An appeal against Wiltshire Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for a private traveller site on land north of the M4 motorway near Chippenham has been dismissed.

The site is near the small village of Littleton Drew, and about a mile and a half east of Burton.

The applicant and landowner, Mr E Sykes, previously sought a change of use of the land that would see it become a “private traveller site” with two pitches, space for a touring caravan, mobile home and dayroom.

Wiltshire Council refused the application due to insufficient information as to whether the site could be supplied with essential services, unacceptable living conditions for the occupants due to the noise impact of the M4, as well as insufficient information on the ecological impact of the development.

The applicant launched an appeal following this decision.

Over twenty people from the local community attended the hearing, after 140 letters of objection were sent to Wiltshire Council for the initial application.

The appeal report notes that despite the lawful use of the site being agricultural, the appellant had been using it for residential purposes since 2022, in an effort to give his family and brothers “a stable base.”

The appeal report states: “While the family did not have any pressing health issues currently, the site gave them a settled site and address from where they could access health facilities.

“They wanted the children to have the opportunity to go to local schools and be part of the community rather than face an itinerate life on the roadside.

“The families were well aware of the noise from the M4 and had got used to it.

“The noise was less than that the families had experienced when they had to stay at junction 18 of the M4.

“There were no other sites available for them to go to.”

Although the Planning Inspector described these personal circumstances as carrying “significant weight” in favour of the proposal, they found that the development would "cause substantial harm to a nationally recognised special landscape."

It was also stated that the noise levels of the site would give “significant adverse impacts” on the health and quality of life of the occupiers.

Therefore, the decision to dismiss the appeal was concluded to be “proportionate and necessary” and would “not result in a violation” of the family’s human rights.