Case Reference: 3355231

Appeal Decision
Hearing held on 19 March 2025
Site visit made on 19 March 2025
by A Owen MA BA(Hons) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 8th April 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/W/24/3355231
Double Arches Business Park Eastern Way, Heath and Reach, Leighton Buzzard
LU7 9TB
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Central Bedfordshire Council.
• The application Ref is CB/23/01630/FULL.
• The development proposed was originally described as “the development of additional on-site
facilities and buildings for the maintenance and repair of fairground and associated vehicles on the
site; two existing buildings of similar size, one B class and one for Travelling Show People use will
swap use classes; 10 caravans of residential use by quarry workers to be removed.”
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The postcode given on the application form differs from that given on the appeal
form. However both postcodes relate to this part of Eastern Way. I have used that
provided on the application form in the header above.
3. The Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) clarifies that the development would
involve six buildings, four of which would each accommodate two semi-detached
plots. This reflects the submitted plans.
4. Although amended elevational plans were provided to the Council shortly before
they made their decision, they did not take account of them. Nonetheless the plans
have been provided with the appeal and the Council does not object to them being
considered. I agree no parties would be prejudiced by this and so I have
considered them as part of the appeal.
5. Since the submission of the appeal, a revised version of the National Planning
Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) has been adopted. Both parties have referred
to the amended Framework in their evidence which I have taken account of.
Main Issues
6. The Council have agreed in the SoCG that they no longer wish to defend the fifth
reason for refusal which related to flooding. Therefore, the remaining main issues
are:
i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green
Belt having regard to the Framework and development plan policies;
ii) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the
area beyond a settlement envelope;
iii) whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for
its future occupiers with respect to the layout of the plots;
iv) the effect on highway safety; and
v) would the harms to the Green Belt, and any other harms, be clearly
outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special
circumstances required to justify the development.
Reasons
Green Belt
7. The development can be considered in three parts. The first part comprises the
conversion of two existing buildings, shown as buildings 19/20 and 21 on the plans.
Building 19/20 has a lawful use for industrial uses, and the proposal seeks to
convert that to a plot for fairground ride maintenance. In exchange, building 21,
which has a lawful use for fairground ride maintenance, is proposed to change to
industrial (Class B1/B2/B8) uses. The parties agree this change of use would not
comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it falls within part h) iv. of
paragraph 154 of the Framework.
8. The second part involves the erection of some of the proposed buildings on land
already used to accommodate caravans, HGVs and fairground rides. The third part
involves the provision of buildings and hardstanding on land which is currently
undeveloped and the creation of an open landscaped area with surface water
attenuation pond.
9. The SoCG states that the site is grey belt as defined in Annexe 2 of the
Framework. Paragraph 155 of the Framework sets out that development which
utilises grey belt land should not be regarded as inappropriate subject to satisfying
some criteria. The parties agree that the development would not fundamentally
undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area; that it
would be in a sustainable location; and that the criterion which applies to major
development and affordable housing, is not applicable. There is only dispute,
therefore, as to whether there is an unmet need for the type of development
proposed.
10. The Council’s Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment 2016 (GTAA)
identified, in total, a need for 31 additional travelling showpeople plots to 2035,
though I note the appellant suggests this is a severe underestimate of the true
need. In any case, no allocations have been made in the Central Bedfordshire
Local Plan (2021) (the ‘Local Plan’) and the parties agree that there is no five years
supply of travelling showpeople plots.
11. Of those 31 plots, 11 are already provided at the appeal site as originally granted
planning permission in 20161 and amended in 20192. As such, in numerical terms,
the development proposed would make no additional quantitative contribution to
the unmet need. Indeed, the appellant confirmed that even if permission were not
forthcoming, they would most likely remain at the site, though this is largely due to
the lack of other available alternative sites.
1 Application Ref CB/16/00232/FULL
2 Application Ref CB/19/00281/FULL
12. In qualitative terms, the need for six buildings in which fairground rides could be
stored, repaired, maintained and inspected, stems from the requirements of the
Health & Safety Executive (HSE).
13. However, whilst there is a need at the site for buildings to accommodate the
appellant’s equipment, I do not consider that equates to the type of unmet need
required to be satisfied in paragraph 155. To my mind the ‘type’ of development in
this paragraph would refer to types of development generally such as housing,
commercial floorspace, or in this case, travelling showpeople accommodation,
instead of the form of development within that type. For example, the footnote to
the paragraph refers to need purely in terms of housing on deliverable sites, not the
type of housing on those sites.
14. As such, although there is an unmet need for travelling showpeople sites, the
development would not address that need. Therefore, the proposal would fail to
meet this criterion, and so fails to accord with paragraph 155 as a whole. It would
therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt when considered on this
basis.
15. Notwithstanding this, the redevelopment of the part of the site already used to
accommodate caravans, HGVs and fairground rides could fall within part g) of
paragraph 154, insofar as it would involve the redevelopment of previously
developed land, subject to it not causing substantial harm to the openness of the
Green Belt.
16. At present all the activity on this part of the site involves moveable items including
caravans, vehicles, fairground rides and associated equipment. Indeed, at my site
visit this area accommodated a few vehicles of varying sizes, a number of caravans
and some shipping containers. It was free from buildings.
17. The proposal would result in the whole of three of the new buildings, and part of the
other three new buildings, being erected on this part of the site. Even with their
lower height as shown in the amended plans, they would represent a substantial
increase in built form on this part of the site, encroaching into the Green Belt from
the existing buildings, and resulting in a considerable loss of spatial openness.
Moreover, the proposed buildings would be visible from a number of viewpoints
including from bridleway 3 to the south of the site, from public footpath 7 to the
east, and from the A5, so would reduce openness in a visual sense too.
18. The redevelopment of this previously developed land would cause considerable
harm to the openness of the Green Belt, would conflict with its purposes, and so
would fail to meet paragraph 154 g). The part of the development on the land which
is currently undeveloped would also not fall into any of the exceptions set out in
paragraph 154 of the Framework and would have a similarly harmful effect on
openness. These parts of the proposal are therefore inappropriate development in
the Green Belt too.
19. It is recognised that the existing Business Park harms openness, and that there are
other commercial structures and land uses, such as wind turbines, quarries and the
busy A5 that may affect openness too. However, although they affect the character
of the area and the context in which the proposal is seen, they have very little effect
on my assessment of the effect the proposal would have on openness, particularly
in a spatial sense. The fact that it is sustainably located has no effect on the
assessment of openness.
20. In summary, the development as a whole would be inappropriate development. It
would also cause considerable harm to the openness of the Green Belt, and would
conflict with its purposes. These harms carry substantial weight, as set out in
paragraph 153 of the Framework. The development would therefore conflict with
the Framework and policy SP4 of the Local Plan which sets out the general
presumption against development in the Green Belt.
Character and appearance
21. The site is located beyond any settlement envelope and is in the countryside for
planning policy purposes. To the north, south and east of the site there are open
fields bounded by hedgerows. To the west is the remainder of the Business Park.
As set out above, in the wider context there are wind turbines and quarries with the
associated machinery being visible from within the site. Nevertheless, although
these features add urbanising elements, the rural character of the wider
surroundings predominates.
22. The site is within the Landscape Character Area 8A (Toddington to Hockliffe Clay
Hills), of which the key characteristics include an agricultural landscape
characterised by medium-scale fields, a series of connected subtle hills, as well as
recognition of the A5 which dilutes the rural character of the landscape. The
landscape strategy for the Landscape Character Area is enhancement.
23. Although much of the appeal site can already be occupied by vehicles, caravans
and machinery, the provision of the six large buildings would represent a more
permanent form of development adding to the existing urbanising elements. It
would not enhance the landscape.
24. The proposed buildings would roughly double the amount of buildings on the
Business Park. This additional built form, and its spread eastwards from the
existing buildings, would be blatant when seen from elevated positions to the east
and north east along the A5 and from footpath 7, which allow for a clear view of the
site and the expanse of fields which surround it. In addition from bridleway 3 there
is a clear view of the existing units at the Business Park and the appeal site. From
this bridleway, at present, the rising agricultural land to the north is visible across
the site. The greater spread of buildings eastwards would obscure this view.
25. Landscaping is proposed along the boundaries of the site. However, there is little
room for any effective vegetation along the south boundary as the plans indicate
that hardstanding would be very close to this boundary and, as I saw at my site
visit, the land falls away quite steeply along this boundary making planting difficult.
Also any landscaping to the east boundary would most likely have little screening
effect due to the elevated positions of the viewpoints to the east.
26. The substantial increase in built form would starkly contrast with the rural
surroundings when seen from these positions. Rather than appearing as an
agricultural form of development, the scale and layout of the buildings, when seen
alongside the existing buildings, would have an industrial appearance contrasting
with the character and appearance of the area as a whole.
27. The Council accept the current lawful use of the site, including the storage of rides
and parking of HGV and caravans, causes some harm to the character and
appearance of the area. Whilst there may be some visual benefit by enclosing the
fairground rides within the buildings, this is outweighed by the excessive scale of
the buildings themselves, though it is recognised that they could not be any smaller
and still perform their function.
28. The two extant permissions for the appellant’s operations at the Business Park
place no restriction on the amount of machinery or number of rides that could be
stored at the site. However, those schemes do not involve the amount of built form,
or as much of a projection eastwards into an open area, as the current proposal.
They have a much lesser harm than would result from the appeal scheme.
29. I also understand that prior to the appellant residing at the site, the land was used
as a pig farm which was not an attractive land use. Nonetheless, whilst that may
have been a factor in favour of previous applications, the pig farm no longer exists
so it cannot be used to justify the current proposal.
30. It is understood that there is planning permission to start quarrying on the land
opposite the site, but at present this land is a large open field and I must primarily
consider the site in its current context, not what may happen from quarrying, or any
other development, on nearby land.
31. Overall the development would cause significant harm to the character and
appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Local Plan policy SP7 which
aims to protect the intrinsic character of the countryside and only allows for the
development of previously developed land if there would be no detrimental impact
on the natural environment. It would also conflict with policies EE5 and HQ1 of the
Local Plan which also seek to safeguard the intrinsic character of the landscape
and ensure that proposals take account of landscape setting and character.
Living conditions
32. The submitted plans show that each plot would have a building in which fairground
rides and some vehicles would be stored, as well as an area of hardstanding on
which other vehicles would be parked and caravans for living accommodation
would be positioned.
33. The appellant’s list of occupiers of the site includes details on the number of
caravans, vehicles and rides each family have. The list suggests that the smallest
families have two caravans and four vehicles, whilst the largest have eight
caravans and 12 vehicles. All families have articulated lorries. The appellant
confirmed that the smaller families would occupy the smaller units at the front of the
site.
34. It may be physically possible for each family’s vehicles and caravans to fit on their
own plots. However in doing so, the caravans would necessarily be in close
proximity to parked and manoeuvring vehicles. It would not be acceptable for
residential caravans, some of which would house children and the elderly, to be in
such close proximity to where vehicles, including articulated lorries, would be
manoeuvring.
35. I also note the contrast with the layout as shown in the Design and Access
Statement which indicates how a plot of 0.5 acres could be laid out and provide a
good separation between caravans and articulated vehicles. Similarly, the plan
provided for the development of showmans family quarters at Pastures Farm in
Northamptonshire indicate plots with a distinct separation between residential areas
and areas for equipment. The layout shown on the plans would not reflect these
other examples.
36. Were I content that there would be room on the plots to provide a satisfactory
arrangement, notwithstanding that shown on the plans, a condition requiring a site
development scheme be submitted for approval, could be imposed. However, from
the evidence provided regarding the number of caravans and vehicles likely to be
on the plots, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient room to accommodate all
these items on the plots without there being a direct pedestrian/vehicle conflict.
37. My attention was drawn to The Showmans Guild of Great Britain document
‘Travelling Showpeople site’s – A planning Focus Model Standard Package’. This
stipulates that there should be six metres separation between caravans and
buildings for the storage and maintenance of fairground equipment. The appellant
disputes this saying that only two metres is required. The document also states that
that there should be six metres between caravans, which is not disputed. It is
doubtful that such separation distances could be respected, particularly at the plots
where 7 or 8 caravans would be stationed.
38. It is recognised that, at present, the plots are not defined and that there is a
haphazard arrangement of caravans and vehicle parking. Nonetheless, whilst the
proposed layout is more organised and would allow individual plots to be secured, it
would not be acceptable. The poor living conditions at present should not justify the
poor, albeit improved, living conditions proposed.
39. With respect to amenity space, a large landscaped area would be provided at the
east end of the site. Although this would contain a surface water attenuation pond,
and would be used to provide a biodiversity net gain, it is likely that this area could
still provide effective recreational space. However there is no dedicated access
route to this space and access to it would be across and along the access roads
serving the plots. This would be another potential source of pedestrian/vehicle
conflict.
40. Overall, due to the direct conflict likely to occur between residents and vehicles at
the site, the layout would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for its future
occupiers. The development would therefore fail to accord with Local Plan policy
H8 which requires that Traveling Showpeople development has regard to the safety
and amenity of the occupants. It would also be contrary to policy H7, which relates
to all gypsy and traveller sites and also aims to ensure development provides a
good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land.
Highway safety
41. The parties agree that there would be no increase in the volume of traffic that would
be generated by the development, given that there would be no increase in the
number of plots at the site. In addition, the proposal would use the same points of
access shown on the approved drawings for the previous planning permission.
42. That permission included conditions requiring that suitable visibility splays and kerb
radii are provided. From my site visit it was clear that one access point is not in use
and the other has not been altered in accordance with the conditions attached to
the previous permission. Nonetheless, in my view, sufficient visibility is achievable
from the egress point with some minimal pruning of the boundary hedge.
Furthermore, it is likely, in my view that the appropriate radii are achievable for the
access points as the bellmouths shown on the plans are wide and there is some
scope for further widening.
