Appeal 6002353

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time that the application was made in September 2025, the planning application form stated that the works or change of use had already started and that these had begun in May 2025 but were not yet complete. When determining the application in October 2025, the Council described the development as part retrospective.

At my site visit I noted existing development on site including a shepherds hut and one gypsy/traveller pitch including a static caravan and a tourer together with a number of timber sheds, fencing and areas of hardstanding. It is unclear from the evidence before me whether the development that I saw on site is fully in accordance with the submitted plans and it appears that not all of the development the subject of the application has been carried out. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt and for the purpose of this appeal, I have assessed what is shown on the submitted plans rather than what I saw on site.

On 12 November 2025 the Council served an enforcement notice alleging “without planning permission, the material change of use of the Land for the siting and residential use of caravans for gypsy/traveller families”. This is the subject of a separate appeal.

Planning permission is also sought for development including the siting of residential caravans on the adjacent site to the south of the appeal site (The Orchard). Permission was refused by the Council, and this decision is also the subject of a separate appeal1 which is conjoined with this one and was considered at the hearing. The conjoined appeal is the subject of a separate Decision.

The main issues are: • Whether safe and convenient access facilities can be provided and if not, the effect on highway safety; • Whether there would be any unacceptable risk to occupiers of the development given the nearby [name] and whether the development would have any adverse effect on the Pipeline; • Whether sufficient information has been submitted regarding biodiversity net gain (BNG) and whether there would be an adverse effect on the natural environment; • If there is harm, whether this would be outweighed by other material considerations including the need for the development and the personal circumstances of the appellant and other occupiers of the development.

The appeal site is located on [site address] , a two-way road which travels northwards out of the village of Barnack. The road is subject to a 60mph speed limit once beyond the confines of the built up part of the village and at the point it passes the site. A recent speed survey carried out in November/December 2025, the results of which are accepted by the Council, showed a 85th percentile speed of 49.2 mph northbound and 47.6 mph southbound. Barnack Parish Council (PC) also commissioned its own speed survey, the results of which are broadly similar.

There is an existing vehicular access to the site off [site address] and at the time of my visit, it was surfaced in a loose material. The access point and land immediately to the north of it is within the appeal site but land to the south of the access is not, with some of that land falling within the adjoining appeal site at The Orchard.

It appears from the evidence that a welfare unit in the form of a shepherds hut was granted temporary planning permission on the site in May 20212 with a certificate of lawful development issued for its retention for use ancillary to agriculture in August 20213. Subsequent permissions were granted in 20214 and 20225 for the construction of a limestone track and vehicle turning area to serve a plant nursery use on the site and a sewage treatment plant to serve the shepherds hut.

It appears that the adjacent site The Orchard was previously used to graze horses and later for the siting of a temporary dwelling connected with an agricultural enterprise to breed rabbits. At the time of determining the application for the 1 25/00450/FUL & 6002091 2 21/00215/FUL 3 21/00820/CLP 4 21/00993/FUL 5 22/00615/FUL temporary dwelling in 20176, the Council’s committee report noted that the use of the site appeared to be low key with little evidence of regular activity, notably as the access to the site was grassed over. Planning permission was granted for the temporary dwelling (for 3 years) and agricultural building in March 2018, though permission was later refused to retain it in November 20217. There is disagreement between the parties as to whether the 2017 permission was ever lawfully implemented.

Conditions imposed on the 2017 permission included one which required visibility splays of 2.4m by 215m to the north and 2.4m by 154m to the south of the centre line of the access to be provided, with no obstacles above 600mm in height within them. This is notwithstanding comments from the Highway Authority at the time which suggest that following the review of a submitted speed survey that splays of 130m in each direction would be required and that in the absence of an amended plan including land to the north of the access, that such splays couldn’t be achieved. It appears that a plan was submitted amending the site boundary and serving notice on relevant owners, but such details are not before me.

At the time of the application the subject of this appeal, the appellant was continuing to rely on the speed survey submitted in support of the 2017 application. However, as stated, a more recent survey has now been provided as part of a [name] (TS) submitted with the appeal, that is also applicable to The Orchard.

