Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Info Man (18th Feb 2013 - 20:28:51) All walkers, joggers, cyclists, and mums with prams, we need to keep Devils Lane a lovely rural lane. Tomorrow is the last day to voice your opinion on whether a Travelers site is aloud to go ahead in the lane. Go to EHDC to the planning in Devils Lane and give your opinion. Keep this lane a rural lane!

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Thea (18th Feb 2013 - 22:31:26) What is the link on the EHDC site? Anyone know?

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Info Man (19th Feb 2013 - 08:50:16) The link is 52747/ 005 or just put Devils Lane in the search box.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - tony (19th Feb 2013 - 19:48:03) Thanks for the information. Yes it is really important that we support travellers who have such a hard time trying to live their ancient way of life in this ever more ruthlessly money obsessed world. I would imagine it's really hard for them to get permission to park their caravans what with snobby neighbours who look down on them and any spare land sells for millions to property developers to build yet more boxy estates for yuppies who would be horrified at the thought of travellers living anywhere nearby. I wish these travelling people well, whoever they are, yes let's make our support known to the authorities! (I take it that's what you meant?)

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - lily (20th Feb 2013 - 22:36:09) So joggers, mums with prams etc cant do what they do daily because a caravan is in a field? Get real, have you ever been to Weavers Downs? What do you suppose will happen? And what is the difference if one passes a house or a caravan? Oh yes of course, the house is percentage owned by Mr Snob from Liphook, the majority share owned by the bank no doubt. And this makes the house ownwer superior in your mind no doubt. This is not about keeping it rural. It is about the people. Simple as that. So please dont hide behind scare tacticts. Are they going to come out with lucky heather or try to sell pegs to each passer by? No. It is simply another case of nimby. Why dont you find something better to do other than try to make peoples lives miserable? If I had my way, I would like to apply to the council to get rid of you...Society has no place for people who would like to see their fellow human beings homeless, for the sake of a couple of snotty mums with a silvercross and a jogger.The rest I suspect dont actually care Who are you anyway Info Man? Someone with a house in Devils Lane by any chance? At least have the decency to identify yourself so that we may know your real reasons.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Mable (21st Feb 2013 - 08:57:25) Such romantics, if only this were true it would be heartwarming. Unfortunately its far from it. It has been ruined for those of us who regularly walk the lane. The tarmac in the lane has been damaged from large horse boxes. It has become dangerous to any one walking . Why can they not buy a farm somewhere that is already established with all facilities for horses. They could put caravans on there if they so wish. There was no water or electric on the site, this had to be put in,so why try to live in an area that is unsuitable.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - liz (21st Feb 2013 - 11:51:57) lily Everyone has to apply for planning permission for development and their will always be objections to development on greenfield land. ... But not everyone tries the underhand "poor me the victim" card to try and twist opinion.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - CK (21st Feb 2013 - 12:58:38) Lily, bravo, I fully expect to see you chain yourself to a tree at the end of Devils Lane in support of the romantic, harmless, victimised romanys. But remember, its school next week.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. P (21st Feb 2013 - 13:16:39) Lily, Your tone is somewhat threatening isn't it? For your information one resident in the lane has been here for 70 years, another 60 years, One resident who recently moved , over 40 years, one who died in the last few years over 50 years,. I myself lived in the old Lake house before it was knocked down, just down the road from the lane. My great grandfather was a cow man on the farm that is now the Maltings. My great grandmother had one of the first houses built along the Haslemere Road, I remember Gunns Farm being built. So please don't come out with such hog wash about people you know nothing about. Your opinions are obviously biased, if not go up here and see for yourself. This has everything to do with what is fair in society, and not people exploiting the absurd law for themselves.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Mable (21st Feb 2013 - 17:56:34) The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers as defined in Annex 1: Glossary, paragraph 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, March 2012. Reason - The site lies in a locality where permission would not normally be granted for residential development. This is on the committee report dated 14th February. Is this fair as It seems very biased to me?

