Taxpayers to pick up cost of Beenham travellers site appeal

In November last year, members of the Eastern Area Planning Committee defied their officers’ advice and rejected applicant Boyside Biddle’s proposals.
Mr Biddle’s agent, Hugh Jackson, of Green Planning Solutions, had taunted councillors at the meeting, branding them “startled rabbits” and adding: “Your enthusiasm for making the taxpayer pick up a big bill is exemplary.”
Earlier he had warned: “I strongly recommend you follow the advice of your planning officers to avoid a costly appeal...our success rate on appeal is over 90 per cent.”
Now HM Planning Inspector Susan Heywood has sided with the applicant, and warned councillors: “I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense...has been demonstrated and that a partial award of costs is justified.”
Council spokesman Keith Ulyatt said: “We will have to liaise with the applicant on the breakdown of the costs, so no figure is available now.”
Hundreds of residents had also opposed the application for ‘one gypsy pitch together with additional hard-standing and utility/dayroom’ on land adjacent the Olde Forge House, Bath Road.
However, a decision notice prepared by Ms Heywood said: “The proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the AONB.
“It cannot be said to enhance it and in this respect there is a degree of conflict with the Core Strategy policies [however] given the lack of actual harm, the weight I give to this conflict is limited.”
The appeal also considered that Mr Biddle’s wife Mary had recently given birth to their first child and that a settled base to allow regular access to healthcare, nurseries and schools was important.
She noted that current council policy acknowledges the necessity of finding 20 new travellers’ sites by 2027 – four of which need to be allocated within the next five years.
The report continued: “Dismissing this appeal would deprive the family of a settled base on which to live and would force them into a roadside existence without any certainty of suitable alternative accommodation being readily available.
“Dismissal of the appeal would have a disproportionate effect upon the rights of the appellant and family.
A condition is imposed to ensure that only one static mobile home/caravan and one touring caravan is permitted to limit the impact of the development.