There is no evidence that the development at the present appeal site is justified by the needs of the appellant or the site occupiers. Indeed, the evidence shows that the site has been under-occupied. It appears to be mainly a speculative venture, unrelated to any needs arising in the local area.
179. In addition, Mr Burt argues that the appeal site is very important to the rural character of the village of Bletsoe and its setting, and that of the local CA. The site directly abuts residential properties and there is a serious risk of the existing community being dominated by it. During the time that the development has been in existence, unauthorised commercial activities have taken place on the site, including car breaking, paint spraying and tyre storage. Planning conditions have been flouted. Proper management by the site owner has been lacking. Local people have borne the brunt, and as a result there have been considerable tensions between the site occupants and the settled community.
180. This is a far cry from the peaceful integration and harmonious coexistence that policies seek to foster. Public confidence in the enforceability of planning controls has been undermined. It is clear by now that on this site, allowing the use to continue would not be likely to produce such an outcome. An extension of permission should therefore now be refused.
Councillor Alison Foster158 181. Ms Foster is a Borough Councillor, a resident of Bletsoe, a former Committee member of BRA, and a former friend of the late Mr & Mrs Venn. She endorses the submissions of the Council and other objectors as above. Mrs Venn used to discuss with her the concerns she had over unauthorised activities on the
156 Doc. BPC-6 (Mr Feaver’s statement, para 40) 157 Docs. OIP-3 and OIP-4 (Mr Burt’s letter of 20 May 2013 and statement to the inquiry, dated November 2013) 158 Doc. OIP-5 (Cllr Foster’s statement) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 34 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
appeal site, and these were all recorded in her Log159. The Log also included incidents reported by other local residents.
182. In Cllr Foster’s view, the Council’s ability to enforce proper control had been hampered by Mr Allen’s insistence that planning officers should only visit the site by prior arrangement. Cllr Foster had personally witnessed road planings being brought onto the site from repair works on the A6, and these were used to raise the ground level on part of the site by 0.5m. This had adversely affected the privacy of adjoining properties. Cllr Foster also shares BPC/BRA’s concerns about the environmental effects of road planings, and raises an additional concern regarding the potential for contamination resulting from any damage to the sewage pipes that run underneath the raised area.
183. It is argued by Cllr Foster that little weight should be given to any argument that the appellant needs to live at the site to tend to his horses. She herself has only ever seen one pony on the site regularly, and two or three others very occasionally. In her view, they do not appear well cared-for. Having regard for the British Horse Society’s recommendations, the site only has capacity for up to three horses. The site has no permission for a horse- breeding business. When Mr Allen is away travelling, the animals cannot be looked after at the site. He has other grazing land available to him, and there is no compelling need for the Bletsoe site as well.
184. Cllr Foster has particular concerns regarding the management of the site. From Mr Allen’s evidence it appears that a large number of people are allowed to stay at the site for short periods and then move on, but there are no records and apparently no controls over their actions or behaviour whilst they are on the site. Sometimes the number of occupants has exceeded the limits set down by the existing planning conditions. However, in recent months the site was unoccupied, or largely so, for a period of time.
185. Cllr Foster was responsible for obtaining the information originally presented by BPC/BRA regarding the site at Irthlingborough160. That information has now been updated to include the official caravan count carried out in January 2014 161. The site was assessed as having 7 vacant spaces at that time, and has had significant numbers of vacancies at all previous counts since 2008. The appellant therefore has no need to be homeless. Cllr Foster also points to pitches available at another site, at Hilltop Farm, Ringstead, Northants162, which is the same village that one of the Bletsoe site occupiers, Mr Smith, says that he visits daily to support his daughter and grandson163.
Written representations
186. About 500 written representations were received at the application stage164, and a further 70 or so letters at the appeal stage165, all objecting to the proposed development. The latter include the objections from the three neighbouring Parish Councils.
159 Doc. BPC-8 (Mrs Venn’s log) 160 Docs. BPC-12 (Irthlingborough site caravan counts to July 2013); and BPC-13 (related emails from ENDC) 161 Doc. OIP-5, Appendix 1a (Irthlingborough site caravan counts updated to Jan 2014) 162 Docs. OIP-5, Appxs 1b, 2 and 3 (Ringstead site) 163 Doc. APP-13 (statement of Mr S Smith) 164 Doc. OIP-1 (Application 3rd party stage letters) 165 Doc. OIP-2 (Appeal stage 3rd party letters) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 35 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
187. In addition to the matters raised by objectors at the inquiry, the written representations make reference, amongst other things, to the development’s intrusive visual impact on the landscape, and the fact that applications for housing development in the surrounding area have been refused.
188. Objectors also refer to a further range of unauthorised activities at the site, including the storage of scrap metal, asbestos waste and demolition materials, and the burning of green waste said to be from a landscaping business.
INSPECTOR’S CONCLUSIONS166
The main issues
189. In the light of all of the evidence and submissions before me, including those made in writing, the main issues in this case appear to me to be as follows:
(i) whether the continued use of the appeal site would accord with the relevant development plan policies, and whether the latter are consistent with national policy;
(ii) whether the continuation of the use would be acceptable having regard to the site’s accessibility to local facilities;
(iii) whether the continuation of the use would cause any significant harm in any other respect;
(iv) whether the continued use of the appeal site is necessary to meet a general need for traveller sites in the locality, either because of problems with the Council’s proposed site at Meadow Lane, or for any other reason;
(v) whether the use of the appeal site should be allowed to continue because of the personal circumstances and needs of the site’s occupiers;
Issue (i): compliance with the development plan, and consistency between local and national policies
Policy considerations relating to development in the countryside
190. CSRIP Policies CP13 and CP14 seek generally to protect the countryside and the Rural Policy Area from most forms of development [29]. The appellant argues that such policies should not apply to gypsy and traveller developments [115, 119].
191. It is true that the PPTS does not rule out countryside locations, and nor indeed does CSRIP Policy CP9. PPTS paragraph 12 implicitly acknowledges the possibility that some sites may be permitted in rural or semi-rural settings, and although paragraph 23 refers to strictly limiting sites in ‘open’ countryside, that phrase is qualified so as to apply primarily to sites which are ‘away from settlements’. There is also some force in the argument that in many cases the countryside is likely to be the only practical location for gypsy and traveller sites.
166 In this section, where numbers appear in square brackets [], these refer back to earlier paragraphs of this report. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 36 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
192. However, whilst these are matters which can be weighed in the planning balance, alongside the relevant policy considerations, there is nothing in either the PPTS or NPPF that suggests that local plans may not contain general policies for countryside protection. On the contrary, the recognition of the countryside’s intrinsic character and beauty is one of the NPPF’s core planning principles [35], and the protection of local amenity and the environment is included in the PPTS’s main aims [37]. Nothing in either document supports the view that gypsy and traveller developments should be immune from these general policy considerations. I therefore find no inconsistency between Policies CP13 and CP14 and the relevant national policies.
193. Judged against those policies, the appeal site is clearly in the countryside, and in the Rural Area, as defined in the development plan. In principle therefore, the continuation of the use as a caravan site conflicts with the aim of these policies.
194. Both policies allow exceptions in some circumstances. But in Policy CP13, the only exception is for developments which accord with national policy. Here, there is nothing in national policy which gives clear-cut support to the appeal proposal. In the case of Policy CP14, I accept that there is no reason in principle why a gypsy and traveller development could not fall within the various exceptions specified. But in the present case, the appeal proposal fails to meet any of the relevant criteria, for the reasons identified by the Council [75]. The proposal therefore conflicts with CP14.
195. Although the published Briefing Note [33] suggests that the Council may apply some flexibility with regard to Policy CP14, it is clear that this is not intended to permit development outside SPA boundaries. And in any event, the Briefing Note is not part of the development plan or local development framework.
196. In addition, the Council argues that the proposed development would also be contrary to Policy H26 of the BLP [25]. However, that policy relates to housing development. If those words are seen as embracing gypsy and traveller sites, then I agree that the present proposal would conflict with it, but in fact the policy’s intention in that respect is not clear. In any event, the aim of restricting housing development in the countryside is already covered by the policies that I have identified above, and consequently it is unnecessary to consider H26 further. But this does not affect my preliminary conclusions with regard to Policies CP13 and 14.
197. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal involves a clear conflict with Policies CP13 and CP14, and that both policies should be given the full weight due to them as part of the adopted development plan.
Policy considerations relating to accessibility and sustainability
198. BLP Policy BE30 (v) and CSRIP Policy CP2 (vii) require consideration of, amongst other things, the extent to which proposed developments can be accessed by public transport, cycling and walking [26/28]. Criterion (v) of CSRIP Policy CP9 relates these concerns specifically to gypsy and traveller developments [29].
199. The appellant argues that because these issues of accessibility and transport mode are not identified in the PPTS, this means that the relevant criteria in
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 37 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
BE30 and CP2 should not apply to gypsy and traveller sites, and that CP9 in particular is out of date and inconsistent with national policy [116/119].
200. However, in the NPPF, paragraph 17 highlights the need for all developments to be located sustainably, and paragraphs 32 and 34 outline relevant transport policies, which include locating development to minimise travel and maximise the use of sustainable modes [35/36]. Nothing in either the NPPF or the PPTS suggests that this advice is not intended to apply to gypsy and traveller developments. Indeed, paragraph 2 of the PPTS states that decisions on traveller sites should have regard to the policies in the NPPF.
201. The appellant points out that paragraph 11 of the PPTS contains other criteria relating to sustainability, which do not include any specific reference to walking, cycling or public transport [116]. But there is nothing in that paragraph, or anywhere else in the PPTS or NPPF, that suggests that local plans may not also include policies designed to encourage sustainable transport.
202. I therefore find no reason to consider the relevant provisions of Policies BE30, CP2 and CP9, relating to accessibility, to be out of date or otherwise inconsistent with national policy.
203. The question of whether the appeal proposal complies with these policy provisions will be addressed later in this report, in the context of my conclusions on Issue (ii).
Policy considerations relating to gypsy and traveller sites
204. Policy CP9 sets out the list of criteria for gypsy and traveller sites [30]. The appellant contends that some of the policy’s requirements are inconsistent with national policy, or are discriminatory [119].
205. With regard firstly to the requirement for a proven quantitative need, it is true that this provision in Policy CP9 is not based on any specific requirement in the PPTS. However, that alone does not make the policy unacceptable. It is true that, for many types of development it is often not necessary to prove a need, especially, for example where the site is within the boundaries of the urban area or within an SPA. But in the present case, the appeal site is in the countryside where, for the reasons already set out, the development would involve an in-principle conflict with other policies. In those circumstances, it seems to me that Policy CP9’s requirements as to need are not unreasonable.
206. Furthermore, there is nothing in the PPTS to suggest that need is not a relevant consideration. Indeed, paragraph 22 of the PPTS lists ‘the existing level of provision and the need for sites’ amongst the key matters that authorities should consider when dealing with planning applications. I accept that there is no similar policy requirement which applies to housing developments for the settled population. But it seems likely that this is at least partly explained by the fact that there is also no equivalent policy which would allow such developments in the countryside at all, other than for agricultural workers (BLP Policy H27) or affordable housing (CSRIP Policy CP17); and in such cases, strict policies apply which do include consideration of need. In this respect, the approach to gypsy and traveller developments in Policy CP9 is no less favourable than the policies applying to other
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 38 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
developments in the countryside, and the policy is therefore not discriminatory against gypsies and travellers.
207. The appellant’s second main concern regarding Policy CP9 is that it makes no distinction between public and private provision [119]. In this context, having heard evidence at the inquiry from some of the appeal site’s current occupiers [150,152], I fully accept that many travellers may have strong preferences for one type or another, in the same way as any other residential occupier. This may include sites that offer privately rented pitches, as well as for owner- occupation. However, whilst paragraph 4 of the PPTS gives general encouragement to increasing the number of private sites, there is no suggestion anywhere in the national policy that this should outweigh other relevant planning considerations. Neither is there any indication that local plan policies which fail to make provision for different tenures or ownership patterns should be treated as out of date.
208. With regard to criterion (i), I can understand the appellant’s concern that this might be seen as requiring an applicant to demonstrate a personal connection with the local area. However, that does not seem to me to be the correct interpretation, and as far as the present appeal is concerned, the Council does not dispute the point.
209. The appellant’s criticism of the sequential element of the policy, which favours sites within urban or village policy boundaries, is effectively the same point as arises in relation to Policies CP13 and 14. The purpose of the sequential preference seems to me to be to protect the countryside as far as possible, and to manage the pattern of growth. For the reasons given elsewhere in this report, I regard this as a proper planning purpose, in accordance with relevant national policies, and particularly NPPF paragraph 17 [35]. Where no sequentially preferable sites are available, the policy does not preclude countryside locations, and is thus not unrealistic.
210. In the light of all the above matters therefore, I find no reason to give anything less than full weight to Policy CP9.
211. Out of the seven criteria, the only one where compliance is not disputed in some degree, either by the Council or by other parties, is criterion (vii), relating to flooding. At this stage of my report therefore, I reserve judgement on compliance with Policy CP9 as a whole, until I have concluded on the relevant Issues relating to the other criteria.
Policy considerations relating to other matters
212. In addition to the provisions discussed above, Policies BE30 (criteria i, ix and x), CP2 (iv and v) and CP9 (iii and iv) also cover matters relating to the effects on the landscape, local distinctiveness and character, neighbouring occupiers, local communities, built heritage, and village settings [25, 27-29]. It is not disputed by the appellants that the aims of all of these other policy provisions are generally consistent with national policies. I see no reason to disagree with that view. The question of whether the appeal proposal accords with these policy provisions will be addressed later in this report, in the light of my conclusions on Issue (iii).
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 39 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
Issue (ii): the site’s accessibility to local facilities
213. As described elsewhere in this report, Bletsoe itself has very few community facilities of any kind [62]. Some facilities are available in Sharnbrook and other surrounding villages [80, 125], but there are very limited bus services [81], and the distances and the nature of the roads, particularly the A6 adjacent to the site itself, make journeys by foot or cycle an unattractive prospect.
214. I accept that it is not unusual for gypsy and traveller sites to be relatively dependant on travel by car, and that a propensity to travel is part of the gypsy culture [126]. But it is not disputed that the relevant planning policies which seek to encourage more sustainable patterns of development are based on a sound rationale, concerned with society’s need to reduce emissions, pollution, energy usage, congestion and accidents. Traveller families need convenient access to schools, doctors, shops and leisure facilities in the same way as the occupiers of any other kind of housing, and good planning requires that where possible such developments should be located so that sustainable transport choices are available.
215. As discussed elsewhere [198-202], I consider that the relevant criterion in Policy CP9 ( criterion v) continues to have force; and that the general policies BE30 (v) and CP2 (vii) also apply equally to gypsy and traveller sites. For the reasons given, the appeal site at Bletsoe performs very poorly against these policies’ aims for sustainable transport and accessibility. The continuation of the site’s use as a gypsy and traveller site would therefore involve a significant conflict with these policies.
216. Furthermore, in the 2009 appeal, the Inspector concluded that the limitations of the location in terms of sustainability weighed heavily against granting permanent permission [64]. That finding is an important consideration in the present appeal, especially bearing in mind the importance of consistency in planning decisions. Since then, as far as I am aware, no new facilities or services have become available to occupiers of the appeal site, nor have any other physical changes of any significance occurred, which would be likely to make the site a more sustainable proposition now than it was in 2009.
217. Although permission has now been granted for a dwelling at No 10 the Avenue, that does not make Bletsoe a sustainable location. I have no information as to the considerations that led to that decision, but it does not change the fact that the village has few facilities.
218. These considerations lead me to a similar view to that of the 2009 Inspector. I conclude on this issue that the site’s shortcomings, from the point of view of accessibility by sustainable modes of transport, continue to weigh heavily against any continuation of the use as a gypsy and traveller site.
Issue (iii): other alleged impacts
Effects on the character and appearance of the area, the landscape and the setting of the Conservation Area
219. The Inspector in 2009 found that although the development would not directly harm the CA, it would detract from the area’s open and undeveloped character, and encroach on a potentially historic field pattern, harming the www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 40 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
perception of the village within the landscape [64]. In these respects, she concluded that it would conflict with Policy CP9’s criterion (iii). Similar considerations also arise under Policies BE30 (i and x) and CP2 (iv and v).
220. In the present appeal, BPC/BRA argues that in the light of the guidance now issued by EH, the impacts identified by the Inspector amount to significant harm to the CA’s setting [167]. Mr Burt argues a similar point, and emphasises the importance of the appeal site to the area’s rural character [179]. In various written representations, a number of objectors describe the development as having an intrusive visual impact [187].
221. In approaching these issues relating to visual impact and the effects on character and appearance, I have given careful consideration to the views expressed by the Inspector in 2009. However, I must ultimately form my own judgement, based on my own observations at the time of my visits. In the end, whilst I broadly agree with the previous Inspector’s opinion on some of these matters, in other respects my assessment differs from hers.
222. At the time of my final visit to the site, in February 2014, the trees were still largely bare. But even in those conditions, it seemed to me that any inward views from the A6 were now quite limited, and public views from The Avenue were almost non-existent. For all I know, this may not necessarily have been the case in 2009. The part of the site that is most visible now is to the south of the internal driveway, alongside the highway, but this is not where the gypsy and traveller development is permitted. The disposition of the caravans, dayrooms and parking areas is currently controlled by Condition 11, and by the layout plan approved in February 2010, which confines the development to the central area, away from the road [67]. These could be re-imposed on any new permission. As far as I am aware, there is no dispute that the approved layout has been generally adhered to since that time. In 2009, although there were already caravans on the site, it appears that they were more widely scattered than now.
223. Consequently, whilst I do not disagree with the previous Inspector’s comment that the undeveloped nature of the landscape would be partly eroded, it seems to me that this effect would not be particularly noticeable from public viewpoints. And, this being so, it follows that any perception of Bletsoe’s settlement form, or its relationship to the wider landscape, would not be adversely altered in any substantial way.
224. With regard to the development’s effects on the CA and its setting, since the development does not significantly affect any important views either into or out of the CA, I agree with the 2009 Inspector that it does not cause material harm to the setting, or to the CA’s significance as a heritage asset. The evidence before me in the present appeal does not include any information about the potentially historic field pattern, but I note that in 2009 this does not appear to have been a decisive factor.
225. I conclude that any adverse effects on the character and appearance of the area, including the CA, its setting, and the landscape, would not be so significant as to justify a refusal of permission on this ground. In this respect therefore, I find no conflict with criterion (iii) of Policy CP9, nor with the relevant provisions in Policies BE30 (i and x) and CP2 (iv and v).
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 41 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
Effects on neighbouring occupiers and the local community
226. BPC/BRA voices concerns about noise, fires, dogs, lighting, and aggressive behaviour [163], and large commercial vehicles [164]. Mr Burt refers to commercial activities, including car breaking and spraying, and the risk of the local community being dominated [179]. Councillor Foster raises further concerns about unneighbourly behaviour [181], and loss of privacy [182]. Many of these matters are reiterated and elaborated in local residents’ written representations [188].
227. On the issue of loss of privacy, this relates primarily to the alleged effects on the occupiers of properties in the Avenue whose gardens abut the appeal site’s outer boundaries. Having looked closely at these property relationships on my site visit, I accept that there are some places where the boundary vegetation is too thin, or too low, to provide the level of privacy that those living on either side might wish for. But there is no apparent reason why better screening in these areas could not be achieved by supplementary planting or fencing. None of these cases involve parts of gardens that are directly adjacent to their respective dwelling or caravan pitch, and consequently none is likely to result in overlooking on a scale that would seriously affect the occupiers’ living conditions. I appreciate that the ground level within the site has been raised by the laying of the hardstanding, but the effect of this is not so severe as to materially worsen any overlooking.
228. With regard to the question of domination, although the existing community at Bletsoe is quite small, it is not so small that a development of only four pitches would ever be likely to dominate it. I appreciate that domination might take different forms. But in the context in which the phrase is used in paragraphs 12 and 23 of the PPTS, it is clear that the concern there is simply about the relative scale of traveller developments relative to the size of the settled community.
