Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Traveller site in Liphook - Lorac (25th Feb 2015 - 09:34:23) Yesterday I walked along Chiltley Lane from my house to see this new traveller site that has emerged seemingly from nowhere. They have bought a field situated midway down from ~Chiltley Lane and Devils Lane and have covered half the field with a tarmaced surface contrary to the regulations against laying any hardcore or hard standing surface, placed four caravans on site, erected a brand new fence which divides the field in half pretty much and are in process of creating a hard drive at the entrance. Their address is 1 to 6 Highfield Farm. Are we to assume that an itinerant group of travellers is about to take up residence in one of the areas of Liphook which is deemed to be of natural and historic interest, and to be allowed to flout planning laws despite a notice put up in the area which forbids the laying of hardcore or hardstanding? Also, at the Haslemere road end of Devils Lane I noticed another site on which is placed a rather substantial mobile home and various sheds, a large metal gate with a`private property, keep out` notice and all guarded by an alsatian dog tied up by the gate. Is this part of the above development of travellers? This address is `Hilltop Stables` I am concerned that we will end up having refuse and sewage problems eventually with all the concomitant issues that arise with traveller sites and their ilk.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Val (25th Feb 2015 - 10:03:39) Hope this answers your questions. As you will see application 52747/008 is for permanent permission, (they already had a temporary 3-year permission), and permanent permission was refused by East Hants. They went to appeal and permanent permission was granted. Application 52747/009 is being processed and is self explanatory. It appears from what you have said that the applicants have pre-empted this and have started moving onto the site. 52747/008 Alternative Reference: PP-03399595 852/314 Application Received: 19 May 2014 Address: Hill Top Stables, Devils Lane, Liphook, GU30 7DB Proposal: Variation of conditions 1 and 2 of 52747/005 for permanent planning permission for the use of the land for the keeping of horses, two stables blocks, stationing of caravans for residential occupation for single gypsy family, hard standing, septic tank and utility room and the removal of named occupiers. Status: Appeal Decided Appeal Decision: Allow 52747/009 Alternative Reference: 851/311 Application Received: 30 Jan 2015 Address: Land East of, Devils Lane, Liphook Proposal: Change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site for 6 gypsy families, each with 2 caravans, erection of 6 amenity buildings, laying of hardstanding and construction of access road. Status: Deposited (ie valid and registered) Appeal Decision:

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - L (25th Feb 2015 - 10:43:50) I saw this yesterday too whilst walking my dog. It upset me to be honest. I am not a snob at all but I can't believe this is allowed to happen. I'm obviously very Naive as I would hope that the Council or police would act on this until a decision is made.......

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Another Resident (25th Feb 2015 - 12:50:55) The Gypsies have taken over this field without any forethought to the countryside, the people of Liphook who use this lane as recreation, to the residents , and to the children who walk this lane to Highfield and Brookham schools, or the pupils of Bohunt school. They wonder why they are regarded with contempt when they treat society the way they do. The laws allowing them to do this are outdated and crass, and should be overturned. It does make you wonder why we all go about as law abiding citizens when it appears to be under the barrier of the law is the way to go. At some point we have got to stand up and say "no more" To those that stand up for this behaviour perhaps we can all come and park our cars near you and chuck rubbish around.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Keith (25th Feb 2015 - 17:20:09) As one or possibly several of the travellers appears to have purchased the land in question prior to moving on to it, should not most of the angst expressed in this thread be expressed against the person who sold them the land rather than the travellers themselves? If they had refused to sell, the issue would not have arisen. Anyone (you don't have to be a traveller), can purchase a piece of land, erect a house, and apply for planning retrospectively - so there is nothing 'special' about travellers in that regard, in that respect they have no more rights than you or I. The risk is not getting planning permission, in which case the house has to be removed, which is clearly much simpler if it is essentially mobile in the first place. I have read through a number of the comments on the plans on the EHDC website and most of them are distinctly nimby (not in my back yard) and hostile. So here's a challenge for you - if you don't want them where they are now, where within Bramshott and Liphook would you like them to go (and saying not in our parish is not an option), so please- fire away with your suggestions.....

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Another Resident (25th Feb 2015 - 18:31:57) Keith, Where they originally came from. They did not suddenly spring out of nowhere. Most have or had houses. The naivety of your post is astounding!!

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - tony (25th Feb 2015 - 19:55:46) Lorac, I went for a cycle today along devils Lane, along Chiltley and Highfield Lanes. I thought the stable looked quite nice, a big open field with a caravan and horses, exactly what I would hope to see along that picturesque lane, I was concerned about the new caravan site at the top, although to be fair that was a rather overgrown and neglected area around the footpath. Of more concern, I saw several more big new houses (massive types) along Chiltley Lane that can be seen (and spoil the view from Highfield Lane AND another big house or two being going up on Highfield Lane! Those, in conjunction with all the hundreds of new houses being planned for Liphook must really worry us all more. Unless of course, this is just good old prejudice. A country village/town should (and always has) accomodated a few travellers, are we really so scared that we want to live in a glorified old folks museum for retired estate agents, alongside hundreds of new homes for immigrants from across the world, fine, very PC, but when it comes to travellers, we scream "NOT HERE!" Oh, the house prices, I forgot. I own a house very nearby, yet somehow I doubt a few caravans in a country village is going to knock much off our average three quarters of a million quid castles. So chill out. It's only a few caravans in a field,if they ever want to build a mega site, I'll be right behind you with the burning torches! Personally I'm against all intrusive developments in this lovely area, NIMBY, hypocrite and proud of it, but I'll treat everyone equally.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - - (25th Feb 2015 - 22:30:29) prejudice: Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. racism: The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Keith (26th Feb 2015 - 08:40:52) Another resident - interesting that you accuse me of naivety yet you lack the courage in your convictions to reveal even your forename (unless of course 'Another resident' really is your name in which case I take that back and would be interested by your parentage). I fail to see what is naive about my post. I am well versed in planning law, having spoken both for local authorities and for applicants at a number of planning inquiries and such is my interest in planning I attended all but one day of the public examination of the EHDC/SDNP Joint Core Strategy and have also in the past been invited to address EHDC cabinet on planning matters (I should add before anyone leaps to a conclusion, I have not been engaged on this case by either the applicants, any of the objectors, EHDC or SDNP so I am expressing a completely personal opinion) - nonetheless I am confident that everything I wrote about the right to build and then apply for planning permission retrospectively is most certainly true (if you don't believe me, pay for a session with a planning lawyer and check it out for yourself). So I suspect what you are really saying is it is ok for a landowner to sell the land and pocket the proceeds (with zero benefit to the community) as long as the 'nasty' (your implication not mine) travellers don't actually seek to live on it. Whether these people lived somewhere else before is immaterial - they have clearly stated in the design and access statement (I assume you have read it) that they wish to live in Liphook to ensure good schooling for their children - you should actually take that as a complement to Liphook - the school's good reputation has obviously become a factor in deciding where to settle. So, to return to my original question, where else in Liphook or Bramshott would you like to see them locate their mobile homes given that you clearly don't like them where they are now? - not a vague 'back to where they came from'; a specific road/location please...

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Ian (26th Feb 2015 - 09:11:33) Good luck Keith if you think you are going to get a rational and mature response on this debate. Any individual or group of individuals that flout planning regulations should be held to account, both by the general public and the appropriate authorities. However as is obvious on many threads relating to travellers the debate often moves away from the specific issue and descends into prejudicial generalisation and in some cases borderline racism. There are many cases locally where other property owners put up extensions, outbuildings etc without the proper planning process being followed but do we see the same reaction and outcry?

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - liz (26th Feb 2015 - 09:11:56) How long do you think it will be before an application for housing is made for this site? I give it a couple of years.....

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Keith (26th Feb 2015 - 09:37:38) Ian - I 100% agree with you

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Cornelia (26th Feb 2015 - 10:29:24) In response to the person who stated that other people put up extensions etc to their houses without first obtaining planning permission but no one objects (but I think some do) the operative word here is HOUSES! If you live in a house you are paying community charges, water and sewage charges, rates that cover refuse disposal and a house is visually better than a collection of ramshackle caravans. How do the travellers intend to deal with their detritus, and as has been noted in a letter to Mss L. Wells, case officer, there seem to be no proposals for, and I quote, `the maintenance of public hygiene such as acceptable refuse collect, or the collection and disposal of waste and soil water drainage generated by such a development`

