An application to create five additional permanent Traveller pitches on a site in a village has been debated.
The plans are for a site at Shady Oaks, Eagle Lane, Spalford, which is connected to another four-pitch Gypsy and Traveller site recently approved at appeal.
Each of the five pitches would have one static caravan and one touring caravan.
The site, which is in the open countryside, is shielded from the road by mature conifer trees.
Officers highlighted the environmental concerns — including it being at risk of fluvial and surface water flooding — and the lack of amenities and bus services in Spalford.
However, the officer added: “The balancing act here is there are environmental challenges, its not a suitable location on that basis, but essentially our lack of five-year land supply for Gypsy and Traveller sites is an absolutely critical consideration.”
John McArthur, representing Spalford Parish Meeting, spoke at the Newark and Sherwood District Council planning meeting last week.
He said: “[Including the adjacent approved site] the proposal sees nine GRT dwellings on the site, which constitutes 17% of the total dwelling stock in the hamlet, which we feel is disproportionate.
“We feel this is already dominating Spalford. We have 91 settled residents against an estimated 36 GRT occupants which would be at Shady Oaks, which equates to 29% of the overall population.”
He also raised fire concerns about the proximity of the caravans to the mature conifers, lack of parking, increase of vehicle movements and potential low quality of life for those living there.
Linda Dales said: “I think four families with that configuration on that site (the adjacent part of the site) was comfortable. Putting nine families on to that site, we’re now looking at over intensive. There’s no amenity block on site, there’s no amenity space, there’s no play area.
“I don’t think we would allow this intensity for a housing development, and I don’t think we should be applying different standards to the Gypsy and Traveller community as we would afford our bricks and mortar community.”
Matthew Spoors echoed concerns about the lack of amenity block and facilities.
He added: “It is always of concern that a minority community seems to be forced into the least favourable areas, and the Gypsy and Traveller community are particularly in that vein.
“They are looking to this site because it is needed, but we need to make sure it is appropriate for development — with the right number of people and right amount of resources.”
Keith Melton suggested the council should “look at this from the other end of the telescope” and see how amenities could be improved in Spalford, to both make it a more liveable site and benefit existing residents.
He also raised concerns about “a degree of retrospectivity” as he noted during a site visit that the adjacent site was not laid out as it was in the plans, and had more static caravans.
Emma Oldham added that while the site might not be the best, it may still be an improvement on the cramped conditions families are currently living in — and that it would be their choice if they wanted to move to a place with less amenities.
She added: “If there are no local facilities, what would the burden be [on Spalford]? They’re not going to be piling into pubs or taking jobs.”
Chairman Andy Freeman said he didn’t want the committee to “make do with bad sites” to deal with the shortfall of sites.
The site was refused on the basis of not being well planned, giving the impression occupants are deliberately isolated, lack of promoting opportunities for a healthy lifestyle, and the fact it is not an allocated site.