229. As for the other matters summarised above, some of the allegations are disputed by the appellant, and others are not. I appreciate the strength of feeling on both sides regarding these matters, but for the most part they are outside the scope of the present appeal. Those which involve allegations of breaches of planning controls are capable of being investigated and, if proven, dealt with under the relevant enforcement procedures. Those others which relate simply to the alleged behaviour or manner of individuals, are not directly linked to the present appeal proposal, which relates purely to the use of the land. As such, these are not planning considerations, and they cannot properly influence the outcome of the appeal.
230. I conclude on this issue that the continuation of the use of the land for four traveller pitches would not in itself be likely to cause any material harm to neighbouring occupiers or to the local community. In this respect, there would be no conflict with Policy CP9’s criteria (iv) or (vi), nor with BE30 (ix). I note that the previous Inspector reached similar conclusions on these matters.
Effects on highway safety 231. I note the concerns of BPC/BRA and other local residents with regard to the safety of the vehicular access from the A6 [164/169]. However, in the 2009
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 42 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
appeal, the Inspector concluded that adequate safety could be ensured by imposing conditions.
232. It is no longer disputed by the Council that all of the access works required by the relevant conditions, Nos 13 and 15, have now been carried out, except for an apparent discrepancy in the kerb radii. This is a matter that can be addressed by the Council through its enforcement powers if it considers such action expedient.
233. From my observations on site, I see no reason to take a different view from the previous Inspector on these matters. Although traffic on the A6 is fairly heavy for the standard of the road, the alignment is reasonably straight and level, and visibility is good. There is no evidence of any significant accident record. I therefore do not find any conflict with Policy CP9’s criterion (ii), nor with BE30 (iv or vi).
Other impacts
234. For completeness, I note here also the further concerns raised by BPC/BRA and Cllr Foster, regarding possible contamination, resulting from the alleged use of unregulated road planings in the construction of the hardstanding [164, 182], and from possible damage to foul drainage pipes laid underneath that area [165]. Possible impacts on wildlife are also alluded to [168]. However, these concerns are unsubstantiated. And in any event, they relate mainly to works that have already been carried out as part of the original development, rather than any impacts that would follow from the continuation of the use. For these reasons, I conclude that these representations should carry only modest weight.
Issue (iv): general need for traveller sites in the area
Current and future needs based on the 2012 GTAA
235. At its base date in 2012, the GTAA showed an existing shortfall of around 14 pitches [46-48]. Since then, 6 additional pitches have been provided in the extension to the KH site [51]. But over the same period, the demand was calculated to grow at a rate of about 0.4 pitches per year [46], so by now (February 2014) this will have added about one more pitch to the need. Based on the GTAA as it stands therefore, there appears to be a current unmet need, for about 9 pitches.
236. Beyond the year 2017, the rate of growth is expected to rise to about 0.8 pitches per annum [46]. Adding together the increase during the three-year period 2014-17, at 0.4 pitches a year, plus the two years 2017-19 at 0.8 a year, produces a requirement over the next five years for a further 2.8 pitches. Rounding that figure up to 3, and adding the existing shortfall of 9, results in an overall need for about 12 new pitches in total by the end of the five-year period.
237. The Council’s proposed development at Meadow Lane will provide 14 new pitches [52]. Numerically, this is more than sufficient to meet the District’s requirement, for the 5-year period, providing it is completed within that time. In the meantime however, the immediate need for 9 pitches remains.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 43 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
238. With regard to the 4 pitches at Roxton, the 2013 permission remains valid pending the final outcome of the Council’s legal challenge, and it would therefore be justifiable to add these into the calculation in the meantime. However, there is some force in the argument that the uncertainty over the site’s future is likely to deter occupiers, or makes the site at best an unsatisfactory home. In any event, although 4 extra pitches here would reduce the current shortfall somewhat, they would not be enough to cancel it out. For the purposes of the present case therefore, nothing turns on whether Roxton is included or not. In the circumstances, I propose to exclude it. I note however that the High Court’s judgement may well be delivered before the Secretary of State makes his decision on the present appeal.
239. On this basis, I conclude that there is a current unmet need for 9 pitches.
The appellant’s criticisms of the GTAA methodology
240. The appellant, through the evidence of his planning witness, Mr Brown, has gone to considerable lengths to present a detailed critique of the methodology used in the GTAA [130-133]. However, the GTAA was subject to scrutiny at the public examination into the ADLP, only a few months before the opening of the present inquiry, and even now the Inspector’s report on that examination is still less than a year old. The GTAA was found to be comprehensive, up-to- date and robust, and the Inspector concluded that, provided the Council’s plans for KH and ML came to fruition, sufficient provision could be made for needs up to 2021 [50].
241. As the appellant rightly says, this does not mean that the GTAA is now beyond criticism for ever more. But nonetheless, the Inspector’s finding on it is a very important consideration, and especially so because the examination was so recent. It is suggested that the examination did not fully test the GTAA [134], but this is contested by the Council. The appellant was not represented there, and thus may not be in the best position to judge. It is true that the GTAA itself is not part of the development plan, but it is clear that it formed part of the evidence base that supported the draft ADLP’s provisions relating to gypsy and traveller provision [31/32]. The GTAA was therefore a document that was before the Inspector for examination. From the Inspector’s comments [50], it is evident that he was satisfied with it.
242. In a plan-led system, it seems to me that the development plan process is the proper vehicle through which the testing such of such documents should take place in the first instance. This is so that repeated debate on similar matters can be avoided, and so that all parties can rely on the Inspector’s resultant findings. In the present case, the appellant, by his own admission, could have pursued his criticisms of the GTAA at the examination, but chose not to do so167. As a result, I give relatively little weight to those criticisms now.
243. I appreciate that a number of the appellant’s objections to the GTAA methodology were endorsed by the Inspector in the Roxton appeal decision [55]. However, that decision is not now supported by the Secretary of State [56]. I note that a similar approach to the one that I have taken here
167 Oral evidence of Mr Brown www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 44 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
was also adopted in an appeal decision relating to land at Upper Caldecote, in the former Mid Bedfordshire District168.
244. With regard to some of the specific matters raised by the appellant against the GTAA, I accept that the Borough’s need as assessed in the GTAA is less than that previously required in the RSS. But the latter included a substantial element of in-migration from other areas. With the revocation of the RSS, there is no basis for requiring Bedford to continue to plan on that basis. The requirement under the PPTS paragraph 8 is to set a pitch target which addresses the likely needs of the Council’s own area, working collaboratively with neighbouring authorities. From the evidence before me, it appears that the Council consulted all of the relevant authorities169. I also note from the evidence presented that GTAAs were already in place in the adjoining authorities for Central Beds, North Northants, and Milton Keynes170. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Council properly discharged its responsibilities in this respect.
245. The Council’s housing witness, Mr Pollard, very fairly acknowledged that the methodology employed in the GTAA had some limitations, particularly in respect of the small sample size, which made it difficult to make full use of the primary data collected, because of issues regarding identification of individuals171. But from the evidence presented, it seems to me that the methodology was appropriate in the circumstances. This opinion was evidently shared by the ADLP Inspector. And in any event, even if the appellant’s criticisms of the Council’s sampling methods and statistical techniques were accepted, that would not reveal any new evidence about the true level of need. There is no evidence that the demand arising from households in bricks-and- mortar, or from inward migration, if these were assessed as the appellant suggests, would be any greater than the levels estimated in the GTAA. The GTAA is the only actual evidence as to the level of need that is before me.
246. I also note the appellant’s reference to the DCLG Guidance on GTAAs172. But that document is, as the title suggests, for guidance rather than a set of mandatory rules. For the reasons that I have outlined, I am satisfied that the Council has used its best endeavours to calculate the need for pitches, and that in doing so it has paid appropriate regard to the Guidance, taking account of the local circumstances.
247. I therefore find no reason to doubt that the 2012 GTAA represents a reasonable estimate of the level of need for gypsy and traveller pitches in the Bedford area.
Reliance on Meadow Lane
248. On my visit to the Meadow Lane site, it was apparent that this is a very challenging site on which to create an acceptable residential environment. The site is some way outside the Bedford urban area, and does not adjoin or relate in any way to any other settlement. Meadow Lane itself is a cul-de-sac off the
168 Doc. Cou-11A, Appx 3 (Upper Caldecote appeal) 169 Doc. COU-2 (J Pollard proof - para 5.12); and Mr Pollard’s oral evidence 170 Docs. COU-2A, Appxs 10-12 (GTAAs for adjoining authorities) 171 Mr Pollard’s oral evidence 172 Doc. COU-2A, Appx 3 (DCLG Guidance on GTAAS) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 45 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
A603 (the Cambridge Road), which currently serves only the sewage works, the abattoir, Bedford Town Football Club, and the existing travellers’ emergency stopping place, which is currently closed. The land on which the Council proposes to provide the new permanent travellers site is mainly between the ESP, the abattoir, and the A421 dual carriageway.
249. The proposed ML travellers’ site is therefore isolated from any existing residential community, and in an area with a predominantly commercial and industrial character, and a poor visual environment. As such, I find myself in agreement with the appellant [144] that this is not an inviting location for residential occupation. Although the ADLP contains ambitious proposals for a new Bedford River Valley Park in this vicinity173, this appears to be still in the early planning stages. On the evidence before me, I cannot tell how likely it is that this scheme will improve the surroundings to such an extent as to change the way the ML site is perceived.
250. Within the ML site itself, a number of the problems that the Council faces in developing the site were apparent. The noise from the A421 was highly disturbing, even in the furthest part of the site from the road, where the new pitches would be sited. A distinct odour was noticeable in that part of the site, and all along the southern boundary, where the access road would come in. Large parts of the site were under standing water. And, as the appellant points out, those who attended the site visit were required to wash their footwear at the exit point, to prevent the spread of the New Zealand Pygmyweed [145]. Although mitigation measures are proposed for some of these problems, the evidence before me still raises significant doubts as to the quality of the residential environment that can be achieved.
