Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
APPEAL BY MR THOMAS ALLEN
AGAINST REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION UNDER SECTION 78 OF THE
TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
APPLICATION TO REMOVE CONDITIONS 1 (Time period limit) AND 2
(Restoration
of
land
to
former
condition)
OF
APPEAL
DECISION
APP/K0235/A/08/2082215 (LPA REF 07/03706/FUL) FOR PERMANENT USE OF
SITE.
CHANGE OF USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO CARAVAN SITE WITH FOUR
PITCHES, ERECTION OF TWO AMENITY BLOCKS, PARKING OF COMMERCIAL
VEHICLES, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS.
AT WAITING FOR THE SUN FARM, RUSHDEN ROAD, BLETSOE, BEDFORD
MK44 1QN
PINS REF:
LPA APPLICATION REF:
LPA APPEAL REF:
APP/K0235/A/12/2187276/NWF
11/02690/S73
12/00045/REF
PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF
PETER WHITE BA (HONS), MA, DIPTP, MRTPI
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
1
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
1
INTRODUCTION
PETER WHITE will say
1.1
My name is Peter White. I hold a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Town Planning,
a Master of Arts in Linguistics, and a Postgraduate Diploma in Town
Planning. I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and the
National Association of Planning Enforcement.
1.2
I am Team Leader for Planning Appeals and Enforcement at Bedford
Borough Council. I have 15 years experience in development control, local
and structure planning in five Local Planning Authorities at County, Borough
and District levels, and the Singaporean national planning authority, the
Urban Redevelopment Authority.
1.3
I am familiar with the appeal site and the surrounding area.
1.4
I have been instructed by Bedford Borough Council to give evidence in
relation to planning matters.
1.5
1.6
My evidence is set out in the following order:
1.
Introduction
2.
The site and its surroundings
3.
The planning history
4.
The proposed development
5.
Planning policy
6.
The Council’s proposed sites
7.
Analysis
8.
Summary & Conclusion
A separately bound volume of appendices is also submitted and should be
read in conjunction with this proof.
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
2
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
2
2.1
THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
The site is located in rural North Bedfordshire in the parish of Bletsoe, and
the administrative Borough of Bedford. It is located in open countryside,
outside of existing settlements, approximately 6 miles north of Bedford. A
site location plan is attached as Appendix PW1.
2.2
The site is adjacent to and accessed from the A6, which is the main
distributor road between (Luton &) Bedford and Rushden (& Northampton).
The A6 runs through agricultural land and links the north and north-east
Bedfordshire villages with these towns and their services and facilities.
There are no B-Class roads in the vicinity of the site or the A6 between
Bedford and Rushden, the local roads are minor and their routes are
restricted by the River Great Ouse and the East Coast Mainline Railway.
Consequently, much of the north-south traffic to and from Bedford and much
of the traffic serving the rural villages travels via the A6.
2.3
The administrative area of Bedford Borough encompasses a wide area of
land north of Bedford formerly known as North Bedfordshire.
Bedford
Borough’s Core Strategy & Rural Issues Plan 2008 identifies Key Service
Centres for the rural area and the nearest Key Service Centres to the appeal
site are Sharnbrook (3 km to the north-east) and Clapham (5.5 km to the
south).
2.4
The appeal site is part of a field formerly laid to grass, and currently in use
as a residential caravan site, with associated works including a large area of
hardstanding. It is surrounded on all sides by fields, except where it abuts
garden land1 and the building and hardstanding associated with the former
milking barn to the south. The existing access leading to the building forms
both the proposed access to the site and its south-western boundary,
although land both sides of the access track is owned by the appellant. A
public footpath runs in a north-westerly direction from Bletsoe village to the
A6 150 – 200 metres to the north of the appeal site beyond another field.
The field which contains the footpath is access land under an agreement
1
the developed part of the site abuts the garden of no. 10 The Avenue
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
3
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
between the landowner and English Nature. The appeal site is partially
visible from this field, and parts of the A6, in winter through gaps in the
hedgerows and field-boundary vegetation.
2.5
The village of Bletsoe is located approximately 50 – 70 metres to the south
and east of the appeal site, although there is no direct access between the
village and the site. Land used in association with residential dwellings on
The Avenue abuts the red and blue land to the south and east, and
developed parts of the appeal site abut the garden land of no.10 The
Avenue. To the east the site remains separated from the village by a small
field in the appellant’s ownership, and access to this field is gained through
the appeal site.
2.6
Bletsoe village can be accessed from the appeal site by exiting onto the A6
going south and turning east into the village. The village centre is 0.5 0.7km from the site and can be accessed by foot by following the road to the
south. Pedestrians would follow the 1 metre footway south on the A6 then
north-east along The Avenue.
2.7
The village of Bletsoe contains a number of historic buildings and part is
designated as a Conservation Area. The village has a church, a village hall,
and a public telephone but no other facilities. The Core Strategy & Rural
Issues Plan 2008 adopts the Settlement Policy Area (SPA) for Bletsoe set
out in the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2002 (Appendix PW2).
2.8
The A6 is a de-restricted A-class road with a 1 metre footway on its eastern
side from the appeal site to the next road junction to the north (Bourne End
Road). The footway extends south to the junction with The Avenue and
beyond.
2.9
With the exception of the Church and village hall in Bletsoe village the
nearest community facilities are located in Sharnbrook. Sharnbrook has a
limited range of services and facilities including schools, a Post Office, a
mini-market, a public house, and a doctor’s surgery (outside the village). A
footway is available for pedestrian use from the roundabout with the A6 into
the village centre, and limited street lighting is available from a point 1.7km
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
4
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
from the village centre (from the Sharnbrook village sign). Pedestrians from
the appeal site have to walk along the A6 footway from the site, continue
beyond the Bourne End road junction along the 0.5 metre footpath as far as
the roundabout. Crossing facilities with a central reservation are provided
immediately before the exit/entry of the roundabout, but crossing at peak
times can be difficult (waiting for a break in the traffic) and hazardous (with
vehicles accelerating off the roundabout).
2.10
There is no bus service on the A6 outside the site, despite there being
disused bus shelters. Buses travelling north from Bedford and south into
Bedford serve the villages east of the A6, bypassing this part of the A6.
2.11
From Bletsoe village2 to Bedford there are 3 buses a day Monday – Friday
between 7:41am and 9:41am, and 2 buses on Saturdays, with 4 return trips,
the latest being 5:45pm, but no evening, Sunday or Bank Holiday services.
There is also one bus a week to and from St. Neots (25km to the east). The
bus stop is around 600m walk from the site entrance, and 700m including
the site access drive. This exceeds DfT Best Practice Guidance (Appendix
PW3) which recommends that nobody in a neighbourhood should be
required to walk more than 400m from their home to a bus stop3, and that
bus use falls off sharply if the distance is more than 250 metres (200 metres
for disabled people). Bus timetables are attached in Appendix PW4.
2
Cedar Coaches service 152 which picks up and drops off in Bletsoe Village outside the church.
“Inclusive Mobility: A guide to best practice on access to pedestrian and transport infrastructure” Department for
Transport 2005. Section 6 (pages 31-32)
3
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
5
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
3
THE PLANNING HISTORY
Prior to Dec 2007:
3.1
The site, together with the land edged blue, was the subject of various
planning applications, permissions, enforcement action and appeals
between 1986 and 1991 (Appendix PW5).
During this period of time a
previous occupier attempted to establish an agricultural enterprise involving
a herd of milking goats. Permission was granted for a number of small
agricultural buildings. The occupier failed to demonstrate that the enterprise
was established as a viable agricultural enterprise and applications for a
caravan and dwelling for residential use were refused.
3.2
In 1999 planning permission was granted for use of the land for the keeping
of horses and the erection of 2 stables and a tack/feed room. In 2003
permission was granted for the erection of a stable. No buildings have been
constructed pursuant to these permissions, there is no evidence of the
change of use having taken place, and no applications were made for the
discharge of conditions of either permission. I therefore consider that these
permissions were never implemented.
3.3
On the basis of the above and aerial photographs showing the appeal site
prior to the current use, it is my view that the lawful use of the land until 2008
was agricultural. This was agreed by the appellant for the 2009 appeal.
Efforts to agree common ground in this case are found in Appendix PW6.
Dec 2007 – 2012:
3.4
On 19 December 2007 a planning application (Appendix PW7) was
submitted for the “Change of use to caravan site for 8 families with a total of
16 caravans, erection of 4 amenity blocks, hardstandings and landscaping.”
3.5
Over the weekend of 31st Jan 2008 -1st February 2008 the Council was
alerted to activity that had taken place and a site visit on 2nd February 2008
confirmed that 3 caravans, a 4x4 vehicle and 2 light vans had arrived on site
adjacent to the building (outside the current appeal site).
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
6
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
3.6
During the application process the proposed development was amended by
the applicant to the “Change of use of agricultural land to caravan site with 4
pitches, erection of 2 amenity blocks, parking of commercial vehicles,
landscaping and associated works,” as shown on plans received on 19
December 2007, as amended by plans received on 10 March and 7 April
2008.
3.7
The application was refused by the Planning Committee on 30 June 2008
(Appendix PW7).
3.8
An enforcement notice was served on 6th March 2009 (Appendix PW8) and
an appeal lodged and later withdrawn by the appellant. The enforcement
notice related to the entire land area (red and blue land) and required,
among other things, the permanent removal of caravans from the land and
cessation of the use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential
occupation.
3.9
The planning appeal was allowed on 24th June 2009 for a period of 3 years,
and I consider the Inspector’s decision (Appendix PW7) in paragraphs 3.173.23 below.
3.10
In relation to the Enforcement Notice the effect of the Inspector’s grant of
planning permission on 24th June 2009 was to override those parts of the
land covered by the March 2009 enforcement notice.
The March 2009
enforcement notice therefore continues to have effect only on land outside
the planning application (and current appeal) site (i.e. the ‘blue land’).
3.11
Condition 2 of the Inspector’s planning permission required a site restoration
scheme to be submitted 6 months before the 3 year period expired. No
scheme was submitted.
3.12
A planning application was submitted for the removal of conditions 1 & 2 of
the Inspector’s planning permission, and this application was refused by the
Council on 31st May 2012 (Planning Committee meeting 28th May 2012 –
See Appendix PW9) for the following reason:
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
7
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
The proposed development is located in the open countryside away from
any existing settlements in a sequentially unsustainable location where
access would be dependant on car use. The applicant has also failed to
demonstrate any overriding need for the proposed development to justify a
departure from adopted development plan policy relating to sustainable
development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP9 (i, v), CP13,
CP14, CP29 of the Core Strategy and Rural Issues Plan 2008 and policies
H26 and BE30 (v) of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2002.
3.13
On 24th June 2012 the 3-year temporary planning permission expired but the
use of the site as a residential caravan site continued.
3.14
On 31st August 2012 an enforcement notice was served against the
unauthorised use of land as a caravan site and associated works and
required the cessation of the use and restoration of the land (Appendix
PW10). No appeal was lodged against the notice, which came into effect on
8th October 2012. At the time of writing none of the requirements of the
notice have been complied with.
3.15
Planning permission was granted on 28th November 2012 for the “Erection
of stable building with hardstanding, fencing and gate for use with the
keeping of horses” on the ‘blue land’ to the south of the access track subject
to conditions (Appendix PW11).
3.16
In relation to Enforcement Notices on the land there are therefore 2 notices:

Mar 2009 relating to the ‘blue land’ requiring removal of caravans
and cessation of residential use and associated works on the ‘blue
land’ (see Appendix PW8 for full requirements);

Aug 2012 relating to the appeal site requiring cessation of residential
use, removal of caravans and vehicles, the removal of all ancillary
objects and structures and services, removal of the hardstanding
areas, and restoration of the site (see Appendix PW10 for full
requirements).
The Inspector’s decision in 2009:
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
8
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
3.17
The Inspector, in her decision letter (Inspector’s Report[IR]) dated 24th June
2009 (see Appendix PW7), considered that there was no proven need for
the development to be in this location apart from land ownership, and that
the proposal therefore failed to meet the provisions of policy CP14 (IR
paragraph13 [IR13]).
3.18
Having regard to the lack of available sites4 and the proven need within the
Borough, she considered that policy CP14 (need for the site to be in the
rural policy area) was not reason for withholding temporary planning
permission [IR13]. It should be noted that she was assessing supply against
Regional Spatial Strategy Policy H3 which required a total of 45 pitches by
2011, and was applying the now cancelled ODPM Circular 01/2006 [IR1112].
3.19
She considered that the impact of the development on the landscape in the
summer would be limited, but any perception of development outside the
settlement would be increased in the winter months harming the open and
undeveloped character [IR14]. She also considered the (then) proposed
development would “dilute the perception of a compact nucleated settlement
within a wide landscape” [IR15], and “would introduce an urbanised form of
development into the agricultural landscape, the presence of which would be
emphasised by any lighting” [IR16].
She therefore considered the
development would fail to meet policy CP9(iii).
She considered that
grouping the pitches at the western end of the site would “reduce and to
some extent minimise” the harm she identified to the character and
appearance of the area [IR17], and considered that this harm “would be
outweighed by the need for pitches until more sequentially appropriate sites
are identified through the DPD process” [IR21].
3.20
The Inspector considered that (considering the absence of specific identified
sites in a DPD to meet the immediate need) “the limitation of the location in
sustainability terms would not justify the refusal of planning permission for a
temporary period, but weighs heavily against a permanent consent” [IR27].
4
In 2009 the Inspector was considering very different circumstances to the present, and IR6-9 sets out this context.
Notably only 2 of the new pitches at Kempston Hardwick had planning permission, and there was no planning
permission for the proposed site at Meadow Lane. Funding bids had been submitted to the HCA, but had not been
determined.
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
9
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
3.21
In coming to her view the Inspector noted that Bletsoe offered only minimal
community facilities, considered that services would be likely to be accessed
in villages more than 2km from the site and that walking and the very limited
bus service were unlikely to be reasonable alternatives to the car [IR25].
She also noted the wider benefits of providing a settled base [IR24].
3.22
The Inspector did not require additional planting since the permission was
granted for a temporary period, although she noted that landscaping would
be beneficial to the landscape of the area [IR37].
3.23
There has been no change in development plan policies since the
Inspector’s decision, except the revocation of the Regional Strategy. The
Submission Version of the draft Allocations & Designations Plan DPD is at
Examination stage, but there are no proposed policies relevant to this
appeal.
I therefore invite the Inspector to give significant weight to the
previous Inspector’s conclusions in terms of how the policies have been
applied.
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
10
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
4
4.1
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The development is the change of use of agricultural land to caravan site 5
with four pitches, erection of two amenity blocks, hardstandings and
landscaping on a permanent basis, without the need for site restoration.
4.2
The following changes have been made to the agricultural field, which was
formerly laid to grass:

