Planning appeal decision
Land known as Seven Acre Field, West of Julians Cottage, 115 West End, Haynes, MK45 3QU
Without planning permission, the unauthorised material change of use of agricultural land to a residential caravan site with the stationing of caravans for residential purposes, and portable amenity block
- Authority
- Central Bedfordshire
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Major traveller and caravan pitches
- Inspector
- Renaudon L
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- To assess the developments against the Local Plan criteria-based policy applying to the provision of 'windfall' traveller sites, being Policy H7, which applies whether or not the PPTS definition is met
- Whether or not the development has amounted to 'intentional unauthorised development', and if so the amount of weight attributable to that
- Compliance with other relevant development plan policies
- The need for and supply of traveller sites in the area, and the availability of alternative sites to the appellants
- The particular personal circumstances of the appellants, and human rights and PSED considerations including the best interests of the children on the site
- Whether the time stipulated for compliance with the notices is too short (grounds (f) and (g))
What decided it
The unacceptable noise environment at the site, which could not be satisfactorily mitigated without causing further unacceptable landscape and living-condition harm, decided the appeals against the appellants.
The benefits of meeting unmet Traveller accommodation need, the lack of an alternative site, and providing a settled base for the children's education and health needs did not outweigh the harm to landscape character, the unresolved biodiversity/contamination risks, highway safety conflicts, and above all the unacceptable noise-related living conditions, so the balance tipped against the appeals.
Plan policies cited: Policy H7, Policy EE5, Policy EE2, Policy EE8, Policy CC8, Policy T2, Policy HQ1, Policy NE1, Policy SP8
Judgments cited: Smith v SSLUHC and others [2022] EWCA Civ 1391
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.
®