Gypsy loses appeal to build home at Bowd
- Credit: Archant
A CARE worker has been left ‘heartbroken’ by a decision to not let her build a home on land which has been in her family for more than a century.
Kelly Lynch, 35, now fears she will be evicted from the site near the Bowd after a planning inspector dismissed her appeal this week.
She said ‘it makes absolutely no sense’ after her dream of building a bungalow on the plot at Coombe Goyle was snatched away - after being initially approved.
Kelly only took her case to the Planning Inspectorate after the East Devon District Council (EDDC) reversed its decision to give her the go-ahead to build on land which has been owned by her family for generations.
The gypsy now expects the council’s enforcement team to be in touch about removing her from the site and she admits she doesn’t know what she will do next.
You may also want to watch:
Citing the successful plans to develop nearby Barton Orchard, which is also in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Kelly said EDDC was ‘just making up the rules as they go along’.
In her decision, planning inspector Olivia Spencer said: “The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the rural character and scenic beauty of the landscape.”
- 1 Thousands of washed up fish provide easy pickings for fishermen and gulls
- 2 Community rally around pensioner in hour of need
- 3 How Devon are you? Take our quiz
- 4 Dan's retail vision provides timely food for thought
- 5 Date announced for unveiling of Ottery's Coleridge statue
- 6 Concerns expressed over latest plans for Sidford Business Park
- 7 Property of the Week: Fortescue Road, Sidmouth
- 8 Sidmouth woman's legal challenge over care home Covid deaths begins at High Court
- 9 Nature's own nocturnal acrobats gracing the skies in Devon
- 10 Supermarket chain planning four new stores in East Devon
She added that the plans failed to meet policy objectives on sustainable developments, and, despite no recorded accidents at the junction to and from the site, visibility is so poor a permanent dwelling there would result in ‘a significantly increased risk to the safety of road users’.
The inspector admitted Ms Lynch’s family have had a long association with the site, but said despite previous planning applications and permissions there was nothing to justify her proposed development.
“The appellant and her family are an established part of the local community and I understand her attachment to the site where she spent much of her childhood,” she concluded.
“On the basis of the evidence before me, however, I find nothing sufficient to outweigh the planning considerations that led to my conclusions on the main issues.”
A separate application for costs by EDDC against Ms Lynch was not upheld.