The appellant’s statement of case refers to a requirement for visibility splays of either 2.4m by 136.52m or 103.47m to the south and either 2.4m by 128.44m or 99.97m to the north, with the higher figures being the desirable minimum and the lower figures the absolute minimum based on guidance in DMRB8 CD109. The appellant’s TS refers to a requirement for visibility splays of 2.4m by 120m in each direction, based on the most up to date speed survey results. Both the Council and the PC consider that greater visibility distances are required in each direction and that any deviation from the desirable minimum requires justification on a case by case basis.

The appellant considers that the visibility splays should be measured from the nearside edge of the vehicle track, that is typically 0.5m away from the nearside kerb line. Photographs have been included as part of the statement of case which the appellant contends show that the required visibility splays can be achieved in each direction. They are photographic images of google maps. In addition, a 1:2500 scale national gas transmissions based plan has been provided, marking the appeal site and allegedly showing visibility splays of varying lengths in each direction. A 1:500 scale drawing, stated to be based on OS mapping, showing visibility splays of 2.4m by 120m has also been included as part of the TS.

[site address] is a straight road at the point it leaves the village and passes the site. It has a speed limit of 60mph, with speed survey results showing relatively high speeds near to the site entrance. The residential occupation of the site will likely involve an increase in daily comings and goings to/from the appeal site, when compared with the previous use of the site, with the occasional movement of slower moving towed caravans. 6 17/01087/FUL 7 21/00998/FUL 8

There is disagreement between the main parties and the PC about what level of visibility is required to be provided. Although the relevant guidance (DMRB & MfS 9) does allow for some relaxation of the standards on a case by case basis, in this case there is no compelling evidence to justify such a relaxation. This is noting the nature of [site address] which although a non-trunk road appears to be a well-used, straight, unlit rural road with no pavements and not an estate road.

In the absence of this, I consider it likely that visibility splays greater than those suggested by the appellant are required to ensure that the access is safe for both the users of it and for other drivers using [site address] . Based on the evidence before me, it appears that the most appropriate starting point for visibility is the minimum desirable standard as set out in DMRB CD109 based on a speed of 50 mph.

Even if I did accept the appellant’s lower visibility splay requirements, the evidence showing what visibility splays can be achieved from the site access is far from convincing, either being of an unsuitable scale, based on unsuitable plans/imagery and including hand drawn lines, the accuracy of which is unclear. In any event, the available evidence suggests that in order to achieve adequate visibility from the site entrance, third party land beyond the appeal site boundary may be required and there is no mechanism before me to ensure that such provision could be made and retained in perpetuity.

I do not consider that the 2017 approval at The Orchard or the lack of objection from the Highway Authority to the 202110 application to renew the temporary dwelling means that it has been demonstrated that the access provides satisfactory visibility. This is because there is uncertainty about whether the visibility splays required by the 2017 permission were ever provided.

The Council advised that it requested a topographical survey to be submitted showing visibility splays during the consideration of the application but one was not submitted. Such a survey would more accurately plot features on the ground so as to ensure that the required visibility splays are achievable.

Having considered all of the submitted evidence, including oral evidence at the hearing and from my observations on site, I consider that it has not been demonstrated that safe and convenient access facilities can be provided to/from the appeal site. In the absence of this, the development would be likely to increase the risk of collision between users of the access and other drivers on [site address] and would have a materially harmful effect on highway safety. I attach substantial weight to this harm.

The TS states that there are no recorded accidents within 250m of the site access within the last ten years. However, these records pre-date the current, more intensive residential occupation of the appeal site and the adjoining site The Orchard. Moreover, the previous lack of accidents does not mean that continued use of the site access associated with this residential occupation would be safe in the absence of the required levels of visibility being provided.

The development is therefore contrary to policies LP10 and LP13 of the Peterborough Local Plan 2016 to 2036 adopted July 2019 (LP), to relevant 9 Manual for Streets 10 21/00998/FUL guidance in chapter 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant policies in the Planning policy for traveller sites (PPTS). These policies and this guidance require, amongst other things, that safe and convenient access to and from the public highway is provided.