251. With regard to the traffic noise, the Council’s witness Mr Patrick Allen acknowledged that, even with the proposed acoustic barrier fencing, the best external level that can be achieved within the new pitches, immediately around the caravans and dayrooms, is likely to be 58-60 dB [97]. This is significantly above both the ‘desirable’ and ‘upper limit’ levels in BS8233, and those described by the WHO as giving rise to ‘moderate’ and ‘serious’ annoyance in outdoor living areas [97, 140]. Neither the BS nor the WHO standards form part of national or development plan policy, but they are nonetheless widely recognised, and are thus deserving of some weight. I also note that, although the predicted level of 58-60 dB was apparently based on a fence height of 2.5m174, and Mr Allen’s evidence suggests that this might in fact need to be as high as 2.8m175, yet Mr Pollard gave evidence that the relevant planning condition had now been discharged based on a lower height of 2.3m176. If the latter is correct, it seems to me that there may be some uncertainty as to whether even the predicted 58-60 dB will actually be achieved. Be this as it may, there seems little doubt that the noise environment on the ML site will not be ideal.
252. Turning next to the issue of odour, it appears that the improvements to the sewage works are still on-going, and I have no reason to doubt that these will
173 Docs. GEN-11 and GEN-13 (ADLP, paras 7.22 – 7.31; and Proposals Map 2) 174 Doc. COU-4, Appx 1 (Cass Allen noise report, para 3.4) 175 Doc. COU-4 (Mr P Allen’s proof, paragraph 3.2) 176 Mr Pollard’s oral evidence www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 46 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
bring the further reductions in odour that are predicted in Anglian Water’s dispersion modelling [92]. It therefore seems likely that when the upgrading is completed, the odour levels from that source reaching the proposed new pitches will be within acceptable levels. The odour level experienced on the access route is likely to be on the margins of acceptability [94, 139], and I accept that this will detract from the quality of life to some degree, but on balance this alone does not make the ML site unacceptable. However, odours from the abattoir have not been measured [139]. Although some controls are in place through the EA [95], there is no clear evidence as to whether the odour management plan takes account of the proposed traveller site, nor whether the ‘best available technology’ that can be required would be sufficient in this case. The abattoir site is to the south-west of the area where the new pitches are to be laid out, and the occupants will therefore be directly in line with the prevailing wind direction. It is not disputed that the lairage, which is on the boundary, is especially likely to be an odour source [139]. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, there appears an obvious risk that the residents of the ML site will sometimes be subjected to unpleasant smells from the abattoir. The evidence before this inquiry does not fully dispel that perception.
253. On the question of surface water drainage and flooding, the proposed adjustments to site levels have been approved by the IDB and EA, and I see no reason to doubt that these will be successful in protecting the new pitches and access roads from flooding, and in accommodating the necessary volume of compensatory storage [98, 99]. However, the Council’s witness Mr Parker accepted that, across the remainder of the site, these proposed works will not prevent the waterlogging and standing water that occurs now, and that this could mean having to erect secure fencing to prevent any access into the affected areas177 [141]. The evidence before me does not show the extent of those affected areas. However, at the time of my visit, the ponding was very widespread, and it seems likely that when part of the site is developed, as proposed, the water that previously would have collected in that area will be shed onto the remainder of the site. This may be exacerbated by the storage tanks and pumping stations, for which no allowance has been made. It therefore seems probable that, after development, the seasonal flooding will spread further, to cover much of the undeveloped residue of the site, between the new pitches and the A421 and the ESP. I appreciate the need to prevent access to that area for reasons of safety, but I share the appellant’s view as to the effect of fencing off such a potentially large area of the site. In effect, this seems likely to mean that the traveller site will be hemmed in by fencing, increasing its isolation and resulting in a somewhat oppressive sense of enclosure.
254. Given the likely lack of any access into the residual areas of the site, there is unlikely to be a need to take precautions in respect of the Pygmyweed [145]. Although it is somewhat surprising that no information about this issue was made available until a very late stage in the inquiry, the method statement belatedly provided by the Council178 does appear to show that measures can
177 Mr Parker’s oral evidence 178 Doc. COU-30 (Pygmyweed method statement) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 47 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
be taken to clear the weed from the area to be developed. But this does not relieve my concerns about the other matters discussed above.
255. In the face of all these issues, relating to noise, odour, surface water drainage, plus the site’s location and the nature of the surroundings, it seems to me that many of the appellant’s arguments regarding the ML site are not without substance. However, planning permission for that development exists, and a legal obligation has been entered into for its delivery by February 2015. The question as to whether those decisions were right is not for me to judge. And although some practical problems remain to be resolved, it seems more than likely that the scheme will be brought to completion, probably within the period required by the obligation. In any event, it seems clear that the carrying out of these works will not be affected by the outcome of the present appeal.
256. Nevertheless, the question remains as to whether the ML development, when completed, is likely to provide acceptable living conditions for its future occupiers. If not, it would be wrong in my view to rely on it as the only solution to Bedford’s unmet needs. Looking at the various locational and environmental matters discussed above, it seems to me that whilst all of these may be problematic in their own right, individually none can categorically be said to be so severe as to rule out residential occupation altogether. For this reason, I am not convinced that it would be justifiable at this stage to completely discount the site from making any contribution to the district’s future supply. But cumulatively, I agree that the ML site’s multiple drawbacks might well be enough to make it unpalatable or unacceptable to many potential occupiers. If so, the site’s contribution could be significantly reduced, or even negated. Whether this proves to be so, is likely to become more apparent within the first year or so after the site opens.
Conclusion on local need
257. As set out above, there is an existing shortfall of 9 pitches against the district’s current need, and a 5-year requirement for a further 3, making an overall need for 12 new pitches. The whole of that requirement is likely to be met within a year or so, by the development of 14 new pitches at ML. If that site proves satisfactory, there will not be a need for the appeal site as well, to meet the district’s quantitative requirements. But the ML site has some serious environmental issues, and it is not unreasonable to question whether living conditions at the finished development will be acceptable. Consequently, whether the ML development will provide a satisfactory answer to the area’s needs is a matter that will best be judged after it has opened, rather than now.
Issue (v): Personal circumstances
Mr & Mrs Allen
258. The appeal site has been Thomas and Natalie Allen’s home since 2008 [149]. Although it has never had permission for permanent use, there is no dispute that the site is the family’s only home [150], and as such, their rights in respect of it are protected under Article 8 of the ECHR. Whilst the site is not in a preferred location in terms of planning policy, and most local facilities are some distance away, the family is still able to reach those that it wants to, and is registered with a doctor in Sharnbrook [149]. Most importantly, the site www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 48 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
provides a settled base, which is likely to contribute to family stability, and therefore to the welfare of the three children. Allowing the site to become the family’s permanent home would therefore help to meet some of the aims of the PPTS.
259. Furthermore, the two older children are of school age, and the third is approaching that age soon. Although they have not attended school so far, there seems to be some prospect that they may do so if the family stays at the appeal site [149]. Attendance would give the children the chance of a decent education, more opportunities to socialise and integrate, and a better start in life generally. The children’s best interests must be a primary consideration.
260. If the family has to leave Bletsoe, there is no guarantee that they will find an alternative site in the area. The current shortfall of pitches identified in the GTAA is likely to make this more difficult. Although the ML site will provide additional capacity in the future, Mr Allen’s concerns about that site appear to have some foundation, and I agree that it would not be right for a family with children to be left with that as their only option, at least until the development can be shown to provide an acceptable environment. 261. I share many of the Council’s reservations. There is no doubt that Mr and Mrs Allen have contributed to their own situation: first by giving up the pitch that Mr Allen originally had on his father’s site [148]; and then by moving onto the appeal site without planning permission; and also by failing to make any alternative provision, despite knowing that their temporary permission was due to expire in 2012. Mr Allen himself acknowledges that he has not looked for any other sites, and has declined the opportunity to apply for a pitch on a Council site179. However, my recommendation must be based on the situation that exists now. 262. I also agree that there seems no reason why the family could not now be re- accommodated at Irthlingborough, as and when a pitch becomes available. Despite Mr Allen’s references to past disagreements with his father [148], there is no suggestion that these were of a permanent nature. It is difficult to imagine that a pitch would not be offered if it were needed; or that such an offer would be refused. Alternatively, I see no reason to doubt that the Council would try to find a pitch at KH, and would give the Allens some priority there because of their children [104]. I accept that this is not what Mr Allen would prefer, but on my visit to KH I saw nothing to suggest that it is not a suitable site on which to bring up a family. The facilities for keeping horses there are minimal, but there is nothing to stop Mr Allen from continuing to keep his horses at the Bletsoe site and his other grazing land as he does now. One way or another, it seems very unlikely that the family would have to resort to living on the roadside. However, remembering that children are involved, even a small risk in this respect is to be avoided if possible.
263. I note that Mr Allen and his father have invested a considerable amount of money in works carried out at the appeal site [150], but the 2009 appeal decision made it clear that the granting of a temporary permission did not
179 Mr Allen’s oral evidence www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 49 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
mean that permanent consent would follow180. Not all of the works carried out have been related to compliance with conditions.
264. Overall, whilst the Allens’ circumstances are not necessarily compelling, if they were unable to continue living at the appeal site there would be some uncertainty as to their future, which would carry the risk of adverse impacts on the family unit, and in particular would not be in the best interests of the children. I therefore give these matters significant weight.
Michael Moss and Michelle Stevens 265. Although there is some uncertainty as to how long Mr Moss and Ms Stevens have been in occupation of their rented pitch at the appeal site, and whether they have occupied it continuously, there is no dispute that they were living there at least during the latter stages of the inquiry and at its close [105/151]. From Mr Moss’s evidence, I see no reason to doubt that they have no other home. To that extent, a decision that forced them to move would make them homeless, and would be an interference with their rights under the ECHR.
