Planning appeal decision
Peasdale Hill Field, Middleton , Corby, LE16 8YP
Planning appeal 3269943 at Peasdale Hill Field, Middleton , Corby, LE16 8YP (Corby Borough Council *) was decided (quashed on legal grounds) on 22 January 2024 by Inspector Pleasant L, following a hearing. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the landscape.
change of use of land for residential purposes for 5 gypsy and traveller pitches including the provision of hardstanding ancillary to that use
- Authority
- Corby Borough Council *
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Change of use
- Inspector
- Pleasant L
- Postcode
- LE16 8YP
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
- the impact of the development on archaeological remains
- the effect of the development on ecology, including protected species and biodiversity
- whether the development constitutes intentional unauthorised development and, if so, the weight to be attached to that
- the need for and supply of Gypsy and traveller pitches, including the availability of alternative accommodation
- other personal circumstances, 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 harms to landscape character, archaeology and highway safety, compounded by the development being intentional unauthorised development, outweighed the lack of a 5-year traveller pitch supply and the personal circumstances of the occupiers.
The substantial harm to landscape character and archaeology, significant harm to highway safety, and significant weight against the scheme as intentional unauthorised development outweighed the significant weight in favour from the lack of a demonstrable 5-year supply of deliverable pitches and policy failure, together with the substantial weight given to the best interests of the children and personal circumstances, resulting in dismissal.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy 3Policy 31Policy 8(b)Policy 2(d)Policy 4
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 180Paragraph 109Paragraph 115Paragraph 200Paragraph 211Paragraph 185
- Judgments
- Restormal v Secretary of State for the Environment and Patrick George Rabey and others [1982] JPL 785; Stroud District Council v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 488; Cheshire East BV SSCLG [2016] EWCH 694; Forest of Dean DC v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 2429; Smith v SSLUHC & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 1391; Tracey Holland and Jim Smith v SSCLG and Taunton Deane Borough Council [2009] EWHC 2161 (Admin)
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Corby Borough Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024
- Notice varied and upheld25 May 202333004622, The Brontes, Corby, NN17 2NH
- Allowed18 April 20233270912Land South of Oakley Park, Ashley Road, Middleton, Market Harborough, Northamptonshire, LE16 8YP
- Allowed15 November 20213266883Millstone Mushrooms, Corby Road, East Carlton, Market Harborough, LE16 8YB
- Dismissed5 March 202433204843 Masefield Way, Corby, NN17 2NL
- Dismissed22 January 20243275791Peasdale Hill Field, Ashley Road, Market Harborough, Northamptonshire, LE16 8YP
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®