Traveller families win court battle over living on land
Discussion
LINK
I haven't read the actual judgement yet, but I assume that it means it will be open season, in Planning terms, on traveller sites, with any LPA that cannot demonstrate a 5-year land supply for such sites, in the same way that they're left vulnerable on conventional housing in the same situation.
I haven't read the actual judgement yet, but I assume that it means it will be open season, in Planning terms, on traveller sites, with any LPA that cannot demonstrate a 5-year land supply for such sites, in the same way that they're left vulnerable on conventional housing in the same situation.
Andeh1 said:
But then if a local planning team are so derelict in their duties, that was always going to be a potential avenue to leverage.
Problem is, there are an awful lot of LPA's who are 'so derelict in their duties', because delivery of Traveller sites is awfully unpopular and therefore difficult to get past local communities and Planning Committees. Many, many Authorities have a shortfall against assessed requirements.But yes, in terms of consistency of approach to the same issue for 'normal' housing, it's actually surprising it's taken this long for such a judgement to be made.
CoolHands said:
So I can go and buy a field in the Lake District and then start living there. I will enjoy the views. Also, beds in sheds etc I own my garden so I can build what what I want and rent out?
(Very) broadly speaking, yes, you can and have been able to for some time, for 'normal' housing, if the LPA can't demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.It remains subject to 'non-housing specific' Planning policies, but they're not allowed to attach any weight to housing-specific policies in such circumstances.
The difference, of course, is that there are fewer LPA's with such shortfalls on conventional housing.
Julia121 said:
May just be the court of appeal passing the buck straight back to the council; leaves them looking good in front of travellers whilst the council are left with the bad guy's tab when they say no again.
And the likely outcome in many cases is that LPA's will pass the buck on to the Appeals Inspectorate, I am sure, by continuing to refuse such applications at Committee and forcing them on to appeal... but in light of this judgement, PINS will then be obliged to concede this particular point (so it will be PINS that become the bad guys: your local Councillors will say 'well, we took note of local sentiment and refused it, it's those big, nasty people from Cardiff who over-ruled us').Julia121 said:
On a positive note, would this suggest that those who've got paddocks could see their value potentially rising? 
Could certainly be a nice bomb to drop on your neighbours, if you own such land and you're packing up to move on... 
Edited by Equus on Tuesday 27th October 09:11
Julia121 said:
If you put a caravan on a piece of land and stretch out the validating process for four years then would you get planning permission by default?
No, it doesn't work like that, unfortunately (the 4/10 year rule doesn't apply if there is any 'active' enforcement or Planning process relating to the breach).sospan said:
My mate said it was basically a ruse to build then abandon the chicken business.
What are the chances of something like this succeeding?
Large-scale poultry farms are one of the few exceptions where it can be justified - not because of foxes, but because for battery farming, failures in the automatic drinkers or ventilation systems can kill thousands of birds very quickly, if someone is not on site to attend to them when the alarms go off).What are the chances of something like this succeeding?
But you will always get an 'agricultural tie' on the resultant dwelling, saying that it can only be occupied by an agricultural worker. Such ties can be lifted in the future, if you can prove the need has changed, but for this reason most LPA's are quite stringent about allowing them in the first place... they used to be a well-known long-term strategy for getting a new dwelling in open countryside by the back door.
For a poultry farm, if the business 'failed', they would certainly want evidence that it had been marketed as a going agricultural concern for a certain period, before they would lift the tie.
It's possible, but far from a quick or easy solution.
When I was in the Cotswolds, someone tried to get permission for a caravan in a field for breeding alpacas, virtually next door to me, on the basis that they were high-value animals and needed to be protected from theft. The LPA told them to do one, and took enforcement all the way when they tried to site a caravan unlawfully.
NWMark said:
my LA built a brand new site - they don't get used even when built!
Part of the problem, of course, is that LA traveller sites are a bit like LA council estates (only much, much, worse - think the worst 'sink' Council estate where all the problem families are dumped, then multiply it by a factor of 5).So most travellers themselves don't want to live on them unless they have absolutely no alternative. If they're not allowed to move around freely and pitch where they want (as they were, largely, before the introduction of the current Planning system and subsequent specific legislation in the 1960's), then most would see the next best alternative as buying land for themselves, not being forced onto Council run 'reservations'.
The Planning system, and the methodology for assessing supply/demand of traveller pitches needs to be adjusted to cope with this.
We now have a system whereby (in theory) LPA's are obliged to take account of an provide housing land supply for self-builders of 'normal' houses, so would it be too much trouble to implement a similar system for travellers wanting 'private' pitches?
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff