A MAN has slammed the district council for refusing him planning permission for a static caravan, despite living just yards away from several travellers’ sites.

Russ Turner is currently living in a caravan on the business industrial estate in Cossington, which is owned by his mum and where he works.

He applied for planning permission from Sedgemoor District Council for the right to live there after he was left homeless since splitting with his partner.

The permission was turned down, which Mr Turner brands ‘unfair’, as the site is only yards away from five neighbouring permanent traveller sites - but the council says the site is not suitable for residential occupation.

Mr Turner said: “There are five traveller sites on the outside of the village, about seven metres from where I’m living.

“I applied to live in my static caravan and was refused - apparently I’m unsustainable.

“I’ve appealed it twice, but it’s just unfair. I work on the site and have been living in my caravan in the yard since I became apparently voluntarily homeless after a split with my partner.

“It’s incredibly ridiculous to pick on the unsustainable factor when I’m local, and yet other people can live on the traveller sites mere metres away.”

Mr Turner says it is ironic as the industrial estate is partially for caravan storage.

“I’m allowed to be in my van in the day but not sleep here, but we store caravans at the site anyway,” he said. “It’s ironic. The unsustainable issue is because apparently I would need to travel too far for shopping and things like that.

“It’s so stupid and nobody I’ve spoken to says it’s fair. Why let travellers live there but not a local?”

A spokesperson for Sedgemoor District Council said: “This began as a planning enforcement case following a complaint that someone was living unlawfully within a mobile home on the site.

“The council investigated the matter and advised the resident that he was in breach of the planning regulations.

“The resident made a planning application to continue living in a mobile home on the site but as it was in the countryside in planning terms and outside of the any of the identified locations for where residential development is permitted within the council’s core strategy it was refused.

“The resident then appealed to the planning inspectorate regarding this decision and the appeal was dismissed.

“The planning inspectorate agreed with the council that the site was not in a suitable location for residential development having regard to the relevant and national local planning policies.

“The inspector noted, as did the council, that the resident worked on the site and therefore would not need to travel for employment but given the location there would still be trips for shopping, health, recreation, leisure and other social activities, together with visits and deliveries that would lead to an increase in the need to travel given the overall unsustainability of this countryside location.

“Every application is judged on its own merits in the context of the relevant policies in existence at the time.”