Use of the land as a residential caravan site;

Hardstanding areas within the appeal site, except the gravel driveway
from the access with the public highway to the agricultural building (see
Appendix PW1), were laid in association with the use.
The
hardstandings include the gravel surface and hardcore base and all
other materials used in its construction;

A sewage digester and associated pipework and soakaway have been
installed;

Waste and water pipes and electrical services have been installed;

Other non-agricultural structures and objects such as lighting and
domestic paraphernalia (telephone box, planters, fountain/art, sheds,
etc), bollards, marker posts and boundary stones, and fences have been
erected;

Access alterations and boundary treatment have been carried out
including works to the layout and surface of land to the highway edge,
and gates and their posts and fencing (those parts within the appeal site)
have been installed; and

Consent was granted for the construction of utility blocks (although to
date these have not been erected, and portable sanitary units have been
used).
4.3
The developed part of the site is smaller than the appeal site boundary6, and
the eastern part of the appeal site remains undeveloped. This occurred in
part due to the reduction in numbers from 8 to 4 pitches during consideration
5
Planning permission granted at appeal (PINS ref: APP/K0235/A/08/2082215)
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
11
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
of the planning application. The approved site layout can be seen in the
details approved in accordance with condition 11 of the Inspector’s decision.
The development does not include works and uses beyond the appeal site but within
the appellant’s ownership.
6
The Inspector, in her paragraph 17 considered that grouping of the pitches towards the western end of the site
would reduce the harm to the character and appearance of the landscape and the amenities of nearby residential
occupiers.
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
12
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
5
PLANNING POLICY
The Development Plan
5.1
Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that
where regard is to be had to the Development Plan, decisions should be
made
in
accordance
with
the
development
plan
unless
material
considerations indicate otherwise.
5.2
In this case the development plan is the Bedford Development Framework
Core Strategy & Rural Issues Plan 2008 and the saved policies of the
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2002 (Appendix PW12). The Regional Spatial
Strategy and Bedfordshire Structure Plan policies were revoked on 3rd
January 2013. The Allocations & Designations Plan DPD is currently
undergoing Examination, but proposes no changes to the site or surrounding
area.
Core Strategy & Rural Issues Plan 2008:
5.3
The following policies should be considered in relation to this case:
5.4
Policies CP1 and CP2 set the spatial strategy for the plan, and seek
sustainable levels, locations and forms of development. Policy CP2 sets out
8 criteria, and states that “The development and use of land will ensure that:
(iv) Buildings and spaces promote the character of townscape and setting of
settlements and enhance human health and safety; and (v) The character
and quality of local landscapes are preserved and where appropriate
enhanced; and …(vii) The use of public transport, walking and cycling is
encouraged and car use minimised; and (viii) Opportunities for leisure,
recreation and tourism are readily available.”
5.5
The Core Strategy divides the Borough into two policy areas (paragraph
4.7): The Growth Area and the Rural Policy Area; these are shown on the
Key Diagram. The appeal site is in the Rural Policy Area.
5.6
Policy CP9 and paragraphs 4.33 – 4.35 relate to accommodation for
Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. Paragraph 4.35 states that,
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
13
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
“Where a need has been identified … for the provision of additional Gypsy
and Traveller sites, such sites should be in general accordance with Policies
CP3 and CP14.
In principle a sequential approach will be followed to
identify any necessary allocations as part of the Allocations and
Designations Plan DPD process. However, it is recognised that land which
is available and affordable within the urban area and within SPAs for these
purposes is likely to be limited and, given the working patterns of some
Gypsies and Travellers, may not be suitable to meet their needs. In these
circumstances, countryside locations may also be considered.”
5.7
Policy CP9 therefore provides a framework from which to allocate additional
provision for Gypsies and Travellers or consider applications for additional
provision where:
(a) a need has been identified; and
(b) proposed sites are within or adjoining the urban area or SPAs (or where
no such sites are reasonably available or suitable for the use in the
countryside); and
(c) provided that in relation to all locations, the 7 policy criteria are clearly
satisfied.
5.8
The seven criteria are:
I. Submission of evidence to justify local need for the scale and nature of
the accommodation proposed; and
II. Satisfactory vehicular access from the public highway; and
III. Siting and landscaping ensure that any impact upon the character and
appearance of the locality is minimised, including impacts on
biodiversity and nature conservation…; and
IV. The amenities of occupiers of nearby land and property would not be
harmed by the development in an unacceptable manner; and
V. Adequate schools, shops and other community facilities are within
reasonable travelling distance and preferably can be reached by foot,
cycle or public transport; and
VI. The scale of the site or the number of pitches would not be sufficient to
dominate the nearest settled community and would not place undue
pressure on local infrastructure; and
VII. The site would not be located in an area at high risk of flooding…
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
14
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
5.9
Policy CP12 adopts Settlement Policy Areas (SPAs) shown on the
Proposals Map. Proposed revisions to the SPAs are given in the Allocations
and Designations DPD Plan for Submission which is undergoing
Examination. There are no material changes to the SPA for Bletsoe. Policy
CP13 defines all land outside the SPAs as countryside and development in
the countryside will only be permitted if it would be consistent with national
policy. The appeal site is not within the Bletsoe SPA and is within the open
countryside for planning policy purposes.
5.10
Policy CP14 and paragraphs 4.54 – 4.57 relate to the location of
development in the Rural Policy Area. Paragraph 4.55 states that, “Policy
CP14 makes a clear distinction between development in the rural key
service
centres
and
other
settlements
with
SPAs.
Where
residential…development occurs within the Rural Policy Area it will be
focussed in key service centres. Limited infill development may also be
permitted in other SPAs. Only exceptionally will development be permitted
outside SPAs.”
5.11
Policy CP14 introduces a clear sequential test as follows:
(a) There must be a proven need for development to be located in the Rural
Policy Area (rather than the Growth Area);
(b) Most new development will be focussed in or around the edge of key
service centres where employment, housing (including affordable
housing), services and other facilities can be provided close together;
(c) In rural settlements with SPAs “such development will be restricted to
that which is required to meet local business and community needs and
to maintain the viability of those communities.”
In contrast to Key
Service Centres, no provision is made for development around the edge
of SPA villages.
5.12
The Inspector for the 2009 appeal considered that there was no proven
need for the development to be in this location apart from land ownership,
and that the proposal therefore failed to meet the provisions of policy CP14.
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
15
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
5.13
Policy CP15 specifies the Rural Key Service Centres. The closest to the
appeal site are Sharnbrook (3km) and Clapham (7km).
5.14
Policy CP24 and paragraphs 4.93 -4.94 relate to landscape character and
protection.
New development should protect and where appropriate
enhance the quality and character of the landscape. The nature and scale
of development should be appropriate in the wider landscape. Paragraph
4.94 explains the importance of this matter in the rural area of the Borough.
5.15
Policy CP29 states that, “To encourage sustainable modes of transport and
reduce reliance on the car, development will be located and designed to
include facilities which provide convenient access to local services by foot,
cycle and public transport.”
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2002:
5.16
Policy BE30 requires that regard be given to all material considerations
when determining applications for new development. The policy sets out 12
criteria of which the following should be considered: “(v) the extent to which
the development is served by, and makes provision for access by public
transport, cycles and pedestrians”.
Revoked regional policy
5.17
The East of England Plan 2008, revised by the Single Issue Review
‘Planning for Gypsies and Traveller Accommodation’ 2009, was revoked on
3rd January 2013 (Appendix PW13).
5.18
The original Policy H3, as published in the 2008 plan, required local
authorities to make provision to meet the identified needs of Gypsies and
Travellers living within or resorting to their areas. It also referred to a Single
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
16
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
Issue Review already underway into Gypsy and Traveller accommodation
needs.
5.19
The Examination Panel Report into the Single Issue Review (James
Pollard’s Appendix 13) in December 2008, considered Bedford Borough’s
additional need from 2006 – 2011 to be 15 pitches (2 more than the 13
initially considered by EERA7). The Panel considered that there were 20
existing pitches in Bedford Borough and therefore considered total need
(without policy adjustment) to 2011 to be 35 pitches.
5.20
The Panel then proposed a policy increase of 10 pitches for Bedford
Borough in order to disperse some of the region’s wider need. The Panel’s
proposed policy was therefore 35 + 10 pitches, i.e. 45 pitches to 2011. This
figure was adopted by the Secretary of State.
5.21
Beyond 2011 a compound increase of 3%8 per annum was to be calculated
on a regional, not local, basis thereafter. This was a complex calculation of
total additional regional need per annum divided between the districts on the
basis of the proportion that new pitches had been allocated to the districts.
5.22
Although this policy has been revoked, it is important to understand the
distinction between the assessment of need carried out for the regional
strategy and the policy application following that assessment. This will have
a bearing on this appeal considering the recent Roxton appeal decision9
(Appendix PW14), which I look at in paragraphs 6.6-6.11 below.
7
East of England Regional Assembly, the authors of the Regional Plan
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
17
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
5.23
Annex 1 of the NPPF specifies the following in relation to implementation:

Section 38(6)10 continues to apply;

Policies of the Local Plan should not be considered out-of-date simply
because they were adopted prior to NPPF publication;

Policies in the NPPF are material considerations which should be taken
into account;

Weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to
their degree of consistency with the NPPF.

Decision makers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging
plans according to: the stage of preparation; the extent to which there
are unresolved objections; and the degree of consistency to the NPPF.
5.24
I consider the policies in the reasons for refusal are consistent with the
policies of the NPPF, and that full weight should be given to them.
5.25
Paragraphs 6-10 define sustainable development, and the following should
be noted:

The planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable
development (Para 6).

The Government’s view of what sustainable development means in
practice is set out in paragraphs 18-21911 of the NPPF, taken as a
whole.

There are 3 dimensions to (and planning system roles for) sustainable
development: Economic, Social & Environmental.
They are mutually
dependant and cannot be undertaken in isolation; they should be sought
jointly and simultaneously (paras 7 & 8).

Pursuing
sustainable
development
involves
seeking
positive
improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment
8
This compound increase was to be calculated based not on the number of pitches in each Local Authority area, but
on the distribution of new pitches set out in Policy CP3.
9
APP/K0235/A/12/2177503/NWF
10
Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
11
This is the entire NPPF (excluding Annexes) from paragraph 18.
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
18
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
as well as in people’s quality of life.
This includes improving the
conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure. (Para 9)

Plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account.
(Para 10).
5.26
Paragraphs 11-16 introduce a presumption in favour of sustainable
development. Paragraph 14 states that,
“For decision-taking, this means:

approving development proposals that accord with the development
plan without delay; and

where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are
out-of-date, granting permission unless:
o
any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against
the policies in this Framework as a whole; or
o
specific policies in this Framework indicate development
should be restricted.”
NPPF Footnote 10 makes clear this is unless material considerations
indicate otherwise.
5.27
Paragraph 12 makes clear that the statutory status of the development plan
has not changed, and development that accords with an up-to-date local
plan should be approved and development that conflicts should be refused
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
5.28
Paragraph 17 provides 12 core planning principles. Principles 1 (genuinely
plan led), 3 (identify & meet the housing etc needs of an area), 4 (high
quality design & good standard of amenity), 5 (recognising the intrinsic
character & beauty of the countryside), 7 (conserving & enhancing the
natural environment), 8 (reusing land that has been previously developed),
11 (focus significant development in locations which are or can be made
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
19
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
sustainable) & 12 (support local strategies to improve health, social &
cultural wellbeing for all) are relevant to this appeal.
Delivering Sustainable Development:
5.29
Sections 4 (transport), 7 (good design), 8 (healthy communities) & 11 (the
natural environment) are relevant as follows:
5.30
Paragraphs 30 & 35 (bullet point 2).
LPAs should support a pattern of
development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of
sustainable modes of transport.
Developments should be located and
designed where practical to have access to high quality public transport
facilities.
5.31
Paragraphs 56 -58, 61 & 64, which relate to design.
5.32
Paragraph 70.
The last bullet point states decisions should ensure an
integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses
and community facilities and services.
5.33
Paragraphs 109, 111 & 125: Contributing to and enhancing the natural
environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes; encouraging
the effective use of brownfield land; and limiting the impact of light pollution.
5.34
The following paragraphs are relevant in relation to decision-taking:

Paragraphs 186 & 187 (positive approach to decision-taking).

Paragraphs 192, 196 & 197 (determining applications).