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - lily (21st Feb 2013 - 18:54:17) I am not being threatening, only straight to the point. It makes no difference when the other houses were built. There are new developments springing up all the time around older properties, so to this I can only respond to that as saying so what? Liz, Mr Info did not actually say that his reason for opposition was the planning issues, he waffled on about joggers, mums, cyclists etc, as though walking past the caravan/residents might bring them to some harm. I am not a romantic at all, I simply abhor the arrogance and the impression of superiority i get from some people. As for chaining myself up, I would do that and stand up for what I believe with pride, rather than petition for a family to be moved on. Probably to be moved on again, and again. You have your opinion and I have mine, and mine is that no one at all has a problem with the planning, beautiful Austen like scenery,horses or anything else. It is about the occupants. And you all know it.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - lily (21st Feb 2013 - 19:02:05) A.P, To add, I didnt think it was possible to exploit a law, absurd or not, for that is the law. If that is the law, then no one can have acted above it.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Darren (21st Feb 2013 - 19:15:39) The thing that annoys most people about this type of "development" isn't the fact that the "developers" refer to themselves as Gypsies or Travellers but the way they go about "developing" their land. Everyone should abide by the same rules and apply for permission before moving onto the site and removing hedgerows, installing electricity and water, building structures, concreting over land, putting up fences, installing lighting etc. etc. etc. That's what angers people and turns them against the "developers". They haven't thought of their new neighbours and how their actions will affect others. If the "developers" applied for permission first with plans and proper consultation then the backlash would be unlikely to happen. It would appear that because the "developers" refer to themselves as Gypsies or Travellers they feel they can ignore and ride rough-shot over the correct procedures. Just a thought to make others see another perspective.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. P (21st Feb 2013 - 20:27:12) Lily How naive .... or maybe not!!! Some people know exactly how to exploit the law, and it is about time this loophole was closed.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - tony (21st Feb 2013 - 21:08:19) Darren, Most developers employ every trick in the book to ram their endless concrete covered estates through planning. Some well used tricks are multiple applications so that each one must be appealed seperately in full, filed at intervals by clever lawyers so that amateur residents associations often miss deadlines thus allowing it through on a free passage(this happens a lot) Another is political pressure, lobbying or donations(bribes?)(most big developements fail local planning but are allowed on appeal to the secretary of state I could go on. It's not illegal(but sometimes money or favours do change hands). Turning to the travellers, they can't compete if they want somewhere to park their caravan. They can't do those kind of high handed shenannigans, but nor are they breaking the law either. They're going through legally enshrined planning process (retrospective is still part of the legal process available to anyone or it wouldn't be there) usually without any fancy lawyers, accountants or million pound bank facilities. I don't know anything about these particular applicants, I just don't suppose they are as terrible as some people seem to fear and hounding them out whilst shrugging off yet another 500 house estate or two off the Longmoor Road or Bohunt Manor or wherever maybe a little mean.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - may (21st Feb 2013 - 22:40:55) 90% of planning applications made by travellers are turned down, no wonder they go for retrospective, it is the only chance they have of gaining permission.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - lily (22nd Feb 2013 - 06:25:44) A.P Are you suggesting I exploit the law? As I have already said, the law is the law so I cannot exploit it. No one is above the law, no one can exploit it, it is there for a reason. I do not agree with certain laws but I must abide by them, as we all must. Nothing illegal has taken place in Devils Lane.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Mable M (22nd Feb 2013 - 08:37:48) Please read again!! The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers as defined in Annex 1: Glossary, paragraph 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, March 2012. Reason - The site lies in a locality where permission would not normally be granted for residential development. I ask again, is this fair! No it is not. So how do they get away with it, if 99% of the population would not be allowed to do it. These are the legal loopholes that anger the rest of us.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - liz (22nd Feb 2013 - 09:06:40) So May says that 'retrospective' is their only chance of gaining planning permission. I do hope the planners are reading this thread!

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - lily (26th Feb 2013 - 01:05:52) Mable, It seems that you are the one trying to flout laws because you completely disregard what it states. You have just quoted an annex to me/us, stating clearly that no one may occupy the land other than travellers etc . So then, how have they exploited or acted illegally when the law itself states that they are allowed? I dont understand your point? I see that you think it isnt fair, I can only refer to what I said before, I think many things and laws are unfair, but law is law and you must abide by it. Again, all I can see, is that the residents in Devils Lane have abided by law.You yourself have quoted it to me. So your point is?

