Case Reference: 3282975

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 21 July 2023
by D Hartley BA (Hons) MTP MBA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 25 August 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/C3430/W/21/3282975
Squirrels Rest, Poplar Lane, Hatherton, Cannock, Staffordshire WS11 1RS
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the
Act) against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of South Staffordshire Council.
• The application Ref 20/00801/COU, dated 18 September 2020, was refused by notice
dated 18 March 2021.
• The development proposed is change of use of land to mixed use for the keeping of
horses and as a residential gypsy caravan site for the stationing of three caravans,
together with laying of hardstanding, erection of amenity building, stable and haybarn.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issues
2. The appeal site falls within land designated as Green Belt. Therefore, the main
issues are: -
• whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green
Belt including its effect on openness and the purposes of the Green Belt,
• the effect of the development on the landscape character of the area,
• the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the Cannock Chase Special
Area of Conservation,
• the provision and need for Gypsy and Traveller sites,
• the personal circumstances of the family including the best interests of
the children, and,
• if the development is inappropriate in the Green Belt, whether the harm
by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly
outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special
circumstances necessary to justify development.
Reasons
Site and proposal
3. The appeal site is situated to the north side of Poplar Lane about 350 metres
south-west of the built-up residential suburb of Cannock. Bridleway No. 4 runs
alongside the western boundary of the site and separates it from the
neighbouring and lawful Gypsy and Traveller site known as ‘The Stables’. The
boundary of Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (along Sandy
Lane) is about 400 metres to the north of the application site at its nearest
point. There is a dwelling adjacent to the appeal site known as ‘Squirrels Rest’
which falls within blue edged land on the site location plan. This is occupied by
the appellant and his family.
4. The appeal site is to the north of ‘Squirrels Rest’ and includes an existing
manege. The existing vehicular access from Poplar Lane would be used for the
purpose of reaching the appeal site. On one side of the site (i.e., the existing
manege), the proposal would include two static caravans, one of which would
be used by the appellant’s daughter and her spouse for residential purposes
and the other to be specifically used by the appellant’s child in connection with
educational and social development requirements. On this part of the site,
there would also be a touring caravan and a horizontal timber boarded clad
amenity building. On the eastern part of the site, it is proposed to erect a
wooden stable building (i.e., two loose boxes and a store) and a corrugated
metal sheet hay barn.
5. One-metre-high timber post and rail fencing would be erected on the eastern
boundary of the appeal site and hedge and tree planting is proposed
immediately to the east and north of the proposed static caravans, touring
caravan and amenity building, thereby physically separating this area from the
proposed barn and stable building.
Whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt
6. The appeal development falls within land designated as Green Belt. There is no
dispute that the appeal site would be used by those that meet the definition of
a Gypsy/Traveller in annex 1 of the Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller
Sites (PPTS).
7. It is noteworthy that that the above definition has recently been the subject of
the Court of Appeal judgement of Smith v SSLUHC & Ors (2022) EWCA (Smith
judgment). The definition of Gypsies/Travellers was found to be discriminatory
in that it made it harder for elderly and disabled ethnic Gypsies and Travellers
to obtain planning permission in so far that it does not include persons of
nomadic habitat of life who, on grounds of their own or family’s dependants’
educational or health needs or old age, have ceased to travel permanently. The
above legal judgement is not determinative in terms of this appeal as the main
parties agree that the occupiers of the appeal site would, in any event, meet
the definition as contained within annex 1 of the PPTS. I have no reason to
disagree with this finding.
8. The proposal is for a mixed use where one of the primary uses is a caravan
site. Policy E of the PPTS states that ‘Traveller sites (temporary or permanent)
in the Green Belt are inappropriate development’. I therefore find that the
proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This is
also a common ground position reached by the main parties.
9. Paragraphs 147 and 148 of the Framework state that inappropriate
development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and that substantial
weight should be given to any harm to it. For the reasons outlined above, the
proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, in
this regard, it would not accord with policies GB1 and H6 of the South
Staffordshire Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2012 (CS), the
Framework and the PPTS.
Effect on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt
10. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their
permanence. The Court of Appeal1 has confirmed that the openness of the
Green Belt can have both a spatial and a visual dimension.
