Travellers put in planning application following four year dispute

File photo from Hemley Hill in 2010

File photo from Hemley Hill in 2010

First published in News Bucks Free Press: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

TRAVELLERS have put in a retrospective planning application for caravans at Hemley Hill, despite being given marching orders last summer after more than a four year dispute.

The latest planning application to Wycombe District Council was put in just before Christmas by Messrs Doran.

They have applied for retrospective planning permission for a private gypsy/ traveller site for four families including four mobile homes, four touring caravans and four utility buildings.

Last summer three of the country's top judges rejected an appeal for a previous planning application by Kathleen Murphy for nine gypsy pitches with associated buildings.

The travellers moved onto the Green Belt and AONB land near Princes Risborough in 2009, after Patrick Hanrahan bought the site.

WDC issued an enforcement notice and a long legal battle began, ending at London's Court of Appeal last July, when the families on the site were given 18 months to leave.

Spokesman for WDC, Nick Sykes, said: "I can confirm that a new planning application has been made on the land for a traveller site comprising four pitches, the details can be seen on the council’s ‘Public Access’ system on the council website. "The planning application reference is 13/08157/FUL.

"Under planning legislation the council will be expected to determine the application as it would any other planning application. The past history of the site will be taken into consideration in any decision made."

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:17pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

I think the travellers should stop trying to ignore the rules - if Wimpey's attempted to build on green belt we would all (quite rightly) be up in arms at their arrogance and selfishness.

The people who own the land knew its status when they bought it. This is just an attempt to bulldoze through the rules - they should take 'no' for an answer now.

This is the kind of behaviour that gets travellers a bad name.

I hope they have a good expensive lawyer representing them.
I think the travellers should stop trying to ignore the rules - if Wimpey's attempted to build on green belt we would all (quite rightly) be up in arms at their arrogance and selfishness. The people who own the land knew its status when they bought it. This is just an attempt to bulldoze through the rules - they should take 'no' for an answer now. This is the kind of behaviour that gets travellers a bad name. I hope they have a good expensive lawyer representing them. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 13

5:17pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

Well ... an expensive lawyer anyway.
Well ... an expensive lawyer anyway. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 9

6:46pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Dickitdo says...

Undercover Euro Yob wrote:
I think the travellers should stop trying to ignore the rules - if Wimpey's attempted to build on green belt we would all (quite rightly) be up in arms at their arrogance and selfishness.

The people who own the land knew its status when they bought it. This is just an attempt to bulldoze through the rules - they should take 'no' for an answer now.

This is the kind of behaviour that gets travellers a bad name.

I hope they have a good expensive lawyer representing them.
What would they have to do to get a good name apart from going back to Ireland, and staying there , and I am not sure that would qualify them for the good name category ! , but I can think of a lot of Names that they do qualify for ! .
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote: I think the travellers should stop trying to ignore the rules - if Wimpey's attempted to build on green belt we would all (quite rightly) be up in arms at their arrogance and selfishness. The people who own the land knew its status when they bought it. This is just an attempt to bulldoze through the rules - they should take 'no' for an answer now. This is the kind of behaviour that gets travellers a bad name. I hope they have a good expensive lawyer representing them.[/p][/quote]What would they have to do to get a good name apart from going back to Ireland, and staying there , and I am not sure that would qualify them for the good name category ! , but I can think of a lot of Names that they do qualify for ! . Dickitdo
  • Score: 15

11:18am Sat 18 Jan 14

grazza49 says...

And so it goes on......
This time WS Architecture and Planning in Reigate is representing the "travellers" probably because Messrs. Green and Masters know that they can make no more money out of this farce now that the original planning application has been turned down by the highest courts in England. So what we have here is another attempt which is unlikely to be successful with regards to the travellers wants whilst their representatives make money by using them as pawns. How much of our tax money has already been spent (wasted?) by WDC, the government etc. fighting these people so far?
It appears to me that the only winners are the legal representatives, consultants etc. who are lining their pockets at our expense arguing cases on technicalities which they are will not win.
Enough is enough - the travellers are not the only "spongers" in this scenario - sort the law out so people understand that when a decision is made that's it, end of game!
BTW, has the £4K costs demanded by the courts from the last appelant been received yet?
And so it goes on...... This time WS Architecture and Planning in Reigate is representing the "travellers" probably because Messrs. Green and Masters know that they can make no more money out of this farce now that the original planning application has been turned down by the highest courts in England. So what we have here is another attempt which is unlikely to be successful with regards to the travellers wants whilst their representatives make money by using them as pawns. How much of our tax money has already been spent (wasted?) by WDC, the government etc. fighting these people so far? It appears to me that the only winners are the legal representatives, consultants etc. who are lining their pockets at our expense arguing cases on technicalities which they are will not win. Enough is enough - the travellers are not the only "spongers" in this scenario - sort the law out so people understand that when a decision is made that's it, end of game! BTW, has the £4K costs demanded by the courts from the last appelant been received yet? grazza49
  • Score: 10

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree