A Government planning inspector has allowed an illegal traveller site in Blaby, Leicestershire, to remain until 2029, citing the welfare of children living there and the Equality Act.

The 1,378-day reprieve

Planning inspector Melissa Madge granted temporary permission until June 1, 2029, which is 1,378 days after the travellers arrived. She reasoned that a temporary permission would reduce the severity of harm because the development is primarily a land use and returning the land to its original condition would not be unduly complicated.

400 residents object, but the inspector prevaiils

Over 400 residents had objected to the site, which borders a conservation area. Local residents expressed outrage, with one saying it is ridiculous that travellers can flout planning laws while ordinary people must follow them.

The Equality Act and the children's welfare

The inspector, Melissa Madge, cited the need to consider the best interests of the three children living on the site, aged 12, eight, and three. she noted that the family had formed a settled base and that removal could force them to live on the roadside, disrupting the children's education.

Who is the unnamed buyer?

The controversy highlights tensions between traveller community rights and local planning enforcement, with many feeling that the law favours those who break it first. The council had initially refused the application,stating that the site was a discordant feature too close to the historic hall.

Broader implications

The decision has spakred debate about the balance between traveller rights and local planning enforcement. Some argue that the law should be applied equally to all, while others believe that the Equality Act should be taken into account when making decisions about traveller sites.

Background

The site, located just metres from the Grade II-listed Blaby Hall and a Victorian ice house, was erected over the August bank holiday weekend last year.. travellers illegally installed fences and gates without planning permission.

Open questions

Will this decision encourage more travellers to flout the rules? Could the site eventually be rented out, and if so, what would be the implications for local residents?