11. The proposal would include three buildings, two static caravans, a touring
caravan, fencing, parked vehicles and other likely associated domestic
paraphernalia. Despite some existing and proposed landscaping, the
development would be visible from the bridleway close to the site and, to a
more limited degree, from longer distance views to the east (e.g., from Hatton
Road). While I acknowledge that there is an established Gypsy and Traveller
site adjacent to the appeal site, I find that in spatial terms the proposed
development would cause harm the openness of the Green Belt. Indeed, a
substantial amount of development, including caravans, structures and
vehicles, would be introduced on the site which is currently very open in
character.
12. The proposed stable building would be positioned away from existing built form
and considering its size and relatively remote location, I do not find that it
would preserve the openness of the Green Belt. In reaching this view, I accept
that it would be screened in part from some longer distance views due to
intervening existing vegetation, but the building would nonetheless be
conspicuous when seen from parts of bridleway No. 4 which runs immediately
to the side of the appeal site. When the stable building is considered alongside
the other proposed development, I find that there would be a noticeable loss of
the openness of the Green Belt in spatial terms.
13. I accept that the existing appeal site includes a manege. That has some, albeit
a limited, impact on the openness of the Green Belt. On my site visit, I noticed
that a wooden cabin style building had been erected on the appeal site. It was
to the north of the manege and alongside the fence associated with bridleway
No. 4. I do not know if this is lawful as there is no reference to it in the
respective statements of case. I have assumed that it is lawful for the purposes
of assessing the impact of the proposed development on the openness of the
Green Belt.
14. I acknowledge that views of the proposed development from the west would be
limited given the intervening neighbouring Gypsy and Traveller site. Given this,
coupled with the fact that part of the site includes an existing manege, I find
that the proposed development as a whole would have a moderately adverse
impact on the openness of the Green Belt in visual terms.
15. Paragraph 138 of the Framework states that the Green Belt serves five
purposes. I am satisfied that the appeal proposal would not conflict with four of
the Green Belt purposes, namely that it would not lead to the sprawl of a large
built up area, would not lead to neighbouring towns merging into one another,
would not cause any harm to the setting and special character of any historic
town and, given the scale and nature of the appeal proposal, could not
reasonably be said to directly prevent urban regeneration elsewhere.
1 Turner v SSLG & East Dorset Council [2016]
16. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the development as a whole would have
the effect of urbanising what is otherwise a predominantly open and
undeveloped site in the countryside. Harm would be caused in this regard, from
areas of hardstanding, the provision of caravans, vehicles, from the erection of
buildings and the likely provision of associated domestic paraphernalia. I
therefore find that when the proposal is considered as a whole, it would not
safeguard the countryside from encroachment. Therefore, there would be
conflict with one of the purposes of the Green Belt. This weighs against
allowing the appeal and there would therefore be conflict with paragraph 138 of
the Framework.
Effect on the landscape character of the area
17. The appeal site is located within an area which is described in the 2019 South
Staffordshire Green Belt study as making a strong contribution towards the
openness of the Green Belt and where protection against encroachment is
particularly important. The study states that ‘in South Staffordshire around
80% of the district is designated as Green Belt, which has broadly prevented
the outward spread of the West Midlands conurbation to the northwest’. The
appeal site is in the ‘Cannock Chase and Cank Wood’ national character area in
the South Staffordshire Design Guide 2018 (Design Guide). This identifies that
the area ‘is characterised by rolling plateaux with scattered woodlands and a
peaceful, strongly rural character in the northern part of the area’.
18. As part of my site visit, I was able to experience that the landscape character
of this part of the countryside is predominantly open and rural and that the
land topography is gently undulating. The appeal site is quite close to the built-
up edge of Cannock, but given the degree of separation from it, coupled with
intervening landscaping, it is very much seen as being part of the countryside
rather than being very closely aligned with the settlement edge.
19. While there is some sporadic development in this part of the countryside,
including the Gypsy and Traveller site adjacent to Squirrels Rest, this is the
exception rather than the norm in this environment. Overall, the area is
experienced by passers-by, including walkers and horse riders, as one with
narrow country lanes lined with trees and hedgerows as well as mainly open
fields some of which include field boundary vegetation. These attributes add
positively and distinctively to the landscape character of this part of the
countryside, particularly when appreciated from the lanes, public rights of way
and bridleway No. 4.
20. There is no doubt that the proposed development would have the effect of
urbanising this part of the countryside. While the stables and hay storage
building would be more rural in character and appearance than the proposed
caravans and amenity building, they would nonetheless be positioned on land
where there is a distinctive absence of built form. The caravans, amenity
building, hardstanding areas and associated vehicular parking would be
particularly urban in character. While I acknowledge that the stable and hay
storage buildings, and proposed planting, would to some extent screen the
more urban development, particularly from views from the east, even with
planting the development would be conspicuous from more localised viewpoints
such as bridleway No. 4.
21. From bridleway No. 4, I find that unacceptable harm would be caused to the
landscape character of the area, and, in this regard, some harm would
therefore also be caused to the way that walkers and horse riders experienced
the immediate countryside setting. The harm caused would essentially be
localised, albeit that there would be recognisable encroachment into the
countryside. I accept that the proposed development would be adjacent to an
existing Gypsy and Traveller site. Owing to this, as well as to the intervening
landscaping and the separation distances involved, I find that the proposal
would not cause material harm to landscape character in terms of longer
distance views. For these reasons, I also find that in setting terms, the
proposal would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the nearby
Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
22. For the above reasons, I find that the proposal would cause moderate localised
harm to the landscape character of the area. Therefore, I conclude that the
development would not accord with the landscape character, countryside, and
design requirements of policies EQ4, H6(8) and EQ11 of the CS, paragraphs
174(b) and 130(c) of the Framework and the Design Guide.
Effect on the integrity of the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation
23. Policy EQ2 of the CS safeguards the Cannock Chase Special Area of
Conservation (SAC), which has been designated for its unique heathland
habitat. The evidence is that adverse effects on the SAC would arise from an
increase in recreation over the local plan period and comprise the creation of
new paths, path widening, erosion and nutrient enrichment from visitor use
and vehicle emissions.
24. The above is controlled in respect of the Council’s ‘Guidance to Mitigate the
Impact of Residential Development’ 2022 (SAC Guidance). The SAC Guidance
states that evidence produced to inform the production of the development
plan for the area, by consultants Footprint Ecology, together with that of
partner Local Planning Authorities in the Cannock Chase SAC Partnership
(Stafford Borough, Cannock Chase, Lichfield, East Staffordshire, Walsall
Metropolitan Borough Council and Wolverhampton City Council), shows that the
in combination impact of proposals involving a net increase of one or more
dwellings within a 15 kilometre radius of the SAC would have an adverse effect
on its integrity unless avoidance and mitigation measures are in place. The
appeal site lies within the consultation zone of influence of the SAC.
25. The SAC Guidance requires mitigation to include a financial payment to be used
towards the funding of specific projects as listed in table 1 at paragraph 3.1.
The payment in the SAC Guidance is set for each net new home created
through development within 15km of the Cannock Chase SAC.
26. In this case, and considering the information in the SAC Guidance, I find that
the proposal would be likely to lead to recreational pressure in the SAC. I
consider that the effects of the proposed residential development, both on its
own and in combination with other development projects, is such that it would
be likely to have significant effects on the European protected site. On the
evidence that is before me, as part of my appropriate assessment, I find that
the proposal would on its own and in combination with other projects adversely
affect the integrity of the SAC.
27. As the competent authority, I must therefore consider whether measures could
be put in place to avoid or mitigate the impacts of increased recreational
pressure arising from the proposed development. The appellant has provided
me with a completed planning obligation dated 16 August 2023 which requires,
within ten days of the grant of planning permission, the payment of £329.83 to
be paid towards strategic access management and monitoring measures to
mitigate against the adverse impacts of recreational activities on the integrity
of the SAC. Natural England, who were consulted as part of this appeal, do not
object to the proposal, as acceptable mitigation, subject to the said above
payment being made in accordance with the SAC Guidance.
28. Given the completed planning obligation, I find that the proposal would not
have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC. In this regard, I therefore
conclude that the proposal would accord with the biodiversity requirements of
policies EQ2 and H6(8) of the CS, paragraph 175 of the Framework and the
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). In
reaching this conclusion, I am satisfied that the planning obligation meets the
tests as laid out in paragraph 57 of the Framework.
The provision and need for Gypsy and Traveller sites
29. There is no dispute between the main parties that the local planning authority
(LPA) cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable Gypsy and Traveller
pitches and, in addition, that there are no available existing Gypsy and
Traveller pitches in the area to meet the needs of the family, particularly the
appellant’s daughter, spouse and unborn child.
30. The LPA has started to review its local plan and it has reached Regulation 19
Publication Plan stage. Of relevance to this appeal, is the evidence base
relating to Gypsy and Traveller need in the form of the Gypsy and Traveller
Accommodation Assessment 2021 (GTAA) and Pitch Deliverability Study 2021.
The GTAA, which has not been tested as part of a local plan examination,
identifies a need for 121 pitches for the period 2021-2038 (plus additional
provision for ‘undetermined’ and ‘non-definition’ need) and a five year need of
72 pitches.
31. There is common ground between the main parties that until a new local plan is
adopted, and further land allocated for Gypsy and Traveller pitches, the LPA
will not be able to meet required need or to demonstrate at least a five-year
supply of deliverable pitches. The adoption of the new local plan is anticipated
at the end of 2025 and the LPA claims that the delivery of pitches on newly
allocated sites can be anticipated by the end of 2026.
32. The appellant has stressed that about 80% of the district is designated as
Green Belt. He asserts that it is likely that new Gypsy and Traveller sites will
therefore need to be found in the Green Belt. As a proportion of the district is
not in Green Belt, it does not automatically follow that all sites that come
forward as part of the review of the development plan will be in Green Belt or,
in any event, that less harmful sites will not be allocated or come forward in
the Green Belt as part of the development plan Examination process.
33. Notwithstanding the above, the unmet need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches
and absence of any currently available pitches on authorised sites to
accommodate the needs of the appellant’s daughter (including unborn baby)
and spouse are material considerations that weigh in favour of allowing the
appeal.
The personal circumstances of the family & best interests of the children
34. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporated into
Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) states that everyone has a right to respect for
private and family life, their home and correspondence. This is a qualified right,
whereby interference may be justified in the public interest, but the concept of
proportionality is crucial.
35. I am also mindful that Article 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child provides that the best interests of the child shall be a
primary consideration in all actions by public authorities concerning children.
36. Furthermore, in exercising my function on behalf of a public authority, I have
had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in the
Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination,
harassment and victimisation and to advance equality of opportunity. The Act
recognises that race constitutes a relevant protected characteristic for the
purposes of PSED. Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are ethnic minorities
and thus have the protected characteristic of race. This appeal also involves the
consideration of disability which is also a protected characteristic.
37. I acknowledge that the appellant’s child, who currently lives in the
dwellinghouse at ‘Squirrels Rest’ adjacent to the appeal site, has a particular
disability that requires special educational and social support. I do not doubt
that having a caravan on the appeal site for use by the appellant’s child as a
‘sensory room’ would allow the child to receive tuition separately from the
appellant’s other children and in an environment which, in relative terms, is
likely to be quieter. In this regard, the provision of a caravan on the appeal site
for use as a ‘sensory room’ for the appellant’s child would have some positive
impacts.
38. Notwithstanding the above, the provision of a proposed ‘sensory room’ in a
proposed caravan on the appeal site must be weighed against the fact that it
would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. While planning
applications have previously been refused for the erection of a sensory building
in connection with the property known as Squirrels Rest2, such proposals were
in combination with other proposed development and partly outside the
residential curtilage of Squirrels Rest.
39. I have read the associated reports and decisions relating to the above planning
applications and considered the proposed drawings. The evidence does not
indicate that it would not be possible, in principle, to provide a well-designed
and proportionate extension to Squirrels Rest to provide a ‘sensory room’ in
accordance with paragraph 149(c) of the Framework, while at the same time
retaining the integral character and appearance of the dwellinghouse. Indeed,
as part of this appeal, the LPA has commented that it ‘would encourage an
alternative application compliant with NPPF paragraph 149(c) that is
proportionate, well-designed in relation to the existing building, and does not
encroach beyond the approved domestic curtilage, and would treat such an
application on its merits’.
40. In other words, the evidence indicates that it may be possible to apply for a
proportionate sensory room extension to Squirrels Rest that would not amount
to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and hence meet the needs of
the appellant’s child without, in relative terms, causing the same degree of
2 Planning applications 16/00972/VAR and 18/00350/FUL
planning harm. In this regard, I therefore afford limited weight to the proposed
provision of a sensory room/caravan on the appeal site as the evidence
indicates that there is a real possibility of planning permission being granted for
alternative development that would achieve a similar outcome, albeit without
causing harm to the Green Belt.
