Concern about possible harm to great crested newts and bats is on the agenda at a public inquiry which is hearing an attempt to overturn the refusal to grant planning permission for two travellers' caravans in a field off Mays Lane, Barnet.
Barnet Council has rejected the application on the grounds that it is inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
The lack of a survey into the potential impact on great crested newts is one of the reasons for the council’s continued refusal to give approval.
Any survey to detect the presence of newts needs to be carried out between mid-March and mid-June.
Annabel Graham Paul, the council’s representative, told the inquiry that it would be unlawful to grant permission for the caravans before a risk like that had been assessed.
But Michael Rudd, who is representing Patrick Casey, who proposes to develop the site, dismissed the views of local residents that concern about newts justified rejection of the application.
He said that Barnet Council had now accepted there would be no adverse effect on bats if the caravans were placed in the field. Nor were newts likely to be a trump card against potential use of the site. If they were found to be present in the paddock, conditions could be imposed to protect them.
The inquiry is being conducted online as a virtual event with the planning inspector, Graham Chamberlain, intending to take evidence at further sessions in March and April.
The application for permission for two travellers’ caravans and associated dayroom buildings was made by Mr Casey in September 2023.
The site is a two-acre paddock currently used for grazing horses and is next door to the Centre for Islamic Enlightening (formerly a Brethren Gospel Hall).
Barnet Council refused permission on the grounds that creating a site for travellers’ caravans was an inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would have an adverse effect on biodiversity and the openness of the site.
In her opening statement, Mrs Graham Paul said the council believed a caravan site would be harmful.
As there had been no previous development in the field, its only lawful use was for grazing horses.
Barnet’s new local plan had identified zero need for travellers’ and gipsy sites within the borough. Therefore, there was no justification for granting planning permission even on a temporary basis.
Her statement was supported by Councillor Tim Roberts, who represents Underhill ward.
He said Barnet had an outstanding record in providing affordable homes and there was no need for a caravan site.
If this proposal was approved, it would be followed by further applications and the field would be turned into a housing estate.
Objections to the plan were marshalled by the Quinta Village Green Residents Association which represents 150 families living nearby.
Their representative at the inquiry, Michael Fry, said the two-acre field made an important contribution to the Green Belt.
Siting caravans on the land would be an unwarranted incursion into the countryside. The residents believed – unlike the council – that development of the land would increase the risk of flooding.
People living locally had observed great crested newts on the site and they had also seen bats and feared wildlife would be at risk if the field became a caravan site.
When outlining the case of behalf of Mr Casey, who purchased the field at an auction, Mr Rudd said the council’s original refusal to grant permission had been overtaken the government’s new definition of Grey Belt – former Green Belt land on which development could now be permitted.
He said there was already residential development close to the Mays Lane field and it was clear that it fell into the definition of Grey Belt. The paddock did not strongly contribute to the Green Belt and there was no longer justification to refuse the application.
He argued there was a demonstrable need for gipsy and travellers’ sites within the Borough of Barnet and even if the site did not meet the Grey Belt test, its impact on the Green Belt would be limited due to the small scale of the proposal.
Among the interested parties to give evidence on the opening day was the former Chipping Barnet MP Theresa Villiers who said she lived a mile away from the site at Arkley in Barnet Gate Lane (a continuation of Mays Lane).
She supported the objections being made by nearby residents and agreed that the field was a part of a vital buffer between Barnet and the Green Belt.
She disagreed with the suggestion that the paddock could now be considered Grey Belt land.
As someone who had often cycled and driven along Mays Lane she was concerned about the safety of pedestrians.
There was no footpath on this section of May Lane – just a muddy grass verge – as the pavement only extended along Mays Lane as far as the junction with Partridge Close.
“I have regularly cycled along this section of Mays Lane, and I do worry about the speed of vehicles. Even 30 miles is fast when there is no footpath.”