The decision to grant planning permission for a traveller site in Shropshire on a plot of land where a self build bungalow was rejected has led to a discrimination row with a council's planning department.
Planning permission for a bungalow on a site in Shropshire was previously rejected before an application for a traveller site was granted permission on March 8. During this second application, 42 local residents submitted objections with some claiming the decision would be "inconsistent" with other applications.
One councillor then remarked that the decision to allow the traveller site could lead to local residents "quite rightly" to say "they are being discriminated against just because they are of non-gypsy origin".
What were the self build plans?
Plans were submitted for the erection of a bungalow on a plot of land in Market Drayton, Shropshire.
The application for the self build bungalow was rejected as the land is protected from 'windfall' development. This is where a site becomes unexpectedly available for development and is allowed to be used for housing.
The Officer's Report stated: "The proposed layout of the development would be an unacceptable form of cramped, backland development which would fail to respect the existing pattern and grain of development.
"The development would also have a substantial negative impact on the adjacent trees to the west of the site."
Planning permission was also refused as there was no Section 106 agreement submitted along with the application.
What were the traveller site plans?
Following these self build plans being rejected, an application was submitted for a traveller site on the plot instead.
The plans for the "Change of Use of land to Gypsy / Traveller site for 3 family pitches to include improvement of access and installation of Bio-Disc sewage treatment plant".
The proposal also included the removal of the existing field gate access, to be replaced with new entrance gates, along with new estate fencing. Additionally, the apron (the section of the driveway that meets the road) would feature a tarmac finish.
A total of 42 objections to the plans were received.
Council planners accused of 'discrimination'
Shropshire Council granted planning for the development, prompting non-traveller discrimination allegations from residents. Residents raised concerns regarding the proposal, such as:
- There is sufficient provision of traveller sites nearby
- There would be an increased pressure on local amenities
- Highway safety concerns due to poor access, visibility, and intensification of the use of the junction and narrow lane
- Harm to local ecology
- Approval would be inconsistent with refusal for new homes in Woodsaves, including at this site
The Planning Officer recommended approval despite objections from both the Local Member and the Parish Council meaning the issue was raised to the Planning Committee.
At the committee concerns were raised that if permission were granted for the traveller site then this could be considered discrimination against non-travellers who had seen their applications for new homes locally refused.
One councillor, Rob Gittins, stated: “Could I ask members to take a step back and think about the morality of passing such an awful application?
“Just around the corner from this site I’ve desperately been trying for a number of years now to help a local young man in his 20s to obtain planning permission for a local needs dwelling which officers firmly reject time and time again.
“But officers obviously feel it’s ok to dump a gypsy site right in the heart of a local community. Residents could, and quite rightly, say they are being discriminated against just because they are of non-gypsy origin.”
Gittins's outburst led to him having to declare a conflict of interest. As a result, Chair Councillor Vince Hunt directed the committee to ignore Gittins's remark about "dumping a gypsy site," deeming it "improper and inappropriate".
The council concluded that "this report has had had due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between Gypsies and Travellers on the one hand, and non-Gypsies and Travellers on the other".
Case Officer, John Shaw, recommended the approval of the application stating: “Though some very limited visual and landscape harm has been identified, the site is in a suitable location for a gypsy and traveller pitch due to the good level of accessibility occupiers would enjoy when travelling to and from local settlements."
A majority of members approved the plans with seven members of the committee voting in favour whilst two abstained.
