Planning Appeals
49. The legislative position is frequently complicated
by decisions made in relation to specific planning and eviction
appeals, where the decisions often appear to be contradictory.
A study by WS Planning highlighted that the majority of appeals
identified were centred around the following issues:
- Gypsy status;
- Previous discussions with local planning authority;
- Previous planning history of site;
- Quantitative assessment of the need for additional
Traveller sites;
- Assessment of alternative site availability;
- Availability of vacancies on nearby sites;
- Local plan Gypsy policy and site selection criteria;
- Appropriateness of development (for example,
green belt or countryside beyond);
- Conflict with national or local policies;
- Demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged
importance;
- Nationally or locally protected landscapes;
- Character of site as against surrounding area;
- Harm to visual appearance and character if the
countryside (impact): possible mitigation;
- Impact on built and natural conservation features
in locality;
- Impact on local residents;
- Personal needs of the appellant for a site;
- Local connections and personal circumstances
- relationships, family, health, work connections;
- Educational needs of children;
- Financial status of individual and cost of land;
- Highway safety and access criteria;
- Sustainability; and
- Human Rights Act Article 8, 1 Protocol 1 and
Article 14.[27]
50. WS Planning assessed recent appeals and found
that decisions made by inspectors appeared to be inconsistent.
For example, a planning inspector considering a site in Bristol
in November 2003 rejected the Gypsy appellant's case on the basis
that the site was not sustainable, and therefore not in accordance
with PPG13. The inspector concluded that:
"[
] anyone living at the appeal site
would be highly dependent on the private car to gain access to
all sorts of services and facilities. I am in no doubt therefore
that the appeal site is not a sustainable location for residential
development. [
] In terms of quantifying sustainability,
recent national planning policy does not distinguish between gypsy
occupation and non-gypsy occupation of potential residential sites."[28]
In contrast, an inspector considering an appeal at
the Pennypot Lane Showmen site did not think global principles
of sustainability helpful. He considered travelling showpeople
to be a small proportion of the community, and their land requirements
modest, although unusual. Such inconsistencies make it difficult
for Gypsies and Travellers and planning inspectors to assess the
likelihood of success at appeal and may encourage speculative
appeals, supported by specialist law firms.
10