Gypsy and traveller site not permitted in an SSSI/ancient woodland and valued landscape
Planning and Environment, Local Government
Appeals against refusal to grant planning permission and enforcement notice dismissed: 25 July 2024.
These appeals related to the refusal of Waverley Borough Council to grant permission for a gypsy and traveller site at Land Rear of Burnt Hill, 7 Plaistow Road, Dunsfold. The two appeals were dismissed because of impact on an Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)/ancient woodland, protected species, valued landscape character and views.
On the main issue Inspector Peter Willows BA MRTPI, an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, held that the development did not accord with the DS15 allocation in the local plan and there was clear harm arising from the effect of the development on the ancient woodland/SSSI, the character of the local landscape and protected species, resulting in conflict with other policies of the local plan. This led him to conclude that there was conflict with the development plan as a whole. (decision letter [93]).
In relation to the other main issues he found (decision letter [6-19],[67-70] and [94-97]):
- The development resulted in the creation of new Gypsy and Traveller accommodation for 5 households. Waverley had a 5 year supply of 76 pitches set against a need for 63. Notwithstanding the adequate availability of such sites, the creation of 5 pitches was a clear benefit of the scheme.
- The site was currently occupied. The occupiers included one child and people with a range of health conditions. The benefit to these occupiers of the development remaining, and the implications for them if the notice is upheld, were very important material considerations.
- Para 186(c) of the Framework establishes that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Having considered all matters raised in support of the development as a whole, there were not wholly exceptional reasons in this case. Nor was there any adequate compensation strategy. It was therefore clear that planning permission should be refused. The benefits of the scheme did not clearly outweigh the harm to the SSSI as required by Paragraph 186(b).
- The appeals made on grounds (b) and (c) in relation to the enforcement notice appeal also failed (decision letter [6-19]).
Inspector Willows concluded that viewing the case as a whole, the material considerations raised in support of the development did not outweigh the harm arising from it and the consequent conflict with the development plan. Accordingly, and irrespective of the question of cumulative impact and precedent, planning permission should not be granted. (Decision letter [101]).
Please click here for a copy of the decision.
David Lintott acted for the Local Planning Authority. Cornerstone Barristers regularly acts for both Local Planning Authorities and Developers in a wide range of planning matters. For more information please contact 020 7242 4986 or email our clerks.