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - val (26th Feb 2015 - 11:35:54) First of all let me correct Keith. People do object to people putting up extensions or doing any building work prior to planning permission being granted. It doesn’t attract the same hue and outcry, as he puts it, as travellers moving on to a site without planning permission, because it doesn’t affect the same number of people. Let me assure you on that point people DO complain and the position is rectified either by retrospective planning permission being granted or the perpetrators having to demolish the structure whatever it is. However I think it is fair to say that the majority of people do go through the proper planning channels. The difference is Keith, that gypsies/travellers in 9 cases out of 10 usually get their way – study some recent cases not just in East Hants but countrywide. That is why they do it and the law as it stands allows this. My post is not about the way they live, but the unfairness of the law of the land. Travellers can buy sites at agricultural prices outside development areas which would never get residential planning if the rest of us tried and then proceed to bulldoze their way through an outdated and outmoded system which now has no place in our society. If they want to live on land they purchase, they should make sure firstly that it is in a development area and secondly that they would have a good chance of getting permission to live on it. If we all were allowed to buy land outside development areas and develop it there would be no fields left untouched.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Keith (26th Feb 2015 - 12:10:00) Val It was actually Ian who introduced the idea of people not objecting to other people's extensions or conservatories, but I take your point that yes, people do object occasionally. But the fundamental point of my argument still stands, anyone, even me or you could purchase a piece of land outside the settlement policy boundary and build a house on it If we wanted and then apply for retrospective planning permission. There have been a couple of cases locally in the last 10 years, where this has happened. I take your broader point that travellers are more likely to win in this situation, and that is indeed true, but that is principally down to local authorities (EHDC included) failing to provide the number of permanent traveller sites that legislation requires them to provide. In a sense, this is no different to property developers, who put in a plan for development outside of the current settlement policy boundary, get refused, and then go to appeal on the basis EHDC did not until recently have a proven five-year land supply, and indeed still has difficulty maintaining a five-year land supply as it is assessed on a rolling basis. By using this method, a number of developers have secured planning permission for new development outside the current settlement policy boundary. You could make a very legitimate point that in both cases, that this is the applicant using a loophole in the law to their advantage, and indeed this would be true. However, the fault in both these cases does not lie with either the travellers or the developer, but with the local authority and the law of the land, so I would respectively suggest that with an election looming you seek to put pressure on EHDC candidates and Parliamentary candidates that they will seek to remedy these situations should they get to power.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - helen (26th Feb 2015 - 13:13:12) I know I am going to get eggs thrown at me here, but traveller and showpeople legislation is currently very different to other planning legislation, in that the settlement policy boundary does not apply. Indeed the gypsy sites are usually chosen to be on the outskirts of a settlement, in a rural location, but not too far away from schools or doctors surgeries. In the case of Devils lane, it is a narrow piece of road for two way traffic, but surely there are other routes for motorists in the area. One argument against is my children have to walk past the site on the way to school and are terrified etc. Well, do they have to walk that route to school? Do they really walk to Bohunt up Devils Lane? It seems far out of the way to me!

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Lips (26th Feb 2015 - 13:43:45) Thank you '- -' for the dictionary reference there. Indeed, some would fall into your definition of prejudice. However not all who have reservation towards the gypsy establishment in Liphook are prejudice. Some of us have our eyes and ears wide open and make use of past experience. Not everything that appears unpleasant is prejudice / racist. Reality is not always pleasant. So many here chose to voice their views - despite the fierce pro-gypsy lobby - for good reason.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Kevin Jackson (26th Feb 2015 - 16:29:27) Keith you are wrong when you say people object occasionally if planning permission is pre-empted. I have found that neighbours object immediately if they suspect that planning laws are being flouted. It is in their interest. I agree with Val that the hue and outcry regarding travellers' sites and the illegal occupancy of them as mentioned by Ian, is only generated because more people are affected. Of course anyone can buy land, apply for planning permission whether or not it is in the development area, start building and apply for retrospective planning. The point is that most people don't. They do not buy land and certainly not at the exorbitant prices that land within development areas command, unless they are pretty sure they will get planning permission. Travellers do because they know they probably will eventually get permission to live on the land in mobile homes either on a temporary or permanent basis. Property developers of course use every trick in the book to develop. That is what they do and how they make their money. They look for loopholes, take full advantage of any law which allows them to "bend" the rules. A classic case is that when there was the Interim Housing Policy which has now been suspended because at the moment East Hampshire has its 5 year housing supply, developers and others were using this as a means to develop land which otherwise would not have been granted permission. To elucidate, under the Interim Housing Policy land, including land in Local Gaps, if it adjoined a Settlement Boundary, could be looked on favourably with regard to development. At the moment this little avenue has been closed. The travellers are different in that they are not using a loophole. They are acting within the law (and I don't include pre-empting planning permission because as has been said anyone can do that) as it stands now and their rights as travellers – that is quite different and until the law is changed they will continue to do so. EHDC do try to find suitable sites for travellers, but nobody wants them "in their backyard" ergo it is very difficult to provide these sites and no amount of pressure from me, you or anyone else is going to change that. The pressure must be placed on your local MP and any minister you think might be able to produce a bill to be presented to Parliament to change the law. I have written to Damian Hinds but I wonder how many other people have.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Diane (26th Feb 2015 - 16:46:43) If a Traveller or a Gypsy wants to settle down then they should buy land that has building permission on it like the rest of the people.They can no longer be classed as a Traveller if they dont travel so they should loose that status. The same applies to a Gypsy does it not.? Are the Travellers/Gypsies at Devils lane just going to be passing through occasionally or staying put?

