But is it over before it’s begun?

Four parish councils, including Alfold, Dunsfold, Bramley, and Hascombe, joined Waverley Council to prevent the development of further sites for gypsies and travellers on Stovolds Hill.

Midway through the first day of proceedings, Government Inspector Richard Clegg called a halt due to his ill health.

The Waverley Notice:

He told the assembled crowd of legal eagles, expert witnesses, appellants, and planning and environmental experts that he was adjourning the Inquiry and that the office (The Inspectorate) would contact them on a date to be set.

He said he was “really sorry” but needed to be fully focused on the evidence he was about to hear.

The Inquiry promises to be a highly complicated and controversial hearing.

So, a question mark now hangs over when the Inquiry will re-convene.

The Inspector was expected to hear evidence for and against four appeals from various sources concerning land north of Lydia Park, Stovolds Hill, and Cranleigh in the parish of Bramley.

APPEAL A BY MR T DOHERTY (APP/R3650/W/22/3313865) – 1 GYPSY/ TRAVELLER PITCH APPEAL B BY MR S DOHERTY (APP/R3650/W/23/3314447) – 3 GYPSY/ TRAVELLER PITCHES APPEAL C BY MR M & MRS A DOHERTY (APP/R3650/W/23/3322400) – 1 GYPSY/ TRAVELLER PITCH APPEAL D BY MR M DOHERTY (APP/R3650/W/22/3323108) – 1 GYPSY/ TRAVELLER PITCH

 

Waverley is basing much of its case on the over-concentration of gypsies and travellers in a protected landscape—adjacent to existing legal sites where gypsies have lived for decades. In these sites, planning consent has been granted.

WW apologises for the poor quality of the maps and location plans.

The Inquiry heard that Waverley Council had no up-to-date Gypsy and Traveller Assessment (GTA) or a five-year supply of sites. It was also criticised for not publishing its latest gypsy site assessment, which reveals a vast under-provision, despite having been carried out.

Whilst there were early submissions from both sides—the appellant’s counsel and Waverley’s—much of the half-day proceedings centred around Alfold Parish Council’s objections to the further development north of Stovolds Hill.  

The proposed Dunsfold Garden Village, which would include approximately 2,500 new homes, separates the village of Alfold from the appeal site, which is actually in the parish of Bramley.

Travellers have occupied the appeal site for years since a High Court Judge determined they could remain there as Waverley had made no provision for the families elsewhere. He would not put them on the roadside with their complex health needs – including cystic fibrosis and Downs syndrome.

Cllr Chris Britton spoke on behalf of the community of Alfold, though he omitted to publicly tell the Inspector he was one of the 21 homeowners of the settlement of Stovolds Hill.

The thrust of his objection was the over-domination of existing gypsy and traveller sites in Stovolds Hill and the spectre of a favourable decision of the current appeal that could signal more. He argued housing three families on a former field could herald many more. He was highly critical of a previous appeal decision of sites called Yellowstone Park and Weeping Willows, which had resulted in a huge influx of people into the area following advertisements on the open market. 

Counsel for the Doherty family, Mr Alan Masters, argued that the real “elephant in the room” was Waverley Borough Council’s failure to enforce conditions on the extensions to Lydia Park, not the appeal site.

 “The real problem here and the elephant in the room has nothing to do with the planning permission on the adjacent site but with the policing of those living there by the local authority. It is fantastically over-crowded and is being rented out, because the council is not enforcing the conditions on the site, that’s the real problem here isn’t it Mr Britton. There are 211 caravans there opposed to the 64 pitches allowed  – three times as many as have been allowed.

The Inspector interjected by saying it was confusing—typically when allowing 64 pitches, it also includes a touring caravan.

Well said, Mr Masters- let’s call it an extra 100. So there’s the problem. We have roughly double the number that should be allowed. Your problem is  Waverley is not enforcing conditions. This could be the result of your claim Mr Britton of anti-social behaviour . The problem is not the six extra people the subject of this appeal but the extra  people living there by way of the council not enforcing conditions?

The council has acknowledged there is overcrowding there. They readily admit it.

When asked what steps the parish council had taken, Mr Britton said it worked closely with Waverley and frequently reported its concerns. In particular, caravans were being advertised for rental on the open market. However, he didn’t believe that issue should be resolved at the current Inquiry, saying,

“We are where we are with the current enforcement situation.” 

Said Mr Masters:

The real issue here is the lack of enforcement action by the local authority, not the extra six caravans that are seeking retrospective planning permission. That pales into insignificance compared to the 100 that shouldn’t be there!

To be continued:

The cross-examination of Mr Britton, which included matters referring to Dunsfold Park Garden Village. 

---