Appeal Decision ; Land at Southend Lane, Newent

ref APP/P1615/C/09/2107067

Back at the begining of December 2009, legal teams representing SLAM, The Forest of Dean District Council and Mr R. Jones met at a Public Enquiry held by the Planning Inspectorate. All three days were well attended and although the proceedings were, at times, quite difficult to follow, the general consensus of SLAM members was that each party had been given ample opprotunity to put their case to the inspector.

We were assured that a judgement would be made fairly quickly and indeed by the begining of January 2010, we learned that the Planning Inspectorate had granted temporary planning permission until January 2012. This was felt to be the shortest practical timescale for vacating the site and returning it to the same condition it was in prior to 22nd May 2009.

In short - we won!

Thanks to a robust response from the District Council and our own legal team's insightful analysis, common sense seems to have prevailed at Southend Lane. The judgement document is pretty complex and can be found in full at the FoDDC's website but we've prepared a simplified version which you can read below:

Main Issues and Responses to Them

1. Suitability of the highway access to the site and whether improvements should be required as sought by the highway authority.
   Objection on highway grounds is not justified as improvements can be carried out; Passing Places pp1 and pp3, and the addition of a street light are deemed effective in removing highway safety concerns.
2. Effect of the development, including highways works, on the landscape and character of the area.
   There would be visual harm and landscape impact because of the size and openness of the development, and the intention to build day rooms etc.
3. Effect on the setting of the three listed buildings.
   The setting of the buildings includes the appeal site, and its use as a caravan site is detrimental to the character of the setting of the buildings.
4. Whether biodiversity effects, particularly the probable effect on great crested newts can be met by condition.
   No available evidence that the probable effect of the development would be grounds to dismiss the appeal.
5. Can drainage requirements be met adequately by imposing conditions.
   Uncertainty about drainage arrangements, including lack of information from appellents in support of the proposals, are not considered to be grounds to dismiss the appeal.
6. The need for additional gypsy pitches nationally and locally.
   26 pitches are required, and weight must be given to the Councils persistent and substantial slippage in its programme regarding development plan documents regarding such sites. There is no evidence that the Councils’ latest timetable is to be relied upon, but the employment of a dedicated officer seeking approval of sites is to be noted.
7. Whether alternative sites are available for the occupiers.
   If the appeal is dismissed, the occupiers will have to leave the site. There are not suitable, available alternatives for long term accommodation currently to be relied upon.
8. Advantages/disadvantages of the development in relation to sustainability, para 64 of Circular 01/2006.
   Allowing the appeal would avoid damage caused by unauthorised encampment, and the site offers good access to necessary services.
9. Weight given to personal circumstances of the occupiers.
   There is nothing unusual about the occupiers, therefore particular circumstance does not alter the weight given to providing or removing a settled base.

Conclusions

Permanent vs temporary Planning Permission.

• The permanent harm if planning permission were granted, is strongly against the grant of said permission because the location and character of the site and its surroundings are not suitable for a development of this size.
• Temporary planning permission avoids adverse effects on the occupiers, of the absence of suitable alternatives, and is the least worst result. It will need to be for the shortest time possible and will require considerable effort by the LPA to bring forward other sites. There is doubt that the suggestion that the occupiers all wish to seek a site together is so compelling as to preclude alternatives.
• Two years is appropriate, as it would be reasonable to expect circumstances to have changed by then, and the harm done would not be lessened but would be of shortened duration. The site will remain pretty much as seen on 4th Dec 2009.
• Works of mitigation in relation to highway, landscaping and biodiversity will not be achieved.

Planning permission is therefore granted on the land developed, until 31st January 2012, but the enforcement notice is not quashed.

Conditions

1. Use is for a limited time ending 31st jan 2012. After this date the land shall be restored to its former condition, prior to the development taking place.
2. Only gypsies/travellers occupy the site.
3. No more than 13 pitches, with no more than 2 caravans, one of which may be a mobile home.
4. No vehicles over 3.5 tonnes to be stationed, parked or stored on the site.
5. No more than one commercial vehicle per plot, not to exceed 3.5 tonnes.
6. No commercial activities to take place on site.
7. Except for conditions under no 8. the operational development permitted is only that present on 4th Dec ’09.
8. Use shall cease and all materials etc to be removed within 28 days of failure to meet any of the requirements set out below.
   • Within 2 months of the date of decision, schemes for siting of caravans, ancilliary structures, means of foul and surface water drainage, proposed and existing external lighting and nature of fences to be erected shall have been submitted to LPA including timetable for implementation.
   • If within 11 months LPA has not approved site development scheme, or it has been refused by the LPA, or a reason for delayed decision fails to be made within the timescale, an appeal shall have been made to and validated by the Secretary of State so that the site development scheme may be approved by the Secretary of State.
9. There shall be no external lighting, or fences, gates or walls exceeding 1m in height other than approved in no 8.

The enforcement notice is to be varied to require the land to be returned to its former condition, and planning permission is refused on the remaining land.