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Tanaka (3rd Mar 2015 - 14:34:46) Re Tony of 25 Feb: I could not agree more an I congratulate you on your open mindedness. I frequently walk along Devil's Lane for pleasure and am aware of the traveller's site. I have never seen anything to do with the site, which would spoil my enjoyment. The site has always appeared orderly and quiet. There has never been any evidence of the travellers' presence bar a bit of horse dung, which could have also come from other riders. Having a traveller community is part of rural life and, frankly people should be prepared to 'live and let live' more. We need to learn to respect other people's way of life an accept that our way is not the only one.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Lips (3rd Mar 2015 - 15:49:37) I may be wrong, but: 1) Not all villages have sedentary travellers’ communities. Rural life does not necessitate travellers within the community. 2) I think people ARE prepared to live-and-let-live. They respect and accept diversity. We all know there are other ways of life. But not all are keen on some ways of life imposed upon them.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - may (3rd Mar 2015 - 19:15:07) If councils provided stopping places it would take away the need for travelers to buy their own land, and give councils a valid reason to refuse permission. They have always been moved on from town to town, now it seems people want them to settle, or do they? It seems to me that it's your way or no way. Come on people, insist your council provide the sites they are supposed to, maybe they could site one in liphook.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Len Turner (3rd Mar 2015 - 19:46:09) I would be asking where are they dumping their rubbish? Where are they putting their sewage? Because the travelers who were at London Rd ie the so called Gypsy and his two Polish caravan chums made threats to residents which were recorded and ran a loud petrol generator very late at night. When they departed after weeks of anti social behavior they left Sainsburys bags, beer cans and bottles filled with urine behind. They were also filmed by a resident over this period tipping sewage in the River Wey. This resident is apparently in the process of making a documentary which will include not only this particular caravan but will include how the different authorities dealt with this issue. Hopefully the Travelers at Devil's lane are nothing like the ones at London Rd.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Lips (3rd Mar 2015 - 21:15:34) As travellers CHOSE not to go main stream - ok, the authorities may be have to specially allocate land for them, but never pay for it with public money without public (secret ballot) agreement. Talk about broken society… It should be down to the travellers to allocate the funds to purchase that land, as it is THEIR lifestyle choice. It should be down to the authorities to make sure those communities share the general community burden and maintain environmental and general local standards.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Resident (3rd Mar 2015 - 22:34:11) Len - they are the same travellers!

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - may (4th Mar 2015 - 10:12:40) its the council's responsibility to provide sites, rent is charged, much in the same way as affordable housing, do people in housing association property have to buy the house? No, it's on a rental basis, this is what the council should do but don't, hence travellers buying land.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Another Resident (4th Mar 2015 - 10:45:53) They don't want to pay rent , hence why they give their houses up, so I think you will find they would not "settle" on land owned by the council.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - stacey (4th Mar 2015 - 12:21:50) The waiting list for affordable housing is a long one! Councils do not build them anymore, developers do, and then have to sell them cheaply to Housing Associations, but there are some residents who do not want affordable housing anywhere near them, in the same way as they would not want a travellers site anywhere near them.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - may (4th Mar 2015 - 14:28:46) Stopping places are just that, stopping places., not meant as a permanent place to live, councils already do have a duty to provide these sites but don't as nimbly dictates, but the whole point is this is why travellers gain permission because of the failure of the council, the council don't really have a choice if a person can prove their heritage, and like it or not that is the law

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Jaybee (17th Mar 2015 - 19:30:15) The Devils Lane Gypsies/ Travelers would appear to be offering work on drives etc. How long will it take before the site is used for storage of tarmac etc?

