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.