43. The appellant confirmed at the hearing that each plot would need to be secured
with fencing, for insurance purposes. It is clear that with fencing on the plot
boundaries, it would not be possible to manoeuvre the articulated lorries shown.
For example, if there was a fence separating the hardstanding areas at plots 7/8
and 9/10 it would not be possible for vehicles to turn as shown on the swept path
drawings. This may result in vehicles having to complete lengthy reversing
manoeuvres in order to turn. Similarly, a fence between plots 3/4 and 5/6 would
prevent the articulated lorries from parking as indicated.
44. It is also the case that space for residents’ car parking would be needed and is not
shown on the plans. This is an additional consideration that would utilise space in
the plots that may further reduce parking and manoeuvring space for lorries.
45. The lack of suitable parking and manoeuvring space on each plot may lead to
vehicles being parked on the access roads, which may inhibit manoeuvring within
the site and access into the site from the public highway. As such, from the details
provided, I can not be satisfied that the development would not compromise
highway safety. As such the proposal would fail to accord with Local Plan policy T2
which aims to ensure that development does not have a detrimental effect on
highway safety. I find no direct conflict with Local Plan policy T1 in this regard,
which refers more to reducing the need to travel.
Other considerations
46. Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that very special circumstances will not
exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any
other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
47. It is acknowledged that the current arrangements on site are inadequate, insofar as
there are only two buildings which allow for fairground rides to be stored,
maintained, repaired and inspected by the HSE. Moreover there are no other sites
available to the appellant and therefore the appellant has said that were the appeal
to fail, he, and the other families, would most likely remain at the site albeit in
unsatisfactory conditions. These are matters of substantial weight.
48. The Council do not have a five years supply of sites, and there has been no
provision for several years. However as I do not consider this proposal would add
to the supply of sites, I give this matter limited beneficial weight.
49. It is understood that mains water, drainage and electricity are lacking at the site.
Whilst the development may assist in securing these services, I see no reason why
such services could not be provided without the development.
50. There would be a net gain in biodiversity through the creation of the landscaped
areas in the east of the site. The development is not required to provide the now
statutory 10% gain, and I understand any gain would accord with Local Plan policy
EE2. A limited benefit in this regard would be of limited weight.
51. The development would provide no advantage in terms of providing a settled base
for children living at the site, their ability to attend local schools, and the ability of all
residents to have access to healthcare, as the occupants could already benefit from
these facilities. Therefore, there is no positive weight in this respect.
52. I have had regard to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as
incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 8 affords the right to respect
for private and family life. It is a qualified right, and interference may be justified
where that is lawful and in the public interest. Dismissing this appeal would likely
interfere with the rights under Article 8 applicable to the appellant, his family and
the other families based at the site, in that they have no other lawful
accommodation available to them. However, interference with those rights in this
instance would be in accordance with the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites which
advises that personal circumstances and unmet need is unlikely to clearly outweigh
harm to the Green Belt and other harms so as to amount to the very special
circumstances required to justify the development.
53. That balance is subject to the best interests of children. There is no consideration
more important than the best interests of children. I recognise that existing
conditions at the site, which includes children living in caravans sited in areas
where lorries are manoeuvring, are unsatisfactory. However, whilst the
development may represent a more structured layout of the site, it would still fail to
provide a safe environment for children, given my findings on living conditions set
out above.
54. I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty under s149 of the Equality
Act 2010 which sets out the requirement to have due regard to the need to
eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity between persons who
share a relevant protected characteristic such as age, and persons who do not. I
consider the harms resulting from the development, as identified above, would
outweigh the benefits in terms of advancing equality.
Green Belt Balance
55. The development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would also
harm the openness of the Green Belt, and conflict with its purposes. These factors
carry substantial weight. I also give significant weight to the harm to the character
and appearance of the area, the failure of the proposal to provide satisfactory living
conditions for its occupiers and the failure to maintain highway safety.
56. Balanced against that is the unsuitable nature of the site and the lack of any
acceptable alternative sites for the appellant, which carry significant weight, and the
other considerations identified above, including the application of the Human Rights
Act and Public Sector Equality Duty.
57. Overall I find that the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harms to the
Green Belt, and the other harms, identified. They do not therefore amount to the
very special circumstances required to justify the development.
Conclusion
58. I conclude that the proposal would fail to accord with the development plan as a
whole. There are no material considerations that indicate that a decision should be
taken otherwise than in accordance with it. As such, the appeal is dismissed.
A Owen
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Stephen Whale Counsel
Phil Rowe PRowe Planning Solutions
Craig Smith Appellant
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Phillip Hughes Consultant
Peter Vosper Principal planning Officer
David Hale Gypsy & traveller Officer
Jethro Punter Highways Officer
Carol Newell Landscape Officer
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Mark Versallion Ward councillor