Planning appeal decision
PITCH 8, LAND OFF DRAGONS LANE , SANDBACH, CHESHIRE, CW11 3QB
the material change of use of land from an agricultural use to a use as a residential caravan site with one pitch of no more than two caravans (one static and one touring), together with the creation of hardstanding, erection of fences and gates, siting of caravans, and a container, and the erection of a day room and a bin store
- Authority
- Cheshire East
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Change of use
- Inspector
- McGlone A
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the proposal is in a suitable location in the countryside and occupants would have reasonable access to facilities and services, having regard to the development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), and the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS)
- the effect of the proposal on the high-pressure gas lines
- the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
- the need for, and provision of, sites for gypsies and travellers in the area
- any other material considerations in support, including alternatives and personal circumstances
What decided it
The unacceptable, unmitigable safety risk to occupiers from the site's location within the HSE Inner Zone of the high-pressure gas pipelines, balanced against each family's personal circumstances and the lack of a five-year supply of deliverable Traveller pitches, which tipped in favour of short temporary permissions for Appeals A, B and E but not for Appeal C.
In each case the very substantial weight given to the unacceptable safety risk from the gas pipelines and moderate harm to character and appearance was found to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of a permanent permission; but for Appeals A, B and E the personal circumstances of the families/children together with the lack of a five-year supply of deliverable Traveller pitches meant the harms did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of a short temporary personal permission, whereas for Appeal C they did, resulting in refusal.
Framework references: 11, 102, 110, 135, 139
Plan policies cited: Policy PG 6, Policy SC 7, Policy SD 1, Policy SD 2, Policy HOU 5, Policy HOU 5(3), Policy INF 7(2), Policy SE 13, Policy ENV 17, Policy PG 10
Judgments cited: Smith v SSLUHC & Ors (2022) EWCA
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.
®