Inspector finds in favour of resident in battle over traveller pitches
A long-running dispute involving Waverley Borough Council and a resident over pitches for traveller caravans appears to have been settled in the applicant’s favour.
Planning inspector Philip Major allowed an appeal by resident Mark Wenham and granted permanent planning permission.
Michael Rudd, of Kings Chambers, who represented Mr Wenham, said the appeal had previously been dismissed, but that decision was overturned by Lang J in the Planning Court when she found that caravans and mobile homes do constitute housing under the National Planning Policy Framework, contrary to the submission of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
Mr Rudd said that had led to a written ministerial statement in July 2015 “seemingly excluding members of the travelling community from the provisions of paragraph 49 NPPF”.
The Secretary of State though withdrew an appeal against Lang J’s ruling shortly before it was due to be heard.
He noted that Mr Major had said the written ministerial statement might be discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010, but concluded he was not required to determine this.
In his ruling, Mr Major agreed to the siting of a caravan on a site at Alford, Surrey.
He said: “It is acknowledged by the council that there is a general unmet need for gypsy and traveller sites…the quantum of current need is not agreed, being estimated by the council at 11 pitches, and at 102 pitches by the appellant…however, it is agreed that the council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites.”
Mr Major said the site could not reasonably be described as ‘open countryside’ and so subject to stricter controls, since it was immediately adjacent to a row of houses.
He added: “I cannot agree that in its current form it is highly visible. Overall I find that there would be limited harm to the character of the area, which in general would remain almost unchanged.”
Turning to the equalities issue, the inspector said: “I cannot but agree with the appellant that there appears to be an arguable case for consideration in the context of the Equality Act 2010.”
He added: “The very fact that the relevant policy for the provision of traveller sites in this case is out of date engages paragraph 14 of the NPPF."
In a statement Waverley said: "The council is disappointed with the outcome of the appeal decision given that the application had been refused by the council, dismissed at appeal and subsequently quashed in the High Court before being referred back to the Planning Inspector to reconsider.
"The council will be allocating Gypsy and Traveller sites in Part 2 of the emerging Local Plan and it is acknowledged that the allowed appeal assists the council in meeting its need in relation to gypsy and traveller pitch provision."
Mark Smulian
