Gypsy family appeal Shropshire Council decision to refuse them use of land for caravans

Kathleen Roberts submitted a proposal to Shropshire Council for the change of use at Heartlands Farm in Northwood, on the Welsh/English border near Ellesmere. The scheme included four caravans, the laying of hardstanding and erection of four amenity buildings, and the keeping of existing horses.

However, Ms Roberts was told insufficient information was submitted to demonstrate that future occupants of the site would be able to safely access and egress from the site during a peak flood event, or that the foul drainage system would operate correctly during a flood event.

However, Philip Brown, of Philip Brown Associates, says that, according to Ms Roberts, any flooding on the site has resulted “from the deliberate and malicious blocking of drainage ditches”.

“Police have investigated instances of criminal damage, theft and malicious communication directed at the appellant and her property,” said Mr Brown.

“The malicious communications directed referred to include the display of signs displayed on neighbouring land canvassing objections to the proposed gyspy site.”

Mr Brown added that the proposed development would offer Ms Roberts “a safe and settled home” where she would be surrounded by her family.

“There is clearly a substantial unmet need for gypsy sites in the county and a dire shortage of alternative sites to meet the identified need,” said Mr Brown.

“The council concedes that it is unable to identify a five-year supply of deliverable land for gypsy sites for the foreseeable future. These are all matters which should carry substantial or significant weight in favour of this appeal.

“The proposed development complies with the development plan policies most relevant to consideration of proposals for new gypsy/traveller sites. Planning permission should therefore be granted in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

“The material considerations referred to in the council’s sole reason for refusal do not come close to justifying over-riding the presumption in favour of the development plan, particularly because the other material considerations of need, absence of alternative sites etc, and the appellant’s personal circumstances personal circumstances, weigh heavily in favour of the proposed development.”