Permission refused for a mixed use including kennels and gypsy and traveller site which could have a catastrophic impact on wildlife through chemicals seeping into groundwater

David Lintott acted for the Vale of the White Horse District Council.
Appeals against refusal to grant planning permission and enforcement notice dismissed.
These appeals related to the refusal of the Council to grant permission at Land known as Maleficent Meadows, Baulking Lane, Baulking, Oxfordshire SN7 8NR. The three appeals were dismissed because of the impact on a local wildlife site, an AONB, valued landscape character and views.
On the main issue, Inspector Paul Freer BA (Hons) LLM PhD MRTPI, an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, held that the development did not accord with the Development Plan and there was clear harm arising from the effect of the development on a local wildlife site, the Council’s spatial strategy, the setting of the South Downs AONB, and the character of the local landscape which he found to be valued, resulting in conflict with a raft of policies within the Development Plan.
Substantial weight was afforded to the fact that the development was intentional unauthorised development even in the face of a five year shortfall in the supply of pitches.
This led him to conclude that there was conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. (decision letter [247-53]). He also concluded that permission should be refused for part of the matters specified in the notice [254-62] and that no temporary permission should be granted [263-70].
Of particular note is the detailed reasoning in the decision relating to the harm which the kennel use would cause to the adjacent local wildlife site through seepage of neonicotinoids into the groundwater and noise from barking dogs:
- The inspector reasoned that neonicotinoids, which were required to be used on pets stationed in the kennels as a condition of the Appellant’s licence, could seep into the groundwater and, thereby, through a shared aquifer into the adjacent local wildlife site, which included a lake. These chemicals, although banned in agriculture, are still routinely used in the treatment of pets. They are lethal in minute quantities of 0.12 parts per billion. Should these chemicals enter the groundwater, this could be catastrophic to the wildlife in the local wildlife site [105-122];
- The Inspector also reasoned that barking from the dogs would be audible in the local wildlife site. The evidence demonstrated that this would harm the wildlife therein, which would not become habituated to the disturbance even if they could not see the animals [80-104].
- Furthermore, the Inspector found that the site lies within a valued landscape [76] and that the development causes major harm to the North Wessex Downs – being within the setting of the Downs and thereby offending paragraph 189 of the Framework because of its poor design and location in relation to that National Landscape [56 and 65-6]. It followed that the significant harm the development would cause to the setting of the AONB put it in conflict with a footnote 7 policy, itself providing a clear reason to refuse permission in terms of paragraph 11 of the NPPF [219].
- Furthermore, the Inspector found harm due to the development being located in open countryside (both in terms of how that phrase is used in the Planning Policy for Travellers Sites and the Development Plan) [35], applying the sustainability requirement within the Plan that a gypsy and traveller site must be within a reasonable walking distance of a primary school, a local shop and a public transport service [162-4].
- This combination of harms, combined with the absence of any evidence that the business was viable, placed the mixed-use development in fundamental conflict with the Council’s spatial strategy ([35] and [151-2] and in particular [176]).
Inspector Freer 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, all three appeals were dismissed and the enforcement notices upheld with corrections and variations. The Inspector refused to grant planning permission on the applications deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended. [281-2].
Click here for a copy of the decision.
Click here for a copy of the costs 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.