Planning approval for a permanent four-plot gypsy caravan site on the outskirts of Usk has been rejected by Monmouthshire County Council’s planning committee.

The site off the B4598 at Llancayo was bought by the applicants eight years ago and has been used primarily for the grazing of horses.

At the committee meeting last week (Tuesday December 6) planning officers said permission could only be granted if there were ‘exceptional circumstances’ because it was council policy not to allow residential development on green field sites. There were also issues about the flood risk to the site, substandard access and harm to the landscape in a sensitive area.

County Councillor Val Smith, representing local residents, said they felt the proposal was ‘totally inappropriate’.

If planning permission was refused they requested that the applicants returned the site to agricultural land within ‘a given timescale’ and wanted to know how such conditions would be policed.

But a representative from Travelling Ahead, which provides advice, information and support to gypsy and traveller families around Wales, said the Housing Act Wales 2014 put a duty on local authorities to assess needs and provide appropriate accommodation for gypsy travellers, who were deemed to be an ethnic minority under the Race Relations Act.

There was a distinct shortage of gypsy plots throughout the whole of Wales.

The objection that the access was substandard could be changed - and the applicants didn’t have anywhere ‘culturally appropriate’ to live.

In a written submission to the committee, Travelling Ahead, had said their dealings with the (Purcell) family had always left them impressed with their open and positive attitudes - and they asked committee members to meet with the family and visit the proposed site ‘rather than be tempted to base decisions on the comments of objectors’.

County Cllr Ralph Chapman said at the planning meeting that gypsy travellers were part of the community.

“They have as much right to accommodation as I have in my three bedroom house,” he said.

But County Cllr Roger Harris said gypsy travellers should take on the responsibility to talk to the planning department before buying land.

“That way we would not have these situations with retrospective planning that contravene our efforts to protect open countryside.

“If I bought land there I would not have a chance of building on it,” he said.

County Cllr Alan Wintle said, “I have every sympathy with the travelling community – but they don’t help themselves. They have to comply with rules and regulations like the rest of the community.

“This site is in a flood risk area so it is not suitable. If they worked with the planning people and the rest of the community some sites might become available to them.”

A petition signed by 37 Llancayo residents had been presented to the committee, arguing that the accommodation of travellers on a permanent or semi-permanent basis there was ‘totally unacceptable’.

In addition there were fifty ‘neighbour notification’ objections received from 24 addresses.

The application was also opposed by Gwehelog and Llanarth Fawr Community Councils, Usk Civic Society and the Society for the Protection of Rural Wales.

Local county councillors Val Smith and Sara Jones also objected on the grounds that the proposal contravened the Local Development Plan (LDP) while Natural Resources Wales (NRW) expressed concerns that there was a flood risk at the site.

But letters of support were received from 16 addresses. Among other things the supporters argued that the site was neat and tidy, the applicants were ‘quiet, peaceful, polite, hardworking, respected, trustworthy people’ and that the family was already fully integrated into the local community.

Monmouth MP David Davies in a letter to the committee said he appreciated there were strong feelings for and against and asked the committee to ensure the plans were looked at with impartiality and consideration given to all parties involved..

MCC’s planning officers recommended refusal, mainly on the grounds that the site was on green field agricultural land in the open countryside outside any development boundary and that the applicants had failed to demonstrate why their particular personal circumstances were so significant as to outweigh LDP policies.

The application was rejected by ten votes, with one abstention. The applicants have the right to appeal within 28 days.