Traveller site goes to planning appeal

AN APPEAL has been lodged after the council refused plans for a residential caravan site for travellers in Davenham.

Plans were submitted in 2011 to change the use of a plot of land by Peckmill Roundabout for two traveller families with four caravans, including two static mobile homes, and two wooden sheds.

Cheshire West and Chester Council’s (CWAC) planning department rejected the proposal in December on the grounds of highway safety, as the site is at the junction of London Road and Davenham Bypass, as well as its effect in an area of open countryside which is near ancient woodland and a site of biological interest.

The families are appealing against the decision on the grounds that such sites can be appropriately located in the countryside and that the site is close to shops and services in the village.

Their statement said: “Gypsy sites should not be hidden away, and isolated from the wider community.

“They will inevitably have some impact on the countryside but, in this case, would be assimilated into its semi-rural surroundings and would not cause unacceptable harm.

“The development occupies an existing hardstanding, with planning permission for the erection of stables.

“There is no reason why the alternative use of this land as a gypsy site would have any adverse effect on the adjacent woodland.

“The existing access was approved for use in conjunction with the stables development and must have been considered to be safe.”

The original plans prompted a flood of objections from residents, who sent more than 300 letters and emails to CWAC, as well as a petition.

The appeal is expected to go to a hearing and the deadline for any extra comments or objections is Tuesday, August 14.

Any written comments made during the original application process will automatically be sent to the Planning Inspectorate.

Comments(1)

The Jazz says...
2:23pm Sat 11 Aug 12

I don't understand why the families would wish to live where they will obviously not be welcome. There is already adequate provision for 'travellers' across the region. They apparently have also applied to carry out a "business" on the site, so it is not just a residential application. They also have retrospectively applied for permission for the containers already on the site knowing the procedure is plan, get permission, build. Not the other way around. This, if allowed could be a case of the minority given precedence over the majority, which is completely un-democratic.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree