• Planning

• Advice and Forms
• Building Control
• Development Control
• Historic Environment
• Links
• Local Development Framework
• My Surrey Heath
• Planning Applications
• Planning Policy
• • Brief - 83 College Ride
  • Fees and Charges
  • Gypsies and Travellers In Surrey Heath Update
  • Local Plan 2000
  • Supplementary Planning Guidance - Garden Centres and Nurseries
  • Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Development in Settlement Areas
  • Surrey Structure Plan 2004
  • Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area
  • Yorktown Supplementary Planning Guidance
• Planning Services
• Public Inquiries
• Smoking Shelters
• Tree Information and Preservation Orders

Gypsies and Travellers In Surrey Heath Update

For further information, please contact:

Customer Contact Centre

Tel: 01276 707100
Fax: 01276 707446
enquiries@surreyheath.gov.uk

Surrey Heath House
Knoll Road
Camberley
Surrey GU15 3HD

Downloads
Appellants Statement of Case Opens in a new window
Local Planning Authoritys Statement of Case Opens in a new window

Press Releases

• Field 0081, Pennypot Lane - Clean up operation 19-05-06
• Field 0081, Funds Allocated to Clear Field 0081 03-03-06
• Field 0081, Pennypot Lane, Chobham 06-02-06
• Field 0081, Pennypot Lane - Surrey Heath Borough Council Secure Site of Field 0081 28-11-05
• Field 0081, Pennypot Lane - Committal Proceedings 21-10.05
• Field 0081, Pennypot Lane - Planning Inquiry 21-01-05
• Field 2100, Pennypot Lane - Travelling Show People 06-07-04
• Field 0081, Pennypot Lane, Chobham - Injunction Update 05-04-04
• Field 0081, Pennypot Lane, Chobham - High Court Injunction Update 24-03-04
• Field 0081, Pennypot Lane, Chobham - Resumption Of Planning Inquiry 24-03-04
• Field 0081, Pennypot Lane, Chobham - Council Issues High Court Proceedings27-02-04

Background
1 Field 2100, Pennypot Lane, Chobham is a former meadow (approx. 1.1 hectares in extent) divided into six plots and occupied by travelling showpeople with approx. 19 caravans and approximately 60 persons (although not all are present at any one time) and associated equipment. Field 0081, also in Pennypot Lane, consists of approximately 3.68 hectares of land and was occupied by approximately 53 caravans and fluctuating numbers of up to 150 occupants who were understood to be claiming gypsy status. Field 8594 is approx. 0.281 ha in extent and lies adjacent to the Chertsey Road, Chobham and was occupied by four caravans and one mobile home and 10 persons. All of the sites are characterised by the fact that they are owned either in whole or in part by their occupants.

Travelling Showpeople, Field 2100, Pennypot Lane, Chobham
2 The Council served fourteen enforcement notices, two directed against each plot owner. A public inquiry was held into appeals against the enforcement notices in November 2002 and March 2003. In dismissing the enforcement notice appeals, and in setting the period for compliance to 12 months, the Inspector concluded that:

"there is a regional and more local requirement for land for travelling showpeople, but that, if local planning authorities were willing to accept the obligation to meet that requirement and to join in the search for such sites which caused the least harm in planning terms, then locations more suitable than the appeal site could well be identified".

3 Travelling showpeople and their needs are an issue across much of Surrey and surrounding areas. The issue is therefore unlikely to go away at the expiry of 12 months and may well repeat itself elsewhere in the Borough. The Council will be in a stronger position in future if an assessment of travelling showpeople and their needs, leading to the possible identification of a site(s), has been undertaken.

4 Discussions between the Director of Planning & Community Services and the Head of Planning & Countryside at Surrey County Council (SCC) SCC have led to SCC leading a joint local authority study of travelling showpeople's needs together with other Surrey districts. Consultants were appointed to assist in progressing this study last year and reported on the first phase of their study in June 2004. At the Council's Planning Applications Committee on 8 March 2004, as a direct result of the delay in completing this study, the Committee resolved to extend the period of compliance with the enforcement notices by a further 3 months, i.e. to 25 July 2004. Once the first part of the study had been completed the matter was reconsidered by the Planning Applications Committee on 5 July 2004 at 7.00 p.m. at Surrey Heath House. The Committee discussed some elements in public and then adjourned to hear legal advice from Counsel and the Council's own solicitor in private before deciding on a course of action. For legal reasons the Council's decision cannot be made public at this particular time, but the resolution will be made public as soon as the Council's solicitor considers it appropriate.

5 On 26 July 2004, the occupiers submitted a planning application for the continued use of the site as a permanent quarters for travelling showpeople. This was later amended on 17 August 2004 to include retention of the driveway and hardstandings and to seek temporary permission for a period of 3 years. On 31 August 2004, the Planning Applications Committee resolved to decline to determine the application using powers contained in Section 70A on the grounds that the application was substantially similar to the deemed applications dismissed on appeal by the First Secretary of State and there had been no significant change in the development plan or any other material considerations since that determination under 2 years prior to the submission of the application.

6 On 21 April 2005 the Council lodged injunction proceedings at the High Court seeking an order to restrain the use of the site as a quarters for Travelling Showpeople. A timetable has been set by the Court for the submission of evidence by the Defendants. A trial has been listed for after 10 October 2005.

7 The Court granted an injunction, but suspended it upon an undertaking, made by the travelling show peoples' solicitor, to prosecute their planning application with all diligence.

8. The planning application was refused and an appeal was lodged on the 21 October 2005. This appeal is to be dealt with by a public inquiry to be held for four days, commencing on the 24 October 2006, at Surrey Heath House. The Council and its barrister, Mr Mark Beard from the Chambers of Mr Stephen Hockman QC at 6 Pump Court, Temple, are now making final preparations for the inquiry. Witness proofs are required to be filed with the Planning Inspectorate by the 26 September 2006.

9. The appeal which is being dealt with by way of a public inquiry commenced on Tuesday 24 October and sat for 5 days. Mr Simon Emerson, the Inspector appointed to determine the appeal, has heard evidence from the Council's expert witness and five showmen, two representatives from the Showman's Guild, 6 Interested parties including a former Ward Councillors and representatives of the Parish Council, Friends of Chobham and the West Chobham Residents' Association. The appellant's expert witness is part-heard.

10. On the fifth day the Counsel's Barrister was due to cross examine the appellant's expert witness and both sides were then to deliver closing submissions. However, as a result of ill health the appellants' expert witness was not able to attend and a medical certificate was provided to the Inspector in respect of his absence.

11. The inquiry was adjourned to resume on the 2 April 2007 at 10am. This was the first available date when the Inspector, the barristers and the appellant's expert witness had availability. However, as a result of emerging central policy and guidance in the form of a new Circular regarding planning for travelling showpeople and considerable new documentation, the Inspector felt it appropriate to put the resumed hearing back until the 16 October 2007.

12. The resumed inquiry opened on the 16 October and was further adjourned until the 22 January 2008 at 10am in the Council Chamber. Late the previous day the Council's barrister advised that he had received word via his Clerk that due to serious ill health of an elderly immediate family member that had manifested that day, it was unlikely that the appellants' barrister would be in attendance the following day and indeed he was not. Inspector Emerson confirmed that he had received information about the absence of the appellant's barrister and that in the circumstances he was not prepared to ask the appellants to continue in his absence. The inquiry was accordingly further adjourned.

13. The Inquiry resumed on the 22 January 2008 and concluded on the 23 January 2008. Inspector Emerson's decision was issued by the Planning Inspectorate on the 29 February 2008 and received in the Council's offices on the 4 March 2008. The appeal was dismissed.

• The decision can be viewed by downloading the attached. Opens in a new window

14. The appellants now have two months in which to comply with the injunction granted by Mr Justice Roderick Evans sitting in the High Court on the 24 October 2005 in that they are required among other things, to, within two months of the appeal decision, "discontinue the use of the land for the purposes of stationing caravans and/or mobile homes for the purposes of residential occupation or any other purposes in breach of planning control".

15. The appellants have now lodged an appeal to the High Court in respect of the Planning Inspector's decision of the 29 March 2008. The Council has indicated that it wishes to be heard in those proceedings. At the beginning of June the Administrative Court Office advised that the matter had been entered into the Warned List to be heard by a single Judge. Notification of the hearing date is awaited. Because of the current volume of work in the Court a hearing date is not expected before the beginning of 2009.

16. The Council has been notified that the appeal has been listed for a one day hearing in the High Court on the 25 February 2009.

Field 0081, Pennypot Lane, Chobham
1 The unauthorised occupancy of Field 0081 commenced over the weekend of 8/9 February 2003. The occupiers of Field 0081 appealed against the refusal of planning permission for a private gypsy caravan site comprising 26 plots. At the meeting held on 24 March 2003, the Planning Applications Committee authorised the issuing of enforcement notices against the unauthorised works and occupation of Field 0081. No appeal was lodged against the enforcement action.

