The Planning Committee has decided to grant planning permission for a Gypsy/Traveller site in Telford, Shropshire, despite concerns raised by local stakeholders.

URL: https://democracy.telford.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=237

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Outcome:

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: This was a retrospective planning application for full planning permission for a Gypsy/Traveller site with 2no. mobile homes and hardstanding on land adjacent Oak View, Sugden Lane, Sugden, Telford, Shropshire.   The application was before the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor G Thomas, Ward Councillor.   An update report was tabled at the meeting which set out details of a further representation in relation to development plans and drainage which had been received following publication of the report.   The Planning Officer set out details of the application, together with the receipt of an additional objection in relation to enforcement matters.  Confirmation had been received that, if Members were minded to approve the application, the applicant’s grandchild (upon reaching school age) would attend the local school and that they had an existing registration at the local doctors surgery and the provision of broadband had already been arranged.   Councillor G Thomas, Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and raised concerns in relation to land drainage he questioned whether the proposal was adequate, as an application on the same site two years previously had been refused as there had been issues with flooding in adjacent lanes.  The proposed highway access was on 60mph road, on a bend and a slight hill and he considered that there was poor visibility.  The Parish Council had raised a number of concerns in relation to the lack of facilities in the immediate area including shops and schools and that this application was retrospective.   Mr P Ashdown, member of the public, spoke against the application and highlighted concerns in relation to the site and its location and echoed comments made by Councillor Thomas.  He considered that this was a speculative application which had bypassed the proper process and did not satisfy policy.  The site was not supported by local shops, public connection or employment and there were limited services over four miles away.  A previous application on the site had been refused in 2022 and there had been no changes to policy since that time.  He also raised concern on the amenity on neighbouring property and planning creep which would set a precedent.   Ms R Munns, Applicant’s Agent, spoke in favour of the application and noted there were no objections from the Council’s consultees and no conflict with the development plan.  There was an unmet need for gypsy and traveller sites in Telford and this application would help fulfil that.  Following amendments to the PPTS in 2024, these sites were assessed very differently from bricks and mortar and where sites were located outside settlement boundaries applications may be acceptable.  The site was in close proximity to Rodington and as set out in Policy H09 it was supported by local services.  The residents were registered with the local GP Surgery in Shawbirch a short drive away and there were two pubs, a playground and a well-serviced bus stop within a mile of the site.  The proposal offered a stable and settled base with access to health and education and thereby reducing the social and financial cost associated with unauthorised encampments.  Whilst it offered a modest contribution to achieving the aims of the PPTS, the overall need in terms of the family was very significant.   The Planning Officer informed Members that the application had been assessed against Policy H08 and H09 of the TWC Local Plan, NPPF and Planning Policy for Travellers Sites (PPTS).  There was currently an unmet need for 26 pitches, of which twenty could be achieved via expansion two existing sites.  No technical objections had been raised in relation to highways, drainage or flooding.  In relation to the impact on amenity, the nearest residential boundary was 62m from the site boundary and was of a modest scale.  The site was one mile from Rodington and one mile from Longden Upon Tern.  There was access to water and electricity supply as well as broadband, local GP services and facilities.  There was an established hedge along Sugden Lane and the site currently had equine use.  The principle of development was acceptable and there were no technical reasons to refuse the application.   During the debate some Members raised concerns regarding the retrospective application and asked for clarification in relation to the maximum amount of mobile homes and caravans that would be on site.  Further concerns were raised regarding the septic tank and if the capacity was sufficient and whether a temporary application for a few years to ascertain viability would be more appropriate.  Other Members felt that as long as conditions were adhered to, particularly around the septic tank and the existing drainage for water, there were no reasons to refuse the application.     The Planning Officer confirmed that the caravans had been in place since mid January 2024 but the application has been prepared and submitted earlier in 2025.  There was a condition to restrict the site to 2 mobile homes plus one tourer for each mobile home and there would not be separate families (unless visiting for short periods).  In relation to the septic tank, consent had been given by Drainage Engineers and drinking water was obtained from the bore hole and it was not expected that the threshold for an EA Licence would be exceeded.   Upon being put to the vote it was, by a majority:-   RESOLVED – that delegated authority be grated to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant planning permission (with the authority to finalise any matter including conditions or any later variations) subject to the conditions and informatives (with authority to finalise conditions and reasons for approval to be delegated to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager) set out in the report.

Date of Decision: July 9, 2025