Council rejects plans for caravan site over safety

The Orchard on Uffington Road, Barnack, was the proposed site for a small caravan site

Plans for the creation of a caravan site to accommodate Gypsy and traveller families have been rejected by a council over safety concerns.

Peterborough City Council's planning committee refused the site to be located at Barnack, Cambridgeshire.

A planning application had sought to change the use of agricultural land at The Orchard on Uffington Road into a caravan site for four families, with each household having two caravans.

An officer recommended it be refused following objections from highways services over safe access to the site, and the National Gas Transmission after it noted the site was in a high-risk zone from its apparatus.

The application received 122 objections, with some concerns raised about potential harm to the countryside, and six responses in support.

Council officers noted the development had already partially begun at the Barnack site and therefore the proposal would be classed as part retrospective, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

The land is designated as countryside as it is located outside of the Peterborough Urban Boundary, as well as the Barnack village envelope.

On 2 September the authority's Planning Committee discussed the proposal and Kevin Tighe, Barnack ward councillor, described the development as "dangerous" due to highways services' concerns.

A planning agent who spoke on behalf of Barnack Parish Council, which object to the plans, said: "The proposed development would generate a variety of environmental and amenity harms, which taking into account intentional unauthorised development, would not be outweighed by any established need."

There were no speakers in support of the application at the planning meeting.

The council's Draft Local Plan highlights a need for 72 pitches for Gypsy and traveller households in Peterborough to be created by 2044, with 36 of these pitches needed during the next five years.

However, it was concluded that the benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harms identified and committee members unanimously agreed to refuse the application.