Gipsies lose appeal against site refusal
A GIPSY family have lost an appeal after setting up camp in a South Derbyshire field without planning permission.
The appeal was lodged with the Planning Inspectorate against the refusal of South Derbyshire District Council to allow retrospective permission for the encampment, on land off Acresford Road, near Netherseal.
However, the family could soon submit another application if they provide evidence about the impact of the site on the River Mease Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
Whi le the Government planning inspector said he could find no negative impact on the rural countryside or that the encampment would harm highway safety, but he said that there was no evidence of a need for more gipsy sites in the district. He also added that no evidence was provided on the potential impact the site would have on the River Mease SAC.
The site has one caravan and a portable toilet, with the itinerants moving there in June last year.
The council issued an enforcement notice on July 19 saying no planning permission had been given for the change of use of equestrian land to a residential gipsy caravan site.
The appellant, R Winson, his wife and young daughter, live on the site and claim to be Romany gypsies whose family occupy a site of eight pitches in Lichfield.
However, Mr Winson said that site was overcrowded and argued that no spaces were available on authorised plots.
However, the council told the inspector that there was not an unmet need for gipsy sites in the district as 22 pitches have been provided to meet the requirement of 19 pitches between 2007- 2012, set out in the East Midlands Regional Plan.
Inspector Nicholas Freeman said: “The development would not cause any harm to the rural landscape or in visual terms subject to the imposition of conditions.
“I have also concluded that the site is in a reasonably sustainable location and that there would be no material harm to highway safety fromits limited usage.
“There is no evidence of demonstrable general need for gipsy sites in the area, but some personal need, which weighs in favour of granting planning permission.
“However, in the absence of evidence to show that the development would not adversely affect on the integrity of the SAC, and given the legislative framework that applies to European sites of nature conservation importance, I am led to conclude that planning permission must not be granted.”
The family claimed that three months was an insufficient period to find alternative accommodation, and this was extended to six months ‘to allow time for the potential impact on the SAC to be investigated and the opportunity for a further application to be submitted’.
