Latest news with #TonyCastle
BBC News
03-07-2025
- BBC News
Travellers lose planning appeal to stay on West Sussex land
The owners of a piece of land who developed it without permission for residential use by a traveller family have lost a planning static and two touring caravans were moved onto Staalcot Farm in North Heath, West Sussex, in January despite planning permission being refused by Horsham District local authority had said the plans proposed by developers from the traveller community would be "harmful to the rural character of the countryside location", and it issued an enforcement notice.A planning inspector agreed with the council that the plans would have an adverse impact on the area, but suggested a "smaller, well-designed proposal" could be more suitable for the land. Lack of sites for travellers Co-owners of the site, Tony Castle, William Hughes and Benjamin Keet laid hardstanding and waste tanks on the site near Pulborough, then moved caravans in on 18 January, in which Mr Keet and his family are currently were called to intervene after clashes between the travellers and local residents, but no further action was District Council served an enforcement notice ordering them to remove the caravans and return the land to how it was before they moved in within six landowners appealed against the order, claiming the site was well screened and not visible from the road or other properties. They also said there were no alternative places for the family to plans were for four pitches, each comprising a mobile home, a touring caravan, a day room and a bike/refuse store. Family told to leave caravan site appeal to stay Following a one-day hearing in June, planning inspector Elizabeth Pleasant dismissed the appeal against the enforcement notice and the planning permission refusal. She said that "harm arises due to the scale and design of the proposed development in a rural landscape and adjoining a public right of way."But Ms Pleasant added that the council's "absence of a five-year supply of deliverable travellers' sites carries significant weight in favour of the appeal"."It would be in the best interests of the children on the site to allow the appeal, and this factor together with the lack of alternative accommodation carries substantial weight," she she concluded: "The adverse impacts I have identified of granting planning permission significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits." Ms Pleasant has given Mr Keet longer to vacate the site saying "a period of 6 months as set out in the enforcement notice is not a reasonable period for the site occupiers to find a new home".She also suggested a more suitable planning application could be considered in future."A smaller, well-designed proposal for the land may have a less harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area, and a longer period of time may give the appellant an opportunity to explore an alternative scheme," she District Council said: "We cannot comment yet as we need to consider in more detail the content of the decision report before we consider next steps."
BBC News
12-06-2025
- BBC News
Travellers ordered to leave Pulborough caravan site launch appeal
A family of travellers who turned a field in West Sussex into a caravan site have launched an appeal after being told they must Keet laid hardstanding and built waste tanks on land off Stall House Lane, near Pulborough, before installing caravans on 18 were called to intervene after clashes between the travellers and local residents, but no further action was District Council said it already has "a number" of existing traveller and gypsy sites, and that it had rejected retrospective planning from Mr Keets because of potential harm to the area and a nearby listed building. The land is jointly owned by Mr Keet, Tony Castle and William Hughes, and there are currently two static caravans and two touring caravans on moving onto the land, they sought retrospective planning permission for four static caravans and four touring the council has rejected the application "due to concerns that the extent of the development was harmful to the rural character of the countryside location and to the setting of an adjacent listed building".The authority then served an enforcement notice ordering the owners to remove the caravans and return the land to how it was before they moved in within six three landowners have appealed against the order, claiming the site is well screened and not visible from the road or other properties."You'd be chucking me and the kids on the side of the road in a caravan with a generator if I couldn't live here, same for my brother," said Mr Keet. Shortage of traveller sites Elizabeth Pleasant, from the planning inspectorate, heard from residents opposed to the development and council planning officers as well as the travellers, their agent and their Rudd, the barrister for the owners, said they had intentionally developed the land without permission, but said the law allows for retrospective applications and appeals."The impact from this development on the landscape is limited and can be reduced with planning conditions," he Rudd also said there was "significant need" for places for travellers to live.A review carried out for the council last year concluded that 80 pitches for travellers and gypsies should be provided over the next five years and 128 by Mr Castle said the council have "little interest" in finding sites for travellers and gypsies."We're trying to create homes for our community that the local authority is failing to do," he Hughes added: "It's down to us and it's hard to find a site that's not in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a flood zone or a protected area, and if we do find one, developers want it for housing and pay millions."The planning inspector will decide whether to uphold the appeal in about four weeks. The council accepted that there is a need for additional traveller sites, but said: "This application was refused due to concerns that the extent of the development was harmful to the rural character of the countryside location and to the setting an adjacent listed building, and therefore contrary to relevant planning policies.""The council reserves its position on any further planning enforcement action until after the planning inspector's decision is received on both appeals."
