Traveller site appeals to be considered at same inquiry (From Bucks Free Press)
Send your news, photos and videos by texting bucksfreepress to 80360 or email
Sites in Flackwell Heath and Walters Ash will be considered at same inquiry
4:42pm Thursday 6th September 2012 in News By Rebecca Cain
The Walters Ash site in August 2011
APPEALS against planning refusal for two travellers sites at Walters Ash and Flackwell Heath will be considered at the same inquiry.
A public inquiry into a travellers site outside the RAF base in Walters Ash was adjourned once again.
The inquiry reconvened yesterday to consider an appeal against the refusal of Wycombe District Council to officially allow the retrospective application at the site at The Hedgerows. (See links below)
It started in June but was adjourned to consider an alternative site in Flackwell Heath.
A planning application was put forward by one of the travellers, Gerard O'Connor, for a site in The Nursery at 128, Heath End Road, but this was also refused by councillors last month.
Yesterday the appellants’ counsel Mr Masters said they had not had enough time to consider the reasons given by the council for refusing permission on the alternative scheme.
A request was put in for appeals for both sites to be dealt with at the same time, which has been accepted.
The inquiry was adjourned until a later date, which is yet to be confirmed, where the planning inspectorate will consider both appeals.
Comments(14)
J B Blackett
says...
6:58pm Thu 6 Sep 12
.
They want to live a nice green field in the countryside. I would. Wouldn't you ?
Flackwell
says...
8:36am Fri 7 Sep 12
sai-diva
says...
1:31pm Fri 7 Sep 12
rem708 wrote:As we do for every enquiry, be it by some wealthy millionaire who wants to block a public footpath, or a traveller.That's the system.
I bet we tax payers are footing the bill for this inquiry!
This is green belt so leave it that way. If the travelers want to purchase ground to put down 'roots' then there is a lot of brown fill sites available or even ground already classified for housing.
May be they, like every one else don't want to live on contaminated brown sites, and are trying like many developers before them to get permission to use land that has had commercial buildings on it.
washondo
says...
3:14pm Fri 7 Sep 12
~
They are an anachronism for which the general public has no responsibility - their choice how they live; why expect others to pay for it, or their quasi-"legal" representation.
sai-diva
says...
3:36pm Fri 7 Sep 12
tigeran
says...
4:07pm Fri 7 Sep 12
tigeran
says...
4:46pm Fri 7 Sep 12
sai-diva wrote:Er, hang on. They did just drive onto both sites, they have a form of residence there already so they did break the law. Will they move if eventually they are still denied it? Not without a shove! They did their usual thing, park up, set up and stuff everyone including the law! They are trouble makers through and through.
Maybe they want to stop being referred to as travellers and want some security for themselves. They have done it correctly this time by applying for planning permission before driving on and yet still they get castigated. We all know the chances of them getting permission is minimal, but I would imagine the odds would be better if it were a developer with money to influence the planning process, who was applying.All you objectors should start hoping that it's not an application for high density housing in a few years time.
tigeran
says...
4:50pm Fri 7 Sep 12
sai-diva wrote:"The inquiry reconvened yesterday to consider an appeal against the refusal of Wycombe District Council to officially allow the retrospective application at the site at The Hedgerows"
Maybe they want to stop being referred to as travellers and want some security for themselves. They have done it correctly this time by applying for planning permission before driving on and yet still they get castigated. We all know the chances of them getting permission is minimal, but I would imagine the odds would be better if it were a developer with money to influence the planning process, who was applying.All you objectors should start hoping that it's not an application for high density housing in a few years time.
Oh look, "retrospective application". Does that not mean they actually DIDNT do it the right way after all?................
................. Who would have thought?!
washondo
says...
6:50pm Fri 7 Sep 12
~
The law has been broken - to keep the legal profession employed at the public's expense?
~
Elect judges outwith the legal profession who live in the real world and have the ability to interpret objectives when laws were enacted.
~
Appeal following judgement and enforcement.
J B Blackett
says...
6:50pm Fri 7 Sep 12
.
And they did move in in 2011 and started building a few days after they'd been on the site. Then they applied for retrospective planning permission - which anyone can do - but it is a risky thing to do.
.
However this current government is going to relax the planning laws so it may not be as risky in the future. That's according to David Cameron anyway - it must be true it was on the BBC News and Newsnight this week..
Thamed
says...
8:20pm Sat 8 Sep 12
-they are leeches/ spongers/freeloaders
-they smell, are filthy, leave mess
-they lie, cheat and scam and go ''on the rob''
-they play the victim card
-and one simply does not want this sort of pondlife in our back yard
One likes to drink one's morning Earl Grey with a view of rolling green English hills unblighted by this vermin in their trailers!! Now BOG OFF!
sai-diva
says...
5:19pm Sun 9 Sep 12
tigeran wrote:I wasn't aware that they had driven onto the Flackwell Heath site so I apolgise, but even so, a JB says any one can apply for retrospective planning permission, there are enough cases that appear in the pages of the bfp, not just from travellers, some win, some don't, some fight their cases for years, remember the 'stable block' just off of Cryers Hill? Can't see how you come to the conclusion that this particular gentleman and his family are trouble makers though, the site at Walters Ash seems tidy and well cared for, no one seems to be complaing about a rise in crime or civil disturbance. Are you making a bit of a sweeping statement here just because these people don't fit in with your blinkered view of travellers?
sai-diva wrote:Er, hang on. They did just drive onto both sites, they have a form of residence there already so they did break the law. Will they move if eventually they are still denied it? Not without a shove! They did their usual thing, park up, set up and stuff everyone including the law! They are trouble makers through and through.
Maybe they want to stop being referred to as travellers and want some security for themselves. They have done it correctly this time by applying for planning permission before driving on and yet still they get castigated. We all know the chances of them getting permission is minimal, but I would imagine the odds would be better if it were a developer with money to influence the planning process, who was applying.All you objectors should start hoping that it's not an application for high density housing in a few years time.
J B Blackett
says...
2:46am Mon 10 Sep 12
.
Strangely, I think they originally come from Iceland and were quite popular with a few people a while ago.
rem708 says...
5:40pm Thu 6 Sep 12
This is green belt so leave it that way. If the travelers want to purchase ground to put down 'roots' then there is a lot of brown fill sites available or even ground already classified for housing.