By Eddie Bisknell

Plans to expand a traveller site between Acresford and Netherseal are set for approval - despite 60 objections from local residents.

The application, filed by B and E McDonagh, relates to a small field off Acresford Road, between Netherseal and Acresford, close to The Cricketts Inn.

Now, South Derbyshire District Council planners have recommended that extending the site from one traveller plot to two, along with two amenity blocks, are approved.

A decision will be made on Tuesday, February 25.

The council says that the application is "partly retrospective in that the majority of development applied for has already taken place".

Papers supplied as part of the application say: "The applicants have experienced tragic circumstances at a previous site where a child was injured and wish to avoid any recurrence".

It has also been explained to the council that the men in the family would travel for work for at least 16 weeks of the year – but that a permanent base is needed for their childrens' education and health purposes.

Acresford Parish Council and Netherseal Parish Council have objected to the plans, along with 60 residents.

The site would be less than five miles from Ashby and under three from Measham.

A statement from Acresford Parish Council says: "The proposal is highly visually intrusive in this sensitive rural landscape.

"The proposed development does not protect local amenity or the local environment but causes or has the potential to cause significant harm.

"The granting of planning permission would fail to respect the interests of the local community.

"The development and any future approval discriminates against the settled community, who would be unable to implement a residential or equivalent development at this location or any similar location."

Objecting residents said: "We as members of the local community, along with others, do not feel respected, treated fairly and this certainly does not reduce any tension.

"They cannot use the provisions of 'Traveller' status whilst trying to integrate into a settled community. A 'nomadic lifestyle' does not require a base."

The district council approved plans for a traveller site on the plot in October 2018.

Before that approval, previous plans had been rejected by the council and subsequently approved at appeal by government planners in 2014.

In October last year, district councillors were told that travellers on the site were breaching planning conditions.

The authority responded to say it was not pursuing enforcement because a fresh planning application (the one being decided next week) was being filed.

District councillor Dan Pegg had said: "I think it is unacceptable, I think we are scared to go on that site and tell them what to do."

Meanwhile, fellow district councillor Melanie Bridgen had said: "They (the travellers) are pushing the boundary and will continue to push the boundary and will be doing more and more and more."

The district council says that the site has recently been sold to two families with different personal circumstances to the previous owner.

It says that the new families (the applicants) are relatively young and have a number of children, so require more space and regular access to schooling and healthcare.

Planning officers wrote: "The site occupants are currently residing on the site in an unauthorised manner and should planning permission be refused, half would have no authorised pitch of their own on which to reside."

They authority says there are no other available traveller sites in South Derbyshire and say even if there was one, it may be unsuitable for the specific needs of the family.

It says this adds significant weight in favour of the application.

Planning officers wrote: "There would be a large number of children residing on the site and as a result of the stability this permanent site would offer, it would not be acceptable to deny these children of the opportunity of a happy family life.

"If this consent was to be refused, one of the families would continue to reside on the site, albeit in substandard conditions, due to the lack of facilities and space, but it is considered highly likely that the remaining family would end up leading an unauthorised existence, which would not only impact on the rights of the children, but would also raise issues on grounds of the protected characteristics of disability and race.

"On account of the above, it is submitted that the welfare of the children could only be safeguarded by the grant of permanent planning and on these grounds, it would be disproportionate to refuse the application."