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Mable M (26th Feb 2013 - 08:03:21) The point being, could you explain why you are a special case? Would a Chinese, Indian, Polish,family be allowed to build there, I rather think not. Do not give us the rubbish about wanting to live the"lifestyle" anyone who was born around here cannot be hoodwinked into that one. How we all would like a piece of land to do as we wished. You do seem to have a gripe about the local tax payer and home owner, I assume the family are tax payers!!? that they shop locally, use the NHS , use council facilities. No matter who you are, we all have to conform to mix in society. If you would have us believe that their way of life is an old way of living, go see a true Romany family.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - lily (26th Feb 2013 - 08:11:47) Mable, Sorry but I missed another point. Do you dispute thier traveller heritage? It is easy to trace, and anyone who has lived in Liphook for a number of years will know that this is a well known travellling family. Not just by surname but maternally too. In fact there is an article on when they lived in Durford Road Petersfield in the 1800s. The article talks of one of the men who was a "great singer" There is a lot of evidence of their heritage, so it is not like they have pitched up after living in Scotland or Ireland for example. Their family have probably been in this area a lot longer than you. Google travellers in Petersfield 1800s and you should find this very interesting article, you can also youtube the song.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - lily (26th Feb 2013 - 09:58:53) Mable, First of all why do you address me personally as being a special case? I am nothing at all to do with the family there, I just defend them because I am a human with human feelings. Indeed, if any Polish,Chinese, or any other person were being hounded out, I would defend them too. I dont discriminate against anyone, unlike some who do so by hiding behind laws that have not actually been broken. Secondly, I do not know whether they pay tax, but I assume they do, and if that is the case, surely they have every right to use NHS etc, so what is your pont there? If they do not pay tax, then I do believe that is up to the authorities to deal with. I expect whatever they would owe in tax is nothing like what Starbucks/Amazon etc have got away with! I will try to explain why the law will consider the travellers to live on thier land. They are in caravans, not brick houses, they will never be allowed to do such a thing. A caravan can be moved out, stables can be pulled down, essentially the land will not change at all. Someone mentioned horseboxes having an effect on the road, that maybe so, but as you all point out, it is a rural lane, where else would a horsebox go? Knightsbridge? Is everyone who own horses forbidden to take them to shows etc, there are many stables in rural lanes.Assuming the family pay council tax and permission is granted, I strongly suggest all residents take the condition of the road up with the highways agency. I refer to home/bank home owners because it seems like a very bad case of jealousy to me, you yourself said that you would like to have land to do that, and you appear to feel cheated that you cannot do so.Well you cant, nor can I, I dont live that way of life and nor would I wish to. Those who do have only done so because society since Henry viii time has not allowed them to settle.Still dont apparently. Do not insult me by talikng of true Romany families, you obviously know nothing about them at all or you wouldnt have such a narrow minded opinion. I ask if they bought a house next door to you would you be happy with that? No, probably not. I

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Mable M (26th Feb 2013 - 10:19:04) Yes Lily, it does make interesting reading, and I am sure a hundred years ago, the Gypsy lifestyle was not too different from everyone else. I myself lived in places with no heating, no toilets or bathrooms, but that was the norm back then. The gypsy life style has not been like that for a very long time. My family also originated from West Sussex but has been here at least a hundred and fifty years, and my maternal family came from Ireland. Does this give me special rights? Nothing I have read leads me to think there should be special reasons to allow the family to live there. It is unjust, and if allowed to go ahead is showing inequality to everyone else, and giving certain parts of society the go ahead to do as they wish.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - lily (26th Feb 2013 - 11:12:45) Mable Travellers lived in tents and wagons, they moved to where work was, picking hops/strawberries etc. It is true that life is not like that now where the work is concerened. but the customs are still there. It is their way of life to live in caravans, Im sure they could get council housing, perhaps buy a house, but it is their culture.It is my culture to live in a house, it is not theirs. Travellers are private people, it is a defence from the persecution endured for centuries. That we are even having this discussion highlights that. It is not the Devils Lane travellers who set the law is it? So venting your frustration towards them is not really the answer. Anyone opposing the law should take it up with parliament and appeal to get it changed. You at one point disputed their heritage, you have now seen the article which states the fact they are romanies. The family in Devils Lane are direct descent to the duford road family so there can be no question that they are in fact travellers. You quoted the annex, and the heritage must be proven. I do not think the evidence can be disputed. You say we all must conform to society, is this as long as you dont have to? I honestly feel that the people objecting are probably very worried about being able to sell their houses, and them also being devalued. I fully understand their concern because it is highly likely to be the case. It is such a sad thing that it is so, because it just points to the nimby problem again. who wants to have travellers as neighbours? Obviously I am making an assumption,i do however unhappily suspect my assumption is correct.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Mable M (26th Feb 2013 - 11:23:19) Would have no problem if they moved in next door to me,as long as there were no fisticuffs between the,as they so like to do. I would also stop the Prime Minister or David Beckham from moving there. That is the whole point!! No one should be allowed to live there, as there has never been housing, or a settlement there before. As for brick buildings, they are applying ( through retrospective planning ) a brick built utility building for washing and toilet facilities, That wont be as easy to dismantle, and will be an eyesore to the lane.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - H (26th Feb 2013 - 13:48:03) Two comments- One can the reference that 90 per cent of gyspy applications are refused be substantiated? I think that it is not that high! The other comment is if the family can be traced back 2 centuries to the Petersfield they are hardly travellers!

