A decision on the location of the Travelers was deferred over the claims of the existing tenant on the land

A decision on plans for mobile homes and caravan sites in a paddock on a ‘dangerous’ stretch of Leicestershire road has been delayed after claims by an existing tenant on the land that he could need up to two years’ notice to To leave. Applicant Thomas Maughan wants to build two gypsy and traveler pitches, a utility block and a sewage treatment plant on land off the A52 near the village of Easthorpe, close to Bottesford.

But during a meeting of Melton Borough Council’s planning committee, councilors heard there was an agricultural tenant based on the land and that the claimant, Mr Maughan, had previously been ordered by a court to vacate the site. Ben Wills, of 360 Rural, speaking for opponents of the scheme, argued that the existing tenant had been using the land for years.

He said the plaintiff was previously removed from the land following a court order, which also allowed the tenant to return to the land. Mr Wills called the council’s recommendation to approve the current application a “perverse situation”, adding: “The agricultural tenant was not given adequate notice and evidence has been provided to Melton Borough Council by various parties to confirm this.”

READ MORE: Fury like a centuries-old cabin lined up for the bulldozer

The plan received nine objections from members of the public, with many concerned about the impact of a new access off the A52. One told the council: “I can’t object strongly enough. In fact, I don’t think you could even consider this app. We are talking about one of the most dangerous stretches of road in Leicestershire. There have already been three accidents this year at this location, one fatal.”

During the meeting, Councilor Marilyn Gordon revealed that an accident had occurred while members of the planning committee were visiting the site, adding: “The police were there and everything.”

But a supporter of the scheme wrote to the council, saying: “I think it’s nice to see a fixed site for those people. I mean everyone has the right to have a proper, stable home and I think this would fit perfectly in the village. I mean, I saw the site and you wouldn’t even know (it was) there to be quite honest and sincere.”

While a travel liaison officer from Leicestershire County Council said the family needed a “stable and safe home”. “The family has not had a permanent home for many years and has traveled a lot, living on the side of the road and occasionally staying with family and friends,” they said. “It became apparent that the family needed a secure and stable base to access education. for children and health care facilities for the whole family.”

A report prepared for councilors by planning officers said that although the land was located in open countryside, visibility of the site beyond would be “very limited” and the impact on the surrounding countryside would be “negligible”. Concluding with a recommendation that the scheme be approved, the report said: “The council is currently unable to demonstrate with evidence a five-year supply of deliverable land for Gypsy and Traveler sites, which is a matter of significant weight in favor of a grant. of planning consent in this case.”

After hearing Mr Wills’ claims about the tenant, the local authority’s lawyer, Tom Pickwell, said: “What they (planning officers) have is a third party saying there is a tenancy and they have made the applicant say there is not there is a lease. So what they have are two different things that conflict with each other.” He said an agricultural lease “invalidates everything, adding: ‘The decision could be overturned.’

Mr Wills said the tenancy was oral and valid under the Farm Holdings Act 1986. Councilors therefore asked what evidence could be produced to prove the existence of the tenancy, with Mr Wills replying: “The fact that it went through the courts, the applicant occupied the site, was removed from the site, returned the occupation to a third party who can only be a tenant, otherwise they would have no interest in being on the land – I think that has to have a significant weight.” He said the notice period for tenants to vacate the site would be “maybe a year to two years”.

Council leader Pip Allnatt said committee members were not comfortable with “the framework for the legal advice we’re hearing”, adding: “I don’t feel in a position to make a decision tonight, frankly.” While Councilor Margaret Glancy added: “I suggest we adjourn until we have more information, which would be an affidavit filed before a commissioner, along with any documentation of the judgment from the recent court case.”

Now we bring you the latest updates on WhatsApp first