41. Furthermore, and noting the best interests of the child, a refusal of planning
permission would not, in any event, mean that the child in question could not
continue to be home tutored, or that arrangements could not be made within
the family to ensure an acceptable level of peace and quiet at particular times.
Indeed, the evidence is that home tutoring takes place at times when some of
the appellant’s other children are away from the site at school. There is little
evidence before me to indicate that distractions are very significant from family
life within the home when tutoring takes place.
42. The evidence is that the appellant’s daughter has recently married and hence
would like her own independence and to live on her own site/in her own
residential caravan with her spouse albeit near to her family. The evidence also
indicates that the daughter is pregnant with the baby due to be born in
December 2023. A home will therefore also be needed for the baby in the
coming months. The appellant’s daughter has a disability and the appellant
states that she can require assistance at short notice. I do not doubt that the
care of her parents, at times when her spouse is away, would both provide
reassurance and direct support to her in the event of a health emergency.
43. While the evidence before me does not indicate how regularly the daughter
requires the support of others or indeed the severity of her disability, I do not
doubt that the proposal would be beneficial in so far that living adjacent to the
wider family would ensure continuity of care for her, as well as support and
assistance provided for the currently unborn baby.
44. The above matters need to be weighed against the evidence which indicates
that a refusal of planning permission would not make the appellant’s daughter
(including unborn baby) or spouse homeless, or that they would have to move
away from the site at Squirrels Rest. Indeed, I was able to see on my site visit
that two large touring caravans were sited immediately adjacent to Squirrels
Rest and within the associated yard area. The evidence is that one touring
caravan belonged to the appellant and the other was in active use by the
appellant’s daughter and spouse. I was also able to see on my site visit that a
portacabin had been positioned close to the touring caravans and was in use as
an amenity block.
45. I do not know if use of the touring caravan and the portacabin outside of the
red edged appeal site is lawful. However, there is no evidence to indicate that if
planning permission were refused for the proposed development, it would
mean that Squirrels Rest would not continue to be available for use by the
whole of the family and hence mutual support (include health care) provided
from one another from living on this land, whether that be from living in the
dwellinghouse itself or from occupation of an adjacent caravan on an incidental
residential basis.
46. Given that the appellant’s children and recently married daughter currently
reside on land at Squirrels Rest, I do not therefore agree with the appellant
that a refusal of planning permission would necessarily mean that the children’s
social and educational development would be ‘severely prejudiced by a
roadside existence’. I accept that the appellant’s daughter would prefer to live
in a caravan and on a site that is adjacent to but separate from Squirrels Rest.
However, I am not persuaded, based on the evidence before me, that it would
not continue to be possible for the daughter, spouse and baby to live at
Squirrels Rest, whether that be within the dwellinghouse itself or in respect of
occupation of a caravan on land within its residential curtilage and on an
incidental basis.
47. Overall, and for the reasons outlined above, I therefore afford the personal
circumstances of the family, including the best interests of the children,
moderate weight in the overall planning balance.
Other benefits
48. The proposal would bring some benefits to the construction industry although
such benefits would be short lived. Use of the site for the keeping of horses
would provide a healthy and active pastime for users of the site. However, the
appeal site is within the countryside where there are other opportunities to
walk and undertake horse riding. In this context, I afford only limited weight to
this matter in the overall planning balance.
Planning Balance
49. Given the completed planning obligation, and hence mitigation, I have
concluded that the proposed development would not cause harm to the
integrity of the SAC. In this regard, the proposal would accord with the
biodiversity requirements of policy EQ2 and H6(8) of the CS and paragraph 175
of the Framework. However, this is a matter of neutral consequence in the
planning balance.
50. I have found that the development would amount to inappropriate
development in the Green Belt. This is a matter to which I afford substantial
adverse weight in decision making terms. Furthermore, moderate harm would
be caused to the openness of the Green Belt and there would be conflict with
one of the purposes of the Green Belt, namely safeguarding the countryside
from encroachment. In addition, there would be moderate harm caused to the
landscape character of the area. For these collective reasons, the proposal
would conflict with policies EQ2, EQ4, EQ11, GB1 and H6 of the CS.
Collectively, the I afford the above harms very substantial adverse weight in
the planning balance.
