Traveller site for north Shropshire family approved despite ‘loophole’ claims

The creation of a single-pitch site in Hollinwood, near Whixall, was approved by Shropshire Council’s northern planning committee after members said previous applications had set a precedent.

The proposals had been put forward by Gerald and Donna Watton, who said their family had outgrown their current pitch on the council-owned site in Higher Heath and there were no other council pitches available.

Planning officer Philip Mullineux told the planning committee that the Wattons had local connections and that their personal circumstances, such as their need to stay near the three children’s schools, had also been taken into consideration.

The proposals divided the local community, with the parish council and 28 members of the public lodging objections, while 19 people submitted letters of support.

The council’s gypsy and traveller liaison officer described the family as “model tenants” who were hard-working, polite and kept their pitch tidy.

A statement from the parish council was read out at the meeting, saying the plans should be rejected as the site, off Platt Lane, was in ‘open countryside’, and therefore not designated for new development.

One neighbour, Robert Sharam, spoke on behalf of the objectors.

He said: “I am no longer clear what does matter, if development boundaries and land designation can so easily be recommended to be waived.”

Mr Sharam said the supporting comments submitted to the council were “character references” for the family and did not address planning matters.

He added: “If I were to to submit an application for a comparably sized one-bedroom bungalow on the directly adjacent land, I am certain it would be rejected outright. So why is this so different?”

Councillor Edward Towers, who represents Wem and its surrounding villages, said the applicants had “moved the goalposts” by first applying for the land to be turned into a yard for Mr Watton’s tree surgery business, then a pony paddock, and most recently a residential site for two caravans and a day room building.

He described it as a “backdoor way of achieving planning permission that local people themselves are prevented from obtaining”.

Councillor Towers said the application was “exploiting a seeming loophole in our current policies”, as traveller applications are allowed in open countryside.

The applicant’s agent also addressed the committee, citing a recent appeal decision over a different site at Coton, near Whitchurch, which established a “need for private sites in rural locations where there’s difficulty finding sites in villages and towns”.

Mr Mullineux assured the committee that any application for a standard house on the site in question would also have been supported by officers as an exception site.

He also rejected Councillor Towers’s claims of a “loophole”, and added: “A lot of these applications come before this committee retrospectively, and this is not the case here.”

Councillor Joyce Barrow said she was concerned that the council was not identifying its own sites, leading to more families coming forward with their own applications for private sites on land that has not been allocated for that purpose.

Councillor Garry Burchett also said the council needed to “urgently review” its policy around allowing traveller sites in open countryside.

They both abstained from the vote, but the remaining eight members of the committee voted in favour of the plans.

Councillor Vince Hunt said: “Each site has to be looked at on its merits and I can’t see any reason frankly for rejecting this one.”