River Lane travellers' site appeal to be determined by Eric Pickles
THE future of an unauthorised gypsy site in Leatherhead rests with a government minister after a long-running dispute.
In December Mole Valley District Council (MVDC) rejected three applications for "permanent use of the land as a gypsy and traveller caravan site" in River Lane.
-
One of the plots at the travellers' site in River Lane, Leatherhead
The families on the site appealed against the decision, but Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, has decided to determine the appeal himself.
The decision will be heard by a planning inspector at a public inquiry before the inspector takes the findings to Mr Pickles for a decision.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
Councillor Simon Ling, MVDC member for planning, said: "We did not expect the decision to have this appeal determined by the Secretary of State.
"However, this will not change the approach that we take in representing the council at appeal, nor the process of enforcement that was agreed at the development control committee meeting on February 1.
"We understand the national significance of the debate on traveller sites, and in that respect we hope that whatever decision is made by the Secretary of State about the future of this site will provide greater certainty in future similar cases both here and elsewhere."
In 2007 a planning inspector granted four years' temporary permission to give MVDC time to find alternative sites, but none were identified by the council.
After permission lapsed, the Gypsies applied for permanent permission, but this was rejected by councillors on December 7, against the advice of council officers.
"This battle has been going on too long," said Susan King, who lives at the site.
"It's not necessary and it's wasting taxpayers' money, they are spending it on something that shouldn't have come around.
"They had four years to find us an alternative site and they couldn't, so they were recommended to give permanent permission. We really hope it does get resolved."
Susan Wood lives opposite the site in River Lane and is one of three families who have opposed the development.
She said: "I suppose it's nice to think we are actually going to get a final decision, whatever happens.
"That would be wonderful because they've been dragging it in and out of court and the council for coming on nine years now.
"For both sides it would be nice to know where we stand."
Any decision by the Secretary of State can be challenged in the High Court if an application is made within six weeks of the date of the decision.
Comments
by exsurrey
Thursday, February 16 2012, 2:36PM
“Spelling help
Gypsy can also be spelled Gipsy, with an i: both are correct.
also:
Gyp·sy also Gip·sy (jps)
n. pl. Gyp·sies also Gip·sies
1. A member of a people that arrived in Europe in migrations from northern India around the 14th century, now also living in North America and Australia. Many Gypsy groups have preserved elements of their traditional culture, including an itinerant existence and the Romany language.
2. See Romany.
3. gypsy One inclined to a nomadic, unconventional way of life.
4. A person who moves from place to place as required for employment, especially:
a. A part-time or temporary member of a college faculty.
b. A member of the chorus line in a theater production.”
by MarkSurrey
Thursday, February 16 2012, 1:44PM
“exsurrey, once again you spout off without finding out anything of the situation. There is sanitation on the land. There is already a bungalow built on the land. The issue is whether a couple of caravans can stay. Also Gipsies is not acceptable, Gypsies, Gypsy and Gipsy Not Gipsies see Oxford dictionary.”
by exsurrey
Thursday, February 16 2012, 11:46AM
“MarkSurrey, the land that they have bought is not for habitation. You can't just buy a plot of land, live on it and build a dwelling(s) on it. No sanitation etc., possibly green belt land, etc. Why should the council grant them planning? They don't grant planning easily for anyone unless it's a massive development (that also nobody wants) such as the South East Plan!
And, FYI, Gipsies is perfectly acceptable. Look it up. Look up wood work vs woodwork while you are at it.”
by MarkSurrey
Thursday, February 16 2012, 8:43AM
“Firstly exsurrey, they are NOT technically breaking any law yet. Secondly you spell Gypsies with a Y and thirdly there is no reason for them to break the law if council would just grant them planning. If this was just a normal householder you would all be saying don't waste the councils (which we give them through our council tax) money, give the Gypsies the planning permission but you hear the word gypsies and all the old bigoted views pop out of the wood work. Even the ones that can't spell! Please don't get me wrong, i am not a protector of anarchy the planning laws are there to protect residents and the land from over development and dangerous developments. In this particular case neither of these things is breached, so I'm saying let them have it and leave them alone.”
by exsurrey
Wednesday, February 15 2012, 4:21PM
“"I dont know why they just cant leave these people alone"
Because they are breaking the law. Should there be one law for gipsies and one for everyone else? They should be able to buy land cheaply and develop it?”
by nicecityboy
Wednesday, February 15 2012, 1:18PM
“Just as the Dale Farm "travellers" were thrown out, I expect these gypsies to be evicted too. Anything less and the council have failed us. They are law breakers and we should not allow people to break our laws.
If they had the correct permission to live on the site then no problem but the FACT is that they don't, so they should be kicked out.”
by MarkSurrey
Wednesday, February 15 2012, 1:05PM
“nicecityboy, you've just shown your bias and ignorance by using the "paving your drive" statement I'm not sticking up for "them" as you put it, but unlike you i do not have a closed mind, i don't see what harm they are doing. Also you say "you live next to them there are no neighbours in rive lane, so your argument fails there too. You know nothing of this particular case you have just let your inbuilt bias and bigotry take over. I agree there are some bad and nasty gypsies about, but then there are some right nasty people in all walks of life. They have to have somewhere to live, they are not doing anyone any harm leave them alone.”
by nicecityboy
Wednesday, February 15 2012, 12:10PM
“MarkSurrey why don't you try living next to them and see how it goes?
Maybe get them to pave your driveway while you are at it, cash up front of course.
Why are you sticking up for them out of curiosity?”
by MarkSurrey
Tuesday, February 14 2012, 6:41PM
“Nicecityboy, believe me I'm not lover of people not paying taxes but you are generalising. The people at river lane work and as far as i can guess probably do pay taxes. If i were them and i read what you have written i would sue you for defamation. As far as i can see, they are not there illegally they own the land, I really feel before spouting off you should actually learn a little bit about what your talking of about. Typical of some people you mention traveller or gypsy and out come the stereo types. I for one try to keep an open mind.”