2 The appeal was called in by the Secretary of State and therefore the Inspector appointed to hear the Inquiry was to make a recommendation to him rather than make the decision himself. The appeal was due to be considered by an Inspector at a public inquiry commencing on 18 November 2003 for a period of eight days. However, on the day an application was made by the legal representatives acting for the occupiers of the site for an adjournment, as they had not been able to instruct an expert on flooding matters. The application was strongly opposed by the Council. However, the Inspector agreed to the application with great reluctance as he considered that it was in the interests of natural justice for both him and the Secretary of State to have all the relevant facts before them. He added that in his judgement greater harm would be caused were he to proceed with the appeal and the final decision was successfully challenged in the High Court should the Secretary of State decide to refuse planning permission.

3 The Inquiry was re-scheduled for 24 February 2004 for 4 days and 23 March 2004 for 4 days. At the commencement of the resumed Inquiry the appellant withdrew the appeal leaving the Inspector no option than to close the appeal The Inspector did, however, listen to costs applications from the Council and other interested parties and these will be adjudicated upon in due course. As a result of the withdrawal of the appeal the Council has issued High Court proceedings seeking a permanent injunction against 36 named occupiers and persons unknown in order to seek a resolution of the planning matters. On 23 March 2004 a further planning application was submitted seeking the retention of the land as a 26 pitch gypsy site. The application was considered by the Planning Applications Committee on 7 June 2004 and refused. 

4 On 23 March 2004 a further planning application was submitted seeking the retention of the land as a 26 pitch gypsy site. The application was considered by the Planning Applications Committee on 7 June 2004 and refused. The Applicants submitted an appeal against the refusal of planning permission on 21 June 2004. The Planning Inspectorate accepted the appeal as being valid on 5 July 2004. The appeal was called in by the First Secretary of State as before. The public inquiry opened on 15 February 2005 and sat for nine days (15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 February 2005).  View Field 0081 Inquiry details.

5 On 16 June 2005, the First Secretary of State dismissed the appeal and refused planning permission. In reaching his decision, the First Secretary of State concluded -

ii). The proposal is inappropriate development in the Green belt and thus harmful to it

ii) It will cause significant harm to interests of acknowledged nature conservation importance

iii) The site is subject to regular flooding and the flood risks associated with the proposal carry the potential for considerable harm

iv) Whilst there is a need for gypsy site provision both nationally and regionally, it is difficult to be precise as to the level of local need - whilst there exists some level of local need, this does not justify the setting aside of established policies designed to protect the Green Belt

v) Would be some disruption to the education needs of those children who attend school, but does not justify the grant of planning permission

vi) There are no very special circumstances of sufficient weight to overcome the harm

vii) The interference with the occupants' human rights does not place a disproportionate burden on the occupants and there would be no violation of the Article 8 rights because the interference is necessary to protect the public interest and is proportionate12 The Appellants have a 6 week period in which to determine whether to challenge the First Secretary of State's decision. Such a challenge can only be brought on points of law and not simply because the Appellants do not agree with the conclusions reached.

High Court Action
6 On 12 February 2003 the council attended the High Court in an attempt to secure an interim injunction to prevent any further breaches of planning control at Field 0081. As a result of the application, the High Court ordered that until trial or further order:

7 Following service of the interim injunction, the occupiers of the land continued to bring hardcore building materials and further caravans onto the land and continued its preparation for residential occupation. The Council therefore made an application for committal in respect of the 9 persons named in the interim injunction. This application was heard on 2 May and 19 May 2003. The Court declined to commit any of the Defendants to prison but ordered a fresh injunction against the original Defendants and a further 22 persons who indicated to the Court that they were now in occupation of the land (such that there were now 33 defendants). The terms of this injunction are identical to the one ordered on 12 February save for paragraph (2) which now states:

8 On 23 March 2004 the Council returned to the High Court to seek a permanent injunction stopping the use of the land as a gypsy site together with other ancillary matters. At the hearing the solicitors acting for the 36 named respondents advised that the application would be contested. Accordingly, the Judge, Mr Justice Holland, ordered directions and listed the matter for a hearing commencing for 5 days on 4 May 2004.

9 The Honourable Mr Justice Jack heard the application made by Surrey Heath Borough Council for a permanent injunction in relation to the occupation of Field 0081, Pennypot Lane, Chobham as a gypsy caravan site without the benefit of planning permission.

10 His Honour was concerned that to date there had been no independent and impartial assessment of the planning merits of the use of the land, notwithstanding that a previous public inquiry had been called off at the last moment in February 2004. In those circumstances, whilst the Judge was minded to grant a permanent and final injunction requiring the use of the land to cease, the removal of all associated development and the restoration of the land, he did not consider that such an injunction should have immediate effect. The injunction would therefore be suspended to enable the planning process to complete its course.

