Shropshire Star

Fury as Shropshire traveller site looks set to get go-ahead

Controversial plans to create a traveller site have been recommended for approval – despite a storm of local opposition.

Published

A petition featuring more than 200 signatures has been submitted to Shropshire Council against the proposals to create the site in Barkers Green, near Wem.

The scheme, which is for one mobile home, one touring caravan and the creation of a utility/dayroom building, has sparked concerns about it being out of keeping with the local area.

The plans, which have been recommended for approval by the council's planning officers, are due to be discussed by the north planning committee on Tuesday in Shirehall.

As well as the petition, Shropshire Council has received more than 20 letters of objection from residents and an objection from Wem Rural Parish Council.

Carole Warner, clerk to the parish council, said: "The parish council considers the proposal brings material harm to the character and appearance of the area, is unsustainable, has no regard to the well-being and safety of potential occupants, and is inappropriate development in this locality."

Commenting on Shropshire Council's website, resident Paul Robinson said: "Residents and I don't want this type of thing to spoil the character of this hamlet. We just want to keep the area as it is.

"We do not need extra traffic, noise or eyesores here, this is an idyllic lane of character houses and this site would not fit in at all."

Green Planning Studio Ltd, which is the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, Mr W. Rogerson, said the scheme involved making improvements to the highway, boundary hedging and landscaping.

A report by Shropshire Council's planning officers said:

"The proposal will contribute to addressing the shortfall in gipsy and traveller site supply and satisfies a balance of social, economic and environmental credentials.

"The site is considered to occupy a relatively sustainable location and in the assessment of this case officers are satisfied that there is no significant and demonstrable harm that outweigh the housing benefits of the proposal."

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.