Appeal 6004222

The development described above has already been commenced and the site is currently occupied for residential purposes across 2 static caravans and one touring caravan. I have noted that the caravans on site are at variance with those described in the banner heading above and at least one is in a different position to that shown on the submitted plans.

The main parties reached agreement on a Statement of [name] ahead of the hearing. This indicates that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of pitches for Gypsies and Travellers as required by the Planning Policy For Traveller Sites (2024).

The day before the hearing, a representation was submitted on behalf of a number of interested parties. Following the opening of the hearing, this document was recorded as [name] 1.

[name] 1 comprises a covering letter and a number of [name] plans and title documents. The representation essentially outlines that the appellants cannot prove that they own or control all of the appeal site outlined in red as shown in the submitted Site Location Plan (ref 0173_P_100 A). Whilst much of the appeal site outlined in the submitted Site Location Plan is unregistered, there are numerous registered owners of other parts of the appeal site, including the access track which leads to the site from the public highway.

Article 13(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (DMPO) requires an applicant for planning permission to give requisite notice of the application to any person (other than themselves) who on the prescribed date is an owner of the land to which the application relates, or a tenant— (a) by serving the notice on every such person whose name and address is known to the applicant; and (b) where the applicant has taken reasonable steps to ascertain the names and addresses of every such person, but has been unable to do so, by publication of the notice after the prescribed date in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land to which the application relates is situated.

Article 14(1) of the DMPO requires that where an application for planning permission is made, the applicant must certify that the relevant requirements of article 13 have been satisfied.

As part of the appeal application form, [name] has been signed which seeks to confirm that 21 days before the date of the application (7 December 2023), nobody other than the applicant was the owner of any part of the land to which the application relates, and that none of the land to which the application relates is or is part of a defined agricultural holding. The evidence in the form of [name] 1 points to [name] having been made incorrectly or invalidly.

Following the discussion on the merits of the appeal case, an accompanied site visit was undertaken, attended by representatives of the Council, Local Highways Authority, the appellants and the representative concerned with [name] 1.

The requirement in Article 7(c)(i) of the DMPO is that an application for planning permission must be accompanied by a plan which identifies the land to which the application relates. During the site visit, it was acknowledged the red line of the appeal site area does not entirely correlate with the extent of the site which has been developed. Whilst the red line plan may have been drawn to correspond to features that previously existed at the time of the application being made in 2023, these features no longer exist in that particular form. The section between the appeal site and the access track which was previously excluded from the red line area of the Site Location Plan has been taken in as part of the site. Logically therefore, whilst a relatively modest area, given that development has already occurred on it, this area should form a part of the extent of the appeal site identified in red on the Site Location Plan.

The appeal hearing was adjourned following the appeal site visit and the parties provided written comments on suggested planning conditions as had been requested earlier in the proceedings. Following receipt of these documents, the hearing was subsequently closed in writing on 12 June 2026. Unsolicited correspondence received on 12 June 2026 was turned away as out of time and owing to procedural unfairness issues.

Having subsequently considered the incorrect declaration concerning the notices and the incorrect site location plan in the context of the DMPO requirements, I consider that the appeal has been invalidly made. Notwithstanding a failure to comply with these requirements, I must consider whether the appeal can proceed in any case. My decision must be made having regard to the nature of the failure, the remedy, the lapse of time, the potential effects and whether any prejudice has been or would be caused to any of the parties.

Despite there having been ample opportunity for notice to have been served and the site location plan corrected during the processing of the application between December 2023 and the date of the hearing in June 2026, these issues have not been resolved. Certainly, no cogent documented evidence has been provided on the appellants’ behalf to confirm that there was a lawful basis for [name] having been completed.

From discussion at the appeal site visit, it appears that some of the uncertainties regarding land ownership have been known for some time, and whilst I am less clear of the chronology of events, it appears that the issue has been avoided, rather than any proactive attempts having been made to address it. Whilst many of the other interested land owners have learned of the appeal proposal and have made representations about their intentions concerning areas of land they own, there may be others with an interest in the site that have not been capable of being involved in the process. The lapse of time that the application and appeal have been in the process is not sufficient in itself to assume that they have had reasonable opportunity to have been made aware.

Furthermore, the alteration to the site location plan at this late stage would also prejudice the interests of any owners who would not have expected the inclusion of their land within the appeal site at this late stage.

As such, due to the nature of the failure to conform to the requirements of the DMPO and potential prejudicial effects to interested parties, I do not consider that the appeal can proceed. The planning merits of the appeal, as documented in the written evidence and discussed during the hearing, are therefore not decisive.

Despite not having made a formal application for costs, the Council invited me to consider engaging my powers to award costs against the appellants in the event that the appeal failed for procedural reasons. One of the appellants outlined their personal circumstances during the hearing and I have good reason to believe that despite professional representation, they are personally unfamiliar with the procedural requirements of the DMPO and the extent to which his actions have resulted in a failure to meet them. As such, I do not consider that this amounts to unreasonable behaviour for the purposes of the appeal costs regime. Furthermore, there may be financial consequences for the appellants as a result of having to submit a new planning application and in having to address any related processes in any event. Therefore, in the circumstances, an award of costs is not warranted.

The appeal is invalid and I am unable to proceed to consider the planning merits of the case.