Planning appeal decision
Peasdale Hill Field, Middleton , Corby, LE16 8YP
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
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.
Framework references: 180, 109, 115, 200, 211, 185
Plan policies cited: Policy 3, Policy 31, Policy 8(b), Policy 2(d), Policy 4
Judgments cited: 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)
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.
®