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - tony-tcm (26th Feb 2013 - 17:59:45) Gotta come back in on this. Lay off Lily you're like a pack of hounds! 1 traveller caravan and the good burghers of Liphook town are in uproar. A field is being 'lost' to a caravan they shout! Several hundred new houses up the road on Silent Gardens or Bohunt Manor(left in trust to the World Wildlife Fund by the old lord) and hardly a whisper! Hypocracy or prejudice? Maybe this family won't pillage the town, get a life! My old great nan tells stories about travelling families in Liphook that are a nearly hundred years old and they were really kind to her. You never know.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (26th Feb 2013 - 20:31:37) Lily, A hundred years ago everyone moved to where the work was. That is how the villages were made. Most men around here were cowmen working on the land. My grandfather and great grandfather were among those that worked the farms in Liphook and surrounding area. People had to live in homes that were provided from their employers. Most women went to work in service for the well to do, my grandmother among them. My grandfather was also a classical singer and made a record about 70 years ago. He was also a very good actor and played in many halls in the surrounding areas. The point being life was so very different for everyone, they all lived a hard life. Society progresses, maybe not for the better,but all people should be treated equal, and not certain groups being given special dispensation .

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Mable (26th Feb 2013 - 20:41:42) Tony, How naive of ye with ye ode of dooom. We all do not want any new build in the village, and dislike any progress , for those old enough to remember the village we are appalled, but new babies equate to new houses, but most are not greedy and demand a whole field for our family. If permission goes ahead then should not all land owners in that area get permission to get building permission

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - BDavies (27th Feb 2013 - 06:58:52) There was plenty of opposition to the Silent Garden housing scheme but all that was overruled centrally without any public consultation. Bohunt Manor continues to be a point of concern with much opposition expressed about the way the owners have tried to shoehorn this into the planning agenda (the farcical Temple application, the new road offer to "ease" traffic congestion to Haslemere but primarily to fulfil a luctritive house building ambition and so on). There are strict rules governing occupation of (and building on) green field sites and they are there for good reason. No matter what the background of the applicant may be, these rules apply as does the process of objection and approval entrenched in the planning application procedure.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Hal (27th Feb 2013 - 10:31:40) Tony, I would disagree with your comment that the Silent Gardens, Bohunt Manner and Weavers Down developments have received hardly a whisper against them. There have been a number of people in opposition to these very large developments in this small village. In a small village like Liphook there will always be opposition to any new developments in an essentially rural village, whether for a large house building scheme or for a travellers development. The reason that the travellers developments tend to generate a longer thread (and thus more apparent interest) on this site is purely because it involves actual people in the planning application so there will naturally be people ready to defend or argue the point on their behalf – there doesn’t tend to be anyone to defend the point for the large developments as everyone tends to agree that they don’t want it. There is not much to discuss on a thread if everyone agrees!

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Mo (27th Feb 2013 - 18:19:29) Pardon my ignorance: shouldn't real travellers and gypsies move-on, boldly keep up their chosen challenging and rich tradition - instead of settling down, surrendering to mod-cons? And how can anyone enjoy a frank argument here when we're all silenced by political correctness?

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (27th Feb 2013 - 21:36:19) Thank you to the local council and EHDC for not having the gumption to turn down the retrospective planning in Devils Lane. So, again the decision has been given to the few ,apposed to the greater community. Three years until a new Gypsy Site can be found,.... in terms that means "for good". Very sad for the lane, as it is already becoming mess with rubbish everywhere. All the people that opposed it were obviously wasting their time and their wishes were totally ignored. I would now think very carefully who you vote in for council, as they seem unable to make a judgment for common sense. How unfair is this?

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - dawn (28th Feb 2013 - 11:42:30) Please be clear about which Council are you talking about? dd not confuse the wishes of the Parish Council with the rules applied by East Hampshire DISTRICT Council or the dictats laid down by central government.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. P (28th Feb 2013 - 12:55:01) The parish council voted unanimously against the retrospective planning in Devils Lane at a previous meeting. Have they now been overruled ? Who made, the decision, EHDC? The committee report is dated 21st February, so had been decided by this date. Letters to the EHDC were still being sent on this date which means they were not taken into account and must have been ignored. There were eleven letters of opposition. Who stood up for these people?

