Express & Star

Gipsy site fighting fund target reached

A village fighting fund to challenge plans for another gipsy site on green belt land in South Staffordshire has reached its £6,500 target, it was revealed today.

Published

A village fighting fund to challenge plans for another gipsy site on green belt land in South Staffordshire has reached its £6,500 target, it was revealed today.

A new pitch, including a new family gipsy area and a utility building, may still be created at Poolhouse Nurseries, Pool House Road, though.

This is because applicant Lisa Walker decided to launch an appeal to the Government's Planning Inspectorate after her proposals were turned down by South Staffordshire Council.

It has now been confirmed that the public inquiry, which could last up to two days, will begin at 10am on October 12 at Wombourne Civic Centre in Gravel Hill.

The original plans sparked furious objections from residents, with hundreds of people demonstrating against the development and thousands signing a petition.

The application was refused by the district council in November.

But Government inspectors have over-ruled a succession of similar refusals by the council over the past 15 years.

Wombourne councillor Mary Bond, who sits on South Staffordshire Council's regulatory committee, said today: "The planning reasons behind our objection are that it's simply not appropriate for the green belt. We decided to hold a public meeting in June to let villagers know about the situation. More than 200 people came and we appealed to them for donations.

"The lawyer we've instructed is well respected and has done a lot of preparation ahead of fighting our case for this appeal.

"We know there are no guarantees but we have to remain optimistic, and we are hoping that changes in legislation by the new government may also be to our advantage."

More than 25 gipsy pitches have been granted on appeal in South Staffordshire in the past three years. The council is required by law to provide 47 pitches by 2016.

?

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.