The appeal site is located to the north of a high pressure gas pipeline. HSE11 and National Gas Transmission (NGT), the operator of the pipeline, were consulted on the application. [name] as the statutory consultee did not advise against the development, it suggested contacting the pipeline operator before determining the application.

NGT raised a holding objection to the development due to it appearing to fall within the 4xBuilding [name] (BPD) of 312m for the pipeline. NGT stated that industry standards restrict development within the BPD and place a limit on the number of dwellings (including caravans) within the 4xBPD, which may require risk assessment. It further stated that whilst it usually followed HSE advice, as the assessment methodology differs between the two organisations, that a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) may be required.

Post determination correspondence between the Council and NGT has been appended to the Council’s statement of case, and this confirms that NGT requires a QRA to fully understand the risks associated with the development and the adjacent one at The Orchard.

The appellant accepts that the appeal site falls within the 4xBPD but also notes as does a considerable part of Barnack village where a large amount of housing has been permitted in recent years. My attention has been drawn to HSE’s consultation response in relation to the 2017 application for a temporary dwelling on the adjacent site The Orchard which, like the one in relation to the appeal development, does not advise against. Nevertheless, like with the current case, the developer is advised to contact the pipeline operator, and it is noted that the advice given is based on the situation as currently exists. In any event, other than including a map showing the position of the BPD and 4xBPD, the 2017 HSE response offers nothing different to the ones received in relation to the development and adjoining development at The Orchard.

The appellant has also drawn my attention to a letter from HSE in relation to a proposal in a different area where the author of the letter included an explanation of the respective planning consultation roles of the HSE versus pipeline operators, stating that the former is primarily concerned with risks to the proposed population whereas the operators are primarily concerned regarding the integrity of the pipeline. Whilst this letter is useful in providing a general background, it dates from 2022 and is written in relation to a specific proposal and by a specific individual. This therefore limits its relevance in relation to the development before me and therefore the weight that I attach to it.

In this case, from the evidence before me it appears that the pitches are located in the 4xBPD. NGTs consultation response refers to a restriction on development within the BPD and a limit on the number of dwellings in the 4xBPD. There is no information before me as to whether there are any other dwellings within the BPD 11 Health and [name] and if so, how many or how many dwellings are within the 4xBPD and whether there is any upper limit on how many dwellings might be permissible within the BPD and 4xBPD. In the absence of this, the absence of the requested QRA and the ongoing holding objection from NGT, I cannot be certain that there would not be an unacceptable risk to occupiers of the development.

In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the findings of an Inspector who allowed an appeal relating to a dwelling in the inner zone of a gas pipeline12. However, in that case, it appears that more information was known about other developments near to the pipeline and a previous holding objection from an operator was withdrawn prior to the appeal being determined. That is not the case here and as such the cases are not directly comparable. I therefore attach limited weight to this appeal decision and have dealt with the case before me on its own merits.

My attention has also been drawn to the fact that planning permission was granted in 202413 for two dwellings on land to the rear of 31 & 32 [site address] and that no objections were raised to this development by NGT (Appendix PBA6). However, I have no details before me regarding this application and development so am not aware how it compares to the development before me and what information was available to NGT when it prepared its consultation response. I therefore attach limited weight to this other decision.

NGT has confirmed that the appeal site appears to fall outside of the easement of the pipeline but nevertheless still require further information to adequately assess the potential risks to the pipeline resulting from the development.

Having regard to all of the above, based on the information before me, I cannot be certain that there would not be any unacceptable risk to occupiers of the development given the nearby high pressure gas pipeline or that the development would not have any adverse effect on the pipeline. The development is therefore contrary to policies LP10 and LP17 of the LP and to relevant guidance in the Framework. These policies and this guidance, amongst other things, requires development to not conflict with local and national policy, to ensure that the needs of future occupiers are provided for and to create places that are safe. I attach significant weight to this harm.

