Appeal 6002750

The appeal is dismissed.

I saw at the site visit that various works had already been carried out at the appeal site, including the enlargement of the access, construction of internal roads, the siting of a static and several tourer caravans and various other works without the appropriate consents being in place. The appeal site is not currently laid out in accordance with the appeal scheme as shown on the submitted plans and only a single mobile home is currently located on the site, the remainder of the accommodation is provided in touring caravans.

The intended occupiers of the appeal scheme include three family groups consisting of: five adults and a pre-school age child in a total of 4 mobile homes on plots 1 and 2; six adults and four pre/school age children in four mobile homes on plots 3 and 4; and, four adults and 3 children, two of who are school age and are home educated in 3 mobile homes on plot 51. I note that not all of the intended occupiers are currently living on the site.

There is no dispute between the parties that the intended occupiers of the site are of a gypsy traveller status with regards the Planning Policy for [name] (PPTS).

The council has withdrawn reasons for refusal nos 4 and 5 regarding safe access to the site from the highway and the storage and collection of waste respectively. I note that the amendments sought by the council in this regard will likely require 1 [name] alterations to the access and layout of the appeal scheme and that such details are not currently before me.

Consequently, I consider the main issues to be: i. supply of Gypsy and traveller sites in the Borough, including the specific need of the Appellant; ii. whether the occupants of the site would have reasonable access to services and facilities; iii. the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; iv. whether adequate provision has been made for foul drainage and energy connection; and v. The effect of the appeal scheme on ecology and protected species.

The council’s Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment dated November 2021 identified that for the period 2020 to 2040 there would be a need for a further 3 pitches and a matched assessed supply of 3 pitches.

Nonetheless, following the expansion of the definition of Gypsies and Travellers in the PPTS the council has accepted that it cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of sites. Moreover, evidence submitted to the inquiry2 identified a waiting list of some thirty households for the Council’s two public pitches, a need for pitches and proposals to development pitches in the future. Therefore, I consider that there is a need for gypsy traveller sites in the borough.

The parties agree that the tilted balance is engaged3 and I have no substantive evidence before me that would lead me to conclude otherwise. In addition, the PPTS promotes the provision of more private Gypsy and Traveller sites; the appeal scheme would help meet this aim.

I consider that the matters detailed above are material considerations that weigh in favour of the appeal and I afford them significant weight. Policy 63

On the other hand, Policy 63 of Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (the LP) refers to proposals for [name] sites on unallocated land in the countryside, such as the appeal site, and details that planning permission will be granted subject to various criteria including the demonstration by the appellants of a clear need for a site in the borough. The intended occupiers of the site previously resided or still reside outside of Bedford Borough. 2 ID9 Executive Decision 3 [name] of Case paragraph 6.60

The appellant contented that Policy 63(i) and the interpretation promoted by the council was contrary to the PPTS. However, only paragraph 25(e) was referred to in evidence by the appellant4.

In validating and determining the application from which this appeal results, the council has demonstrably complied with this provision of the PPTS and I note that Policy 63 was found to be sound as part of the LP adopted on 15 January 2020.

Latterly, the appellant has referred to paragraph 11 of the PPTS and that criteria-based policies should be fair and facilitate the traditional nomadic way of life of travellers. However, the appellants have not identified any particular aspect (perhaps travel, work or social) of their traditional nomadic way of life that is infringed by the requirements of Policy 63(i).

The appellant also referred to a previous appeal decision5 that they felt supported their interpretation of Policy 63. In that decision the Inspector found that the personal circumstances of the appellant demonstrated a clear need for the appeal scheme. As such, I do not consider that decision to be determinative in this instance.

For the reasons detailed above I am satisfied that no conflict between the provisions of the PPTS and Policy 63 of the LP has been demonstrated.

Speaking at the Inquiry6, the appellants expressed a general desire to remain in the Bedfordshire area, though acknowledged that they have no particular link or even familiarity with the appeal site or the local area.

Under cross examination the appellant’s Planning Witness7 identified that the appellants’ need for a site in the borough arose as a result of their purchase of the site. Subsequently he declined to answer when asked if they therefore had no need to be located in the borough prior to purchasing the site. The implication clearly being that they did not.

Many, but not all, of the intended occupants of the appeal scheme previously lived at [name] site near [name], in Central Bedfordshire Council’s administrative area. The site has a chequered history and the appellants attested to suffering violence and intimidation from other residents of the site over a considerable period of time and referred to various incidents which lead them to become too afraid for their safety to remain. This is a ‘push’ factor and as such generates a need for a site but does not demonstrate a clear need for a site in this borough.

A number of the intended occupants of the site are not currently in occupation, including a family of mother and three children who intend to occupy a second static caravan on plot 3, the first static being occupied by her father. This family is described8 as being of no fixed abode and ‘currently living with others elsewhere’. Again, I consider this to be a push factor that does generate a need for a site but does not demonstrate a clear need for a site in the borough. 4 [name] in cross examination 5 APP/K0235/W/19/3243608 [name], [address], Kempston, Bedford [postcode] Decision date: 04 April 2022 6 [name] 7 [name] 8

Turning to the efforts undertaken in the search for a new site, scant evidence was provided by the appellants in this regard. I understand sites across Bedfordshire were considered, though no substantive details of unsuitable sites, sites they were unsuccessful in acquiring, sources of sites or specific criteria for sites was provided to the inquiry.

Statements from the intended occupiers detail some caring and assistance roles within family groups and the that the relationships linking between the pitches include close family relationships, more distant family relationships and friendship.

The appellants detailed9 that a site of a size that could accommodate all 5 pitches, 11 mobile homes and tourers, that would accommodate the extended family groups was sought and that sites that were too small were dismissed. However, the reason given for seeking a site all together was affordability. Specifically, the cost could be met by the larger group, but this fails to account for the fact that land is usually valued in large part by size, a smaller site may be proportionally as affordable.

On the basis of the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that alternative sites, including smaller sites, do not exist or could not meet the needs of the intended occupiers. I note that no alternative sites have been identified by the Council and that it is acknowledged that there is a waiting list for of the Council run sites and that it will take a number of years to provide new publicly owned sites. However, Policy 63(i) clearly places the onus upon the appellant to demonstrate a need for a site in the borough.

To conclude this main issue, as referred to previously it is not at dispute that the council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of sites and that the tilted balance is therefore engaged. These, and other matters referred to above, are material considerations that weigh in favour of the appeal, and I afford them significant weight. However, on the basis of the evidence before me, I find that the appellants have not demonstrated a clear need for a site in the borough and in this regard the appeal scheme is contrary to Policy 63(i) of the LP and I afford this conflict significant weight.

The PPTS and the LP recognise that [name] sites can be located in the countryside and that access to services and facilities can vary significantly between different sites and situations.

Policy 63 refers to Traveller sites in the countryside and, among other matters, requires that “Adequate schools, shops and other community facilities are within reasonable travelling distance and preferably can be reached safely by foot, cycle or public transport”. I note that Policy 63 distinguishes between a requirement for a reasonable travelling distance and a preference for the facilities to be reached safely by foot, cycle and public transport.

The PPTS adopts a similar approach and advises at paragraph 13 that local planning authorities should ensure that their policies ‘reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location, thereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability’. While paragraph 13 falls under the heading of ‘Plan-making’, I consider that many 9 [name] of the principles it contains should be applied to development proposals. On this basis it is reasonable to consider sustainability in the round.

The appeal site is distinctly detached from the settlement, but I do not consider the physical separation that I saw at the site visit to be sufficient to be ‘away from’ Felmersham for the purposes of paragraph 26 of the PPTS.

Nonetheless, the road that links the appeal site to the village does not have a pavement, is not lit and has a 60mph speed limit. I understand that no bus service passes the site and there is only a limited service from Felmersham, some distance from the site. Moreover, the only other facilities in the village are a public house, primary school and a Church.

In this regard the council notes that “There are no secondary schools, shops, banks, takeaway food shops, healthcare facilities, dental facilities, restaurants or other facilities in Felmersham”.10 All these services are located in other settlements some distance away.

In addition, the parties have referred to the Government’s Connectivity Tool. The appeal site scored 25, I consider this to be poor, even for a rural site situated in the predominantly urban Bedford Borough. In addition, the parties reached a broad agreement that cycling to services and facilities along the local roads was only attractive to experienced cyclists and, in the absence of a footpath and lighting, I consider that walking to Felmersham is unattractive, particularly for children.

On this basis I consider the appeal site to be poorly located in terms of access to services other than by private motor car, this is not uncommon for rural areas and there are sustainability benefits in providing a settled location for Travellers and the council acknowledges the demand for such provision. Moreover, the Framework at paragraphs 110 and 115, amongst other matters, refers to the prioritisation of sustainable modes of transport and recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas.

I note from the personal statements submitted by the appellants that it is the intention that some of the school age children will be homeschooled, a positive for the sustainability of the site, or attend a faith school which is not the closest school provision, though shared journeys may be possible.

To conclude this main issue, while I consider the travel distances to schools and local facilities are not wholly unreasonable given the rural location of the site, the residents would be dependent on the private motorcar for such journeys, and the appeal scheme would not fulfil the second ‘preference’ part of Policy 63 (ii) regarding safe access by foot, cycle and public transport. I consider this to be a limited conflict with the relevant criteria of Policy 63 of the LP and I afford it some weight only.

The appeal scheme, prior to the unauthorised development, was a simple grassed field. The immediate setting around the appeal site comprises open mixed farmland and the soft village edge. The area is of a peaceful rural character and appearance. This is representative of the prevailing landscape character, as identified by the council’s landscape witness. 10 [name] of Case paragraph 6.26

The appeal scheme would see the introduction of a substantial element of development, in the form of five [name] pitches with 11 static caravans and 4 tourer caravans along with extensive areas of hardstanding, access roads, vehicles and other ancillary development and associated domestic paraphernalia.

I saw at the site visit that the site is viewed from points on [address] and nearby public footpath and bridle way. The views of the site from [address] would likely greatly increase as a result of necessary measures to enlarge the access and facilitate the collection of refuse from the site. I also saw that the site holds a prominent position within the landscape and setting of the village.

As a consequence, the appeal scheme would result in an adverse impact on the appeal site and immediate setting of major to [name] significance, a further adverse impact on the character of the local landscape within the [name] Area. The appeal scheme would result in the introduction of an isolated and incongruous domestic enclave into the countryside, affecting the continuity and integrity of the landscape in this location.

The appellant submits that the appeal scheme would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. However, significant flaws in methodology and conclusions in the appellant’s landscape evidence were identified in cross examination such that I consider that the landscape evidence of the appellant is unconvincing.

As heard in evidence11, and as I saw at the site visit, there would be adverse impacts of [name] significance on visual amenity for receptors in close proximity to the site, such as users of Public Footpath Felmersham 15 (located on The Slip), Public Bridleway Felmersham A3 (located to the south of the appeal site), and in the vicinity of the site access on [address], with [name] effects experienced along the approach to the village.

The appellant has referred to the potential to incorporate landscaping into the appeal scheme to mitigate the effects of the appeal scheme. I am satisfied that in principle, landscaping could mitigate some of the adverse impacts of the development proposals but only to a limited extent and only once it becomes established, which usually takes some time. Moreover, such a landscaping scheme would place further requirements on the capacity of the site to accommodate various competing demands and no robust plan showing all these matters has been submitted by the appellants.

As such, I am not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that the mitigation measures proposed by the appellant would reduce the adverse effects of the appeal scheme to acceptable levels.

For completeness, I consider that the continued use of the static generators that currently provide electricity to the occupiers of the site would harm the character of the area, including the landscape character. This is a matter I will return to later.