266. However, their situation is somewhat less clear-cut than this, because from Mr Moss’s evidence, it is clear that his and Ms Stevens’ intention is to use the appeal site mainly as a winter base, and to travel elsewhere for up to eight months of the year [151-152]. Although they would wish to return to Bletsoe for the winters, and possibly also for short periods in between, and although they might leave one of their caravans at the site while they are away, under the terms of their arrangement with Mr Allen, Mr Moss acknowledges that those plans will always depend on whether any of the three rented pitches are vacant181. Whilst Mr Allen would apparently be happy to offer Mr Moss and Ms Stevens a pitch again if one is available, he would not expect one of his other tenants to give up a pitch for them. On Mr Moss’s own evidence therefore, it appears that he and Ms Stevens have made up their minds voluntarily to give up their occupation of the site, without any guarantee of being able to return. Indeed, by the time any decision is made on the present appeal, they may have already done so.
267. But be that as it may, Mr Moss and Ms Stevens evidently wish to pursue an itinerant lifestyle, and yet also to have a settled base to return to. These aims may be difficult to reconcile on some sites, but the appeal site has evidently served their needs in this respect. Its closure would restrict their opportunities in the Bedford area. Mr Moss would be equally happy with the Irthlingborough site, and would go back there if necessary [151]. But, as he found in 2013, there is no certainty of finding a pitch there when he and Ms Stevens want one. The couple’s lifestyle makes it likely that they will need to resort to a variety of different sites at different times anyway, but as far as Bedford is concerned, until the shortfall of supply is made up, the prospects are likely to be difficult. And, as a couple without children, at least at present, Mr Moss and Ms Stevens are likely to have relatively low priority on Council sites.
268. I therefore conclude that, at the present time, the loss of the appeal site would adversely affect Mr Moss and Ms Stevens’ prospects of finding accommodation,
180 Doc. App-1A, Appx 1 (“009 appeal decision, para 30) 181 Oral evidence of Mr Moss and Mr T Allen www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 50 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
and particularly of a type which would facilitate their travelling lifestyle, contrary to the aims of the PPTS. Whilst again their circumstances are not overriding, I give them some weight nonetheless.
Jim Draper and Wonny Jones
269. There is no explanation for the fact that Mr Draper says that he and Ms Jones have been living at the appeal site for two years [153], and yet no mention of them was made in the original application, or in the original proofs of evidence, or the witness statements submitted in July, September or November 2013 [101, 106, 153]. Mr Draper’s own evidence was only submitted on the last full day of the inquiry. As a result, the Council had little or no opportunity to verify any matters arising from it. In my view, this repeated lack of disclosure, and the apparent contradictions with other information provided previously, casts doubt as to how much weight can be given to Mr Draper’s evidence, particularly as to the length of his and Ms Jones’ occupation of the site.
270. Nonetheless, it appears that Mr Draper and Ms Jones are living at the site now, and I have no reason to doubt that they regard the appeal site as their home, and have no other. For the purposes of the ECHR, a refusal of permission would therefore represent an interference with their rights. However, that is to be balanced against the fact that when they first came to the site, even if that was two years ago, it was already close to the end of its temporary planning permission.
271. If the Bletsoe site were no longer able to be used, Mr Draper and Ms Jones would have to compete for the limited supply of pitches in the area, and like Mr Moss and his partner, they would be unlikely to receive any particular priority. As long as the shortfall against the GTAA requirement persists, conditions would doubtless be difficult for them in the Bedford area. I therefore give some weight to the effects on them.
Steven and Sharon Smith
272. Although a draft witness statement was submitted on behalf of Mr Smith in February 2014 [154], and he and Mrs Smith were said to be in occupation at the site at that time, neither of them gave evidence in person. It was confirmed at the inquiry that the appellant now places no reliance on Mr Smith’s draft statement or on the couple’s circumstances. I therefore draw no conclusions from the limited evidence before me regarding the effects on these putative occupiers.
Other intermittent or occasional occupiers
273. A large number of other persons were identified during the inquiry who were said to have occupied pitches at the appeal site, either during the inquiry itself or previously [155]. Some of those persons are said to be regular visitors to the appeal site, and a number are expected to return at some time. However, none was resident there at the close of the inquiry, and it was accepted by the appellant that no reliance should be placed on their individual needs or on the effects on any of them.
274. Despite some inconsistencies about dates, I see no reason to doubt that the persons named do exist, and have spent some time at the appeal site. To that
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 51 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
extent, it seems to me that the site has probably served a valuable purpose in meeting their needs. However, this is in effect just a manifestation of the scale of the general need which is already shown in the GTAA. To give weight to the needs of any of these absent persons as individuals would therefore be a form of double counting. I therefore give this consideration no further weight.
Other considerations relating to personal circumstances
275. Apart from Mr and Mrs Allen and Mr Moss, there is no evidence that any of the present or former occupiers have gypsy status within the definition in the PPTS [108]. However, this does not affect the weight that I have given to their housing needs or other personal circumstances, as set out above.
276. I note the evidence of Mr Kyle regarding his impression that the site was unoccupied for a period during 2013 and early 2014 [102-103]. If that impression was correct, it would weaken the part that the site has played in meeting local needs over the last few years. However, the evidence is not conclusive, because the occupiers could have been travelling, or temporarily absent for some other reason. On one occasion, Mr Kyle’s observations are said to have been from the roadside182, and I am not convinced that his impressions on that visit would have been reliable. In any event, all four pitches appear to have been occupied at the close of the inquiry, as demonstrated by the evidence given and by my own observations on my final visit in February. The conclusions that I have drawn regarding the effects on the individual occupiers are based principally on the occupation of the site at that time.
Other matters
277. I have had regard to the possible availability of traveller pitches at Ringstead [185]. But, unlike Irthlingborough, that village is well outside the boundary of Bedford Borough. Although occupiers displaced from Bletsoe might well include Ringstead in their area of search, East Northamptonshire is likely to have its own needs. For the purposes of the present appeal therefore, it would not be appropriate to give significant weight to any capacity in Ringstead.
278. I note the appellant’s arguments with regard to what is described as the fall- back position [158], in that he could continue to keep horses at the appeal site, possibly with the completion of the permitted stables, and possibly also involving the other existing or partly existing buildings. This scenario however would not have the disadvantage of perpetuating a residential caravan site in an inappropriate location. Mr Allen would have to travel to reach the site, but he evidently has to do so anyway to tend his other horses. That is not the same as having four households living on the site and each needing to access a variety of other settlements for their day-to-day requirements.
279. I have considered carefully the appellant’s suggestions that the Council’s decisions relating to the appeal site, the ML site, and No 10 The Avenue, taken together, amount to discrimination [127, 146]. However, my concern is only for the appeal proposal and its planning merits. For the reasons that I have
182 Mr Kyle’s oral evidence www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 52 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
set out elsewhere in this report, I am satisfied that in dealing with the appeal site, the Council correctly identified and applied the relevant development plan policies, and that those policies are fair.
Conclusions and recommendations Conclusions regarding compliance with the development plan
280. The appeal site’s location in the countryside and the RPA means that its continued use as a gypsy caravan site would conflict with the CS’s countryside protection policies, CP 13 and CP14 [197]. For the same reasons, the proposal conflicts in principle with the sequential approach to planning for gypsy and traveller sites embodied in Policy CP9 [30].
281. In addition, the site’s poor accessibility to most kinds of day-to-day facilities, and lack of sustainable transport options, conflicts with the locational aims of CP9’s criterion (v), and those of the general development policies CP2 (vii) and BE30 (v) [215].
282. Although Policy CP9 envisages circumstances in which the sequential approach may be outweighed by a need for sites and lack of alternatives, (and notwithstanding my findings with regard to those issues in the present case), nevertheless the policy still requires all sites to be judged against the stated criteria [30]. For the reason explained above, the appeal site does not meet Policy CP9’s requirements in this respect.
283. The appeal proposal is therefore contrary to the relevant policies of the development plan.
Conclusions with regard to other material considerations
284. Based on the GTAA, there is currently an unmet general need in the district for about 9 additional gypsy and traveller pitches [235]. Although the Meadow Lane development will more than make good this shortfall, it is not due to be ready until the end of February 2015 [53, 254]. There is therefore a need for up to 9 pitches in the meantime, at least on a temporary basis. This need, even if only temporary, is an important consideration.
285. Although that figure is in one sense a theoretical one, being based on the GTAA calculations, it is also backed up to some extent by the evidence relating to the personal needs of the appeal site’s occupiers. At least three of the households currently on the site (the Allen family, Mr Moss/Ms Stevens, and Mr Draper/Ms Jones) have demonstrated that they have accommodation needs of one sort or another, which are due some weight [263, 267, 270]. Of these, the greatest weight is that relating to the needs of the Allens, because their household includes children.
286. Although there seems to be a chance that some vacancies will arise at Kempston Hardwick [261], there is no guarantee that all three of these households will be able to be accommodated there, especially given the level of unmet need in the area. And even if they were, in a situation of unmet general need, this would be likely to be at the expense of other local travellers, whose needs would then have to go unmet. For these reasons, it seems to me that consideration should be given to a temporary planning permission.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 53 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
287. As to the duration of any such temporary period, when the ML site becomes available, in quantitative terms it will meet the district’s general needs, not just for the present, but up to at least 2019 [236-237]. When that happens, there should be no reason why the personal needs of the appeal site’s occupiers cannot also be met, at least numerically. However, it is not yet known whether the ML site’s environmental problems can be overcome, so as to provide satisfactory living conditions [255 - 256]. If not, that would undermine any reliance on the site. In my view, it would be premature to form a judgement on this before the site has been open for at least a year.
The planning balance
288. The planning merits can therefore be summarised as follows. On the one hand, the appeal site is in an unsustainable location, where the occupants would be reliant on the car for all day-to-day needs; and where the continued use of the site would conflict with the development plan’s policies for protecting the countryside and for promoting sustainable growth patterns. Although the harm arising from these policy conflicts would be of a somewhat intangible nature, the policies in question are important ones. Consequently, in my view, the conflict with them carries considerable weight. In the absence of any need argument, these matters would justify a refusal of planning permission.