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Mable M (28th Feb 2013 - 22:30:09) It all seems to be very quiet on this topic, I assume most of Liphook do not care how the local council vote on retrospective planning .Nobody from the council have given any good reason as to why they allowed the family to reside there. Can we have have some local councillors explain why the decision was made?

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Keith Budden (1st Mar 2013 - 16:39:25) One of the reasons EHDC probably gave permission is that there are no official gypsy sites within East Hampshire (and I believe I am correct in saying that there is only one in the whole of Hampshire) - if there were official gypsy sites then EHDC could order these travellers to move to that site or move on, but as there is no official site EHDC does not have this option open to them - that is the law as laid down by Parliament - so if you are not happy with it don't moan at EHDC or the Parish Council, write to Damian Hinds... EHDC councils of whatever political persuasion for the last 30 years have refused to grasp this one by the horns and allocate a site or sites. Even the new Joint Core Strategy with the SDNP is silent on this which is one of the issues picked up by the Inspector at the public hearing and one of the reasons that this section of the Joint Core Strategy is currently being reviewed. The problem is that no one wants an official site on their doorstep (often for some of the reasons people have cited on this thread, although like crime, fear of what may happen is often far higher than the reality), the majority of travellers are peaceful people who simply choose to live a different lifestyle than the 'status quo'. And no local EHDC councillor is going to accept an official site in their ward (and no parish councillor either) as to do so would be to commit electoral suicide. - so it's a classic catch 22 situation. My personal viewpoint has been for a long time that the only way to resolve the issue of gypsy sites would be for the Government of the day to assess where they should be, purchase the land (via compulsory purchase orders if need be) and then have those sites made available (possibly with a compensation package for local residents if there is a PROVEN devaluation in their property) Some people regard the EHDC decision as unfair - they may have a point but at the same time, just because your argument does not win, does not necessarily make the decision wrong - planners have to decide based on matters of planning guidance and case law and not on personal sentiment. But do not lay this at the door of the Parish Council, they are not the decision making body on planning decisions - they can only give their opinion, at the end of the day for good or bad the EHDC planning committee are free to ignore that opinion just as they can ignore yours or mine.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Dawn Hoskins (1st Mar 2013 - 17:03:28) Mable, I think you must mean DISTRICT councillors. Please everyone - do not rope Parish Councillors in with District. At Parish level, the opinions of local people are sought and often very strongly worded decisions are given to EHDC. However, as I have mentioned before [and one of the reasons I detest planning in general] EHDC do not have to pay any attention to what Parish Councillors say. They are supposed to - but if they did we wouldn't have half of the controversial applications waiting to be built that we do presently have. To read the opinions of the Parish Council Planning Committee you can follow the link from this page on the left. Then click on 'meetings' and select 'planning'.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Ed (1st Mar 2013 - 18:56:17) Why worry about a family of travellers, the whole field and the one opposite are going to be developed with housing before too long, the access road has been in goldenfields in preparation for years. It will happen before too long. The travellers will make a killing - again!

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Mable (2nd Mar 2013 - 10:33:07) Dawn, I stand corrected, I meant the District Councillors. I assume they have more powers ?

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (2nd Mar 2013 - 11:21:53) It seems there was a council meeting on Thursday 21st to decide the retrospective planning in Devils Lane. Could someone please explain why the local residents were not informed as to the date of this meeting. Not one letter or phone call from either EHDC or the District Council. It seems that this was pushed through very quickly and without letting people know. Is this legal.? I believe this should be looked into carefully. It seems a complete turn around by the District Council. Human rights, to the local residents have been ignored.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Pam (2nd Mar 2013 - 17:06:46) A.R. The Planning Officers on East Hampshire District Council (the paid officials not the elected councillors) recommended permanent permission for the gypsy site. Their reasons are set out in the Agenda Report which is viewable on line on the EHDC website. The elected councillors overturned this and at least got this application reduced to temporary permission which is a great deal better than permanent. I would strongly advise you to read Keith Budden's excellent, accurate and informative posting in conjunction with the Agenda Report and you will see the reasons as to why this site was down for permission. This application was not pushed through quickly or secretively. Your implication that it was, is just the sort of inflammatory and inaccurate nonsense which is devisive and unhelpful and by the way EHDC and the District Council are the same body. It was debated and discussed by Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council and the dates, agendas and minutes of their meetings are published on the internet for the public to read or attend if so desired. All EHDC planning applications are similarly published and also appear in The Herald. Letters of objection were received by EHDC and members of the public were in the public gallery at the meeting. So many people were aware of it and adjoining neighbours would have had a letter sent to them. It would be unreasonable and well nigh impossible for EHDC to phone or write to every resident in a parish every time there was a contentious planning application. Keith Budden is quite right when he says "that is the law as laid down by Parliament - so if you are not happy with it don't moan at EHDC or the Parish Council, write to Damian Hinds..."

