A FAMILY living at a gypsy and traveller caravan site in Queensbury said their safety would be at risk at Bradford Council's two authorised sites due to "long-standing feuds" with other residents.

The details were revealed in a report from the Planning Inspectorate as the Council's decision to refuse a retrospective planning application for the site was overturned to grant temporary planning permission for five years.

The wrangle over the site at Low Lane, off Brighouse and Denholme Road, began back in 2017, when an application was first submitted.

It was submitted by occupant Samantha Freeman, who asked for retrospective permission for the use of the land as a gypsy and caravan site, which began in 2016. The secure compound houses a static caravan and a touring caravan along with sheds, a parking area and a garden play area.

While the application was recommended for approval, despite more than 200 objections being lodged in response to the plans, it was refused. The development was said to be inappropriate within the Green Belt and the "very special circumstances" put forward were not considered to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.

In reaching the decision to overturn the refusal, planning inspector Thomas Hatfield outlined the family's circumstances - Ms Freeman currently lives at the site with David Terry, a Romany Gypsy, and their five children.

The report said that Ms Freeman's 'gypsy status' was questioned at the hearing. She acknowledged she is not from a gypsy background and lived in bricks and mortar housing before her relationship with Mr Terry.

However, the report said: " From the available evidence, it appears that Ms Freeman has lived a nomadic lifestyle for many years as part of the family group with Mr Terry and their children. The family travel for economic purposes, including dealing in scrap metal and undertaking ground and tree works, albeit their travelling is currently restricted to school holidays so that their children can attend school Both Mr Terry and Ms Freeman expressed a wish to resume their previous pattern of travelling once their children’s education is completed."

The report highlighted how "long-standing feuds" exist with residents at the two authorised sites at Mary Street and Esholt.

"At the hearing, the appellant stated that their safety would be at risk were they to reside at either one of the authorised sites," said the inspector. He said the sites "do not represent a realistic alternative"

The report said the proposal constitutes "inappropriate development" in the Green Belt, but: "Set against this are the best interests of the children, a significant unmet need for gypsy and traveller sites, and an absence of alternative sites."

Mr Hatfield said the hearing heard how the family had lived in the roadside before acquiring the site, and it's likely the family would have to resort to an unauthorised site or roadside living if the appeal was dismissed.

He said this could "seriously harm" the education prospects of the children and "lead to further tensions with the settled community", carrying "substantial weight" in favour of the proposal.

However, the inspector said these matters "do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt", but the balance changes "significantly" when considering temporary planning permission, which would not involve permanent harm to the Green Belt.

He said this would allow a settled base for children to continue their education and allow alternative sites to come forward.

It was said while temporary permission would still result in harm to the openness of the greenbelt for a limited period, "very special circumstances" exist to justify granting it.

The site being restricted to the family, a timber fence being removed and future restoration of the site were among conditions attached to the approval.