At the time that the application was made, it was not claimed that the development was exempt from statutory BNG requirements. A Preliminary Ecological Assessment dated April 2025 (PEA) and a [name] dated June 2025 were submitted to support the application and the BNG statement concluded that the development meets the requirements of the BNG regime. However, on the submission of the appeal, the appellant claimed that as the application seeks permission for development that has already taken place (under s73A of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990), it is exempt from statutory BNG.

As outlined above, when the application was made, some development had taken place on site. However, at the time of my site visit, whilst the material change of use had occurred, not all development shown on the submitted plans had been 12 APP/R0660/W/19/3232925 Land off [address], Moston 13 24/00233/FUL carried out and it was not clear whether the operational development on site was fully in accordance with the submitted plans. Consequently, I am assessing the development as shown on the submitted plans.

When considering the application and the submitted BNG/ecological information, the Council’s Wildlife Officer raised a number of concerns regarding the BNG metric and other BNG information. None of these have been addressed in the appellant’s appeal submissions.

Schedule 7A ([name] in England) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 sets out the statutory framework for BNG. However, BNG does not apply to retrospective planning permissions made under s73A. Part 1 of s73A states that “on an application made to a local planning authority, the planning permission which may be granted includes planning permission for development carried out before the date of the application” (my emphasis). This suggests that not all development included in a s73A application must be carried out before the date of the application as is the case here.

The legislation relating to BNG exemptions make no distinction between the different components of a development submitted under s73A. Consequently, based on the evidence before me, I consider that the development is exempt from statutory BNG. [name] note the Council’s view that this approach is at odds with what statutory BNG is seeking to achieve, for the reasons stated, the development is nevertheless exempt.

This does not however mean that the effect of the development on biodiversity and the natural environment does not need to be considered. Policies LP10 and LP28 of the LP and relevant guidance in the Framework and PPTS seek protection of the natural environment and require development proposals to avoid negative impacts on biodiversity and to deliver a net gain where possible.

At the hearing the Council confirmed that it is satisfied that there is enough land at [site address] to ensure that any BNG requirements can be met either on the appeal site and if not, on other adjacent land owned by the appellant. Noting this and that the concerns raised by the Council’s Wildlife Officer are of a technical nature and that the development is exempt from statutory BNG, I consider that there is no evidence to suggest that BNG cannot be achieved and consequently that there would be harm to the natural environment. Such matters could be adequately controlled by the imposition of suitably worded conditions were I minded to allow the appeal.

To conclude, I am satisfied that sufficient information has been submitted regarding BNG and that there would be no adverse effect on the natural environment. The development therefore accords with LP policies LP10 and LP28 and relevant guidance in the Framework and the PPTS insofar as they relate to this matter.

There is agreement between the parties that the Council is unable to demonstrate an up-to-date 5 year supply of deliverable traveller sites and as such, that the provisions of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework apply. It is also agreed that there is the need for the provision of a total of 109 permanent pitches during the period 2025-2044.The GTAA 2025 also estimates that 57 permanent pitches are required to be provided in the first five years, 2025-2029.

The development provides for two residential gypsy/traveller pitches in an open countryside location beyond, but close to, the edge of the village of Barnack. The village provides access to various services and facilities including a nursery school with a greater range of services and facilities available at nearby Uffington and Stamford. The pitches, together with four further pitches at the adjacent site The Orchard, provide settled accommodation for the appellant and their extended family. The appellant and extended family have been living in the Peterborough area for several years, mainly on unauthorised encampments.

At the hearing I heard that 7 children occupy the site, 4 of whom are pre-school or primary school age with one secondary school age child being home-schooled at present. Some of the occupiers have ongoing medical issues. All are registered with a local GP. None of this evidence was challenged by the Council or anyone else present.

The appellant’s evidence states that there are two public traveller sites in Peterborough accommodating a total of 64 households. However, the 2025 GTAA14 whilst recording 6 vacant pitches on public sites, notes that pitch turnover is low. The appellant’s evidence also states that private sites in Peterborough are small, usually no more than one or two pitches, with no availability for non-family members. It further states that the LP has not allocated any land for use by gypsies and travellers meaning that any new sites would need to be assessed against LP Policy LP10 which is criteria based. This evidence was not disputed by the Council and whilst the issue of alternative sites was raised by interested parties, I have seen no substantive evidence that demonstrates that other alternative accommodation would be available to the appellant and other occupiers of the site.