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (2nd Mar 2013 - 18:02:25) Pam, As a resident of Devils Lane I can assure you I and no other resident were informed of this meeting . In fact it was by pure chance that someone made a call to a District councillor on that day that it came to light. Luckily two representatives of the lane went to the meeting. I am also aware of all documents over the last year and a half on the EHDC website. Discussions with EHDC proved unhelpful, but meetings with councillors at an earlier meeting at the time were helpful. How things change. I totally disagree with you that this was kept low key.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Mable (3rd Mar 2013 - 13:49:22) Interesting reading of the committee report dated 3rd September 2009 for the application of Fern Farm Longmoor Road. It matches the report for Devils Lane virtually word for word . In that application one family were applying, again retrospective, for the exact amount of caravans, including utility building. Does this make it a magic number, when asking for permission? This was granted as a temporary site, for three years, which surely has now lapsed. How many families now reside there? Again it appears to be the same case worker. This makes interesting reading , but was obviously ignored. The site is located at the edge of Greatham village, where there are other residential uses”. The site is in fact near the centre of the village, immediately adjacent to neighbouring houses in Longmoor Road and Wolfmere Lane. Access to the site can only be obtained by driving past those houses, the occupants of which have a right under the Human Rights Act to quiet enjoyment of their habitations. The District Council may be liable to proceedings under that Act should it grant permission to this application. Seems a lot of peoples rights in Liphook get ignored.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Keith Budden (3rd Mar 2013 - 14:13:23) With regard to neighbour notification, EHDC has no legal obligation to notify neighbours of any planning application of this size (a site notice which is attached to or near the entrance of the land which is subject to the application is all that is legally required), but in practice notifies any neighbours, but only those within 90 metres (roughly 100 yards) from the site boundary, so if your house is more than 100 yards from the development you would not have been notified. In any event, EHDC do not have to notify any neighbours, objectors or indeed the applicant themselves of the date of a planning meeting - you are expected to watch the EHDC website and/or speak to the planning officers at EHDC and get the meeting information from there. As has been said, both Liphook PC and EHDC publish meeting notes and agendas on their websites. I appreciate it would be better if people were notified directly but a) it would be impractical and b) in today's tight financial world, it is very unlikely to happen - all councils are having to cut back on any discretionary spending.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (3rd Mar 2013 - 18:20:20) Keith, EHDC still have enough money to text, email and send individual letters through the post after the fact, to let the outcome be known. I would say this was a foregone conclusion, as it is exactly the same out come as the Longmoor Road decision. In the previous meeting the only person not to object was the case worker. I also do not recall seeing any notice posted outside the land and as I go past there everyday I would have seen one. Can you categorically say there was one and let me know as to where it was?

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Pam (3rd Mar 2013 - 20:38:22) EHDC's website shows that they received 11 representations from members of the public (all objections) concerning this application. All of those objectors whose objections were received before the cut-off date for representations would have been sent an invitation to attend and speak at the committee meeting, Only the first person applying to speak is allowed to speak on behalf of all the objectors. This does not seem secretive to me. The following are the Parish Council's comments to this application. "Permission should be restricted to a three-year temporary permission, so that the family could be relocated should a permanent gypsy site be set up within the district. Also request that the precise dimensions of the site are recorded on the plans and specified in the permission." The District Councillors supported this proposal so that the permission was limited as follows: "1 The use hereby permitted shall be for a limited period being the period of 3 years from the date of this decision. At the end of that period, the use hereby permitted shall cease, all caravans, materials, utility room, vehicles and equipment brought into the land in connection with the use shall be removed and the land restored in accordance with a scheme previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - A temporary permission has been granted to provide time to identify a more suitable site via the Local Plan Process, as a permanent permission is premature and prejudicial to the result of the Traveller Accommodation Assessment. 2 The occupation of the site hereby permitted shall be carried on only by the following and their resident dependents: Fred Keet, Rachel Keet, Shannon Bridgeland and Shaun Bridgeland. Reason - The application was granted due to the specific circumstances of the applicant and his family." I am glad that Bramshott & Liphook Parish Councillors secured their request for a three year TEMPORARY permission on this site. As to A.R.'s comment and I quote "I totally disagree with you that this was kept low key. " What is he or she talking about? I do not think this was kept low key and again I emphasise that until the law of the land is changed Councils have no choice but to grant permission or temporary permission to travellers to live on sites until such time as designated sites are available. In conclusion A.R.'s comment and I quote "In the previous meeting the only person not to object was the case worker" I would suggest that this demonstrates A.R.'s fundamental inability to comprehend planning proceedures. The case worker is not there to vote, but there to present the District Council's recommendations to the councillors based on their professional understanding of the applications according to planning policy.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - bdavies (4th Mar 2013 - 05:36:16) The problem is that when an application is made and objected against, any minor amendments seem to constitute a requirement to object again. The "process" implies that when anyone or an organisation seeks permission to do something that is unpopular, all they have to do is make a minor amendment and we have to start all over again. When people object, I would hope that this remains in force no matter how many changes are put forward to skirt around the opposition. The other thing is that those making the final decisions from a remote office 12 miles away rarely have to live with the consequences which is why we have a Parish Council to represent the local community and protect its interests. Too many times, this local representation is ignored, something that we have seen happen all too often in the past. This temporary granting of permission will be watched very, very closely and after three years we all expect the current situation to be reversed unequivocally without the need for more lengthy reviews and bureaucratic mulling over any other applications that come to light. Who knows what will happen to this area of Devils Lane over the three years but most people can hazard a guess.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (4th Mar 2013 - 10:59:30) There are two conflicting statements on this thread. Pam is under the allusion that residents would have been informed of the meeting on the 21st February, while Keith states that the council are under no obligation to let anyone know. Who is correct ? Pam are you a councillor as you appear well informed? Yes as a resident I am acutely aware as to who can vote and I am also aware the case worker was the only person to vote for the planning to go ahead in the previous meeting. All councillors said no, The Haslemere Herald carried the story. Bdavies has hit the nail on the head with his reply. Well said.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - pam (4th Mar 2013 - 12:47:01) I know from first hand experience that letters regarding planning applications are sent to owners of ADJOINING properties/land. A.R. has quoted me as saying "Pam is under the allusion that residents would have been informed of the meeting on the 21st February, while Keith states that the council are under no obligation to let anyone know." I did not say this. I said in my posting and I quote that "all of those OBJECTORS whose objections were received BEFORE the cut-off date for representations would have been sent an invitation to attend and speak at the committee meeting. Only the first person applying to speak is allowed to speak on behalf of all the objectors." A.R. states that "I am also aware the Case Officer was the only person to vote for the planning to go ahead in the previous meeting". This is nonsense. The Case Officer did not vote. The Case Officer prepares the report for the committee that appears in the Agenda. The Case Officer presents the report at the start of the discussion and answers any questions raised by the councillors during the discussion. The councillors then vote on the application. The officers do not vote on the application and that includes the Case Officer. The decision to refuse or grant permission is solely that of the elected councillors present. bdavies is not correct when he says and I quote "The problem is that when an application is made and objected against, any minor amendments seem to constitute a requirement to object again. The "process" implies that when anyone or an organisation seeks permission to do something that is unpopular, all they have to do is make a minor amendment and we have to start all over again." If an application is refused as it was in this case and is then resubmitted with THE REASONS FOR THE REFUSAL ADDRESSED then yes it is treated as a new application. That is the important point. The reasons for the original refusal have to be addressed not just any amendment minor or otherwiise in order for the applicant to re-submit the application as a new one. In other words they have changed their application to meet with the planning requirements flagged up by the elected councillors. As Keith Budden said, if anything is to change with regard to the law on "Gypsy Status and Sites" then it has to be done by parliament. Lobby Damian Hinds not the District or Parish Councils. The Parish Councils can only comment and the District Council has to work within the framework of planning laws.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (4th Mar 2013 - 16:25:51) Pam, These were your words from your recent posting I said in my posting and I quote that \"all of those OBJECTORS whose objections were received BEFORE the cut-off date for representations would have been sent an invitation to attend and speak at the committee meeting. You have been mislead as not one invitation was sent to the objectors, before or after the cut off date which was the 19th February, two days before the meeting. I suggest that all the objections were ignored and the council advised to go for the three years, exactly like Fern Farm. By the way that has now been over three years and they have appealed to stay. Starting to get a bit of deja vu here. I suggest that the councillors we vote in are there to help us, if they cannot stand up to certain areas of democracy then why stand for election?