289. But as of now, there is an unmet need for sites, at least up to February 2015; and after that, there is uncertainty as to the adequacy of the future supply, due to the potential shortcomings of the ML site. Whilst the Council is to be commended for having taken decisive action to get a substantial number of traveller pitches delivered, it seems unfortunate that its choice of site should be one that raises so many questions as to its suitability. As a result, it seems to me that it would be unwise, and indeed unfair on the travelling community, to rely on the ML site in advance of being able to judge the finished result. And alongside these considerations, there are the personal needs of the site’s occupiers, whose particular circumstances serve to illustrate the reality behind the figures. Together, these general and personal needs carry sufficient weight to justify granting a further temporary permission, despite the strong policy objections, while the supply situation remains unresolved.
290. The balance of these considerations therefore points towards granting a further temporary permission, and in my view that permission should be for a period of two years. This would allow sufficient time for the ML development to be completed, and for the site to operate for between a year to 18 months, before any further decision needs to be taken regarding the present appeal site. If after that time, living conditions at ML are judged acceptable, the needs established in the GTAA will have been met. If not, the Council’s failure to make proper provision is likely to be an important consideration in any future applications.
291. I appreciate that granting successive temporary permissions on the same site has disadvantages for all of those involved, but in the circumstances of this particular case, it seems to me that no other outcome would be fully justified at the present time.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 54 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
Human rights and equality considerations
292. A decision to grant a further temporary planning permission would not require any of the present occupiers to move. Although they would not then have a permanent permission, they would be in no worse position than now. Such a decision would therefore not represent an interference with their rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, to respect for their private and family life and for their home.
293. But even if I were found to be wrong on that point, and the failure to grant a permanent permission were held to be an interference with the occupiers’ Article 8 rights, such an action would be within the law. The interference would also be necessary, in a democratic society, in order to protect the rights and freedoms of the local community, as expressed through the elected Council, to pursue planning policies for the common good, including policies for the regulation of the use of land, and for the protection of the countryside.
294. In the present case, in the light of the relevant policies and my assessment of the proposed development, I can see no other course of action that would cause less interference to the interests of the occupiers, whilst also protecting the rights of the community, apart from the one that I now recommend, of restricting any new planning permission to a temporary period. That course of action is the minimum necessary to safeguard the aims of the relevant planning policies, and would therefore be a proportionate response.
295. The best interests of the children involved are a primary consideration. In the present case, it seems to me that the most important requirement for the Allen children is that the family has a settled home, and that the children are able to attend school. However, since they have not yet started at school, and Bletsoe is not well placed for access to schools, the appeal site holds no special advantage in that respect. Granting a further temporary planning permission for two years would allow the family to remain at their current home for now, and would ensure that they would not be forced to move before additional pitches become available to serve the area. The two year period would also allow sufficient time for a proper assessment of the quality of the new accommodation at ML, and for the family to make an informed choice between that site, or the other options which may be available to them. Granting temporary permission would therefore allow the children’s best interests to be accommodated.
296. Some of the appeal site’s current occupiers are self-identified as Romany Gypsies [148, 151], which is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. However, as I have noted elsewhere in this report, the planning policies which weigh against a grant of permanent planning permission in this case would apply equally to any applicant, and Policy CP9 allows some gypsy and traveller developments to be considered more favourably than other types of housing in the countryside [206]. My recommendation also takes account of the personal circumstances of all the relevant occupiers, irrespective of their ethnic status. Granting a temporary permission in these circumstances would not lead to a discriminatory outcome.
297. In all the circumstances, the grant of temporary permission for a further two years would safeguard the rights of all those involved, and protect the best
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 55 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
interests of the children, and would pay proper regard to the relevant legal duty in respect of equality.
Conditions
298. The conditions proposed by the Council are contained in the Statement of Common Ground183. Various others were also discussed at the inquiry. Those that I recommend imposing (numbered RC1 – RC11) are set out at Annex 3.
299. Recommended conditions RC1 and RC2 would directly replace the two existing conditions which are the subject of this appeal. In the light of the conclusions reached above, I propose to re-impose these in similar form, but substituting the shorter period of two years for the duration of the permission, and 18 months for the submission of the restoration scheme. When the use ceases, I agree with the Council that the restoration requirements should include the removal of all caravans, buildings and other structures, as well as materials and equipment. I have therefore included these in RC1. There is no need for the words “to its former condition” to be included, because it may now be difficult to establish what the site’s former condition was. But in any event, the detailed requirements of the restoration scheme would remain within the Council’s control, because of the need for the scheme to be submitted for approval. I also suggest that the restoration works should be subject to a timetable, to ensure enforceability, as provided for in RC2.
300. A restriction on occupation, to gypsies and travellers only (RC3), is necessary because the site is in the countryside, where housing for other purposes would be contrary to local and national policies. Limits on the numbers of pitches and caravans (RC4), and on the size of caravans (RC5), and controls on their siting, (RC6) are necessary because of the development’s potential impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. In the case of RC6, following the discussions at the inquiry, I propose to expand the Council’s proposed condition 6 to include controls over the location of other elements of the development, including the buildings and parking areas, for the same reason. There is no dispute that the siting and layout details already submitted are acceptable in this respect.
301. Restrictions on commercial vehicles (RC7) and commercial activities (RC8) are necessary to protect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Restrictions on additional walls, fences and gates (RC9), even where these would otherwise be permitted development, and on any additional external lighting (RC10), are justified because of the site’s countryside location, and close relationship to adjoining properties.
302. Although not originally proposed by the Council, it was agreed at the inquiry that a condition to control the details of the proposed amenity blocks (RC11) is necessary because although detailed plans were approved under the existing permission, those details have not yet been implemented.
303. With regard to the Council’s proposed condition No 10, the Council now agrees that the improvements already carried out to the access meet the highway authority’s stated requirements with the exception of the kerb radii. I accept
183 Doc. GEN-10 (Statement of Common Ground – Annex 1: Proposed Conditions) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 56 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
that the radii are not 10m, but from my observations, they do not appear to cause any significant danger in their present form. I therefore see no need for any condition in this respect.
Overall conclusion and recommendation
304. Although the continued use of the land would be contrary to development plan policies, there is for the time being an unmet need for more gypsy and traveller pitches in Bedford, and also some uncertainty as to whether the Council’s planned provision will properly meet that need. These considerations, together with the personal circumstances of the site’s current occupiers, weighs in favour of granting a further temporary planning permission.
305. I recommend that the appeal be allowed, and permission be granted for two years, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Annex 3. John Felgate INSPECTOR
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 57 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
ANNEX 1: PERSONS APPEARING AT THE INQUIRY
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mr Michael Druce Of Counsel (instructed by the Assistant Chief Executive, Governance) He called: Mr Peter White, BA(Hons) Team Leader, Appeals & Enforcement MA DipTP MRTPI Mr James Pollard, Housing Policy and Development Manager MA(Cantab) CMCIH Mr Andrew Kyle Head of Supported Housing Mr Paul Rowland, DipEnvP Asst Director, Planning Strategic Transport & MRTPI Housing Mr Malcolm Parker, BSc Head of Engineering CEng MICE Dr Michael Bull, BSc DIC Ove Arup & Ptnrs Ltd PhD CEng CSci CEnv MIChemE MIEnvSci FIAQM Mr Patrick Allen, BSc(Hons) Cass Allen Associates MIOA
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mr Alan Masters Of Counsel, (instructed by Mr Brown) He called: Mr Philip Brown, BA(Hons) Planning consultant MRTPI Mr Thomas Allen (Jnr) The appellant
Mr Michael Moss Occupier at the appeal site Mr Jim Draper Owner of the appeal site
FOR BLETSOE PARISH COUNCIL AND BLETSOE RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION:
Mr Jack Smyth* Of Counsel (instructed by Mr Feaver) He called: Mr Lance Feaver Chairman, Bletsoe Residents’ Association
* (up to 26 November 2013 only)
OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mr Alistair Burt MP Member of Parliament for N E Beds Cllr Ms Alison Foster Borough Councillor and local resident
ANNEX 2: APPLICATION PLANS
OS01 (rev. B) Location plan OS02 (rev. B) Proposed site plan OS03 (rev. B) Proposed site plan and landscaping plan
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 58 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
ANNEX 3: INSPECTOR’S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
RC1 The use hereby permitted shall be for a limited period, being the period of 2 years from the date of this decision. At the end of that period, the use shall cease and all caravans, buildings, structures, materials and equipment erected or brought onto the land in connection with the use shall be removed (unless authorised by another planning permission), and the land shall be restored in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing.
RC2 The restoration scheme referred to in Condition 1 above shall be submitted for approval within 18 months from the date of this decision, and shall include a timetable for its implementation. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable and all other approved details. RC3 The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers as defined in Annex 1 of ‘Planning Policy for Traveller Sites’ (2012).
RC4 The site shall be divided into no more than 4 pitches, and on each pitch no more than 2 caravans shall be stationed at any time, of which no more than one shall be a static caravan or mobile home.
RC5 All caravans stationed on the site shall be capable of being towed or transported on the public highway, without division into separate parts.
RC6 All caravans, amenity and toilet blocks, hardstandings, parking spaces, sewage treatment and drainage infrastructure, and external lighting shall be sited only in accordance with the submitted plans numbered OS02 and OS03. RC7 No more than one commercial vehicle per pitch shall be kept or stored at the site, and no such vehicle shall exceed 3.5 tonnes in weight.
RC8 No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the storage of materials. RC9 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no fences, gates or walls shall be erected on the site other than in accordance with the siting shown on plan No OS03; and in accordance with details of their design, appearance and materials, which shall first be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing.
RC10 No new external lighting shall be installed other than in accordance with the siting shown on plan No. OS03, and in accordance with details of its design, direction, and intensity, which shall first be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing.
