Gypsy caravan site — Refusal of planning permission by local planning authority — Whether proposed site use would be harmful to character and appearance of locality — Whether need for additional gypsy sites in area out-weighed harm to environment and local policy — Inspector dismissing appeal — High Court upholding decision — Appeal dismissed
This was an appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the inspector’s decision to dismiss the appeal against the council’s refusal of planning permission for a mobile home and site for 10 touring caravans on land at Muskham Lane, Bathley, Nottinghamshire. The inspector determined the matter on the basis that the proposed development was for a gypsy caravan site. The development plan for the area was the Nottinghamshire replacement structure plan approved in 1991. Policy 10/2 was entitled “Control of Development in the Countryside”. It provided that permission would not normally be given for development outside the limits of existing built up areas subject to certain exceptions; and that development so permitted should be located and designed so as not to adversely affect the countryside. Policy 3/6, under the heading “Gypsy Caravan Sites”, provided that adequate provision would be made for long- and short-stay caravan sites for gypsies in accordance with the requirements of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The sites should normally be: “(a) in areas frequented by gypsies; (b) reasonably accessible to community services and facilities; (c) capable of achieving an acceptable environmental impact”. Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 required that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicated otherwise.
In this case the inspector found that the proposed use would not accord with the relevant policies of the structure plan. He had borne in mind Circulars 28/77 and 57/78 that there were advantages in gypsies providing their own sites and that it might be necessary to agree to caravan sites in areas of open land, particularly where they came close to the urban fringe. On balance he concluded that the need for additional authorised gypsy sites in the area did not override the serious harm that the proposed use would have in the character and appearance of the locality.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The inspector had realised that the Circulars 28/77 and 57/78 were material considerations and had correctly balanced the policies in the plan against national planning policies applicable to gypsies set out therein.
2. It was right to look first at policy 3/6 of the plan and apply it to the proposed development to the exclusion of policy 10/2. If the development satisfied the criteria of policy 3/6 then it did not come within 10/2. However, if the development did not achieve the standard referred to in policy 3/6 then policy 10/2 reapplied and the development was to be assessed in the requirement thereof.
3. In this case, the inspector held that the proposal did not comply with para 3/6(a) and (c). Therefore policy 10/2 remained applicable because the site was not one capable of coming within policy 3/6. The inspector was entitled to find that proposed development was not such a site.
Barry Payton (instructed by Tallents Godfrey & Co, of Newark) appeared for the applicant; Alice Robinson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; the local planning authority did not appear and were not represented.
