Planning appeal decision
Land east of Cransley Road, Loddington, Northamptonshire, NN14 1JX
the change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site for 8 gypsy families, each with two caravans, including erection of 8 No. utility buildings, laying of hardstanding and improvement of access. Appeal
- Authority
- Kettering Borough Council *
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Major traveller and caravan pitches
- Inspector
- Murray J
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the landscape
- whether the occupants of the site would have adequate access to services and facilities
- the effect of the development on highway safety
- whether the development will result in contaminated runoff impacting on the Cransley Reservoir Local Wildlife Site
- the effect of the development on ecology, including protected species and the Cransley Reservoir Local Wildlife Site
- the need for and supply of Gypsy and traveller pitches
- the impact of the development on a potential non-designated heritage asset, namely potential below ground archaeology
- whether the development constitutes intentional unauthorised development and, if so, the weight to be attached to that
- the availability of alternative accommodation and other personal circumstances of the occupiers, including the best interests of any children, all in the context of Human Rights considerations and the Public Sector Equality Duty
What decided it
The cumulative and largely irreversible harm to landscape character, highway safety, ecology and archaeology, compounded by the finding of intentional unauthorised development, outweighed the lack of a five year gypsy and traveller site supply and the personal circumstances of the occupiers.
The substantial harm to landscape character, significant harm to highway safety and ecology, and significant weight against intentional unauthorised development outweighed the significant weight in favour from the lack of a five year supply of traveller pitches and the substantial/significant weight given to the children's best interests and lack of alternative accommodation, resulting in dismissal of both a permanent and temporary permission.
Framework references: 62, 74, 105, 111, 170, 174, 175, 180, 194, 203, 205
Plan policies cited: Policy 31(h), Policy 31(a), Policy 31(e), Policy 31(f), Policy 3, Policy 2(d), Policy 4, Policy 5, Policy 8(b), Policy 10
Judgments cited: Nixon & East Herts DC v SSCHLG & Mahoney [2020] EWHC 3036 (Admin); Forest of Dean DC v SSHCLG [2016] EWHC 2429
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®