The proposed Gypsy site at Tower Lodge Farm, less than 300 metres from my home, is I feel an unacceptable and potentially dangerous proposal. The size of this proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the Northowram community for the following reasons:
1. Green Belt Designation and Historical Use
The site at Tower Lodge Farm has historically been protected and maintained as pasture and agricultural land. Earlier planning permissions for structures, including a Dutch barn and general-purpose building, were granted specifically for agricultural use, which was considered acceptable under RCUDP Policy GNE1 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The retrospective siting of a mobile home and hardstanding at the site already introduced urbanising features. The council’s own planning officer concluded this:
“Clearly harmed the openness of the Green Belt and resulted in a negative impact on the character and appearance of the locality.”
Further development would not only repeat but significantly escalate this harm. It would directly contradict local and national planning policy, particularly NPPF Paragraphs 79–90, which emphasise the need to preserve openness, prevent sprawl, and protect countryside from encroachment.
⸻
2. Strategic Role in Preventing Urban Sprawl
This site lies in a visually prominent, elevated position, forming part of the critical Green Belt buffer between Northowram and Shelf. It is clearly visible from:
• Yarborough Croft
• Newlands Avenue
• Yew Tree
• Howes Lane
• And numerous other vantage points throughout the village and surrounding landscape.
Development here would visibly reduce the open gap between these settlements, eroding both the physical and visual distinction that Green Belt land is intended to preserve.
Moreover, the site performed poorly in sprawl containment assessments and cannot credibly be considered “rounding off”. It does not lie within a clearly defined or built-up boundary and would visibly protrude into open countryside, inviting further inappropriate encroachment.
⸻
3. Public Amenity and Environmental Impact
A well-used public footpath runs along the site, offering open countryside access, views, and recreational value to the community. Development would:
• Enclose and urbanise the route
• Diminish visual quality and sense of openness
• Increase light and noise pollution—particularly problematic due to the site’s elevation
The land supports significant biodiversity, including grassland species, pollinators, badgers, foxes, deer and nesting birds. Also bat surveys have been undertaken at that site as we know that bats live nearby. Development would:
• Fragment habitats
• Disrupt ecological corridors
• Introduce artificial surfaces and boundaries that do not belong in a rural, protected landscape
The 3-metre buffer proposed is entirely inadequate for a site of this scale and topography.
⸻
4. Severe Strain on Local Infrastructure
Schools
• Northowram Primary School has recently had to make some staff, including Teaching Assistants, redundant due to funding issues and is I believe full.
• Any additional intake would harm both existing and new pupils’ education.
Healthcare
• The local GP surgery is at capacity, with no space for expansion.
• Staff report growing dependence on their sister site in Hipperholme.
• The proposed development would push essential services beyond sustainable limits.
⸻
5. Highway Safety and Inadequate Access
Access via Score Hill is unsuitable:
• It has only a single pavement, on the opposite side of the road.
• Junctions and bends limit visibility.
• The route is unsafe for larger vehicles, including those towing caravans or trailers.
These hazards breach RCUDP Policy BE5 and contradict basic principles of safe and sustainable development.
⸻
6. Governance, Enforcement, and Ownership Risks
There is no clear explanation of how this large private site would be managed or enforced:
• Will planning conditions be monitored by the council, or left to private legal action?
• If the land is sold, what restrictive covenants would apply—and who enforces them?
• How will disputes be handled—are residents protected under planning law, or only through civil remedies?
This lack of transparency and structure is unacceptable for a development of this scale, and it risks creating an unregulated, unaccountable site with no long-term oversight.
⸻
7. Unacceptable Use of Agricultural Access
The proposal includes access via the eastern edge, requiring passage through agricultural land at Tower Lodge Farm. This:
• Reduces the farm’s usable agricultural curtilage
• Contradicts the council’s own statement that surrounding land will be protected
• Threatens future agricultural viability if Tower Lodge is ever sold or returned to full-time farming use
This is an inappropriate and unsustainable compromise that undermines Green Belt policy and the land’s long-term purpose.
⸻
8. Disproportionate Burden on Northowram – Inequity in Site Allocation
It is wholly unreasonable that Northowram is expected to absorb 50% of Calderdale’s proposed site allocation for this type of development. This is:
• Unfair to residents
• Unjustified in planning terms
• Unsustainable without infrastructure investment
Calderdale Council must revisit dismissed or overlooked brownfield sites and provide a fair, borough-wide distribution of any required allocations. Policy H17 is outdated, and reliance on it without a new framework is planning negligence.
⸻
9. Highly Relevant Comparisons – Precedents for Refusal
A. West Dereham, Norfolk (April 2025)
King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council recently rejected a similar 10-pitch site (10 static, 10 touring caravans) due to:
• Overcrowding
• Infrastructure limitations
• Local community objection
This rural proposal was smaller than what is being considered in Northowram. The council correctly concluded that it was unsuitable for a village environment.
Source: BBC News – April 2025
B. Ward v SSLUHC and Basildon District Council [2024] EWHC 676 (Admin)
In this landmark High Court case, permission for a traveller site in the Green Belt was refused—even though:
• Children lived on-site and attended local schools
• The applicant had disabilities and complex needs
• The council lacked a 5-year supply of sites
The court ruled that none of these factors outweighed the Green Belt harm, and that “very special circumstances” did not exist. It upheld the planning inspector’s refusal and reinforced the principle that Green Belt protection remains paramount, even where personal hardship exists.
