Rother planners have granted temporary permission to station caravans on a site near Battle, re-approving a scheme which had been quashed at judicial review.
On Thursday (May 30), Rother District Council’s planning committee approved an application seeking retrospective permission to station a pair of caravans on land in Netherfield Road near Battle for the next three years.
While acknowledging the scheme would “harm” the High Weald National Landscape, officers had recommended approval both because of the personal circumstances of the applicants and the district’s lack of alternative Gypsy and Traveller sites.
A very similar recommendation had seen the proposals gain temporary permission in June last year, although this consent was quashed in February as a result of a judicial review application from the campaign group RAUDIN (Residents Against Unauthorised Development in Netherfield).
In responding to the judicial review, Rother District Council accepted it had not properly advertised the application and, as a result, had failed to carry out part of the legal process necessary to grant planning permission. This meant the scheme had to come back to the planning committee for a fresh hearing.
Bernard Brown, a representative of RAUDIN who had led the judicial review application, spoke against the scheme and argued the full weight of its harms had not been properly considered by the council.
He said: “At your site visit, you will have seen the extent of the incursion into the protected nature of the land. You saw the extent of the works, which are completely incompatible with the temporary nature recommended for approval.
“You saw many signs of inappropriate development, but what you did not see was the poor state of the site just a few weeks ago … the poor condition of the site is not hearsay, it is witnessed through pictures included in my written objection.”
He added: “The applicants have been on the site unlawfully for four years. Another three years would mean their temporary use would be for at least seven years. There is nothing to suggest they would leave at the end of that period; their actions suggest the exact opposite.
“They should not benefit from their unlawful actions just because there is a shortage of traveller sites.”
Mr Brown went on to argue the council had ‘largely ignored’ the grounds put forward in RAUDIN’s judicial review application. The committee heard how these grounds — which Mr Brown said included ‘environmental considerations’ — had been accepted as ‘having merit’, but had not been tested in court.
Susan Smith, the applicant, disputed Mr Brown’s characterisation, however. She said: “We are not there to upset neighbours or upset the people of Battle. We are there because we have nowhere else to go.
“I have to say this as well. No one else here would like it if they had a drone going over their property taking pictures where there are children … no one would like that if we were doing that in their garden.
“We are not there to upset people, we are just there to have a place to live at the moment. Whatever the council says we do; we don’t go against the council. I think the council has a hard job because there are no properties for traveller sites.
“I am very, very upset about what has been said here today, because my place is clean. The council has been there many times and it has always been clean.”
Much of the committee’s discussion revolved around Ms Smith and her fellow residents’ personal circumstances. The committee heard how Ms Smith and another woman lived on the site , along with a total of five dependents; Ms Smith with her two adult sons — who she said had learning difficulties — and the other woman with her three younger children.
In a report to the committee, officers had said “the best interests of children should be a primary consideration in any decision on the application.”
The committee also heard how the residents meet the definition of a “gypsy or traveller”, which officers said had meant the lack of alternative sites was another significant factor in their recommendation.
Several committee members appeared to take issue with the officers’ view, however, arguing the applicants’ personal circumstances were either ‘irrelevant’ or outweighed by the harm identified.
Some of these comments drew criticism from Cllr Hazel Timpe (Ind), who said: “[The officers’ report] is quite clear. It says the proposed development is only acceptable, on the temporary three year basis, due to the personal circumstances of the applicant and their way of life, which means that they meet the definition of a Gypsy or Traveller.
“I find this whole discussion really quite offensive, in some instances from certain councillors … what I find is people don’t actually read the report because all the information is in there and there are significant weights to certain factors, even though it is against policy or whatever
“I’m not sure we are actually being quite unbiased in considering this site. That is my personal opinion.”
Ultimately, the committee as a whole opted to support the officers’ recommendation.
The approval comes with conditions including a time limit requiring the caravans to be removed from the site on or before 30 May 2027. The conditions also include a restriction on who can live on the site.
For further information see application reference RR/2022/2791/P on the Rother District Council website.
