®Planning appeal decision
Pitch 12, Land at Dragons Lane, Sandbach, 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
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Minor traveller and caravan pitches
- 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 safety risk from close proximity to the high-pressure gas pipelines (weighed against personal circumstances, best interests of children and the lack of a five-year supply of deliverable Gypsy and Traveller pitches) determined whether temporary permission could be justified in each case.
In Appeals A, B and E the very significant/significant weight of personal circumstances, best interests of children and the lack of a five-year supply of deliverable Gypsy and Traveller sites meant the adverse impacts of a two-year temporary permission did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits; in Appeal C the identified harms (safety risk, character harm, IUD) significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits even for a temporary permission, so it was refused.
Framework references: 11, 102, 110, 135, 139
Plan policies cited: Policy PG 6, Policy SC 7, Policy SD 1, Policy SD 2, Policy SE 13, Policy HOU 5, Policy HOU 5(3), Policy PG 10, Policy INF 7, Policy INF 7(2), Policy ENV 17
Judgments cited: Smith v SSLUHC & Ors (2022) EWCA; R (Ardagh Glass Ltd) v Chester CC [2009]
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.