Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

devils lane gypsy - peter (5th Feb 2015 - 13:51:03) well done for getting your full permanent planning

Re: devils lane gypsy - Ruby (6th Feb 2015 - 20:42:05) Contrary to your negativity, I\'m delighted for them, must be such a relief!

Re: devils lane gypsy - Darren Ellis (7th Feb 2015 - 14:09:51) Well if they have won their appeal they won't be on their own for long if this planning application is approved. A suitable greenfield site for 12 caravans with access via single track roads? Take a look and decide and comment if you wish. EHDC planning portal reference 52747/009

Re: devils lane gypsy - Peter Richardson (7th Feb 2015 - 19:25:37) There are two ways of stopping travellers applying for permission to live on agricultural land or land outside the development areas, and usually getting it granted. No one else is allowed to do it. 1 Stop selling land to travellers for undoubtedly that is what they will do if they obtain the land and who can blame them. Under the present laws they are not breaking them. 2 Change the law by changing the legislation that allows this to happen. At the moment unless suitable travellers' sites are found district councils have to allow travellers, if they can prove they have traveller status, to live on land they own. No one wants a designated travellers' site near them and for a member of parliament or a councillor to suggest and support a site he/she would be committing policital suicide. So local councils' hands are tied by the law of the land. So lobby your member of parliament to get this outdated and outmoded law changed - don't blame your local councils. The evidence to support a change is overwhelming - there are no gypsies or travellers now - only descendants. Some of these people actually own houses and still use this law to live on agricultural land. They do not travel - they just want to buy land at agricultural prices and then live on it. Wouldn't we all like to do that?

Re: devils lane gypsy - Peter Richardson (8th Feb 2015 - 19:53:45) I have searched EHDC's web site and although an appeal has been lodged by Mr J Keet - Application 52747/008 for a permanent site no decision has yet been reached. Application 52747/009 is for a different site on land east of Devils Lane and that is applying forpermission for 6 families and 12 caravans plus ancillary buildings. This applicant is in the name of Mr Felix Connors.

Re: devils lane gypsy - Another Resident (14th Feb 2015 - 08:17:31) As of at 7.30 this morning one caravan in at the top of Devils Lane.

Re: devils lane gypsy - Former resident visiting (14th Feb 2015 - 12:18:44) Devils Lane site for proposed six travellers families - work has already commenced with levelling etc - terrible mess on lane.

Re: devils lane gypsy - Mary (15th Feb 2015 - 14:11:44) There are now even more caravans at the site and a few shiny diggers making a right mess. The road has been cleaned since the mess of yesterday. I am undecided as to whether I object to the site and planning but I really don't understand how anyone can get away with moving in and starting work before planning has been granted or even considered. I am sure I wouldn't get away with it. Is there some way around planning conditions or are there really no consequences for breaches in planning?

Re: devils lane gypsy - Peter Richardson (15th Feb 2015 - 15:26:49) Mary There are 115 postings on the post Travellers Site - Devils Lane. It makes interesting reading and from it you will that if a person/s can prove that they have traveller status, the rules with regard to planning which apply to us do not apply to them. Ergo a traveller is entitled to apply to live on land he/she owns whether or not it is in the development area and if a local council cannot provide a suitable travellers' site for them in the area they will more than likely get temporary permission and probably eventually permanent. They sometimes move onto a site before permission is granted and apply for it retrospecitvely and they usually get away with it because that is what the law of the land allows. In this case however, they have submitted the application and pre-empted the predictable result which will probably be either a temporary/permanent permission. Simple.

Re: devils lane gypsy - tony (15th Feb 2015 - 15:35:59) I think it's called 'getting facts on the ground'. It's a common ploy (not just with gypsies) to start work at 5.00pm on a Friday or just before a bank holiday, hoping to get the job done before anyone can apply for a court order. Then sit back and relax whilst the retrospective planning process plays out. Sadly, none of this is illegal, quite the opposite, it's fully catered for in planning law. But another example of our broken political system. Only way to save the country is to vote UKIP in May, at least they say they'll prioritise protecting the countryside, otherwise just keep moaning and putting up with the same, like Labour or the Conservatives are ever going to change anything!

