Planning inspector grants planning permission for 480-person asylum accommodation initially refused by council
A planning inspector has accepted an appeal of a refusal from Stafford Borough Council that blocked Serco from moving more than 400 asylum seekers into disused student accommodation, finding the planning balance "very firmly in favour of the appeal scheme”.
In a decision published on Monday (26 June), planning inspector G D Jones concluded the planning balance to be "very firmly in favour of the appeal scheme," dismissing all of the council's reasons for refusal, which cited fear of crime, the effect on social inclusivity and pressure on public health resources.
Home Office contractor Serco was tasked with placing asylum seekers in the disused accommodation – which has a capacity for 481 residents – and applied for planning permission in March 2022 for a change of use.
The council's refusal came despite a recommendation by the council's planning officer to approve the application.
The officer found the proposal "acceptable in principle" and noted that it would provide specialist accommodation in a suitable location. They also found that the proposal complied with the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
Serco then appealed to the planning inspectorate in January of this year.
The inspector found that the fear of crime and actual crime "attract no more than limited weight" in the planning balance, principally due to "limited evidence" to support the council's case.
He found no compelling evidence that criminal activity is more prevalent or extreme amongst asylum seekers than amongst the wider population and no evidence that were the development to proceed, the current circumstances in relation to crime would change on the site.
Ultimately, he concluded that there would be no conflict with paragraphs 92(a) & (c) and 130(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The inspector concluded that there is "also no good reason" to believe that that number of asylum seekers would have a significant effect on social inclusivity.
He noted that: "Indeed, the development seems likely to offer the kind of opportunities for meetings between people who would not otherwise come into contact with each other."
On the fear that the development would put pressure on local public health resources, the inspector recognised that GP practices receive additional funding for any resident new to the area, including asylum seekers.
He also leant on an assessment from the Independent Commissioning Body (ICB), which did not suggest that any further funding for public health services would be required as a result of the proposed development.
"Accordingly, even if I were to adopt the Council's best position regarding the likelihood of the proposed use resulting in there being greater call on health services compared to when the premises were in use by students or indeed compared to the current scenario, there is no substantiated basis on which to conclude that the appeal development would have a significant effect in terms of local public health resources."
In concluding, the inspector said: "Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In the council's view the appeal scheme complies with the development plan as a whole. I have found no reason to disagree.
"Given my findings regarding the main issues and the wider objections to the scheme as outlined above, the matters that weigh against the appeal scheme collectively carry no more than limited weight."
He found no conflict within the wider NPPF, a matter which he said "weighs significantly in favour of granting planning permission".
"They are sufficient alone to very comfortably outbalance the matters that collectively weigh against the proposed development," he said.
He noted additional benefits to the proposed development, including the provision of £3500 in non-ring fenced funding per asylum seeker, job creation, and the need to provide accommodation for asylum seekers.
He also stated that the scheme would bring a vacant building back into use, "thus potentially avoiding development of a greenfield site elsewhere for the proposed use and / or likely carbon release were the site to be redeveloped for any purpose".
Adam Carey