To conclude this main issue, I find that the appeal scheme would result in the loss of a simple pastoral field and see its replacement with a dense residential use that is not characteristic of the countryside setting, resulting in unacceptable harm to the 11 [name] character and appearance of the area contrary to Policy 63(vii) of the LP. I attach significant weight to this conflict. Connections

The appeal site does not currently benefit from any mains sewerage connection. The submitted plans detail the use of a package treatment plant discharging to a nearby watercourse. However, the Environment Agency (EA) has raised an objection to the appeal scheme referring to a hierarchy of solutions and the failure of the appellants to provide adequate details of any local solution.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), with regards non-mains drainage, requires that the presumption must first be to provide a system of foul drainage discharging into a public sewer12. The EA identified that the closest connection point to the mains foul sewer is 229 metres from the appeal site. I consider this distance to be generally reasonable for providing a connection to accommodate the 11 mobile homes of the appeal scheme. However, the appellant has not provided any substantive details regarding such a connection.

Furthermore, I saw at the site visit that the watercourse indicated on the submitted plans as accommodating the outflow from the package treatment plant was small and entirely dry. The water course drains water from the appeal site and adjoining fields and passes through Felmersham before joining the [name]. Local residents described frequent flooding in the local area as a result of these water flows.

As such, it is readily apparent that this water course is wholly unsuitable for the proposed purpose, and the use of such a solution would harm water quality in conflict with Policy 32(i) and Policy 50S of the LP.

In common with many aspects of the appeal, the appellant has indicated their willingness to accept a condition to control details of foul drainage. However no substantive evidence has been provided with regards the feasibility of making a connection to the main sewer or whether another local solution, such as cesspits can be physically accommodated, serviced and maintained on the appeal site.

Moreover, the appellant has suggested a number of substantive changes to the composition and layout of the appeal scheme to resolve outstanding details and matters. I have some concern that I have no substantive evidence with regards the cumulative effect of all of these changes on the deliverability of the appeal scheme.

The appellants referred to a number of other appeal decisions where the details of foul drainage have been the subject of a condition. I do not have all of the relevant evidence and circumstances of those cases before me and while I have had regard to the decisions, I do not consider that they are determinative in this instance.

In the absence of substantive details regarding foul drainage, I consider that the appellant has not demonstrated that adequate foul drainage can be provided on the site. On this basis I am not satisfied that is has been demonstrated that the appeal scheme would not harm water quality, this is in conflict with Policy 32(i) and Policy 50S of the LP. I attach significant weight to this conflict. 12 ID 34-[phone]

Residents of the appeal site currently utilise a number of static generators to meet their electricity needs. The appellant’s have expressed their willingness to create a connection to the mains electric supply.

The SoCG between the appellant and the council agrees that “the continued use of generators at the appeal site would lead to a loss of amenity for residents and users of countryside rights of way and unduly impact on the tranquillity of the countryside”.

Under cross examination the appellant’s Planning Witness stated that his interpretation of this statement only included residents as users of rights of way and not in respect of their dwellings and outdoor amenity space. No reasonable explanation was given as to why it was necessary to refer separately to residents and users of rights of way.

In any event, a local resident gave evidence at the inquiry and detailed that the generators on the appeal site could, when operating, be heard in their garden and in their house, harming their living conditions. This is in accordance with my experience at the site visit, where a generator on the appeal site was clearly audible at the closest residential property on [address].

The area around the appeal site is remarkably tranquil and, in this context, I consider that the continued use of static generators on the appeal site would harm the living conditions of future occupiers of the appeal site and local residents. I also consider that, in accordance with the SoCG the continued use of generators would harm the amenity of users of the nearby Public Rights of Way and the character of the area, including the landscape character.

Nonetheless, the appellants submitted a letter from the [name] Operator13 (DNO) detailing a budget estimate to connect the appeal site, via a ground mounted substation on site and a 300m underground cable through 3rd party land to the high voltage network at a cost of £174,000 exclusive of VAT and subject to a number of caveats that may result in a different cost

Clearly this is a considerable sum of money. However, the appellants stated that this was considered to be a reasonable cost, shared across the 5 pitches, and compared favourably to the ongoing cost of running the generators. It was suggested that the provision of a mains electricity connection could be the subject of a suitably worded condition.