Re: devils lane gypsy - Keith (16th Feb 2015 - 13:13:45) Just to point out that gypsies do not have any special status with regard to retrospective planning permission - any of us could build a house tomorrow without planning permission and then apply for it retrospectively. The only danger is if you don't get your retrospective planning permission the planning authority can order you to demolish your house, so it's a big gamble to take. Personally I think retrospective planning permission is wrong, whether the applicant is a traveller or not. If you can build first and get permission later,with no financial penalty, then of course some people will do so. As the old saying goes, it's easier to apologise afterwards than to ask permission first. As an aside, there are many reasons to vote UKIP and many reasons not to, I must admit I'd never considered traveller sites to be me my prime concern when deciding who I would like to govern the country for the next 5 years.

Re: devils lane gypsy - Kevin Jackson (16th Feb 2015 - 14:16:17) You are quite right Keith, gypsies do not have an particular status re: putting in for retrospective planning. Anyone can do that. What they do have however, is a very good chance of getting permission to develop and live on agricultural land outside development areas purchased at agricultural prices. Unlike the rest of us who would not have a hope of getting a similar permission in these areas.

Re: devils lane gypsy - Another Resident (16th Feb 2015 - 14:36:38) Generator noise, diesel fumes, now light pollution. x how many more? Will need to wear a gas mask to stop breathing in the pollution soon.

Re: devils lane gypsy - Keith (16th Feb 2015 - 15:59:47) Kevin - I totally agree with you on that point

Re: devils lane gypsy - Dawn Hoskins (16th Feb 2015 - 16:11:59) Are UKIP planning on building actual sites for gypsies - or just burning them at the stake? How exactly are UKIP going to make this go away?

Re: devils lane gypsy - stacey (16th Feb 2015 - 17:36:08) The change in the law required could happen regardless of which party are in power after May. The consultation period on changes to the law has finished. The definition of a traveller will be strengthened as the question is posed, if you are a traveller, why do you need a permanant pitch as well, it will be also up to the applicant to really prove his gyspy heritage, but until local authorities provide enough sites of either a temporary or permanant nature, this type of development is bound to happen.

Re: devils lane gypsy - Kevin Jackson (16th Feb 2015 - 17:54:25) No Dawn just changing the law in Parliament so that gypsies/travellers have to abide by the same planning laws and regulations that apply to the rest of us.

Re: devils lane gypsy - S (16th Feb 2015 - 19:00:22) Hang on - there are actually people out there who genuinely think voting UKIP is a good idea? Having trawled their website, I can't find a single reference to the word 'environment' or 'countryside', let alone anything suggesting they will 'prioritise protecting the countryside', infact they don't seem to have any environmental policy whatsoever... Unless you count climate change scepticism, scrapping the climate change act, scrapping green taxes and developing fracking as protecting the countryside... Their fishing policy does have potential if executed sensibly, but I don't think that will be enough to sway my vote!

Re: devils lane gypsy - Lips (17th Feb 2015 - 07:15:40) Since when Liphook.co,uk had become the forum for national election debates? The subject of this thread should be the gypsy occupation of that specific local piece of land. Strictly sorting postings by subject is fundamental for ease of navigating, fruitful arguments and hopefully some conclusions. Would the moderator assist with keeping the threads relevant to their respective subjects? Consider a separate thread for General Election 2015 debate?

Re: devils lane gypsy - Jayare (30th Nov 2015 - 13:43:38) Just a reminder, the Appeal hearing for this application for a residential site for 6 families on agricultural land will be heard at the Millennium Hall at 10 o'clock Wednesday 2nd December. It will be interesting to hear what the Government appointed inspector decides on this one following their redefinition of Traveller Sites Regime (Sept 2015) I can't see EHDC allowing a new residential development in this location of their District being allowed. I note it is also the head office location for Oaklands Paving Solutions, a company being operated from this field.

Re: devils lane gypsy - Marg Irina (30th Nov 2015 - 14:45:24) Walked the dog past late yesterday evening. Generators loudly humming and Sainsbury's bags blowing in the wind. These people need electric, drainage and a rubbish collection. Why are they not at Queens Road Griggs Green? Thought that was the allocated Gypsy site for this area?

Re: devils lane gypsy - Diane (30th Nov 2015 - 18:28:54) I think you will find that site is full or it looks it as viewed from the A3, so unless they purchase more commom or army land there will not be room. Perhaps the 6 families are there waiting to move onto the Devils Lane site.

