A Romany Gypsy family seeking consent to establish a home in open countryside has claimed restricting the site to their use would breach their human rights as they have already spent a “vast” amount of money developing the site.
North Yorkshire Council’s Thirsk and Malton planning committee will on Thursday consider the Sykes family’s revised proposal to create four 22m by 31m pitches west of Sheriff Hutton.
The decision will come more than two years after the family started living on the site, saying they had found living on the council’s Tara Park site at Malton “intolerable” due to the antisocial behaviour of neighbouring residents.
Planning papers lodged by the family state: “There is apparently no control of fly-tipping, raves, loud music playing, rat infestation and intolerable mixed tenants with threats of violence and total disregard of the Covid-19 regulations.”
The family said they were left with no option but to move to the Cornborough Road site to provide a stable place from which their six children can attend school.
The proposal has been met with significant opposition from residents and Sheriff Hutton Parish Council, which has concluded the Traveller site would be inappropriate development in the open countryside, particularly as it would “highly visible from the south from a great distance”.
While the parish council has questioned the number of children on the site, an officer’s report to the committee states the personal circumstances of the applicant and his family weigh in favour of the proposal.
The reports states with limited alternative provision at Tara Park, the family’s only other option would be the roadside or culturally inappropriate housing.
It also highlights how there is “a positive obligation” through the Human Rights Act to facilitate the Gypsy way of life and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children’s Act 1989 made the best interests of the child shall “a primary consideration in all decisions made by an administrative authority”.
Officers have concluded the family’s situation outweighs the harm to the character and appearance of the landscape and the location of the site in the open countryside.
Nevertheless, the report also recommends a personal condition restricting occupancy of the site to the applicants’ immediate family members and if the family stopped living at the site it should be cleared.
In response, planning papers submitted by the family state the condition could be viewed as discrimination.
An agent for the Sykes questioned if the condition was “necessary in a democratic society”.
He said: “A condition of this nature will penalise the Sykes family when they have gone to vast expense to develop the site to provide a family home for their family who have occupied the site for three years to date.
“The family have the right to achieve their goal of security, provide a secure stable base for their children and a right to be able to live their traditional way of life by continuing to practice nomadism, without restrictive conditions.”
Be the first to comment