Travellers lose planning appeal to stay on land

The owners of a piece of land who developed it without permission for residential use by a traveller family have lost a planning appeal.

Two static and two touring caravans were moved onto Staalcot Farm in North Heath, West Sussex, in January despite planning permission being refused by Horsham District Council.

The local authority had said the plans proposed by developers from the traveller community would be "harmful to the rural character of the countryside location", and it issued an enforcement notice.

A planning inspector agreed with the council that the plans would have an adverse impact on the area, but suggested a "smaller, well-designed proposal" could be more suitable for the land.

Co-owners of the site, Tony Castle, William Hughes and Benjamin Keet laid hardstanding and waste tanks on the site near Pulborough, then moved caravans in on 18 January, in which Mr Keet and his family are currently living.

Police were called to intervene after clashes between the travellers and local residents, but no further action was taken.

Horsham District Council served an enforcement notice ordering them to remove the caravans and return the land to how it was before they moved in within six months.

The landowners appealed against the order, claiming the site was well screened and not visible from the road or other properties.

They also said there were no alternative places for the family to live.

The plans were for four pitches, each comprising a mobile home, a touring caravan, a day room and a bike/refuse store.

• Family told to leave caravan site appeal to stay

Following a one-day hearing in June, planning inspector Elizabeth Pleasant dismissed the appeal against the enforcement notice and the planning permission refusal.

She said that "harm arises due to the scale and design of the proposed development in a rural landscape and adjoining a public right of way."

But Ms Pleasant added that the council's "absence of a five-year supply of deliverable travellers' sites carries significant weight in favour of the appeal".

"It would be in the best interests of the children on the site to allow the appeal, and this factor together with the lack of alternative accommodation carries substantial weight," she said.

But she concluded: "The adverse impacts I have identified of granting planning permission significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits."

Ms Pleasant has given Mr Keet longer to vacate the site saying "a period of 6 months as set out in the enforcement notice is not a reasonable period for the site occupiers to find a new home".

She also suggested a more suitable planning application could be considered in future.

"A smaller, well-designed proposal for the land may have a less harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area, and a longer period of time may give the appellant an opportunity to explore an alternative scheme," she said.

Horsham District Council said: "We cannot comment yet as we need to consider in more detail the content of the decision report before we consider next steps."