Gypsy site decision expected in one month (From Bucks Free Press)

Planning inquiry into Hemley Hill gypsy site finished today

6:13pm Monday 16th August 2010 in Risborough By Rebecca Cain

THE public inquiry which will decide whether gypsies can stay at a site in Hemley Hill finished today with a decision expected in a month's time.

The final witness- chartered town planner Phillip Hughes for the Hemley Hill Action Group- gave evidence followed by closing submissions from the three main parties.

The inquiry started a month ago for four days and was adjourned until today.

Planning inspector, Alan Upward, will now consider the travellers' appeals against the enforcement notice given by Wycombe District Council in September and the refusal of planning permission for nine gypsy and traveller pitches at the site.

Mr Hughes said the appeal site in Upper Icknield Way causes “substantial harm” to the Green Belt, to the Chiltern Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and to the openness of the area.

He said the site also has “adverse impact on the amenity of the occupants of neighbouring properties.”

The gypsies moved there during the Easter weekend 2009. A row of houses in Shootacre Lane back onto the site.

Mr Hughes said the residents have experienced problems with noise, light and air pollution.

James Pereira, representing the group, said the site causes planning harm “to the visual amenity of the Green Belt, to the AONB, to residential amenity and harm by reason of the non-provision of a section 106 obligation to make financial contributions as required by policy.”

He said, whether or not, there are special circumstances they clearly outweigh the harm.

Robin Green, representing Wycombe District Council, said evidence from Gypsy and Traveller Services Officer Rachel Dillon showed no unauthorised encampments in the district in 2008, two in 2009 and two in 2010. He said: “This information does not suggest a significant unmet need, quite the reverse.”

Mr Green said the occupiers of the site “suggest they have nowhere else to go” but “it is also material to have regard to the occupiers' responsibility for the position they find themselves in”.

He suggested potential, alternative sites including Haddenham, which has now reverted to Buckinghamshire County Council possession, conventional social housing, the Western Turville site in Aylesbury Vale and the proposed Dry Banks site in Stokenchurch.

Alan Masters, representing the gypsies, said the council has a “very poor” record of gypsy site provision” and “there is no public site in the Wycombe District.”

Mr Masters said there seems to be “no dispute” that there is substantial need in the district and sub district region. He said Wycombe is further advanced in identifying sites “but that the time period for suitable alternative sites” is likely to be five years.

He said, therefore, the gypsies should not be moved on until sites are identified in Wycombe where they can move to.

He said the residents' case is “hypocritical to say the least” because they have created an “urban form of development in the Green Belt by the garden extensions/ curtilage extensions they have created to the land between their residencies and the sites.”

He said as the council has “tolerated the residents' development” but not the travellers “they are in clear breach of the equality code of conduct.”

Earlier Mr Green said the residents of Shootacre Lane acquired the lane behind their rear gardens and “the lawful use of those parcels is for agriculture.”

Mr Masters said the appellants personal need should be taken into consideration including health needs, educational needs and the personal need for accommodation.

The decision is estimated to take one month.