HASELBURY PLUCKNETT: Plans for Gypsy site denied - Somerset

A COMMUNAL sigh of relief billowed over scores of village homes this week when planners threw out a controversial scheme for a Gypsy site on their doorsteps.

South Somerset planners will not allow a two-pitch Gypsy/Traveller camp to be established on a parcel of land on the edge of Haselbury Plucknett.

The decision is the culmination of months of concerted effort by villagers and their parish council to prevent Gypsy Billy Hughes, his wife Emma and their children, settling in a field they own beside Stonage Lane.

The couple’s application, submitted last year, prompted a blizzard of objections, legal representations, and lengthy reports from planning and Gypsy liaison officers.

Most planning applications in Haselbury Plucknett are for minor extensions and solar panels and cause little local controversy.

But not the one from the Hugheses.

Their application was for “change of use” from agricultural land to a pair of Gypsy/Traveller pitches, to include two mobile homes, two touring caravans, two day-rooms and associated hardstanding and refuse storage.

South Somerset planning officer Andrew Gunn recommended refusal in a detailed report.

He also revealed there had been 17 letters of objection citing:

• the narrowness and bendiness of Stonage Lane;

• its poor visibility;

• concern for the safety of drivers and pedestrians;

• an anticipated increase in traffic;

• lack of passing places;

• proximity to a dangerous junction; and

• likely damage to a grass bank by vehicles negotiating the lane.

Mr Gunn added: “A letter has also been received from Clarke Wilmott solicitors outlining a formal objection on behalf of the parish council.

“The council’s landscape officer has raised a strong objection in relation to the introduction of incongruous elements to the local landscape, and loss of historic hedgerow.”

But, Mr Gunn also added: “In terms of impact on residential amenity, the area for the mobile homes is located approximately 100 meters from the nearest residential property.

“It is not considered that the proposed use would cause any harmful impact to residential amenity.”

But, Mr Gunn said the development should not be allowed because Stonage Lane was unsuitable; and because the Gypsy site would “introduce incongruous development to the landscape”.

The application was refused under delegated powers. Mr and Mrs Hughes can appeal.

see also: HASELBURY PLUCKNETT: Chairman frustrated by lack of action

‘Not going on the road’ vows family