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Len Turner (18th Mar 2015 - 01:45:33) Devils Lane update: There are apparently Eastern Europeans? not Travellers living in one of the tiny caravans. Possibly being used as cheap labour? Is this legal? Also this caravan has been at other locations around Liphook. Noise nussiance from a loud generator late at night, with litter, fifth and sewage pollution issues. Threats were apparently made to residents which were recorded. These are still being investigated.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Tanaka (18th Mar 2015 - 09:24:18) With all the protests and complaints about the travellers in Liphook, can somebody please tell me how this little settlement affected them directly? It is tucked away, it does not look messy and I have never heard any noise. The Devils Lane is still very pleasant to walk along, which I frequently do. A bit more tolerance please!

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Darren (18th Mar 2015 - 10:16:03) Tanaka, I believe you may be confusing this site with the site that has been given permission (on appeal) which is further along Devils Lane bordering the railway line. The site that is being commented on in this thread is the one which has been set up illegally, in planning terms, at the junction of Devils Lane and Chiltley Lane. A much larger site which has an application in (invalid at this time due to access being over a third parties land who has not been notified) for 12 caravans and all the required access road, utility buildings etc. It has extremely poor access, is very visible from many locations and is totally unsuitable (in my opinion) for up to 12 permanent homes. See EHDC planning application 52747/009.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Another Resident (18th Mar 2015 - 11:00:50) Tanaka You just walk along the lane that is not the same as living close by. I imagine you walk the lane when the generator is not on. It is noisy and smelly. The new site is appalling, you obviously have not see the mess. I can not believe that you think it has not spoiled the view . The plan one imagines is to fill the whole field eventually, will you still think it will be a nice walk? There are cans and rubbish on the lane now and a rubbish bag was dumped on the pavement just across the entrance to Chiltley lane, it does not take much to guess where it came from as there is no facilities for them to get rid of it Human excrement and toilet roll on the bye way. All photographed and recorded Why are the children not at school? What do they do all day ? Two people have been threatened, so forgive me if I do not share your point of view that it is acceptable to be there.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Lips (18th Mar 2015 - 17:48:15) Local residents (probably the anonymous majority) are concerned because of minor issues that have already taken place. Are we to wait more numerous and more serious incidents which are certain to follow? Can we not see trouble heading towards us before it hits us full force? Do concerns arise from thin air? Why so many NIMBY and objections? Are they all misinformed and only the gipsy supporters hold the pure and wholesome truth? Reality bites.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Rach (18th Mar 2015 - 19:45:55) On the subject to travellers there is a massive fire going on right now down Longmoor road at the moment you - you can see it from the A3! Is it really that necessary to have such a large fire? :/

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - John (18th Mar 2015 - 22:45:49) Hi I just wanted people know that there is a lot of ball being said about us living on this site we are not stupid there is at such thing as a local dump that we can dispose of all of our rubbish and we videoed somebody chucking rubbish out of the car in front of our gate just so our site can look messy we are not vermin or traps we do live in a very clean environment and what a lot of nonsense about people being threatened we two women shouting at our gate in front of my kids if anything we was being threatened and of course my kids go to school that\'s my reason for setting down here so my kids and get a good opportunity to go to school and somebody said what do we do all day well obviously a lot more than some people they live like a family should I work just like most people do. So stop sticking your nose in let us live in peace and stop taking pictures of us you are invading our privacy and nobody should take pictures when those kids around without their parents permission it is against the law and I am only talking about a small majority of people in liphook ?

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Tanaka (19th Mar 2015 - 14:21:43) I refer to the comments in response to my earlier post in which I definitely referred to the newer traveller settment where the Lane meets Chiltley Lane. I went back to the Devils Lane with a friend yesterday. We walked past the site and along the byway and had a look in and around. We both agreed that we saw no undue rubbish in and outside the site. The site was quiet and appeared to be in good order. There was a young boy outside who questioned who we were and were we taking photographs, which we were not. He was not rode or abusive in any way, but seemed a little anxious, which made me wonder if the people there were feeling spied on or intimidated by hostile residents. There seems to be a lot of speculation or guesswork in the residents' posts with regard to any potential nuisance this site could present. If anyone is worried about the children attending school, talk to the travellers about it, or contact the local authority's Education Welfare. They should be able to assist the travellers with getting their children to attend local schools. Do you try and talk to the travellers? They are human beings like the rest of us.

Re: Traveller site in Liphook - Genie love (21st Mar 2015 - 18:47:50) Does anyone have any news on this?

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home