Re: devils lane gypsy - Jaybee (30th Nov 2015 - 19:52:17) Oaklands Paving Solutions, Liphook, Oaklands Paving Ltd. St. Albans , Lantern Drives & Patios all appear to be owned by a Mr. Felix Collins who has a private address in St Albans. Earlier this year one of these companies had an advertising board on the Sainsbury\'s Roundabout and later a representative cold called around the village. I would not be surprised that if they are allowed to stay we will end up with a builders yard or similar on the site

Re: devils lane gypsy - Lips (30th Nov 2015 - 19:56:46) Have no illusions. The more sites are allocated, the more will be demanded.

Re: devils lane gypsy - Lucy (1st Dec 2015 - 07:29:06) Lol Marg seems to think it's a case of just dumping people on queens road. Well all of the land here is privately owned and I don't think anyone would simply allow any old person, traveller or not, to set up on there private land XD sorry but that did make me laugh.

Re: devils lane gypsy - A Resident (1st Dec 2015 - 14:42:31) If anyone is interested there is a meeting in the Millennium Hall at 10 am about this and the appeal lodged by Mr Connors. Seems as though if you have a special status, ie, you are a traveller/gipsy, you can act with impunity regardless of planning laws. If this appeal is accepted then I have my deepest suspicions that many more of their ilk will arrive, and the opportunity to build sensible housing on this site will be lost. Are the local planning Officials too weak-willed to stand up to these flouters of planning law. I understood that an injunction had been issued against the gipsies that no more than 2 caravans allowed on the site, and no hard standing to be laid down. These have been disregarded. Permission for retrospective planning, if that it Mr Connors` modus operandi should be refused otherwise the surroundings around Chiltley Lane and Devils Lane might become just an unpleasant quagmire with possible litter and detritus appearing in the lanes; to be followed by RATS????

Re: devils lane gypsy - Anon (1st Dec 2015 - 15:47:40) Arn't Gypsy's travellers, so travel, everyones happy

Re: devils lane gypsy - Resident (1st Dec 2015 - 16:23:21) The meeting tomorrow to discuss the appeal has been cancelled.

Re: devils lane gypsy - Another Resident (1st Dec 2015 - 18:39:48) Anon, The trouble is they wont travel on. So technically they are not travellers. Resident, Why has the meeting been cancelled ?

Re: devils lane gypsy - Resident (1st Dec 2015 - 20:32:16) The meeting has been cancelled by the Inspector due to the appellants highway expert being taken ill and therefore unable to attend the hearing.This decision was made late yesterday (Monday) as this was when all parties were informed of this experts illness. We wait to hear when the next date for the hearing will be.

Re: devils lane gypsy - Marg Irina (2nd Dec 2015 - 17:39:51) The answer my friends is blowing in the wind ... along with all the Sainsbury\'s bags. On a related subject the burnt out caravan at Iron Hoof Hill carpark looks like the same one that caused such a nuisance to the residents on the London Rd earlier this year. My friend who lives near there says they had a very noisy generator running very late at night. They obstructed a pavement with litter everywhere. They caused the police , Liphook Parish Council , East Hants Council and Hampshire County Council lots of time and money. Taking many weeks to work out whose job it was to sort it out. So their Christmas parties have had to be scaled back a little the year.

Re: devils lane gypsy - Frank (28th Oct 2017 - 22:16:27) I have just come across this post and can't believe it! Did you know this family were pleading their children would be homeless if greenbelt land was not given to them in Bricket Wood? They also have a site in waterlooville and Essex, Hampshire, he also owns properties worth 4 million. I have been trying to stop this in Bricket Wood, but the council is unwilling because they can include private sites in their provision, the law needs to change. These are 3rd generation English born! They are now housing their workers for their paving business on the gypsy site and living in a bungalow...is there anyone out there with legal advise on what neighbours of these people can do, it is a living hell!

Re: devils lane gypsy - Resident (31st Oct 2017 - 07:59:54) This planning application was turned down on several points, but mainly on the issue with the connecting highways to the land. The land is accessed via narrow sunken lanes with poor visibility, plus there was an issue with the biodiversity of the land and the harm to the surrounding character and distance to local amenities. Local residents hired a planning barrister plus the local council was also objecting to the occupation of the site (on the grounds above). These issues would have been relevant for anyone wishing to build and live on this piece of land. I would think your best option would be to get advice from a planning barrister to see if you have a case and take it from there. Good luck!

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home