®Planning appeal decision
Hurworth Views, Neasham Road, Darlington, DL2 1QH
Without planning permission, (1) 4 touring caravans have been stationed on the land for residential use (2 of them being very recently occupied for that purpose) and that together with the works referred to at (2) and (3) below this constitutes an unauthorised change of use of the land from paddock land to a new private Gypsy, Traveller site; (2) the making of an unauthorised site access onto the land from Neasham Road; and (3) the laying of hardcore materials on the land to form an access road and hard standing, removal of hedgerow, the erection of fencing, gates and dog kennels and the installation of services for power and drainage of utility buildings (the works)
- Authority
- Darlington Borough Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Major traveller and caravan pitches
- Inspector
- Harbottle M
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the private Gypsy, Traveller site is sustainably located in terms of access to services.
- The effect on the character of the rural area.
- The effect on highway safety.
- The effect on ecology, including nutrient neutrality.
- The living conditions of occupiers, particularly with regard to the potential for ground gas migration and contamination from infilled material.
- The need for and supply of Gypsy and Traveller pitches in Darlington.
- The personal circumstances of the appellants and their dependants.
What decided it
Appeal A succeeded because the harms identified (character, highway safety, ecology, contamination) were all capable of mitigation by condition and were outweighed by the sustainable location, pitch shortfall and appellants' personal circumstances, whereas Appeal B failed because it was not brought on ground (a) and its ground (c) case that no breach of planning control occurred was not made out.
The benefits of meeting Gypsy and Traveller accommodation need and the appellants' personal circumstances, combined with mitigable effects on character, highway safety, ecology and contamination, outweighed any residual concerns and justified granting permission in Appeal A.
Plan policies cited: Policy SH 1, Policy ENV 4, Policy H 9, Policy IN 2, Policy ENV 3, Policy DC 1, Policy ENV 7, Policy ENV 8, Policy DC 4
Judgments cited: Tapecrown Ltd v FSS & the Vale of White Horse DC [2006] EWCA Civ 1744; Ardagh Glass v Chester CC & Quinn Glass [2009] EWHC 745 (Admin)
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.