It was common ground that as a result of changes to the PPTS in December 2024, the Council no longer had a five-year supply of deliverable pitches to meet the need within the borough, and that there were no available alternative sites - see [DL/9].

The Inspector found that the development would be harmful to ecology (even if alternative mitigation/enhancements could be provided) and that this carried significant weight against the proposal.

As to landscape, the Inspector concluded that the public right of way which ran through the appeal site was a “well-used footpath, connecting to a wider network of rights of way” and that “prior to the unauthorised development taking place, the character and appearance of the appeal site made a positive contribution to the enjoyment and use of PROW35” [DL/51]. The development had caused a “a strong and detracting impact on the landscape character” and had caused “a significant urbanising effect on the rural character of the appeal site” [DL/52]. She held that “The visual impact of the development on users of PROW35 is a significant detractor, and to my mind the harm is not diminished just because it is only experienced for a short duration. In my view there would be a high magnitude of visual effects, the development is substantial, obvious, draws the eye, and is not commonplace in the view. The impact would therefore be major/adverse” [DL/52]. She concluded that the development had had a “significant adverse impact” and failed to “recognise the intrinsic character or beauty of the countryside” such that “There would thus be conflict with national policy. The harm to the character and appearance of the countryside is unacceptable, significant and carries substantial weight” [DL/56].

As to sustainability, the Inspector accepted that the “appeal site is not isolated” but concluded that “the appeal site is not within reasonable travelling distance of key services and facilities” and that “In this rural location, away from sustainable settlements there is limited choice of transport options available to the site occupiers” [DL/62]. She attached, therefore, “moderate weight to the harm arising from the absence of services and facilities within a reasonable travelling distance from the site” [DL/66].

As to intentional unauthorised development, and the Written Ministerial Statement, The Inspector concluded that it was “not...a coincidence that the works were undertaken the day after the planning application was submitted and at the start of a Bank Holiday weekend when the Council Offices were closed and thus staff resources scarce. The occupation was clearly planned and executed” [DL/75]. She concluded that “the fact that this was IUD should carry at least moderate weight against this appeal” [DL/77].

As to personal circumstances, the Inspector attached “substantial weight to all the personal circumstances of the family group, including the best interests of the child” [DL/84]. She concluded, however, that there was conflict with the development plan, the NPPF and the PPTS. The tilted balance was engaged, but the Inspector concluded that “the adverse impacts I have identified of granting planning permission significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, including the PPTS, and having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations and securing well-designed places. The development is not therefore sustainable and there is conflict with Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the NPPF. The dismissal of the appeal is a proportionate response” [DL/96].

The Inspector also refused to grant a temporary planning permission [DL/99]. She extended, however, the time period for compliance with the Enforcement Notice to 18 months pursuant to the ground (g) appeal [DL/102].

A copy of the judgment is available here.

The Appeals were dismissed. Mark O’Brien O’Reilly acted for the successful local planning authority Bedford Borough Council.