RC11 The proposed amenity blocks shall not be constructed until details of their design, appearance and materials have been submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. The said blocks shall be constructed in accordance with the details thus approved.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 59 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
ANNEX 4: INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
GENERAL BACKGROUND
Received prior to the inquiry (blue folder No. 1)
GEN-1 Bedford Borough Local Plan, adopted October 2002 (extracts) GEN-2 Core Strategy and Rural Issues Plan, adopted April 2008 (extracts) GEN-3 Officers’ report on the appeal application 11/02690/S73, May 2012 GEN-4 Minutes of Planning Committee 28 May 2012 GEN-5 Bedford Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA), August 2012 GEN-6 Officers’ report on the GTAA and future gypsy and traveller provision, 17 Sept 2012 GEN-7 Mayor’s decision on the above, 28 Sept 2012 GEN-8 Meadow Lane site: Planning permission 12/00148/DC3 and approved plans GEN-9 Kempston Hardwick site: planning permission 11/00034/DC3 and approved layout plan
Received during the inquiry (blue folder No. 1)
GEN-10 Agreed Statement of Common Ground (SCG), including proposed conditions GEN-10A Emails dated 30 July 2013, between the Council and Mr Brown, confirming agreement to SCG GEN-11 Bedford Borough Allocations and Designations Local Plan, adopted July 2013 GEN-12 Allocations and Designations Local Plan - Map 1 GEN-13 Allocations and Designations Local Plan - Map 2 GEN-14 Inspector’s report on the Allocations and Designations Local Plan, 28 June 2013 GEN-15 Allocations and Designations Local Plan - Adoption Statement, 17 July 2013 GEN-16 Secretary of State’s Direction to recover jurisdiction - letter from the Planning Inspectorate dated 7 August 2013 GEN-17 Letter from the Planning Inspectorate dated 26 November 2013, in reply to the appellant’s objection to the SoS’s Direction GEN-18 Advice Note re Policy CP14 - original version, issued 2009 GEN-19 Advice Note re Policy CP14 - updated version, issued 4 Nov 2013 GEN-20 Section 106 obligation relating to RAF Cardington development, dated 22 December 2004 GEN-21 Draft deed of variation to the above, incorporating provision for works to implement Meadow Lane gypsy and traveller site GEN-22 Meadow Lane works required by deed of variation (DRG No. A477.A.002) GEN-23 RAF Cardington reserved matters and deed of variation - Officers’ reports to Planning Committee on 25 Nov 2013 GEN-24 Email dated 13 January 2013, confirming completion of the deed of variation GEN-25 Meadow Lane – non material amendment: application ref 13/01911/NMA, plans, officers’ report, approval notice and covering email dated 15 Jan 2013 GEN-26 Fairhill site: refusal notice re application 13/0146/FUL GEN-27 Note on the Local Plan 2032 public consultation, as requested by the Inspector, tabled by the Council on 20 February 2014
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 60 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
GEN-28 ‘Local Plan 2032’ – Issues and Options Paper, January 2014 (tabled by the Council, at Inspector’s request, 20 Feb 2014) GEN-29 Approval of details required under Condition 7 of the 2009 permission, relating to materials for the utility blocks at the appeal site (ref. 09/02230/AOC); and submitted details of lighting
THE COUNCIL'S CASE
Submitted prior to the inquiry (blue folders Nos 2 and 3)
COU-1 Peter White - proof of evidence
COU-1A Appendices to the above (bound volume), comprising: Appx 1 Site location plan, 1:25,000 Appx 2 Proposals Map - Bletsoe Inset Appx 3 ‘Inclusive Mobility’, DfT 2005 Appx 4 Bus timetables for Bletsoe Appx 5 Planning history – appeal site Appx 6 Correspondence with appellant relating to Statement of Common Ground Appx 7 Previous planning application for the appeal site, ref 07/03706/FUL; refusal notice; appeal decision, June 2009 (APP/K0235/A/08/ 2082215); approval of details required under Condition 11 (ref. 09/02229/AOC); and approved layout plan. Appx 8 1st Enforcement Notice and Stop Notice, issued on 6 March 2009 Appx 9 The present appeal application, Ref 11/02690/S73 - Application form, refusal notice Appx 10 2nd Enforcement Notice, issued on 31 August 2012 Appx 11 Stables – application 12/01700/FUL, plans, permission notice Appx 12 Policies from the Core Strategy & Rural Issues Plan 2008, and Local Plan 2002 Appx 13 East of England Plan Revision July 2009 Appx 14 Appeal decision – Roxton (Bedford BC) APP/K0235/A/12/2177503 Appx 15 Bedford Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA), August 2012 Appx 16 Roxton - Council’s grounds for High Court challenge Appx 17 Kempston Hardwick: planning permission 11/0034/DC3; layout plan; bus services; and information on Elstow new settlement Appx 18 Meadow Lane: planning application 12/00148/DC3; planning permission; approved plans; flood risk assessment; officers’ report; odour tests; minutes; bus timetables Appx 19 Fairhill site: Executive decision, officers’ report; and plans Appx 20 Fairhill site: planning application, plans, and related information Appx 21 Correspondence seeking information regarding site occupiers, including Requisition under S.330 of the Town & country Planning Act 1990 Appx 22 Emails relating to Council Tax and Housing Benefit records
COU-1B Peter White – summary of proof
COU-2 James Pollard - Proof of evidence
COU-2A Appendices to the above (bound volume), comprising: Appx 1 Appeal decision – Roxton (Bedford BC) APP/K0235/A/12/2177503 Appx 2 GTAA 2010 Appx 3 DCLG Guidance on GTAAs www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 61 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
Appx 4 Appeal decision – Upper Staploe (Bedford BC) APP/K0235/A/11/2149691 Appx 5 Bedford GTAA methodology report, July 2012 Appx 6 Bedford GTAA, August 2012 Appx 7 Cambridge sub-regional GTAA, October 2011 Appx 8 Bedford GTAA questionnaire Appx 9 Beds & Luton GTAA, 2006 Appx 10 Central Beds GTAA, feb 2013 Appx 11 North Northants GTAA, October 2011 Appx 12 Milton Keynes GTAA report, August 2006 Appx 13 East of England RSS Review, panel report Dec 2008
COU-2B James Pollard – summary of proof
COU-3 Malcolm Parker - proof of evidence
COU-3A Appendices to the above (bound volume), comprising: Appx 1 Environment Agency letter, 30 January 2012 – re Meadow Lane site Appx 2 Bedfordshire & River Ivel IDB letter, 25 April 2013 – re Meadow Lane Appx 3 Flood Zones plan - Meadow Lane area Appx 4 Letter from Mr O Bierfreund of URS Infrastructure & Environment, re hydraulic modelling methodology Appx 5 Flood compensation storage calculations for Meadow Lane Appx 6 Flood risk assessment for Meadow Lane, dated 13 Feb 2012 Appx 7 Plan: extent of flooding of site access, Meadow Lane
COU-4 Patrick Allen - proof of evidence re Meadow Lane (with appendices at rear) Appx 1 Noise Impact Assessment report, containing 6 further sub- appendices: Sub-appx 1.1 Glossary of acoustic terms Sub-appx 1.2 Noise Assessment report by Spectrum Consultants, June 2011 (with internal sub-appendices A-D) Sub-appx 1.3 Council briefing note re Meadow Lane and noise Sub-appx 1.4 Noise measurement positions Sub-appx 1.5 Noise survey data Sub-appx 1.6 Noise modelling diagrams
COU-5 Patrick Allen - proof of evidence re Fairhill site
COU-6 Ecology report/proof of evidence by James Calow and Tim Hextell, Middlemarch Environmental Ltd
COU-7 Andrew Kyle – proof of evidence (with appendices at rear) Appx 1 Application form for caravan plots Appx 2 Letters to appeal site occupiers, 23 May 2013
COU-8 Letter and bundle of documents submitted on 17 April 2013, comprising: Enc 1 Core Strategy & Rural Issues Plan (extract) Enc 2 Mayor’s executive decision re gypsy and traveller provision, 28 September 2012 Enc 3 Officers’ report on the GTAA, 17 Sept 2012 Enc 4 Bedford Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA), August 2012 Enc 5 GTAA 2010 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 62 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
Enc 6 Proposed conditions [note: superseded by list in Statement of Common ground] Enc 7 Requisitions for information served on site occupiers on 2 April 2013 Enc 8 Council’s letter to the agent, seeking information on site occupiers, dated 13 March 2013 Enc 9 Council’s letter to the Planning Inspectorate, dated 28 March 2013 Enc 10 Mayor’s executive decision dated 3 April 2013, re Fairhill site; and related officers’ report Enc 11 List of existing and planned gypsy and traveller sites, April 2013 Enc 12 Fairhill site location plan Enc 13 Fairhill site – planning statement and DAS Enc 14 Fairhill - planning application 13/00598/DC3 Enc 15 Kempston Hardwick – planning permission 11/00034/DC3 and approved plan Enc 16 Meadow Lane – planning application 12/00148/DC3 Enc 17 Meadow Lane – planning permission 12/00148/DC3, and approved plans
COU-9 Bundle of documents received 24 May 2013: Enc 1 Fairhill site – officers’ report on application 13/00598/DC3 Enc 2 Fairhill site – Minutes of Planning Committee on 20 May 2013 Enc 3 Fairhill site – Update to Ecology report/proof
Tabled during the inquiry (blue folder No. 4)
COU-10 Supplementary Statement, submitted 30 July 2013, including attachments comprising: Att 1 Council’s letter to appellant dated 23 July 2013 re information on occupiers Att 2 Draft statement of Common Ground Att 3 Fairhill – refusal notice 13/00598/DC3 Att 4 Anglian Water letter dated 9 July 2013 Att 5 Anglian Water letter dated 1 July 2013
COU-11 Rebuttal Statement, dated September 2013
COU-11A Appendices to Rebuttal Statement (separate bundle) comprising: Appx 1 Correspondence and details of visits to site since 24 July 2013 Appx 2 Commentary on relevant provisions of the Allocations and Designations Local Plan Appx 3 Appeal decision – Upper Caldecote (Mid Beds DC) APP/J0215/C/06/2013238 Appx 4 Anglian Water note on odour reduction at Bedford Water Recycling Centre Appx 5 Meadow Lane – capital programme report, 11 Sept 2013
COU-12 Michael Bull – proof of evidence, dated 9 Sept 2013
COU-12A Appendices to the above, comprising: Appx A Odour Guidance for Local Authorities - DEFRA Appx B Code of practice on Odour Nuisance from Sewage Works - DEFRA Appx C Environment Agency guidance note H4 - Odour Management Appx D Appeal decision – Newbiggin-by-the-Sea (Wansbeck DC) APP/F2930/A/92/206240
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 63 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
