Council loses battle with traveller family (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Three Rivers District Council loses battle with traveller family over Green Belt land in Langleybury
5:30pm Thursday 12th July 2012 in News
By Adam Binnie, Senior Reporter
Three Rivers taxpayers must pick up a substantial legal bill after a traveller family successfully overturned efforts to prevent them settling on Green Belt land in Langleybury.
Planning inspector Nicholas Freeman this week said removing Jimmy Cash and his family from the site on Old House Lane would breach their human rights.
He ordered that planning permission be granted for at least three years and quashed the council’s enforcement notice.
Three Rivers District Council must also pay all the appellant’s legal costs as well as their own.
A spokesman said the total cost to taxpayers was not yet known as council was waiting to receive details from Mr Cash.
Councillor Martin Trevett, cabinet member for environment, said: "The council is disappointed with the inspector's decision particularly in the way he has disregarded some of Three Rivers’ existing gypsy and traveller pitches (both temporary and permanent) in counting towards the existing regional target."
"In light of the appeal decision, the exact number of pitches in the district is not clear.
"An up to date assessment of the exact number of existing pitches will be carried out as part of a gypsy and traveller DPD (Development Plan Document) and the council is working with adjoining authorities on this cross boundary issue."
Concerned residents who opposed the development collected 500 signatures on a petition urging the council to refuse permission last year.
It attracted complaints from Chandlers Cross, Bucks Hill, Commonwood and Penmans Green Residents' Association and The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England.
Janice Dawes of Sarratt Parish Council, said: "The council is very disappointed with the ruling.
"We are disappointed because it is within the green belt and development has been allowed to go ahead regardless."
The site, about half a hectare in size, consists of two "double unit" mobile homes, two touring caravans and a utility outbuilding situated between the two pitches.
It is situated in green belt land by Langleybury Lane. The majority of the area is enclosed by two meter high boarded fencing.
Mr Freeman noted the site was an inappropriate development for the green belt and is therefore, by definition, harmful.
However, he cast doubt on the council’s claim that there are 20 permanent spaces available at local sites and identified Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which enshrines an individual’s right to a private and family life.
Mr Freeman noted: "Upholding the enforcement notice would represent an infringement of these rights."
Comments(10)
fane1959
says...
5:50pm Thu 12 Jul 12
I would expect some one who bangs on about UKIP so much to know the basics. Such as the fact that the ECHR has jack to do with the EU.
drunkenduck
says...
10:48pm Thu 12 Jul 12
"Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which enshrines an 'individual’s right to a private and family life'." Guess this doesn't apply to the local residents or anyone else who has an invasion of travellers turning up.
Hornets number 12 fan
says...
7:45am Fri 13 Jul 12
I find this ruling to be very regrettable.
garston tony
says...
9:09am Fri 13 Jul 12
Seeing as there are other sites available where the travellers could stay why is it a breach of their human rights to not be allowed to stay at that site? Isnt is a breach of the rest of us' human rights that not everyone is treated in the same way?
As to temporary planning permission being given for 3 years im sure in 3 years time if efforts were made to move them on the travellers could claim a further breach of human rights at being asked to leave their homes.
Im not having a go at the travellers, just the nonsense laws that I appreciate where brought to be with the best of intentions but have ended up creating a situation where there is gross unfairness and extreme positive discrimination
garston tony
says...
9:10am Fri 13 Jul 12
crazyfrog
says...
11:47am Fri 13 Jul 12
jtb1200
says...
10:51pm Fri 13 Jul 12
Is Nicholas Freeman the world's only living brain donor?
Whatever rights he's banging on about still apply and can still be enjoyed by this crowd - just not where they chose to illegally set up camp.
He's only a planning inspector. How did one of them get the authority to overwrite green belt law? Shouldn't that be the job of a judge or panel of magistrates? I'm not proposing they'd be any better but you'd hope at least one of them would have a functioning nervous system.
Shame on me for suggesting it, but the crusty greenies (Swampy & co), are fairly adept at disrupting approved developments (now that this one has approval, they must be against it - yes?). Can't we bung 'em a few quid to plant a tree or dig a hole and live in it for a while? They have rights as well ya know.
It'll be a lot cheaper than our legal bill. A lot more effective than our legal system as well.
thai rog
says...
11:02am Tue 17 Jul 12
Hardly legal textbook procedure but believe me I know it works.
This has the effect of draining their supply of "recycled goods" which they sell on without paying tax.
"Traveller" supporters can chuck food over the 2 metre wall. After a week of this thet will run like scalded cats.
Linda Geddes
says...
1:57pm Wed 18 Jul 12
Reg Edit says...
5:39pm Thu 12 Jul 12
This ruling is ridiculous and against the public interest. It is just plain wrong.
UKIP are the only party who want to leave the EU. You know what the choices are, so make sure your next vote counts!