11 The terms of the Injunction granted are therefore suspended until six weeks (in respect of the cessation of the use of the land and the removal of all vehicles and portable structures) and fourteen weeks (in respect of the removal of all buildings and hardcore and the restoration of the land) after the decision of the First Secretary of State.

Download a copy of the sealed order of the court below.

• Field 81 Order Of The Court Opens in a new window
• Field 81 Injunction Opens in a new window
• Field 81 Approved Judgement Opens in a new window

12 Following vaction of the site, just before Christmas 2005, a remediation exercise involving the Environment Agency and external contractors has now been completed. The Council is now considering its options regarding ownership and steps to ensure more stringent control of the site.

Field 8594, Chertsey Road, Chobham
1 The occupiers of Field 8594 also appealed against the refusal of planning permission for a private gypsy caravan site comprising three caravans/mobile homes and a tourer. A public inquiry into the refusal of the planning permission was heard on 20 and 21 January 2004. By decision letter dated 9 February 2004, the First Secretary of State has dismissed the appeal against the refusal of planning permission. A copy of the decision can be found elsewhere on the website. The main occupier has given an undertaking to the High Court that the residential use of the land will cease and all vehicles, mobile homes and caravans will be removed from the land within 28 days of the final determination of the matter. The site continues to be occupied and the Council has issued further High Court proceedings to secure the vacation of the site and its reinstatement to its former condition. These have been listed for hearing on 13 July 2004.

2 At the hearing on 13 July 2004, the Judge ordered directions and listed the matter for hearing for 2 days on the first available court date after 12 October 2004. The hearing could not be scheduled any earlier because of the directions ordered as regards submission of evidence and because of the court vacation period.

3 On 3-5 November 2004 the Council's application for a permanent injunction requiring the cessation of the unauthorised use of Field 8594 as a gypsy caravan site was heard by the Honourable Mr Justice McCombe sitting in the High Court. The Court heard evidence from the Council, Rosemary Rooney, Martin Rooney and Freddie Loveridge. Following legal submissions from the respective Counsel, the Judge granted the Council's application. In so doing, the Judge commented that the planning process had been exhaustively considered and that it was abundantly clear that the breach of planning control would continue unless restrained by an injunction. The Judge took into account the itinerant lifestyle and the medical and educational requirements of those involved and their families. He also considered issues relating to need and demand for gypsy sites both nationally and locally. None of these factors pointed away from granting the injunction sought by the Council.

4 Under the terms of the injunction, the occupiers were required to discontinue the use of the land as a gypsy caravan site and remove all caravans and mobile homes. The occupiers were also required to demolish any buildings on the land and remove all and any materials associated with the unauthorised use of the land. However, the Judge considered that the injunction should be suspended for an appropriate period of time in light of the particular medical and educational requirements of some of the Defendants and their families. He therefore suspended the injunction for a period of 3 months in respect of the unauthorised use and 5 months in respect of the demolition of buildings and the removal of materials.

5 As a result of the occupiers' non-compliance with the injunction, the Council returned to court to seek an order for their committal to prison. On 18 April 2005, the Court agreed with the Council and committed 5 out of the 6 occupiers to prison for various periods of time. However, the Court suspended the committal for a period of 3 months to give the occupiers one last chance to vacate the land.

6 On 20 June 2005, Enforcement Officers visited the site to monitor compliance with the injunction. The occupiers have now complied with the terms of the injunction and left the site.

7 This note sets out the current status of the appeal by the travelling showpeople against this Council's refusal to grant a three year temporary permission to use the land as all round quarters.

The appeal is being heard by way of a Public Inquiry which commenced on Tuesday 24 October and which has now sat for a total of 4 days. Thus far evidence has been heard from the Council's expert witness and five showmen, two representatives from the Showman's Guild, 6 Interested parties including one of the Ward Councillors and representatives of the Parish Council, Friends of Chobham and the West Chobham Residents' Association. The appellant's expert witness is part-heard.

The Inquiry was due to resume on Thursday 2 November for a final day when Mr Mark Beard Counsel for SHBC was due to cross examine the appellant's expert witness and both sides were then to deliver closing submissions. However, as a result of ill health the appellants' expert witness was not able to attend and a medical certificate was provided to the Inspector in respect of his absence.

The Inquiry has therefore been adjourned to resumed on the 2 April 2007 at 10am. This is the first available date when the Inspector, the Barristers and the Appellant's expert witness have availability.