Appeal 6003850

The appeal is dismissed.

The address in the banner heading above is taken from the application form, apart from the pitch number. This has been added for the purposes of clarity to confirm it is solely this pitch which this appeal is concerned with. The application form also includes the names of three applicants, although as the appeal has been submitted under the name of only one of these applicants, it is this name by which the appeal proceeds.

The appeal submission included a revised site plan1 and a hedgerow planting document. These amendments do not represent a substantive difference from what the Council considered at the time of its decision. Nor do they result in procedural unfairness as there has been an opportunity to comment on these changes through the appeal. Hence, they are considered in my decision.

The development on site has commenced. I observed on my site visit a static caravan, a touring vehicle, boundary enclosure and gates, services, and the outside storage of materials. The surface of the site has also been formed of loose stone, with a tarmac area. The development is not however as is shown on the submitted plans and in that sense it is far from being complete. What is for my 1 Drg. No. 3 Proposed Site Plans – [name] – [name] 2026 consideration is as shown on the submitted plans and not any alternative development which has taken place. Accordingly, I have considered the appeal on this basis.

The appellant has raised matters over whether condition no. 6 is reasonable with regard to the tests for planning conditions, and has drawn my attention to the time limited occupancy of the related planning permission2 (the planning permission) and the associated approved plans. However, the application to the Council which is the subject of the appeal before me was made on the basis of the approval of details reserved by condition under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), not an application to either vary or remove a condition under section 73 or 73A of the TCPA 1990. The appeal must therefore proceed on the same basis, regardless of how the appeal has been made and the contentions put forward.

The matter before me is therefore whether the appeal is to be approved or dismissed on the basis of the submitted site development scheme under condition no. 6. It is not to reconsider either the planning permission or discuss whether the condition is reasonable. The same applies as regards whether or not the same conditions have been applied through other planning permissions on the broader Gypsy and Traveller site. That is not for my consideration as it would have been a matter when those respective planning permissions were issued, and not for when a condition is sought to be discharged.

The planning permission was granted subject to conditions on appeal3 on 1 May 2025 for a development described as a ‘material change of use of land from an agricultural use to a use as a residential caravan site with one pitch of no more than two caravans (one static and one touring), together with the creation of hardstanding, erection of fences and gates, siting of caravans, and a container, and the erection of a day room and a bin store.’ The permission was granted subject to a number of planning conditions, including condition no. 6 which concerned a site development scheme. This required the submission of further details related to criteria (a) site layout; (b) external materials; (c) lighting; (d) landscaping; (e) drainage; (f) contaminated land; and (g) soil importation.

The appellant subsequently made an application4 to discharge this condition, which is the subject of this appeal. The Council refused the application, although the external materials details (criterion b) were considered acceptable and so approved, and so does not concern this appeal. Nevertheless, this demonstrates the potential severability of the criteria. Where the Council refused the remaining details, in summary, this was on the basis of a lack of information to discharge the remaining criteria of the condition. The Council also considered that the site layout details did not follow the planning permission or what was on site. In contrast, the appellant considered the details were sufficient and proportionate in order to discharge condition no 6. 2 Council ref: 24/0191C 3 Appeal ref: APP/R0660/W/24/3354285 4 Council ref: ref: 25/3171/DSC

In deciding on the main issues which relate to each outstanding criterion in the condition, I have had regard to the submissions of both main parties, and the reasons for the condition that are set out in the appeal decision notice.

Consequently, the main issues are (i) whether the proposed internal layout of the site would provide for a satisfactory form of development (criterion a); (ii) the effect of the external lighting on the character and appearance of the area (criterion c); (iii) the effect of the landscaping scheme on the character and appearance of the area (criterion d); (iv) the effect of the surface and foul drainage scheme on flood risk and providing satisfactory drainage (criterion e); (v) the effect of the contaminated land assessment on public health (criterion f); and (vi) the effect of soil importation on public health (criterion g).

The appeal site comprises a rectilinear area of land that is one of a number of enclosed Gypsy and Traveller pitches on a larger site which is named [address]. To the rear of the appeal site there is an embankment with vegetation, and a low voltage power line also lies close-by. The gated appeal site access is reached via a winding loose stone track from [address]. More broadly, the site is located in the countryside and away from any settlement. Agricultural fields predominate in the immediate vicinity, with occasional built development along roadsides. There is also a National Grid compound to the east.

The submitted plans do not have to follow what is on the appeal site, or what was the subject of the planning application or related appeal because criterion (a) does not restrict the internal layout in this way. This is not in itself unusual, where a planning permission concerns a change of use.

What is of more relevance is whether the internal layout as is shown on the plans is acceptable in planning terms. The mobile home as a static caravan and other structures are shown on the revised site plan to be sited close to the west boundary of the site and would not be untypical in form for such development. The boundary fencing provides some screening of the building and structures that would be found within the site. It is of a similar height and construction to other forms of enclosure which are found elsewhere on the broader Gypsy and Traveller site.

The revised site plan also shows the boarded gates of a similar height to the boundary fencing. This does not appear unacceptable from the access in character and appearance terms, as well as enabling ready access to the site. The landscaping shown includes hedgerow planting along the rural edge found at the rear of the site and would soften the built form of the remainder of the development.

While condition no. 6 lists certain elements of the internal layout, it does not specify a closed list and indeed the revised site plan shows other elements, such as the use of soakaway. [name] set out later in my decision, there is insufficient information to demonstrate this is a satisfactory form of providing surface water drainage for the site, based on the evidence before me.

As a result, I conclude that the internal layout would not provide for a satisfactory form of development. Criterion (a) cannot therefore be discharged.

External lighting is indicated to be low luminance boundary fence mounted structures. I observed these on the site. They face inwards into the site and are inobtrusive structures that would be unlikely to result in an unacceptable level of light spill into the broader countryside location.

As a result, I conclude that the external lighting would not have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area and so criterion (c) can be discharged.

The landscaping details submitted show a grassed area to the rear of the site with a mixed shrub area adjacent to the boundary fence itself as hedgerow planting. Native species would be used. The Council considers what is shown now accords with the [name] landscaping advice. It would provide a pleasant green buffer up to the fence, with the vegetation and countryside beyond. The form of landscaping would be appropriate in these surroundings, when also considering the details of the management regime that has been provided through the hedgerow planting document.

On this basis, I conclude that the landscaping scheme would not have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area and so criterion (d) can be discharged.

The appellant’s [name] Report5 sets out a number of options in relation to managing surface water run-off from the site, including the use of the existing drainage network as a preferred option, sustainable drainage systems, over-sized pipes and modular cell storage. It is not though apparent whether the various options that have been put forward in the [name] have been thoroughly investigated, and if the ground conditions are suitable for soakaway as is indicated on the revised site plan. As such, there is some doubt between the [name] and what is shown on the revised site plan. This level of uncertainty is also reflected in the representation of the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) to the application, which points to where there is outstanding information.

The appellant has confirmed that a connection to a public foul sewer is not possible as there are no reasonable available connection points, which is also a matter which the LLFA has raised. It appears from the appellant’s submissions that a septic tank has already been installed and while manufacturer details have been provided, its precise location is not clear. There is also a reference to other such tanks on the site and it may or may not be the case these arrangements are shared and if so, how this is managed. Overall, there is a lack of information to persuade me that such arrangements would be effective.

While the planning permission is time limited, this still means there are potential effects on those on the site or nearby from an unsatisfactory level of flood risk and drainage whilst the development would be in place. Even with a temporary permission, this is to be resolved prior to the discharge of this criterion of the

In order for this criterion to be discharged, the full details of the surface water and foul water drainage scheme must be provided in line with the requirements of that part of condition no. 6. Nor can further details be conditioned in the discharge of the condition. As such, I conclude that the surface and foul drainage scheme would be unacceptable as regards flood risk and providing satisfactory drainage. Criterion (e) is not therefore discharged.

The appellant’s Phase 1 Geoenvironmental report6 (Phase 1 Report) identifies there is a potential for the presence of contamination associated with historic developments on the site and/or immediately adjoining it. The representation to the application of the Council’s Enforcement Officer ([name] and [name]) also refers to a former landfill site within 250 metres of the appeal site and alleged unregulated infilling on/under the site. It is not though evident how contaminant linkages with these potential sources have been properly considered and although the Phase 1 Report recommends that a Phase 2 Report is carried out to investigate the potential for contamination, this has not been done.

Even though the appellant refers to the potential financial cost in lieu of the time limited planning permission, land contamination has the potential to affect the public health of those who live on or close to the site. Such concerns cannot be put aside because the permission is temporary. It would also be clearly contrary to what criterion (f) expects to be submitted in order to discharge its requirements.

Hence, I conclude that contaminated land assessment would have an unacceptable effect as regards public health. Criterion (f) is not therefore discharged.

There is also limited information on soil importation before me to assess its suitability for use. Such information is contained in the Phase 1 Report as regards the [name] but does not then go on to present the results of soil importation.

The appellant has confirmed that material will be tested in accordance with [name] within Cheshire East Council – A Guide to Submitting Planning Applications, [name], but that simply is repeating a requirement of the criterion. With regard to whether this could be addressed by a further submission if the landscaping requirements were considered suitable, the results of the testing of material would need to be before me in order to consider if this criterion can be discharged at this stage.

Accordingly, I conclude that soil importation would have an unacceptable effect as regards public health. Criterion (g) is not therefore discharged.

In exercising my function on behalf of a public authority, I am also consciously aware of my duties under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained within the Equality Act 2010 which sets out to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advance equality and foster good relations, and the protected characteristics under the PSED. I am also aware of my duties under Article 8 of the 6 CCG-C-25-15579 Phase I Geoenvironmental Report Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 8) that bestows the right to private and family life and for the home. Matters in relation to flood risk, drainage and public health are however legitimate wider community and public interests. The needs of the appellant could also be jeopardised by these matters. Not fully discharging the site development scheme would not therefore unacceptably conflict with the PSED or Article 8.

While the Council’s decision notice or its case set out in its Appeal Statement does not include a consideration of the policies of the development plan, it has provided a list and appendices detailing these policies. A number of these relate to the main issues that I have considered above and so are material in this case. However, they do not change my overall conclusions.

Criteria (c) and (d) of condition no. 6 can be discharged, but not criteria (a), (e), (f) and (g). Accordingly, I conclude that the site development scheme under condition no. 6 is not therefore fully discharged and so the appeal is dismissed.