On the basis of the evidence before me I consider that the use of static generators harms the living conditions of future residents of the appeal site, local residents and users of nearby footpaths and the character of the area. This would be in conflict with Policy 32(i) and (ii), Policy 32(ii) and Policy 64(vi) of the LP that seek to protect the existing tranquillity of the area and the living conditions of residents of development sites and local residents.

However, I am satisfied that a mains electricity connection, within a reasonable timescale, could be required by condition if permission were granted on a permenant basis. I consider the sum to be too great to be a reasonable requirement for a temporary planning permission. 13 ID8 [name] dated 05 January 2026

The appellant’s ‘[name] and Preliminary Roost Assessment’ is described by the R6 Ecology witness as falling “well below industry standards”14, a “lack of methodology being provided and the company’s generic methodology not being followed, a lack of data search, summaries and not full findings being given, incorrect habitat classification, rare species being recorded without comment, failure to assess woodland removal, and failure to find or assess impact to veteran trees”.

I consider these failings to have been substantiated by the R6 party15 and that these are significant failings that fundamentally undermine the appellant’s assessment of the appeal site’s ecology.

The baseline prior to the unauthorised works was, as described by the R6 ecology witness, as “neutral grassland which had a tall tussocky sward, a woodland was present on the western boundary with a narrow access track, and the northern, eastern and southern boundaries were marked by hedges. Veteran ash trees, as previously coppiced individuals, were present in the southern boundary hedgerow”16 and “It is likely that great crested newts were present in their terrestrial phase, and reptiles were also likely to be present. An active badger sett was present, and bats were very likely to forage along the woodland edge and hedgerows. Bat roosting is unknown, but several trees contained features suitable to be used by bats for roosting.” ‘eDNA’ sampling of nearby bodies of water has been undertaken and the results suggest the presence of [name] (GCN).

At the site visit I observed the badger sett and a deceased young badger, several potential bat roost features in trees to the periphery of the site and a small remaining area of grassland on the appeal site that is commiserate with that described by the R6 ecology witness.

On this basis, I consider that the habitat of the appeal site was suitable for great crested newts, reptiles, badger and bats and as such it is likely the construction period of the unauthorised works resulted in the death, injury and certainly the disturbance of protected species. Moreover, a badger sett has been disturbed to the extent that it is no longer suitable for a main breeding sett and is now, at best, in occasional use only. External lighting and activity are likely to have disrupted bat foraging and access to roost sites in trees. Appropriate licenses have not been sought by the appellant.

The implementation of the appeal scheme would further this harm significantly but would also create the opportunity for mitigation. The appellant has identified a number of mitigation measures including, tree planting, a 30-meter buffer to the badger sett, mowing regime, hedgerow planting and an external lighting strategy that could be controlled by condition.

I do not consider the mitigation and enhancement measures suggested by the appellant to adequately ameliorate the harm and where they are proposed, place a further and cumulative constraints on the capacity and layout of the site that has not been demonstrated as feasible in any single plan before me. Conversely, the 14 [name] of Evidence paragraph 4.5 15 [name] and XX 16 [name] of Evidence paragraph 4.32 dismissal of the appeal and the removal of the unauthorised works would, largely remedy the harms that are reversable17.

As such, I find that the appeal scheme would significantly and unacceptably harm ecology and protected species contrary to Policy 63(vii) of the LP. I afford this harm great weight.

The submitted plans do not show specific waste collection and storage details. In response to consultation with regards the application, the council’s waste services manager raised concern that refuse vehicles could not access the site, would be required to stop on the highway to collect waste and that many of the pitches were such a distance from the road that they exceeded the maximum ‘drag distance’, in that regard reference was made to the Council's Technical Guidance for Waste & Recycling in [name].

The appellants propose the creation of what they describe as a ‘bell mouth’ at the vehicular access to the site off [address]. The details of the access, and arrangements for waste storage and collection are proposed to be controlled by an appropriately worded condition. The enlarged access would allow the refuse vehicles to pull off the highway to collection refuse bins negating the need to block the highway or to drive on to the site. the storage facilities would allow the correct storage of the refuse bins within the site.

I have no substantive details of the proposed access arrangements and refuse storage and collection proposals. Nonetheless the council have withdrawn the relevant reason for refusal on the basis that an appropriate scheme can be brought forward and be controlled by condition.

Nonetheless, based on the limited evidence before me and my observations at the site visit, I am satisfied that an appropriate scheme can be brought forward to control waste storage and collection and that such details can be controlled by an appropriately worded condition.

A Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) made on 27 December 2015 confirms changes to national planning policy to make ‘intentional unauthorised development’ a material consideration to be weighed in the determination of planning applications and appeals received since 31 August 2015.

I note that the TCPA90 provides through s73A and s177 for grants of retrospective planning permission. Moreover, the enforcement code as contained in [name] of the TCPA90 is intended to be ‘remedial not punitive’ and the appellants have sought to regularise the appeal scheme.

Nonetheless it is readily apparent from their own evidence at the Inquiry18 that the appellants intentionally undertook the development, over a weekend when the council offices would be closed thus hampering any response, knowing that the 17 [name] of Evidence paragraph 8.7 18 Statements from [name], [name], [name], [name], [name] & [name] development was unauthorised and would possibly not be approved by the local planning authority and that it would take some time to remove those now living on the site if their proposals were unsuccessful. Moreover, the appellants own evidence at the Inquiry highlighted the premediated nature of the work, arranging plant and material deliveries to the site.

Despite the many months between purchasing the site at auction and the development and occupation of the site, planning permission was only sought at or after occupation of the site. While reference was made by the appellants to a number of events having happened at the Greenacres site that meant the residents quite reasonably wished to leave, no single event that required their immediate departure prior moving on to the site was referred to.

The development was undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission denying the possibility to appropriately limit or mitigate the harm, in particular harm to ecology and protected species. This harm has now taken place and while some harm may be undone with the restoration of the site or implementation of ongoing mitigation measures, this original harm, particularly the likely harm to protected species cannot be undone.

For the reasons detailed above, I consider that the intentional unauthorised development is a material consideration in the determination of the appeal and it weights against the appeal scheme, I afford this significant weight.

The site is within Flood zone 1 but there are areas within the site, including land shown as the access road and residential pitches, at risk, including high risk, of surface water flooding. The appellant proposed various surface water management methods including soakways, and permeable surfaces. As a consequence, the Lead Local Flood Authority withdrew their initial objection subject to the imposition of suitably worded conditions to secure the above.

However, the Framework requires that a sequential risk-based approach should be taken to land known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding.

The proposed layout of the appeal site is somewhat fluid, with many details left to be resolved by conditions. Nonetheless, I am not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that there would be no development (for example the siting of a static caravan or access road) on an area of land that would be at risk of flooding.

Moreover, I have some doubts as to whether the appellants mitigation measures would mitigate the risk of flooding through the development. The infiltration testing submitted19 by the appellants identified that 2 of the 3 trial pits failed and a field drain was encountered in the third. The report identified that consideration should be given to the reliability of the date due to the presence of ceramic land drains encountered.

[name] note the provisions of paragraph 027a of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) with regards the need for proportionality in applying the sequential test (ST), the ST referred to in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment is nonetheless lamentable. In particular, the search area is confined to the redline of the appeal site and irrelevant issues such as land ownership are referred to. 19 [name] REPORT, [name] dated October 2025

With regards the catchment area for the development proposed and the needs it is addressing, because the appellants would relocate from some distance away, I consider that wide area is justifiable. Moreover, while it is the appellants preference to remain together as a wider group, this does not preclude the consideration of other and smaller sites that could accommodate 1-2 plots thus maintaining family groups and caring responsibilities.

On this basis, I am not satisfied that the sequential test has been satisfied.

Furthermore, paragraph 181 of the Framework states that “developers must demonstrate that: a. within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location.” However, it is readily apparent that the submitted plans show static caravans (a highly vulnerable use) in the area at risk of surface water flooding.

While the appellant has suggested a ‘site development scheme’ could be controlled by condition and could ensure the siting of static caravans outside of the areas at risk of surface water flooding no such details are before me and such measures would place a further and cumulative constraint on the capacity and layout of the site that has not been demonstrated as feasible in any single plan before me.

