Janta and Merav Wheelhouse. at their Picklescott home

A Shropshire couple have lost a High Court bid to be allowed to remain living in a caravan on their eco-friendly farm.

James and Merav Wheelhouse moved with their two sons to Karuna – their 18-acre home at Picklescott, near Shrewsbury – five years ago, with the aim of living a self-sufficient existence.

But they were ordered off the land for not having gained planning permission for their home.

They were ordered to move in October 2007 by the former Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council, which said they had not sought planning permission to set up home on the site – which is earmarked for agricultural use.

That decision was upheld by Government planning inspector Claire Sherratt in January last year, following an appeal by the Wheelhouses.

The couple yesterday took their fight to the High Court in London, where lawyers argued Ms Sherratt didn’t adequately consider their human rights when reaching her conclusion.

They also said the inspector did not take enough account of the effect eviction would have on Mrs Wheelhouse, who suffers from Huntington’s Disease.

But their challenge was dismissed by Mr Justice Lindblom, who said the inspector had considered these factors and made no “error of law”.

The court heard Karuna is within the Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding National Beauty and the land is therefore given the “highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty”.

David Watkinson, representing the Wheelhouses, argued the inspector hadn’t considered the couple’s entitlement – under the Human Rights Act – to “respect for their family life”.

He also said she failed to sufficiently take into account the positive effects that living on the farm and being “engaged in the enterprise” have on Mrs Wheelhouse’s health.

But, dismissing the challenge, Mr Justice Lindblom said the inspector’s decision was “realistic and reasonable” and she had considered all the relevant factors in the appeal.

He added: “In my judgment, the overall balance was rightly struck and the inspector’s decision is not to be criticised in that respect.”