For the second time, in under a year the Stovolds Hill Gipsy Inquiry has been Adjourned due to illness striking down the Inspector.
Is the Waverley Web surprised? No way! We felt ill just listening to THE most confusing hearing we have ever had the misfortune to witness!
Two separate gipsy families who have lived on a site they own off Dunsfold Road, which is in the parish of Bramly a village five miles down the A281. Whose residents have probably never heard of the site adjacent to Dunsfold airfield.
Two families, Docherty, including their disabled members, have lived there for more than four years, while councils and other officials have battled to kick them out.
The fight began with ‘Your Waverleys’ refusal, which was then appealed and challenged in the High Court, where a judge ruled they could stay.
Why? We hear you cry? Because she found there was nowhere else for them to go, pending the results of yet more planning appeals.
Last October, halfway through the first day of the Inquiry, Inspector Richard Clegg fell ill. The hearing in the council’s Chamber boasted two barristers acting for the two separate gipsy families and one for Waverley Council. Earning circa £400 an hour each plus VAT. Kerching!
There was also a string of expert witnesses and members of the public.
ADJOURNED TO A FUTURE DATE.
So lots of dosh – including that of us, the ratepayer, sliding down the drain
Fast forward to June 3rd, the Inquiry re-convened for the second time. Same Inspectors, same families, same legal eagles, and teams of “experts.”
Four days into – one of the most confusing PI’s the WW has ever witnessed – during which even the Barristers were fighting among themselves. Waverley s Barrister David Lintott testily claiming that if the gipsy Barrister Alan Masters was allowed to cross-examine a Waverley Council witness –
“Then this public inquiry will never be finished”
By this time, it was already running two and a half days behind schedule. ‘
The inspector then, with a look of despair etched into his face, listened to this: in the link below.
The Dunsfold Toad Patrol is on the Gipsy’s case at a postponed public inquiry
That’s when the Waverley Web reached for our favourite Silent Pool Gin, and the inspector gave up the ghost of Gipsies & Travellers’ Past.
We respectfully offer a word of advice to the Government’s Inspectorate.
- Find an Inspector who is fit enough to stay the course with nerves of steel and the patience of Job and his brother Job’s Comforter.
- Ensure that two different appellant appeals are dealt with separately
- Ensure the unfortunate soul that has to hear the case is given all the proper paperwork before the appeal begins.
- And determine if the time limit during which an appeal should be heard has lapsed.
The Dunsfold Toad Patrol is on the Gipsy’s case at a postponed public inquiry
See Here; Confusion – Cock-up and controversy on day one of Stovolds Hill Gipsy Inquiry
WW are you SURE it is the Inspector that has done a Sicky?? I heard rumours that it was someone else – maybe someone that has “previous ” on this sort of thing? Worth Checking!!!
It’s funny how this website is consistently opposed to green field development in Waverley but not when the proposal is for caravans. What’s the logic here? I have a consented site in Alfold Crossways, presumably Waverley Web and its supporters would be in favour a resubmission for caravans?
Absolute nonsense from someone who has little understanding of planning rules regarding the provision of gipsy accommodation! WBC and other councils have a statutory duty to meet the needs of gipsy families in their area. Fact. The WW is not opposed to building in the countryside in sustainable locations. Alfold is not a sustainable location, it is remote from schools, medical facilities, transport – including railway stations and has no village shop only a petrol station, with an expensive food store. Its basic amenities including electricity , sewage disposal, has no gas andg has taken far more homes than any other village location in Waverley. If you have a consented site in Alfold Crossways so be it – build it out. In the meantime leave the gipsies out of your argument to build over the countryside.
Ah Mr Web – can I quote you? “Alfold is not a sustainable location, it is remote from schools, medical facilities, transport – including railway stations and has no village shop only a petrol station, with an expensive food store. Its basic amenities including electricity , sewage disposal, has no gas andg has taken far more homes than any other village location in Waverley.”
You have never said that for the past 10 years when you have inexplicably extolled the merits of 5000 homes to be built at Dunsfold Park. Why?
SIMPLES. Dunsfold Park is a brownfield site with a planning consent which includes a 105 legal agreement to include infrastructure including a school and medical facilities. The very same services that all the wannabe developers in Alfold have hung !heir hats on every time they appear in front of a Government `Planning `inspector. And it has consent for 1,800 homes and not 5,000!v So check your facts – Factchecker!
I was quoting you: 5000 homes at Dunsfold Park (your piece in Farnham Society Newsletter)
You listed the unsustainablity because of absence of rail station, bus services, schools, road infrastructure etc…. which makes DP equally unsustainable. Calling it technically a brownfield site is immaterial – unless you count the forever toxins in the soil, and water…
The WW does not write in the Farnham Society Newsletter! As for Dunsfold being equally unacceptable ask Waverley `planners, ask the High Court As for its suitability for housing – ask the residents of Alfold who are sick and tired of developers concreting over their countryside.
Stovids Hill is no more sustainable that Alfold in fact its arguably less sustainable. This website has an obvious double standard regarding new build development on green field land. Those in favour of development in Alfold have regularly pointed out that WBC has a “duty” to meet it housing target….this website routinely rejects that argument. Is the duty to provide pitches for travellers somehow more serious than the duty to provide houses for Londoners fleeing the vibrant diversity of that city?