Moreover, I note that the escape and indeed the access to the site is through an area at highest risk of surface water flooding. The depth of flooding is suggested to be in the region of 200mm.

On the basis of the evidence before me I consider that parts of the appeal site are at risk of surface water flooding, that the sequential test has not been satisfied and that it is not demonstrated that adequate measures, such as flood resilience, sustainable drainage systems, the safe management of any residual risk, and safe access and escape routes are available. In the absence of substantive evidence in this regard I am not satisfied that such matters can be satisfactorily resolved by

Therefore, I find that the appeal scheme is not acceptable with regards flooding contrary to Policy 92 of the LP and guidance set out in the Framework and the PPG.

As the proposal is near to a Conservation Area and a number of listed buildings, I have had special regard to sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The Rule 6 party submits that there would be a low-level of less than substantial harm to the significance of heritage assets, in particular, the [name] listed Parish Church of [name]. I saw at the site visit that there a number of designated heritage assets near to the site, including ‘the cottage’, a grade II dwelling located on [address] at the edge of Felmersham (the significance of which is derived from its age and appearance that retains C18 features), Felmersham Conservation Area (CA) that includes the historic core of the settlement and the grade I listed Church that, in combination, defines the significance of the CA.

The CA is set to the northern half of the settlement, a distinct band of built form separates this area from the appeal site, as such I do not consider that the appeal site forms part of the setting of the CA. [address] is located on the edge of Felmersham, the setting of this heritage asset is confined to the immediate surroundings, including the village edge. I consider that the appeal site is outside of the setting of this heritage asset.

The Church of [name] is a predominantly C13 parish church with some C15 alterations and later C19 restoration. The tower is a prominent feature in the settlement, visible from much of the surrounding countryside, including the bridleway to the north of the appeal site of [address] and that this directly contributes to its special interest.

I consider that the countryside around Felmersham forms an important part of the setting of the Church. Indeed, the Bedford Borough Landscape Character Assessment20 identifies the importance to “conserve the views to the church towers”. In particular where views are afforded of the settlement and the church.

I saw at the site visit that the church and village are visible from the public bridleway to the south of the appeal site though a substantial gap in the hedge that provides access to the adjoining field. The appeal site and the current unauthorised development is a prominent and incongruous feature detracting from the pleasant open countryside appearance and intruding into the view of the church tower and settlement.

The appeal scheme would introduce additional development and subdivision of the appeal site. Some mitigation measures, such as landscaping to the interior and boundaries of the site would soften the visual impact of the appeal site but nonetheless, I consider that the appeal scheme would introduce considerable built development into an otherwise open area resulting in harm to the setting of the heritage asset and thus would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting and that this should have a clear and convincing justification. Given the matters detailed previously, I find the harm to be a moderate level of less than substantial in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, requiring clear and convincing justification

The public benefits of the appeal scheme include providing needed gypsy traveller accommodation in a context where a 5-year supply cannot be demonstrated, a settled base from which the occupiers can access healthcare (public health benefits) and education, and the advancement of human rights and PSED considerations. However, I note that these benefits are not site specific and could be provided elsewhere on an alternative site, even an unallocated one in the countryside.

Given the above and in the absence of overriding public benefit, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the [name] listed 20 CD8.2 building. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 210 of the Framework and conflict with policy 63(vii) and 41S of the LP that seeks, among other things, that seek to protect the historic environment. I attach great weight to this harm. Personal circumstances of the intended occupiers, the best interests of the children, human rights and the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

Many of the intended occupiers of the appeal scheme previously lived on the Greenacres site and suffered incidents of violence and intimidation. Though no single incident was identified as requiring a sudden and forced relocation to the appeal site, I am satisfied that the accumulation of the events referred to, pushed the occupiers to seek alternative accommodation. These residents currently reside on the appeal site.

Separately, a family group consisting of a mother and three children intend to occupy a second static caravan on plot 3, if the appeal scheme is allowed, and provide care to her father in his own static caravan. The mother and children are not currently in occupation on the site and were described as being of no fixed abode and ‘currently living with others elsewhere’.