Paragraphs 203 & 206 (planning conditions).
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
20
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
5.35
Other policies may also apply to matters that are not disputed issues at the
appeal, but relate to proposed conditions if the Inspector is minded to
approve the development.
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS)
5.36
The PPTS is to be read in conjunction with the NPPF (paragraph 1) it is a
material consideration in planning decisions (paragraph 2).
5.37
The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for
travellers, in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of
travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community (paragraph
3).
5.38
Paragraph 4 has 11 criteria to help achieve the Government’s aims. The
following aims are particularly relevant to this appeal:
(1)
LPAs should make their own assessment of need;
(2)
need should be met through the identification of land for sites;
(3)
LPAs should plan for sites over a reasonable timescale;
(5)
more private traveller site provision should be promoted;
(6)
the number of unauthorised developments and encampments should
be reduced;
(7)
Local Plans should include fair, realistic and inclusive policies;
(8)
in appropriate locations the number of authorised traveller sites should
increase to address under provision and maintain an appropriate level
of supply;
(9)
to reduce tensions between the settled and traveller communities in
planning decisions;
(10) to enable provision of suitable accommodation for travellers from
which they can access education, health, welfare & employment
infrastructure;
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
21
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
(11) to have due regard to the protection of local amenity & local
environment.
5.39
Policy A requires LPAs to use a robust evidence base to establish
accommodation needs and maintain an up-to-date understanding of
permanent and transit accommodation needs of their areas to inform plan
making and planning decisions.
Bedford Borough Council carried out a
Gypsy & Traveller Needs Assessment in 2012 (Appendix PW15).
5.40
Policies B – G relate to plan making, but Policies B & D should be noted as
follows:
5.41
The Council consider that Core Strategy Policy CP9 is consistent with the
policies of the NPPF (PPTS paragraph 7).
5.42
LPAs should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable
sites sufficient to provide 5 years’ worth of sites against locally set targets,
and identify a supply of specific deliverable sites or broad locations for
growth for years 6-10 and 11-15, while protecting local amenity and
environment (paragraph 9). Footnote 7 defines deliverable, and includes
sites with planning permission, unless there is evidence that schemes will
not be implemented within 5 years.
5.43
The Council considers that Core Strategy Policy CP9 & CP14 comply with
paragraph 10.
5.44
Traveller
sites
should
environmentally.
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
be
sustainable
economically,
socially
and
LPAs (and presumably other decision makers) are to
22
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
ensure that policies, among other things, promote access to health services,
ensure children can attend school on a regular basis, provide a settled base
that reduces the need for long-distance travelling, properly consider the
effect of local environmental quality on the health & wellbeing of occupants,
and reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles (live/work locations) can
contribute to sustainability (paragraph 11).
5.45
Policy D makes provision for rural exception sites in small rural communities
(parishes of less than 3000 population) that would not normally be used for
traveller sites. Bletsoe is a small rural community, but the proposal is not for
a rural exception site, which would be specifically for affordable traveller
sites in perpetuity where there is a lack of affordable land to meet local
traveller needs.
5.46
Policies H & I relate to decision-taking and should be noted as follows:
5.47
Applications (and appeals) must be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and
should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in
favour of development (paragraphs 20 & 21).
5.48
The following should be considered, among other matters, when considering
planning applications (paragraph 22):
(a) The existing level of local provision and need for sites;
(b) The availability or lack of alternative accommodation for the applicants;
(c) Other personal circumstances of the applicant;
(d) That the locally specific criteria used to guide allocation of sites should
be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated
sites;
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
23
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
(e) That applications should be determined from any travellers, not just
those with local connections.
5.49
New traveller site development in open countryside should be strictly limited
where away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the
development plan (paragraph 23).
5.50
Weight should also be given to the following matters (paragraph 24):
(a) effective use of previously developed, untidy or derelict land;
(b) sites being well-planned or soft landscaped so as to positively enhance
the environment and increase its openness;
(c) promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate
landscaping and play areas for children;
(d) not enclosing a site with so much hard landscaping, high walls or fences
the impression may be given that the site and its occupants are
deliberately isolated from the rest of the community.
None of the matters listed in paragraph 24 apply to this development.
5.51
When considering applications for the grant of a temporary planning
permission, paragraph 25 requires the absence of an up-to-date 5-year
supply of deliverable sites to be a significant material consideration.
5.52
Policy I, paragraph 29, states that the implementation policies of the NPPF
(i.e. Annex 1 of the NPPF) also apply to Planning Policy for Traveller Sites,
and references made to the NPPF should also be read to mean the PPTS.
In this case that means that policies in the Local Plan should not be
considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to the
publication of PPTS, and that due weight should be given to policies
according to the degree of consistency with PPTS.
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
24
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
Circular 11/95 – The use of conditions in planning permissions
5.53
Paragraphs 203 & 206 of the NPPF summarise the main points of this
circular, and in particular the six tests (necessary; relevant to planning;
relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise; and
reasonable in all other respects). Specific reference to other parts of the
circular may or may not be made at the Inquiry during the consideration of
conditions proposed should the Inspector be minded to allow the appeal.
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
25
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
6
ASSESSMENT OF LOCAL NEED & PLANNED SITES
Assessment of need:
6.1
The Council carried out an assessment of need for Gypsy and Traveller
pitches for the period up to 2021 (GTAA) in August 2012 (Appendix PW15).
6.2
Step 1 of the assessment12 identified an assessed need in July 2012 of 3013
pitches (it also notes an existing supply of 16 pitches, and 20 pitches with
planning permission, providing a surplus of 6 pitches).
6.3
Step 2 of the assessment calculated a five year supply from 2012 – 2017,
and assessed a need for a further supply of 2 pitches.
6.4
Step 3 assessed need from 2017 – 2021 as a further 4 pitches.
6.5
Total assessed need to 2021 is therefore 36 pitches.
6.6
In March 2013 an Inspector, in her decision in relation to a traveller appeal
at Roxton14, considered that the Council’s GTAA was not a robust
assessment of need. She had three particular concerns as follows:
6.7
Firstly, that it did not directly involve members of the traveller community,
either through stakeholder organisations or direct interview (IR14);
6.8
Secondly, that it did not examine the implications on the pattern of supply
and demand in Bedford of the difference in approach between the Regional
Strategy and the 2012 GTAA (IR18); and
6.9
Thirdly, that it did not assess the demand for privately owned sites (IR19).
6.10
The Council do not agree with her assessment, and James Pollard (Housing
Strategy Manager) will give evidence to this Inquiry that was not available to
the Inspector for the Roxton appeal. I agree with Mr Pollard’s conclusions
12
13
See summary table in Appendix 2.
29.8 pitches
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
26
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
and am satisfied that the weaknesses identified by the Inspector were in fact
addressed by the Council. Had the Inspector for the Roxton appeal had the
information set before this Inquiry she could not have reached the
conclusions she did.
6.11
The Council also consider that the Inspector for the Roxton appeal, in
considering that she had applied the assessed need which fed into the
regional policy, has in fact exceeded the assessed need and applied a needplus-policy re-distribution (i.e. the identified need of 15 pitches to 2011 plus
the regional policy re-distribution of 10 pitches to 2011). The Council are
therefore seeking to quash the decision at the High Court (Appendix PW16).
Existing and planned sites:
Existing pitches – Kempston Hardwick:
6.12
The Council has 16 established pitches at Kempston Hardwick, and
completed the development of 6 new pitches at the site in February 2013
(Appendix PW17); there are therefore 22 existing pitches.
6.13
This site is located 6km south of Bedford in the Growth Area, and is served
by regular bus services into Bedford (2 per hour Mon - Sat) and the
Interchange Retail Park (3km), Ampthill, Flitwick and Dunstable, with a bus
stop immediately outside the site (Appendix PW17). There is also an hourly
rail service from Bedford to Bletchley (Milton Keynes) from Kempston
Hardwick Railway Station (1.3km).
6.14
The site is also adjacent to, and surrounded by, the Wixams major mixed
development of 4500 homes, with a proposed settlement centre, 5 local
centres and employment developments. By the end of 2015 access should
be gained from the B530 into and across the Wixams site (as far as the A6),
and a new railway station/bus interchange, a lower school, a small
supermarket and a village hall will be within 2-3km of the Kempston
Hardwick site. There is also planning permission for a large supermarket, a
14
APP/K0235/A/12/2177503/NWF
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
27
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
middle school, and employment and other uses, and over time the site will
become increasingly well related to local facilities.
Meadow Lane:
6.15
The Council has planning permission for 14 pitches at Meadow Lane
(Appendix PW18).
6.16
This site is located on the edge of the Urban Area of Bedford, in the Growth
Area on land owned by the Council. It is served by regular bus services
along the A603 into Bedford Monday to Saturday (more than 2 buses per
hour at peak periods) and bus stops in both directions are located 260m
from the site (500m including the site access drive). Buses link the site with
Bedford, Sandy, Biggleswade and a number of local villages, including Rural
Key Service centre Great Barford (where there is a doctor’s surgery). There
is access to a post office/store, pubs, churches, a doctor’s surgery, a
pharmacy, and a community public open space within 2-3km15.
6.17
Detailed design is continuing to bring forward the Meadow Lane site, but
there are technical issues still to be resolved before finalising the design and
confirming a start date (Appendix PW19 – Mayors decision 1106). Evidence
is given at this Inquiry on noise by Patrick Allen, flood risk by Malcolm
Parker, and ecology by James Calow.
6.18
Malcolm Parker concludes that the proposals for the Meadow Lane site are
acceptable from a flood risk viewpoint, and the Internal Drainage Board
consider that the site will be in Flood Zone 1 after site development and
have not objected to the proposal.
The site is therefore suitable for
residential development in terms of flood risk.
6.19
Patrick Allen concludes that, subject to a 2.5m high roadside barrier, the site
is acoustically acceptable for residential use as a caravan site.
15
At Cardington, Shortstown, Willington & Cople
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
28
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
6.20
With the proposed biodiversity enhancement measures, adverse impacts on
habitats at the Meadow Lane site will be beneficial. Appropriate habitat
management combined with ecologically guided landscaping activities will
provide habitats and features for a selection of faunal species. This will
result in positive beneficial impacts on habitats for faunal species.
6.21
Regarding odour Anglian Water have recently commenced an upgrade of
their sewage treatment works facilities and are expected to produce an
odour management plan which may result in a significant improvement. The
Council’s position is that this will occur and therefore expect that in the next
two or three years the Council will have the opportunity to bring forward the
pitches at Meadow Lane should they be required at that time. In accordance
with PPTS footnote 7 (p3) Meadow Lane should therefore be regarded as a
deliverable site and part of the supply.
Fairhill:
6.22
The Council has also identified another site for 14 pitches at Fairhill
(Appendix PW20). If planning permission is granted, the Fairhill site may be
a quicker site to deliver than Meadow Lane (Appendix PW19 – Mayors
decision 1106). The planning application will be considered by the Planning
Committee on 20th May 2013, and I will update the Inquiry after that date. I
aware of no interest of acknowledged importance at this stage that would
require refusal of the planning application.
6.23
This site is located within the Urban Area of Bedford and the Growth Area on
land owned by the Council. It is located in close proximity to regular bus
routes, is located adjacent to a large supermarket, will have child play areas
on and off site, and provides easy access to schools, shops, medical and
other community facilities including Bedford Town Centre (around 2km).
6.24
Evidence is given at this Inquiry on noise by Patrick Allen, flood risk by
Malcolm Parker, and ecology by James Calow.
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
29
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
6.25
Malcolm Parker concludes that the Fairhill site is located entirely within
Flood Zone 1. The site is therefore suitable for residential development in
terms of flood risk.
6.26
Patrick Allen concludes that, subject to suitable design measures, the site is
acoustically acceptable for residential use as a caravan site.
6.27
With the proposed biodiversity enhancement measures, adverse impacts on
habitats at the Fairhill site will be beneficial. Appropriate habitat
management combined with ecologically guided landscaping activities will
provide habitats and features for a selection of faunal species. This will
result in positive beneficial impacts on habitats for faunal species.
Delivery of new sites:
6.28
Funding has been received from the Homes & Communities Agency for 14
non-site-specific pitches; a condition of the grant is that the pitches be
delivered by March 2015. Given the need to bring forward additional pitches
to meet the recognised need and the importance of taking advantage of the
funding from the HCA, one or other of the Meadow Lane or Fairhill sites will
be delivered by 2015.
6.29
Tenure and future ownership of these sites has not yet been determined, but
should they not be brought forward by members of the traveller community
or a Registered Provider, the Council is able to secure delivery of one of
these two sites within the next 5 years.
6.30
If planning permission is granted for the Fairhill site, then supply is therefore
as follows:
Either:
(1)
22 pitches at Kempston Hardwick, plus one of:
14 pitches at Meadow Lane or 14 pitches at Fairhill
Total supply: 36 pitches
Or, in the event that technical issues remain unresolved at Meadow Lane:
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
30
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
(2)
22 pitches at Kempston Hardwick, plus:
14 pitches at Fairhill
Total supply: 36 pitches
6.31
The Council therefore has sufficient existing and planned sites to meet the
identified need of 36 pitches to 2021.
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
31
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
ANALYSIS
The Development Plan and national Policy:
7.1
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires
that decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless
material considerations indicate otherwise.
The Development Plan is
therefore fundamental to consideration of this appeal, and consists of the
Core Strategy & Rural Issues Plan 2008 (CSRIP) and the saved policies of
the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2002 (BBLP).
7.2
The NPPF16 states that due weight should be given to relevant policies in
existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. I
consider that the Development Plan policies I have quoted in relation to this
development are in full accord with the NPPF and therefore attribute full
weight to them.
7.3
I note the presumption in favour of sustainable development in both the
NPPF and PPTS, and that this means approving development that accords
with the Development Plan without delay17 and that development that
conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate
otherwise18. I do not consider that the Development Plan is absent, silent or
relevant policies are out of date.
The development:
7.4
The development is the permanent retention of the site for use as a caravan
site for Gypsies and Travellers and the retention of the physical works
carried out on agricultural land. I agree with the previous Inspector for the
2009 appeal that the development of this land as a caravan site has a visual
impact on the character and appearance of the land that it did not have in its
undeveloped state.
The Development Plan:
16
Annex 1, paragraph 215
NPPF para 14
18
NPPF para 12
17
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
32
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
7.5
General Development Plan policy19 in CSRIP policy CP13 does not permit
development in the countryside unless it is consistent with national policy.
PPTS Policy H states that LPAs should strictly limit new traveller site
development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or
outside areas allocated in the development plan.
The proposed
development is neither in an existing settlement nor an area allocated in the
development plan, and the proposed development is not a rural exception
site as provided for in PPTS Policy D.
7.6
BBLP Policy H26 states that planning permission will not be granted for
housing in the open countryside except in relation to agricultural workers’
dwellings, replacement dwellings and local needs ‘affordable’ housing.
7.7
Specific Gypsy and Traveller development plan policy is found in Policy CP9
and CP14.
CSRIP paragraph 4.7 makes clear that where a need is
identified under CP9 the provision of sites should be in general accordance
with the policies CP3 (for the Growth Area) and CP14 (for the Rural Policy
Area); these policies apply a sequential approach which is supported by
CSRIP policy CP29 and BBLP policy BE30(v).
Structure and approaches of CP9 and CP14:
7.8
In paragraphs 5.6 – 5.8 of this proof I set out the approach required by CP9;
this provides both a sequential approach and a criteria-based approach and
is positively drafted as advocated in the NPPF & PPTS. It is important to
note that all seven criteria must be clearly met, and that a sequential
approach is set out.
7.9
If a need has been identified and all seven criteria are clearly satisfied then
the sequential approach makes provision for sites within or adjoining the
urban area or SPAs; the development site is not within or adjoining the
urban area or an SPA, but is in the countryside. Sites in the countryside are
only permitted where there are no sites reasonably available or suitable in or
adjoining the urban area or SPAs.
19
That not relating specifically to Gypsy & Traveller site development
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
33
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
7.10
In the same way CP14 also applies a sequential test (see paragraphs 5.10 –
5.12 of this proof) where there must, firstly, be a need for development to be
located in the Rural Policy Area rather than the Growth Area. Only if such a
need is established will development be permitted in specified areas in the
Rural Policy Area, namely, in or around key service centres. Finally, if a
need for the development to be located in the Rural Policy Area is
established, and the development is not ‘in or around the edge of key
service centres’ then development in SPAs will be restricted to that required
to meet local business and community needs and maintain the viability of
those communities (i.e. the village).
The previous Inspector considered
there was no proven need for the development, and that the proposal failed
to meet the provisions of CP14; I agree with her view on this matter.
7.11
The sequential approaches in CP9 and CP14 are therefore similar, and are
key to the consideration of this appeal. PPTS also aims to increase the
number of traveller sites in appropriate locations20, but strictly limit new
traveller site development in the open countryside away from existing
settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan21.
7.12
I find conflict with criteria (i) and (v) of CP9, and CP9’s sequential approach.
CP9 criteria (i) and the first stage of CP9’s sequential test – local need:
7.13
The first criterion, and the first requirement of the policy, is that there must
be a local need for the scale and nature of the accommodation proposed.
This matter is the main consideration in this appeal.
7.14
PPTS expects local planning authorities to make their own assessments of
need22 using a robust evidence base to establish accommodation needs and
make planning decisions23.
It also expects local planning authorities to
consider the existing level of local provision and need for sites24. It states
that where a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up-to-date 5year supply of deliverable sites, this should be a material consideration in
any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for
20
PPTS para 4 bullet point 8.
PPTS para 23
22
PPTS para 4 bullet point 2
23
PPTS Policy A(c)
24
PPTS para 22(a)
21
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
34
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
temporary planning permission25.
Deliverable is defined in two ways in
footnote 7 of the PPTS26. Firstly, as being available now, offering a suitable
location for development now, and being achievable, with a realistic
prospect that development will be delivered within 5 years, and in particular
that the site is viable. Secondly, as sites with planning permission until
permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be
implemented within five years”.
7.15
I note the evidence of James Pollard and the criticisms of the 2012 GTAA by
the Inspector for the Roxton appeal. I agree with Mr Pollard’s conclusions
and consider that the GTAA is a robust evidence base of need. I also note
the Councils existing, recently developed and proposed pitches/sites, and
the timescale for delivery of 14 pitches (on either Meadow Lane or Fairhill)
within the next 5 years. I consider that both current need and a five year
supply of pitches will be met by specific deliverable sites, and that these
