A DECISION by the Court of Appeal to allow a gipsy family to stay on Green Belt land will not be contested by the district council.

Staff at Wychavon District Council had been considering whether to take the fight to the House of Lords, fearing the decision could pave the way for other families to create homes on green belt land.

But the council has now received reassurance from the Government that gipsy and traveller settlements will only be allowed in very special circumstances.

As previously reported in your Worcester News, in 2006 Leonard and Kathleen Butler were denied planning permission to have their caravan on a paddock, which they own, at Bywater Farm, Crutch Lane, Upton Warren, near Bromsgrove. They won a temporary reprieve after a planning inspector said they could stay until another site became available but a High Court judge later removed that consent.

It was reinstated by the Court of Appeal in June after the couple argued they and their two children faced homelessness if removed. The number of places on recognised traveller sites in the district are in short supply.

The decision concerned Wychavon’s head of legal and support services Ian Marshall, who feared it could pave the way for other similar applications.

The council is awaiting the outcome of another planning appeal for five other families to live in a different paddock in the same field.

Mr Marshall wrote to the Government asking for clarification on guidelines, which state that development in the green belt should not be allowed except in very special circumstances.

The council’s managing director Jack Hegarty said: “We’re pleased that the Secretary of State has confirmed that she believes the current planning guidance for the protection of green belt land is strong enough to deal with any case that comes forward. Gypsy and traveller sites whether temporary or otherwise, continue to normally be considered inappropriate development and that there has to be very special circumstances for planning permission to be granted.”

He said, in light of that response, a further House of Lords appeal would not be pursued.