Local authority planners have refused permission for an eight-pitch traveller development following multiple concerns raised by officers.
Chichester District Council (CDC) dismissed the application for land situated in West Ashling, located to the north-west of Chichester, on March 26. Officials identified drawbacks including inadequate living standards for prospective inhabitants and what they described as “significant” damage to the surrounding landscape.
The proposal envisioned eight pitches, with each one featuring a mobile home, a touring caravan and a dayroom structure.
Nevertheless, council officers determined that the proposed configuration would result in substandard living conditions for residents.
In refusing the application, planning officers commented: “The layout would not promote the health and well-being of future occupiers.”
They further stated: “There is no reasonable justification to provide such a limited area of lawn tucked in the corner of the pitches surrounded by hardstanding.”
The council also concluded the proposal would damage the rural nature of the location, asserting it would cause “unjustified urbanisation” and reduce the separation between neighbouring sites.
Safety concerns were also expressed regarding a high-pressure gas pipeline passing directly underneath the proposed location.
Officers stated the applicant had failed to provide adequate proof that dwellings would maintain safe distances from this hazard.
CDC currently lacks the ability to show it possesses the necessary five-year supply of appropriate gypsy and traveller sites to address local requirements, and the applicant had cited this as grounds for approval.
Nevertheless, officials judged that the negative impacts of the development would “significantly” outweigh any advantages.
Planners additionally observed that the land had been deliberately deteriorated prior to the application to circumvent biodiversity enhancement requirements, which do not apply if development is already considered to have commenced.
The applicant has a six-month window to appeal the ruling.