sites may well make provision to 2021.
7.16
If planning permission is granted for the Fairhill site, then supply is therefore
as follows:
Either:
(1)
22 pitches at Kempston Hardwick, plus one of:
14 pitches at Meadow Lane or 14 pitches at Fairhill
Total supply: 36 pitches
Or, in the event that technical issues remain unresolved at Meadow Lane:
(2)
22 pitches at Kempston Hardwick, plus:
14 pitches at Fairhill
Total supply: 36 pitches
7.17
This exceeds the 5 year supply identified in the 2012 GTAA and I therefore
consider that local need for additional traveller sites has not been evidenced,
and that the development fails to satisfy criterion (i) of CP9.
The second stage of CP9’s sequential test – general location:
25
26
PPTS para 25.
Referred to in PPTS paragraph 9(a)
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
35
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
7.18
The Inspector for the previous appeal granted temporary planning
permission on the basis that more sustainable and sequentially preferable
sites were likely to come forward (IR26-27). The Council’s planned sites are
located within the Urban Area (Fairhill) and adjoining the Urban Area
(Meadow Lane); they are both in the Growth Area, and are sequentially
preferable to the appeal site. In paragraphs 7.13 – 7.17 above I find that
these sites meet the identified need, and sites in the countryside are
therefore not to be considered under CP9.
The first stage of CP14’s sequential test – need to be in the rural policy area:
7.19
I have seen no reasoned case at application stage for the need for the
development to be in the Rural Policy Area rather than the Growth Area. I
find no case for the use needing to be in the Rural Policy Area, and note the
advantages below of locating residential development in the Growth Area,
and of preserving the rural character of the Rural Policy area.
CP9 criterion (v) – travel to facilities:
7.20
CP9’s fifth criterion is that adequate schools, shops and other community
facilities be within reasonable travelling distance, and preferably can be
reached by foot, cycle or public transport. BE30(v), CP2(vii) and CP29 are
complimentary in requiring consideration to be given to the extent to which
the development is served by and makes provision for access by public
transport, cycles and pedestrians, and to encourage sustainable modes of
transport and reduce reliance on the car by locating development to provide
convenient access to local services by foot, cycle and public transport.
7.21
PPTS aims to increase the number of sites in appropriate locations and to
enable provision of suitable accommodation from which travellers can
access education, health, welfare and employment infrastructure27.
The
NPPF expects local plan policies, where reasonably able to do so, to
support a pattern of development which facilitates the use of sustainable
modes of transport28, and for developments to be located where practical to
have access to high quality public transport facilities 29; it also states that
27
PPTS para 4, 8th bullet point
NPPF para 35
29
NPPF para 35, 2nd bullet point
28
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
36
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
planning decisions should ensure an integrated approach to considering the
location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services.
7.22
The previous Inspector [IR27] considered that the limitation of the location in
sustainability terms weighed heavily against a permanent consent. I agree
with that view, and consider that CP9(v) is not satisfied, and that there is
conflict with BE30(v) and CP29.
7.23
In coming to this view I note that the closest facilities of any kind are found in
Bletsoe, which is 0.5-0.7km from the appeal site. This is within the typical
walking distance advocated in paragraph 75 of the former PPG13, but does
not provide access to schools or shops (or in fact any other community
facilities except a church, village hall and a village green). The proximity of
the site to the village of Bletsoe cannot ensure compliance with criterion (v)
of Policy CP9.
7.24
I note the limited bus service from Bletsoe village into Bedford, and that it
exceeds the distance normally expected in DfT publication “Inclusive
Mobility”. I anticipate that the service would not be used on a regular basis
by site users.
7.25
The nearest schools, shops, medical and other facilities are provided in
Sharnbrook (3km), Clapham (5.5km) and Bedford (11km). Sharnbrook is
accessed travelling north along the A6 and turning west at the roundabout.
This is the route that would be taken by all forms of transport including
pedestrians.
7.26
For pedestrians the route to be followed is described in paragraph 2.9 of this
proof. Not only is this route somewhat hazardous, but it is also significantly
further than the 2km widely accepted previously as a reasonable walking
distance.
7.27
The distance from the site into Sharnbrook is within a 5km distance for
cycling, however, cyclists would not be well advised to attempt to use the
A6, but would probably be forced to use the footway.
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
37
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
7.28
As a minimum criterion (v) of the policy requires that schools, shops and
other community facilities be within reasonable travelling distance. The site
is not within a reasonable walking distance, there are no cycle ways, and the
A6 is not suitable for cycling. There is a limited bus service to Bedford from
Bletsoe village. I am aware of no acknowledged benchmark for assessing
reasonable travelling distance by car, but clearly all car journeys require a
person of persons over the age of 17 with a vehicle to be available, and this
would severely restrict the travel patterns of those under the age of 17,
unable to drive, or without the use of a car. On balance I do not consider
that the site is within a reasonable travelling distance of those facilities.
7.29
In contrast, the Council’s planned sites are significantly better related (see
paragraphs 6.8 – 6.15 of this proof).
Conclusion in relation to the development plan:
7.30
I therefore find that the development is contrary to development plan policies
CP9(i)&(v) and the sequential approach, CP13, CP14, CP29, H26 and
BE30(v). I also find that these policies are supported by national policy in
the NPPF and PPTS which the development fails to comply with.
Other material considerations:
The presumption in favour of sustainable development:
7.31
Following the method of applying the presumption set out in the NPPF, and
having found that the development does not accord with the development
plan, the application should be refused unless material considerations
indicate otherwise30.
Other Government Policy Considerations:
7.32
In addition to the above PPTS Policy H states that LPAs should consider the
following when considering applications:
Personal circumstances & alternative accommodation:
7.33
Article 8(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights provides that:
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home
and his correspondence”.
30
Article 8(2) states that, “There shall be no
NPPF paras 12 & 14
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
38
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such
as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in
the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of
the country, for the prevention of disorder and crime, for the protection of
health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
7.34
The dismissal of the appeal would confirm the enforcement notice
requirement to cease the residential use of the land and would be an
infringement of these rights.
7.35
As noted above the rights set out in article 8(1) can be interfered with by a
public authority in accordance with the law as necessary in a democratic
society “as is necessary in the interests of the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others”. Such an interference must be proportionate to the level
of protection required to protect the rights and freedoms of others, but this
clause makes provision for a balancing of rights – those of the appellants
and those of others. In Chapman v UK ([2001] 33 EHRR 399) these rights
were held to include the protection of the environment for the enjoyment of
others, and planning controls are capable of justifying interferences with
Article 8(1) rights.
7.36
Mr Allen Jnr and his family have not applied to the Council for an existing or
proposed pitch. Were they to do so they would be considered alongside
others on the waiting list in accordance with the Council’s published
allocations policy. The Council accept the ‘Gypsy Status’ of Mr Thomas
Allen (Jnr), Mrs Natalie Allen, and their children, but the appellant has not
put forward any particular circumstances to be considered.
7.37
The appellant has not advised who else is on the site, and the Council has
not been able to establish, who is on the site, and whether occupiers are
resident temporarily or permanently. The appellant has not submitted the
information requested by The Planning Inspectorate on 4th January or 10th
April. He has also not replied to the Council’s letter dated 13th March, and
has failed to reply to the requisition for information sent to Mr Allen Snr, Mr
Allen Jnr, and ‘the occupiers’ on 2nd April (Appendix PW21). I note that the
land is rated as being only two family units (“dwellings”) for Council tax
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
39
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
purposes, and that an occupier not related to the appellant occupied one
pitch between March 2012 and February 2013 (Appendix PW22). In the
circumstances I am therefore unable to give consideration or any weight to
personal circumstances of any occupiers.
7.38
Should information be received at a late stage in the appeal proceedings the
Council will need to consider whether it is prejudiced by submission of new
information at that stage, and will need to consider its position including
whether it considers a fair hearing can be held on the scheduled dates, and
whether this amounts to unreasonable behaviour on the part of the
appellant.
7.39
The Council’s understanding is that the case made during the planning
application was for pitches to meet general need, not specific need based on
personal circumstances; it is keen to ensure that the case put at appeal is
not different to the case made at application stage.
7.40
I note that Council has existing and planned provision to meet the identified
need, and that should the appeal be dismissed, other sites would be
available. At the time of writing Mr & Mrs Allen Jnr have not applied to be
considered for these sites, and any other occupiers in need of
accommodation are also able to make their circumstances known and apply
for a new pitch. Mr & Mrs Allen Jnr have been advised that they may apply
for a Council pitch but have made no application to be considered.
7.41
Dismissal of the appeal would therefore breach the Human Rights of Mr &
Mrs Allen Jnr and their children, and any other resident occupiers of the site.
However, in weighing the these rights against those of others, and
considering all the information before me, I consider that the breach of these
rights is necessary and proportionate.
7.42
In the light of the absence of any evidence I attribute no weight to personal
circumstances.
Consideration of applications from any travellers:
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
40
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
7.43
The assessment of local need provides a statistical number of additional
pitches needed up to 2021 rather than the needs of individual persons. In
providing the necessary supply of sites the Council will consider applications
from any travellers (or non-travellers) and not just those with local
connections.
PPTS paragraph 24:
7.44
PPTS states that in considering applications weight should be attached to
the following matters:

