Unauthorised Traveller site set to be refused planning permission, with officials alleging fraudulent support letters

Derbyshire Dales District Council is being encouraged to reject plans from Sonny Sykes for a two-pitch Traveller site on an agricultural field in Foxholes Lane, a mile north of Tansley, on the outskirts of Matlock.

The site is subject to a court-enforced injunction which prevents more than the three initial touring caravans, moved onto the site last July.

Council officials had also served an 11th-hour eviction notice last August detailing a next-day court hearing in Nottingham which drew the ire of Mark Simmonds, agent for the applicant and the district’s former head of planning, with a deferred hearing achieved.

Mr Simmonds had slammed the council’s actions as “heavy-handed, unfair, aggressive, disproportionate and disappointing”.

The family have vacated the site for some time following the court intervention.

If approved, the site would have space for pitching two touring caravans and parking two static caravans only.

The original planning application, filed retrospectively, weeks before the injunction and eviction notice, but after the family had moved onto the site, says Mr Sykes have “a very close family association with the local Traveller community” and one of the families in particular.

He said: “The council is asked to respectfully consider that there are evidenced circumstances of a local Gypsy and Traveller families which can be read against the council’s fundamental failure to provide sufficient allocations for Gypsy/Travellers in this district.

“What must be highlighted here is that due to the nature of this type of application, often being contentious and inflammatory, there is no 100 per cent perfect site for a Gypsy/ Traveller site.

“On this basis where can a council successfully fulfil their duty to provide a site and allow a settled base for a Gypsy/Traveller who has the right to settle to be close to family, attain medical treatment and school their children?”

Objections have been filed against the plans by Tansley Parish Council, the Environment Agency, 107 residents, alongside a 317-signature petition.

They cite the impact on the countryside, added congestion and alleged unsafe roads, the substantial distance from shops and services in an isolated rural location, lack of drainage and waste facilities and the risk of flooding and pollution.

The Environment Agency says permission ought to be refused unless they can demonstrate mitigation to remove the risk of pollution from waste.

Meanwhile, a total of 52 support letters have been submitted to the authority, but council officials say they have “serious concerns” that many are “not genuine”.

They say most of the letters were submitted in clusters, within minutes of one another, including five received from four different names between 00.23am and 00.40am on December 17, 2025.

Officers say the letters include many of the same phrases and errors which they claim indicates they are from the same author, despite different names and addresses being listed.

The council says some residents have contacted the authority saying their addresses have been used without their consent, with different names attached from people who do not live there.

Supporting letters nonetheless detail the lack of objection from highways officials regarding access and road safety, the council’s legal obligation to accommodate Traveller families.

Council officials also highlighted that the land was purchased by the family for its own use, “and done something DDDC has failed to do themselves”, suggesting objectors are discriminatory.

Council officials, recommending refusal, wrote: “Whilst it is not clear where the applicant and their family currently reside, a settled base would be in the best interests of the child such that they can attend school and more broadly would enable the family to have a consistent access to amenities and facilities, notwithstanding the concerns around sustainability.

“Overall, the development’s unsustainable siting weighs significantly against the development.

“The material change of use and associated operation development were carried out without planning permission. As such, it is considered that the unauthorised development was intentional.

“It is acknowledged that the refusal of planning permission, and subsequent enforcement action would interfere with the occupants’ rights under Article 8 and would have implications for a family.

“However, the interference would be in accordance with the law as it would pursue legitimate aims through the operation of planning law, including the protection of the character and appearance of the countryside, the promotion of sustainable patterns of development and movement, and the protection of the environment.”

A decision will be made at a special meeting of Derbyshire Dales District Council’s planning committee on Tuesday, September 30.