At the hearing I was advised that the appellant and their family would be back on the roadside if the appeal is dismissed and that this would result in danger and disruption including to the resident children’s education. The appellant states that the 2025 GTAA found that there were 19 households using roadside encampments in Peterborough who had a need for a pitch in the area.

Noting all the above, I attach substantial weight to the social benefit of providing two residential gypsy/traveller pitches at the appeal site, adjacent to four pitches for extended family members. Approval of the development would provide a settled base for the appellant and other occupiers of the site and would ensure that those needing it would have access to medical treatment and facilities. Children on the site would continue to have access to education, including educational support where needed. This would be in the best interests of the children. The development also contributes to meeting the current unmet need for traveller sites in the area.

The development would also result in economic benefits through additional spend in the local economy. Given the scale of the development, I attach limited weight to this benefit. 14

Although it seems likely that the development would result in improvements to biodiversity were permission to be granted, given the uncertainty regarding the extent of the improvement and how this would be achieved, I attach limited weight to this purported environmental benefit.

Weighed against the benefits set out above is the substantial weight that I have attached to highway safety harm and the significant weight to the risk of harm to occupiers of the site from the nearby pipeline and harm to the pipeline itself. In this case, given the severity of these risks which could endanger lives, and notwithstanding the extent of interference with the appellant’s and other occupier’s rights under Article 8 of the [name] on Human Rights, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

[name] do not consider it acceptable to grant a permanent permission for the development, I must consider whether the circumstances justify the granting of a temporary and/or personal permission. Neither of these options would result in a reduction in weight ascribed to the harms associated with the development as any ongoing occupation of the site, even if temporary, would mean that the risks associated with inadequate visibility at the site access and proximity to the pipeline continue to exist. Similarly, whilst I acknowledge that failure to secure planning permission at the appeal site would likely mean the appellant and other occupiers returning to the roadside with all the hardship that would entail, the substantial weight that I attach to the social benefit of the development remains the same.

The nature of the harms and concerns that I have identified are such that at this stage it is not clear if or when they could be adequately addressed and therefore there is no certainty that there is a realistic prospect that circumstances may have changed by the end of a temporary period and what that period should be. For these reasons, I do not consider that the granting of a temporary and/or personal permission for the development is appropriate or justified by the circumstances.

In reaching my decision I note that a number of other issues were raised in representation by interested parties. [name] have had regard to these, there is no need for me to reach a finding on these other issues as it would not alter the outcome of the appeal.

I have found that the substantial and significant harm resulting from the development means that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, including the benefits to the appellant and other occupiers of the development.

Dismissing the appeal would interfere with the appellant’s and their family’s rights to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, and to a private and family life and home, under Article 1 of the [name] and Article 8 as set out under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, these rights would also be affected by inadequate visibility at the access to the site and resultant harm to highway safety and by the safety risks associated with proximity to a high pressure pipeline. In any event, these are qualified rights; interference with them in this instance would accord with the law and be in pursuance of a well-established and legitimate aim: the need to provide safe vehicular access and safe living conditions for residential occupiers.

Whilst there will be significant interference with the appellant’s and their family’s human rights, it is proportionate and necessary to refuse planning permission, and the protection of the public interest cannot be achieved by means that are less interfering with their rights. In reaching this conclusion and noting that several children occupy the site, I have had regard to the best interests of the child as a primary consideration. Whilst no other issue is intrinsically more important and whilst in some ways the best interests of the child would be to remain living on site, as stated, there are risks associated with continued occupation. I have concluded that in this case, the harm arising from these risks justifies interference as set out above.

In reaching my decision I have also had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out under s149 of the Equality Act 2010, but the risks caused by the development outweigh its benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with protected characteristics of age, disability and race, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons and fostering good relations between them and others. I conclude that it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.

For the above reasons and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the development is contrary to the development plan as a whole and that the other material considerations in this case do not justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.