51. In this case, the provision of a ‘sensory room’ in a caravan on the appeal site
may, in relative terms, have some advantages in terms of supporting the
education of the appellant’s child who has a disability. However, this proposal
would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Furthermore,
the evidence is that despite planning application refusals for sensory room
buildings at Squirrels Rest, the LPA would consider a proportionate and well-
designed sensory room extension to the existing dwellinghouse in accordance
with paragraph 149(c) of the Framework. Such an extension need not amount
to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and there is nothing to suggest
that it could not be designed in such a way as to give the child acceptable
peace and quiet. In this regard, I afford limited weight to the need for the
proposed ‘sensory’ room on the appeal site as the evidence is that, in principle,
it would be capable of being provided in a different way in accordance with
Green Belt policy in the development plan and Framework.
52. In addition, and, in any event, it is not the case that a refusal of planning
permission would mean that the child would not continue to be able to be home
tutored, or that the family could not make some arrangements to ensure
improved peace and quiet during these times based on current arrangements.
Furthermore, a refusal of planning permission would not mean that a roadside
existence was an inevitable outcome. Indeed, the land at Squirrels Rest is
currently occupied by the appellant and his family (including his daughter) and
there is nothing to indicate that there is any immediate urgency in terms of
changing this arrangement and prior to new pitches being allocated in a new
development plan and coming forward for residential occupation.
53. I have considered whether a temporary planning permission would be justified.
I have considered a period up to 31 December 2026 on the basis that I have no
reason to doubt the claim made by the LPA that the new local plan will be
‘adopted by the end of 2025’ and ‘allowing a subsequent 12-month period for
the preparation and determination of planning applications, allocated sites
should be available on the ground by the end of 2026’. The evidence is not
certain in terms of whether the provision of new and policy compliant
alternative sites, if close by, would suitably address the care needs of the
appellant’s daughter. However, and, in any event, the care needs of the
appellant’s daughter must be weighed against the substantial harm that would
be caused by the proposal to the Green Belt.
54. I find that while the identified planning harms would be for a limited period
arising from the grant of temporary planning permission, such harms would
nonetheless still be collectively substantial. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that a
refusal of planning permission would not make the appellant or any of his
family homeless. Indeed, they all currently live on the adjacent site at Squirrels
Rest. For these reasons, coupled with the overall very substantial planning
harm that would be caused by the development, I do not find that a temporary
planning permission would be appropriate or justified.
55. In favour of the appeal is the unmet need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches, the
current lack of available alternative Gypsy and Traveller sites which may
potentially provide a new home for the appellant’s daughter and her spouse
and unborn child, and the keeping of horses which would facilitate an active
lifestyle for users of the site. Furthermore, the opportunity afforded to the
appellant’s daughter to live independently with her spouse (including unborn
baby), albeit close to her parents to enable support in the event of a health
emergency, are matters that weigh in favour of allowing the appeal. However,
Policy E of the PPTS states that subject to the best interests of the child,
personal circumstances and unmet need are unlikely to clearly outweigh the
harm to the Green Belt and other harm so as to establish very special
circumstances.
56. I conclude, on balance, that the harm caused to the Green Belt by reason of
inappropriateness, and the other identified harm, would not be clearly
outweighed by other considerations, including the best interests of the children,
the personal circumstances of the family and unmet need, so as to amount to
the very special circumstances necessary to justify either temporary or
permanent planning permission.
57. In reaching the above conclusion, I have considered Article 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated into the HRA, which provides
that everyone has a right to respect private and family life, their home and
correspondence. My decision would deny some members of the family the
opportunity to live in a new home in the manner proposed. In this regard, my
decision would lead to a significant interference of Article 8 rights. However,
the collective planning harm that I have identified is of such weight that a
refusal of planning permission is a proportionate, legitimate and necessary
response that would not violate those persons rights under Article 8. I find that
the protection of the public interest cannot therefore be achieved by means
that are less interfering of the rights of members of the family. I have had also
due regard to the PSED. In this case, the harm caused to the Green Belt, and
the other identified planning harms, outweigh the benefits of the proposal from
a disability point of view. I conclude that it is proportionate and necessary to
therefore dismiss the appeal.
Conclusion
58. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the development would not accord
with the development plan for the area taken as a whole and there are no
material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in
accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be
dismissed.
D Hartley
INSPECTOR