Appx E Inspector’s report – Stoke Road, Leighton Linslade (Central Beds) APP/P2040/A/09/2110667 Appx F Appeal decision – Low road, Cockermouth (Allerdale BC) APP/G0908/E/11/2152403 Appx G Appeal decision – Stanton (St Edmundsbury BC) APP/E3525/A/11/2162837 Appx H Appeal decision – Middleton (Corby BC) APP/U2805/A/11/2162384 Appx I CIWEM Policy Position Paper - re odour and dispersion modelling
COU-13 Mr Kyle’s supplementary statement; with various emails attached, giving details of visits to the site (tabled 26 Nov 2013) COU-14 The Council’s letter dated 23 May 2013 re information about site occupiers COU-15 Consent Order in respect of the Council’s challenge to Roxton appeal decision; with covering letter from Tsol, dated 19 Nov 2013 COU-16 Paul Rowland – witness statement COU-17 Paul Ferguson - written statement COU-18 Letter from Mr Brown dated 6 October 2010 re compliance with conditions COU-19 Council’s letter to Mr Brown, 27 Oct 2010, re compliance works COU-20 Council’s letter to the appellant, 17 Feb 2011, re compliance works COU-21 Council’s notes of site visit on 26 May 2011 COU-22 Photographs taken by officers at site visit on 26 May 2011 COU-23 Plan of approximate locations of sites used by the appellant for grazing horses COU-24 Meadow Lane - emails between the Council and the Highways Agency, re drainage and acoustic works COU-25 Meadow Lane – marked-up plan showing approx locations of surface water tanks and foul drainage route, tabled by Mr Parker COU-26 Meadow Lane – detailed site levels plan, tabled by Mr Parker COU-27 BS 8233 (1999): Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings, tabled by Mr P Allen COU-28 Log of unauthorised encampments, tabled by Mr Kyle -23 Jan 2014 COU-29 Legal opinion by Mr Robin Green re the issue of trespass COU-30 Crassula Helmsii (New Zealand Pygmyweed) – method statement by Middlemarch Environmental Ltd COU-31 Closing submissions by Mr Druce
Submitted after the inquiry
COU-32 Council’s comments on national Planning Practice Guidance, submitted 21 March 2014
THE APPELLANT’S CASE (blue folder No. 5)
Submitted prior to the inquiry
APP-1 Philip Brown – proof of evidence (with appendices at rear)
Appx 1 Previous appeal decision re the appeal site, June 2009 (APP/K0235/A/08/2082215) Appx 2 Appeal decision – Abthorpe (S Northants DC) APP/Z2830/A/12/2175053 Appx 3 Appeal decision – Sykehouse (Doncaster MBC) APP/F4410/C/12/2177807 Appx 4 Officers’ report on the appeal application 11/02690/S73, May 2012 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 64 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
Appx 5 Appeal decision – Upper Staploe (Bedford BC) APP/K0235/A/11/2149691 Appx 6 Appeal decision – Roxton (Bedford BC) APP/K0235/A/12/2177503 Appx 7 (A) Planning permission for one dwelling at 10 The Avenue, Bletsoe (11/00534/FUL); and (B) sale particulars of the resulting property Appx 8 ‘AZ’ case, High Court judgement [2012 EWHC 3660 (Admin)] Appx 9 Meadow Lane site - press articles from Bedfordshire on Sunday, re drainage problems Appx 10 Meadow Lane – Council’s flood risk assessment dated 13 Feb 2012 Appx 11 Meadow Lane – officers’ report on application ref 12/00148/DC, March 2012
Tabled during the inquiry
APP-2 Witness statement of Thomas Allen, submitted 30 July 2013 APP-3 Witness statement of Robert Jones, submitted 30 July 2013 APP-4 Witness statement of Michael Moss, submitted 27 September 2013 APP-5 Rebuttal statement – Mr Brown, submitted 27 Sept 2013 Appx 1 Appeal decision – East Malling (Tonbridge & Malling BC) APP/H2265/A/12/2182789 Appx 2 Appeal decision – Slapton (Aylesbury Vale DC) APP/J0405/C/13/2193582 Appx 3 Appeal decision – Heath & Reach (Central Beds Council) APP/P0240/A/12/2179237 APP-6 Letter from Mr Brown dated 22 November 2013, objecting to SoS’s Recovery Direction APP-7 Handwritten note from Mr Paul Ferguson, Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer, dated 3 June 2013 APP-8 Signed witness statement of Robert Jones, submitted 25 November 2013 APP-9 Note from Mr Brown – dates of meetings and visits to the appeal site in 2013 APP-10 Meadow Lane - abattoir layout plan APP-11 Meadow Lane site - press article from Bedfordshire on Sunday, re damage APP-12 Jim Draper – draft witness statement, submitted 10 February 2014 APP-13 Steven Smith – draft witness statement, submitted 10 February 2014 APP-14 Michael Moss – draft rebuttal statement, submitted 10 February 2014 APP-15 P Brown – email dated 19 Feb 2014, with list of topics to be covered in further rebuttal evidence APP-16 Jim Draper – signed witness statement, tabled 20 February 2014 APP-17 Michael Moss – signed rebuttal statement, tabled 20 February 2014 APP-18 Closing submissions by Mr Masters APP-19 Tchenguiz v Innerman CA2009 EWHC 2024 APP-20 UL v BL 2013 EWHC 1735
BLETSOE PARISH COUNCIL AND BLETSOE RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION (blue folder No. 6)
Submitted prior to the inquiry
BPC-1 Parish Council’s letter dated 28 January 2012 BPC-2 Residents’ Association letter dated 13 April 2012 BPC-3 Residents’ Association letter dated 29 January 2012 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 65 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
BPC-4 DLP Planning letter on behalf of BRA, dated 2 February 2012 BPC-5 DLP Planning letter to Councillors on behalf of BRA, dated 8 May 2012 BPC-6 Witness Statement of Mr Lance Feaver Appx 1 Note re discharge of conditions to 2009 permission Appx 2 Copy of Mr Brown’s latter dated 17 Sept 2009, relating to the previous appeal Appx 3 Letter from the Council dated 29 Sept 2009, relating to the previous appeal Appx 4a Plan showing Bletsoe SPA and CA boundaries Appx 4b Aerial photograph of Bletsoe Appx 5 Letter from the Council dated 12 August 2011 re enforcement of conditions Appx 6 Witness statement of Timothy Walker, Process Server, dated 29 September 2011, relating to dispute re payment of costs Appx 7 Advice note re disposal of asphalt planings
BPC-7 Statutory Declaration of Claire Woodward, MSc BA(Hons) MCIWM CEnv BPC-8 Statutory Declaration of Gillian Venn Exhibit 1 Residents’ Association log of events Exhibit 2 Photographs Exhibit 3.1 Wildlife Trust phase 1 ecological survey Exhibit 3.2 Email from the Council, 1 July 2009, re the ecological survey Exhibit 3.3 Environmental Health Officer’s consultation response dated 6 June 2008 re the previous application Exhibit 3.4 Beds Police Traffic Management Officer’s consultation response dated 1 February 2008 re the previous application
Tabled during the inquiry
BPC-9 Opening submissions by Mr Smyth BPC-10 Witness statement of Andrew Aldridge, Process Server, dated 29 May 2013, relating to dispute re payment of costs BPC-11 Witness statement of Everton Paisley, Process Server, dated 30 May 2013, relating to dispute re payment of costs BPC-12 Note re occupancy of caravan site at Station Rd, Irthlingborough BPC-13 Emails from East Northants DC re Irthlingborough site BPC-14 Closing submissions by Mr Feaver
Submitted after the inquiry
BPC-15 BPC/BRA’s comments on national Planning Practice Guidance, submitted 25 March 2014
OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS (blue folder No. 6)
Submitted prior to the inquiry OIP-1 CD containing approximately 500 individual letters from local residents and others, submitted to the Council at application stage OIP-2 File of approximately 71 individual letters from local residents and others, submitted at the appeal stage (red folder) OIP-3 Letter from Alistair Burt MP to Mr Brandon Lewis MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, dated 20 May 2013 (red folder)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 66 Report APP/K0235/A/12/2187276
Tabled during the inquiry OIP-4 Statement by Alistair Burt MP, tabled on 27 November 2013 OIP-5 Statement by Cllr Foster Appx 1 Caravan counts relating to sites at (a) Irthlingborough (updated to include January 2014); and (b) at Ringstead Appx 2 Map showing general locations of sites at Irthlingborough and Ringstead Appx 3 Aerial photographs of caravan sites at Ringstead
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 67
RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE HIGH COURT
These notes are provided for guidance only and apply only to challenges under the legislation specified. If you require further advice on making any High Court challenge, or making an application for Judicial review, you should consult a solicitor or other advisor or contact the Crown Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Strand, London, WC2 2LL (0207 947 6000).
The attached decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the Courts. The Secretary of State cannot amend or interpret the decision. It may be redetermined by the Secretary of State only if the decision is quashed by the Courts. However, if it is redetermined, it does not necessarily follow that the original decision will be reversed.
SECTION 1: PLANNING APPEALS AND CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS; The decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCP Act).
Challenges under Section 288 of the TCP Act
Decisions on called-in applications under section 77 of the TCP Act (planning), appeals under section 78 (planning) may be challenged under this section. Any person aggrieved by the decision may question the validity of the decision on the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with in relation to the decision. An application under this section must be made within six weeks from the date of the decision.
SECTION 2: AWARDS OF COSTS
There is no statutory provision for challenging the decision on an application for an award of costs. The procedure is to make an application for Judicial Review.
SECTION 3: INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
Where an inquiry or hearing has been held any person who is entitled to be notified of the decision has a statutory right to view the documents, photographs and plans listed in the appendix to the report of the Inspector’s report of the inquiry or hearing within 6 weeks of the date of the decision. If you are such a person and you wish to view the documents you should get in touch with the office at the address from which the decision was issued, as shown on the letterhead on the decision letter, quoting the reference number and stating the day and time you wish to visit. At least 3 days notice should be given, if possible.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local- government