Traveller site owner accused of flouting planning orders

North Yorkshire Council says work continued at Miller’s Meadow, near Hudswell, despite enforcement action being launched.

The council also argues the development has caused significant harm to the surrounding countryside.

However, the authority has acknowledged it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of Traveller sites in the former Richmondshire district, a factor it accepts weighs significantly in favour of the development.

James Miller has appealed against an enforcement notice issued in August requiring the removal of caravans, hardstanding and other structures from the land.

The appeal will be heard at a public hearing in Richmond on Tuesday, November 24.

Mr Miller and his family moved onto the site earlier this year.

They argue that there is no suitable alternative accommodation available for them in North Yorkshire.

In its formal statement to the Planning Inspectorate, the council says officers first became aware of activity on the land in March.

An inspection in April found the field entrance had been widened and substantial quantities of hardcore deposited to create a level area.

By May, a touring caravan had been installed on a concrete base, along with fencing, gates and a partially constructed boundary wall.

The council says the owner initially indicated the land was intended for equestrian use and did not disclose plans for residential accommodation.

A temporary stop notice was issued on June 2, preventing further development.

However, the authority alleges that a static caravan and additional structures were installed just eight days later, in breach of the notice.

It also claims further work continued after an enforcement notice and stop notice were issued on August 14.

An inspection on October 1 allegedly found additional hardstanding, portable toilets, a marquee and touring caravans.

The council describes the development as intentional and unauthorised, arguing that this should carry substantial weight when the appeal is determined.

Its statement says: “Clearly, the owner knew planning permission was required.

“Substantial works have been conducted over a significant area to facilitate the occupation and arguably went well beyond what was necessary to establish a temporary home pending determination of a planning application or an appeal.”

The authority also argues the site is in an unsuitable countryside location outside Hudswell.

It says the caravans and extensive hardstanding have altered the appearance of the agricultural land, creating what it describes as a “harmful urbanising impact”.

The elevated position means the development is visible on the approach from Richmond, with the council warning that it will become more prominent during winter when vegetation provides less screening.

Officers also raise concerns about access to services, pointing out that there are no pavements or street lighting immediately outside the site.

But its statement acknowledges that the former Richmondshire district’s most recent Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment dates from 2013 and is now out of date.

It accepts that no applications for Traveller sites have been approved in the former district since that assessment and that recent evidence suggests North Yorkshire does not have enough pitches to demonstrate a five-year supply.

The council says this shortage carries “significant positive weight” in favour of the development, but concludes the harm to the countryside, poor access to services and intentional unauthorised development outweigh the benefits.

The appeal has also attracted objections from local residents, who have raised concerns about the loss of agricultural land, highway safety, wildlife and the appearance of the village.

One objector argued that planning rules should apply equally to everyone.

They wrote: “There cannot be one rule for one and another rule for others.”

The resident also warned that allowing the development to remain could encourage others to undertake similar work without planning permission.

Another objector acknowledged the family’s accommodation needs but argued these should be balanced against the environmental impact.

They stated: “A need for accommodation does not automatically make this particular site suitable.”

Other residents raised concerns about light pollution, noise from a generator, drainage and the impact of the development on neighbouring properties.

The family has previously warned that losing the site could leave them living at the roadside because of a lack of suitable alternative accommodation.

Their planning agent has also argued the site is reasonably close to Richmond and does not create unacceptable highway problems.

As part of the appeal, Mr Miller is seeking to extend the period for complying with the enforcement notice from 12 to 18 months to give the family more time to find somewhere else to live.

The authority has asked the planning inspector to dismiss the appeal and uphold the enforcement notice.