REVISED plans for a previously refused Gypsy Traveller site on Green Belt Land at Burtonwood, Warrington, has been submitted to town planners.
Warrington Borough Council is currently consulting on a new planning application relating to the land at Tan House Lane / Farmers Lane, Burtonwood.
The application under Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is for the change of use of land to form a Gypsy and Traveller residential site comprising 4 pitches, with associated landscaping, widening of the existing private access road, and relocation of the internal site access (part retrospective).
Consultation end date: 𝐓𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝟐𝟓 𝐅𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔
Local Cllr Stuart Mann said: “Residents can view the application documents and submit representations (either in support or objection) directly via the council’s planning portal before the consultation deadline.
If any residents would like further information about the application, or support on how to make a representation, please feel free to contact me by email cllrstuart.mann@warrington.gov.uk
“As always, I encourage residents to review the information themselves and make their views known within the consultation period.”
The application is a revised application for the change of use of land to form a 4 pitch, Gypsy and Traveller residential site, together with associated landscaping and infrastructure.
The application has been submitted following refusal of a previous scheme, reference; 2025/00693/FUL, for Change of use of the land for Gypsy and Traveller residential site with associated landscaping and the installation of a farm gate (1.2m x 3.6m) to footpath (route no.34) at corner of Tan House Lane/ Farmers Lane. This application responds directly and positively to the matters identified by the Local Planning Authority, in particular in relation to highway safety and internal access arrangements.
The applicants state the revised proposal represents a material change and improvement to the layout and access strategy, addressing the principal reason for refusal, and must therefore be considered on its own merits.
The site lies within the Green Belt; however, the Council has previously accepted that the land constitutes Grey Belt and that the proposed development is not inappropriate development for the purposes of national policy. The refusal of the earlier scheme related primarily to highway safety and sustainability.
The applicant states that the revised proposal introduces the following key changes:
● Relocation of the internal site access 25m further east along the existing access track, utilising the existing highways access already approved for residential use through the class Q application ref; 2025/00565/PA3Q
Removal of the previous internal access arrangement, which gave rise to perceived “crossroads” geometry, with an additional area of planting proposed in its place;
● Widening of the internal access track to 6.5 metres, allowing safe two-way vehicular movement and retained pedestrian access3;
● Re-positioning of pitch 4, 25 metres to the east, and removing 1 metre along the southern boundary to enable the re-positioning of the access and the widening of the access track4.
● Retention of the same overall number of pitches and general site arrangement, subject to minor internal adjustments.
● No additional development beyond that previously proposed is introduced.
They go on to say that in the absence of any alternative authorised pitches within the borough, refusal of the application would not result in relocation to a more sustainable site, but would instead be likely to force the families back into unauthorised or roadside situations. Such circumstances would inevitably worsen sustainability outcomes, increasing travel distances, reliance on private vehicles, risks to highway safety, disruption to education, and reduced access to healthcare and community services.
When considered in this context, the proposal represents a comparatively sustainable solution. The site is located close to Burtonwood, allowing for short, regular vehicle journeys to schools, shops, healthcare and other facilities. This is materially more sustainable than itinerant or roadside living, where journeys are longer, less predictable, and often undertaken from locations remote from services.
“This is a modest, legitimate, and family-run site, purchased lawfully, largely retained for agricultural use, and providing urgently needed accommodation in the absence of any alternative provision. The planning balance, when weighed against the Equality Act duties, the NPPF and PPTS allowances for very special circumstances, and the clear lack of harm compared to other local developments, supports granting permission.”