Effective use of previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict
land.
The appeal site is not previously developed, untidy or derelict, and an
Enforcement Notice requires the restoration of the land to its former,
undeveloped state. The Council’s planned sites (Fairhill and Meadow
Lane) are both previously developed land.

Sites being well-planned or soft landscaped:
Although the Bletsoe site is tidy, it does not positively enhance the
environment compared to its undeveloped state, the openness of the
environment is not increased, and the site is not substantially
landscaped.
The site does not afford individual families their own
enclosed space.

Promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate
landscaping and play areas for children:
There is a large area of hardstanding and areas of grass at the Bletsoe
site, but there is no formal children’s play area. The Council’s planned
Fairhill site will contain a formal play area.

Not fencing the site with so much hard landscaping, high walls or fences
that the impression may be given that the site and its occupants are
deliberately isolated from the rest of the community:
The Bletsoe meets this requirement, and some weight can be given to
this.
7.45
I note that the appellant has expended resources in the carrying out of the
following works in the development of the site:

Installed a sewage digester;
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
41
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI

Imported demolition waste as a hardcore base laid over the original
ground;

Installed sewage and water pipework in the hardcore base;

Run a power supply from the building in the blue land;

Imported gravel to overlay the hardcore base;

Installed portacabin-type portable utility blocks;

Carried out alterations to the highway;

Installed fencing and gates;

Installed planting areas and features.
I consider that he was aware that the planning permission was for a
temporary period, and was advised of this on several occasions during the
process by the Council and is aware of the two Enforcement Notices.
Circular 11/95 states there is no presumption that a temporary planning
permission should become permanent31, and I give little weight to this
matter.
Whether conditions could overcome planning objections:
7.46
The conflict I identify with the development plan goes to the heart of the
suitability of this location.
I can therefore see no way of making the
development acceptable by imposing planning conditions or through
planning obligations.
Other matters:
7.47
No other material considerations have been put forward by the appellant,
and I am aware of none that would have a bearing on my determination.
7.48
I therefore consider that there are no material considerations that outweigh
the conflict with the development plan, and therefore request that the appeal
be dismissed.
31
Referred to in PPTS para 25 footnote 12.
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
42
Proof of Evidence
Peter White BA(Hons) MA DipTP MRTPI
CONCLUSION
8.1
I therefore consider that the development is contrary to the development plan,
and that there are no material considerations that indicate that planning
permission should be granted.
8.2
The Inspector is respectfully requested to dismiss the appeal.
Inquiry opening 29th May 2013
43