Source: Local Government Lawyer
⸻
10. Conclusion – Uphold Green Belt Integrity and Planning Policy
This proposal:
• Contradicts local and national planning policies
• Narrows protected space between rural settlements
• Threatens biodiversity and public amenity
• Overburdens already stretched schools and healthcare
• Introduces unclear, unenforceable governance
• Is out of scale with rural surroundings
• Lacks precedent, fairness, or sustainability
There are no very special circumstances to justify this permanent loss of Green Belt land. I respectfully urge Calderdale Council to:
• Reject any further development at this site
• Uphold the original refusal under application 13/00685/FUL
• Protect the agricultural, ecological, and visual character of Tower Lodge Farm
• Ensure equitable, borough-wide assessment of sustainable alternatives—especially on brownfield land
As I understand it a reduction in property values is not considered to be a reason for objection, but it will be a barrier to people moving elsewhere. If a family need to move for employment reasons and currently have, say, an 80% LTV mortgage then if they have to move they could potentially be in a negative equity situation. Consequently this could lead to financial hardship and likely a barrier to moving to take up employment elsewhere; for an unemployed person moving for employment reasons this would cause financial hardship with consequential mental health issues.
I believe that previous Planning has not always been respected, with retrospective Planning sought and not all applications have been approved. Have a look at the Planning Refusal on this link, and below that a failed appeal - application included storage of caravans. If this was refused, then why allow caravans now?
I appreciate that the Council are obliged under national legislation to find suitable sites for people from the Gypsy and Traveller Community, but in doing so they should also keep in mind the wellbeing of the many thousands of people already living and working in the immediate area.
Further efforts should be made by the Council to find their own sites and then adapt the DPD accordingly.
What plans do the Council have to ensure that the travelling community is integrated into the wider communities of Calderdale? It isn’t clear from the DPD.
Grassroots communication to residents needs to improve. There has been an over reliance on social media which not all residents use.
What are Bradford MBC’s views on the proposal, given the proximity of the site to the border between the two Boroughs? It appears from the DPD that neighbouring Councils have been asked for their views but it is not clear if any have been forthcoming from Bradford. This is is not acceptable given the boundary between the two Boroughs is less than a mile away in two directions.
Another concern is surface waters with the onset of climate change there is a serious risk of worsening flash floods on Score Hill and particularly running down into Landmere Syke. How is the Council going to evaluate and remediate this risk prior to any development taking place?
I would especially like to understand the Council's rationale in determining the owner of this site to be a fit and proper person to own and manage such an operation. A simple Google search reveals that he has a Criminal Record to include Drugs and Money Laundering and I am sure that the Police will be able to tell you that there is far more detail in the background than in the public domain. What due diligence have the Council conducted on the owner of of this proposed site, and why do they consider him a suitable operator?
The history of Planning Applications at this site is extensive, including an application to amend from Agricultural use to Equestrian use which would have been more in keeping with the area than residential. If Equestrian was not considered appropriate, there can be no reason for residential with the increased footfall and strain on infrastructure that would bring. It appears that Planning Authority decisions have not always been respected at this property. Planning Application for a bungalow-type structure was made retrospective to its construction at the site, and there are several entries on the Planning Portal relating to this including appeals against Council decisions and Enforcement Notices. If the owner of the site is prepared to act without Planning Consent as has been demonstrated, how can the Council be certain that any future Planning decisions will be respected?
The proposal is for some 12 pitches in one location. Placing more than half of Calderdale’s allocation in just one village is totally inequitable to the local community and will place unreasonable demands on local infrastructure.
Out of 41 sites considered for these 22 pitches, I cannot understand why none of the ones currently under consideration is on Council-owned land, or indeed why such a heavy concentration in one location is being contemplated. If the Council have determined that they do not have any suitable sites in their ownership, I would like to understand why they feel that to be the case; I suspect that a consideration was whether the Council have the resources to effectively manage the site. If they do not have adequate resources, I would like the Council to explain to me how they will effectively supervise a site with such numbers in one location especially given the known criminal past of the owner and a demonstrated inclination to disrespect Planning decisions.
It could put additional strain on the local Police, who to date I believe have only placed a generic statement about the site online. I feel that further in-depth advice on the wisdom of this site should be sought from the Police, as any social issues arising from this site will be their responsibility to manage.
There is a children's day nursery nearby, and these children enjoy escorted walks during the day. There are at least two/three Assisted Living sites in the locality, with residents also enjoying escorted walks. These walks may cease for fear of personal safety of the responsible adults, meaning these people will no longer benefit from healthy exercise. The Primary School undertakes Cycling Proficiency training on the roads around The Green.
Finally, I urge you to consider a more reasonable distribution of these sites across the whole of the Calderdale area, instead of expecting just one ward to shoulder the responsibility for housing more than half of these with the consequential strains on the community and it's infrastructure. There are 17 wards in Calderdale:
- Luddenfoot,
- Northowram & Shelf
- Brighouse
- Greetland & Stainland
- Ovenden
- Ryburn
- Todmorden
- Calder
- Hipperholme & Lightcliffe
- Park
- Skircoat
- Town
- Elland
- Illingworth & Mixenden
- Rastrick
- Sowerby Bridge
- Warley
Surely a much more balanced and fairer distribution should be possible throughout all of these wards which would mean a more reasonable number of pitches and people in each area.