The proposed Traveller site in Foxholes Lane, Tansley. Image from Mark Simmonds Planning Services
Report by Local Democracy Reporter – Eddie Bisknell
An unauthorised Traveller site built in the Derbyshire countryside has been refused planning permission following a significant public campaign and a perceived litany of shortfalls.
At a Derbyshire Dales District Council meeting on Tuesday, September 29, councillors unanimously rejected an application from Sonny Sykes for two touring caravans and two static caravans on an agricultural field off Foxholes Lane, a mile north of Tansley, on the outskirts of Matlock.
The site is subject to a court-enforced injunction which prevents more than the three initial touring caravans, moved onto the site last July, from occupying the plot.
Council officials had also served an 11th-hour eviction notice on the site last August, and residents claimed during the meeting that the plot has been vacant since that month.
Objections have been filed against the plans by Tansley Parish Council, 107 residents, alongside a 317-signature petition.
They cite the impact on the countryside, added congestion and alleged unsafe roads, the substantial distance from shops and services in an isolated rural location, lack of drainage and waste facilities and the risk of flooding and pollution.
Meanwhile, a total of 52 support letters have been submitted to the authority, but council officials say they have “serious concerns” that many are “not genuine”.
On the night, Jeremy Drew, a Foxholes Lane resident, claimed the application was based on “mostly false and misleading information” and “fictitious surveys and tests”, along with “fraudulent letters of support”.
John Youatt, a planning consultant who has been seeking to secure permission for permanent Traveller sites in the Dales for 13 years, urged the council to occupy the eight-pitch site at The Woodyard in Homesford, on the A6 near Cromford, which already has planning approval.
A further resident said the site was “fundamentally unsuitable”, was out of keeping and “visually intrusive”, with the plot dependent on private transport and foul drainage concerns.
Sue Musgrave, the closest neighbour to the site, added the site would be cut off in the winter and the routes to the plot were “extremely narrow” with no passing opportunities.
Sarah Richardson, a further resident, said she had been in an accident with a caravan whilst horse riding and would not want to see further caravan movements in the area.
She said the two existing nearby caravan sites had restrictions, with one reserved for static vehicles, while the other was seasonal and did not operate in the winter.
Ms Richardson claimed an “unsuitable for caravans” sign near the plot had been removed but had now been reinstated by Derbyshire County Council.
Councillor Vicki Raynes, chair of Tansley Parish Council, felt the site was too far from facilities such as doctors and schools and routes nearby were not walkable.
Edward Vaudin, a council planning officer, said the site was a 10-minute walk on unlit, uneven paths to the nearest bus stop and was nearly a mile to Tansley, without footways.
He explained concerns remained about whether an acceptable drainage system could be installed and that these were repeated by the Environment Agency, although it no longer formally objected.
Mr Vaudin said the fact the development was “intentionally unauthorised” was now listed as a matter of “critical importance” under the latest Government guidance.
Councillor David Hughes said it was clear Tansley residents had a strong “commitment” to planning in their area and posed “remarkably useful interventions”.
He said: “We do not have sufficient information to come to a conclusion about foul water drainage
“It can be seen that the planning issues are substantial and outweigh human rights.”
Councillor Peter Slack said: “There is so much wrong with this application that it is not fit to be cleared. Fresh water, sewerage, land drainage, access to the site, there are so many problems.
Meanwhile, Councillor Gareth Gee added: “I would just like to hope in the future when a developer comes to want to build 200 houses in Tansley, they have the same stringent objections to things surrounding the same principles and we come to the same conclusion.”
Council planners had written: “It is acknowledged that the refusal of planning permission, and subsequent enforcement action would interfere with the occupants’ rights under Article 8 and would have implications for a family.
“However, the interference would be in accordance with the law as it would pursue legitimate aims through the operation of planning law, including the protection of the character and appearance of the countryside, the promotion of sustainable patterns of development and movement, and the protection of the environment.”
In his application, Mr Sykes had written: “The council is asked to respectfully consider that there are evidenced circumstances of a local Gypsy and Traveller families which can be read against the council’s fundamental failure to provide sufficient allocations for Gypsy/Travellers in this district.
“What must be highlighted here is that due to the nature of this type of application, often being contentious and inflammatory, there is no 100 per cent perfect site for a Gypsy/ Traveller site.
“On this basis where can a council successfully fulfil their duty to provide a site and allow a settled base for a Gypsy/Traveller who has the right to settle to be close to family, attain medical treatment and school their children?”