A further family group lived on a private site referred to as The Orchards, Ricksmanworth and have referred to experiencing similar levels of violence and intimidation, to those that lived on Greenacres.

No alternative site has been identified. As such, to dismiss the appeal would require those currently resident on the site to seek currently unknown alternative accommodation. Those additional households that intended to occupy the site would have to continue to reside in their current place or similarly seek alternative accommodation.

It is generally accepted that a stable base facilitates access to education and medical support, both of which are variously required by the intended occupiers of the appeal site is a significant material consideration.

It is the stated intention that some of the children of the intended occupiers would attend a faith school in another settlement (though are not currently enrolled), others are homeschooled or are of too young an age to attend school yet.

With regards to health considerations, many of the intended occupiers suffer issues with their health, receive treatment and are supported by other intended occupiers of the site. I note a distinction in the personal statements provided, clarified in questioning, that some of the health concerns have been medically diagnosed and are being treated under the care of appropriate medical practitioners, others are conditions that the individual has identified in themselves.

Therefore, the evidence in this case indicates that a decision to dismiss the appeal would have an adverse impact on the children living on the site, and the best interests of the children are a primary consideration and the need to safeguard and promote their welfare (to include health, education and a general welfare) must be considered.

The wider group, and therefore all of the children living on the site, would benefit significantly from having a settled base on which they can live together and provide mutual care and support. These benefits are not exclusive to this particular site but there are no other options identified which would meet these needs.

The adverse impact of not granting permission on the best interests of the children would be great. I therefore accord the matters referred to above substantial weight in favour of the grant of the permission when considering whether it would be proportionate in light of the other considerations (and the harm that I have identified).

Moreover, I recognise the occupiers’ rights under Article 8 of the Convention; that the best interests of any children on the site would be served by a settled base, and that this is a primary consideration; and that the PSED in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 is engaged.

In favour of the appeal scheme there is a need for Gypsy and Traveller sites in general, there is an agreed absence of a 5-year supply of sites, the intended occupiers of the appeal site have a personal need for a site, no alternative sites have been identified, the caring responsibilities of the intended occupiers, access to health case and education. A settled base is in the best interests of the children, the human rights (article 8) of the [name] on Human Rights and the PSED weigh in favour of granting planning permission.

To dismiss the appeal would mean that those already occupying the site would need to find alternative accommodation, the availability of which I have already referred to above, having stated that they cannot and do not wish to return to the sites they previously occupied.

Turning to the harms of the appeal scheme, I have found various conflicts with Policy 63. I do not consider that, on the basis of the evidence before me, the appellants have clearly demonstrated a need for a site in the borough. I have found harm to the setting of a [name] listed building that is not outweighed by the public benefits of the appeal scheme, harm to the character and appearance of the area, including landscape harm, harm to ecology, harm with regards access to services and facilities, harm with regards to flooding and the disposal of foul water and harm regarding Intentional Unauthorised Development.

While no other consideration can be inherently more important than the best interests of the child, the weight given to any consideration will depend on all of the circumstances of the case. In this instance I consider that these numerous harms I have referred to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of granting planning permission for the appeal proposal.

I have considered whether to grant planning permission on a temporary basis and/or personal basis but the harm arising to the character and appearance of the area, landscape character and ecology is on-going, harm from the continued use of static generators, harm from flood risk and foul drainage would still endure.

Even if I were to conclude in favour of the appellant with regards Policy 63(i), either that the appellant has clearly demonstrated: a need for a site in the borough; a site; or, that I attribute little or no weight to the policy conflict, I am still satisfied that the many adverse impacts of the appeal scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of granting either a permenant, temporary and/or personal planning permission.

I am satisfied that the effect of dismissing this appeal and the resulting interference with the human rights of the intended occupiers, the best interests of the children, and the PSED considerations is proportionate and acceptable in the interests of public safety with regards flooding and foul water, the rights and freedoms of others, in particular the protection of the environment and protected species and all the other planning interests referred to previously, including the setting of a [name] listed Church.

For the reasons given above and having had regards all other matters the appeal should be dismissed.