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Pam (4th Mar 2013 - 17:46:26) A. R. You really are not reading my postings or if you are you are not understanding them. I said that all those objectors who wrote to the District Council BEORE THE CUT OFF DATE, would have been written to. The cut off date is the date 4 weeks after the application is lodged. If the letters of objection were received after that date no, they would not have been answered. I cannot be any clearer than that. At the time EHDC published the Agenda 3 letters of objection had been received. I do not know if they had been received before the cut off date or after - that is something you would have to ask EHDC. At the time of the meeting 11 letters of objection had been received including the original 3 If you think that EHDC are ignoring people, have something to hide or are behaving inappropriately, then take up with them, don\'t blame your councillors Again you don\'t seem to have understood Keith Budden\'s posting when he states quite correctly that until the law is changed on gypsy status and travellers sites, the hands of EHDC and also your elected councillors are tied. If they ignore this law, then the applicants will go to Appeal and almost certainly win, costing you, the taxpayer money. Don\'t blame your councillors - they did their very best and at least got temporary permission which was what the parish council wanted and at least it is better than permanent. May be if enough people lobby parliament instead of blaming their local councils, in three years time the law will be changed. Lastly, if you feel so strongly that your councillors and I quote \"cannot stand up to certain areas of democracy \" why don\'t you put yourself forward as a District Councillor candidate at the next election.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (4th Mar 2013 - 18:35:43) Pam, For those of us who sent letters WE WERE NOT INFORMED. I have also spoken today with EHDC. about this. By this phrase, I get the impression it always going to be a forgone conclusion. I think this has been debated on this thread as to whether this is fair. Again you don\'t seem to have understood Keith Budden\'s posting when he states quite correctly that until the law is changed on gypsy status and travellers sites, the hands of EHDC and also your elected councillors are tied. If they ignore this law, then the applicants will go to Appeal and almost certainly win, costing you, the taxpayer money.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Anonymous (5th Mar 2013 - 11:02:11) 1. Why don't you just make a simple poll of yes or no, excluding a comment box, that way people dont have to look like fascists, selfish, or look like they don't value other human lives and the quality of them. 2. If there is such a problem with the Tarmac or danger etc, I'm sure there must be someone in this village polite enough to just point out the issue, and ask them nicely to rectify it and explain why. Point, evidence and explanation, you learn it in primary school. And number 3 maybe we should stop valueing peoples lives over others, and see everybody to be equals. Yes mr smith may not like how loud the gypsies are, but maybe the gypsies don't like something he does, a poll of a simple yes and no would ensure the stupidity of arguing, and live in a proper democracy.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Pam (5th Mar 2013 - 13:06:58) A.R. Fairness does not really come into the equation. Life is not always fair and sometimes laws are unfair and that is when, we who are lucky enough to live in a democracy, must seek to change the law. if that is what we want to do. As the law stands at the moment local councils are obliged to give permission on land owned by travellers/gypsies if there are no appropriate and designated sites available within the parish. The law is very clear and to ameliorate the situation, councils can grant a temporary planning permission until such time as they have an allocated site with the appropriate number of pitches. That is the law whether we like it or not and until it is changed at a national level, local councils will be bound by it. Whether it is fair or not is another matter. So, instead of criticising your local councillors and councils who are doing their very best within the framework of the law, badger, berate and bombard your MP's, in East Hampshire's case, Damian Hinds, in order to change the law. I have lost count of how many times this has been spelt out in this Thread. If you feel so strongly about traveller/gypsy sites, do something about it.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (5th Mar 2013 - 14:41:39) Pam, Do you really think we have been sitting on our laurels for the last year and a half ? The residents have gone by the book and , worked within the boundaries of the law on this matter. It has not been a walk in the park, as every attempt to oppose has all been ignored and come to nothing. I shall not go into detail of who has been spoken to, and about any meetings, suffice to say that we were lead all the way through this process, believing that common sense would prevail. Why did the powers that be not hold their hands up at the beginning and say "no can do" instead of going through this ridiculous farce. You wonder why I do not put myself forward for council, ? this country's law is so tightly bound up in red tape that I would find the restrictions to do what is right, suffocating. What is the point of electing someone when their hands are basically tied behind their backs.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Pam (5th Mar 2013 - 15:09:51) A.R. Have you spoken to Damian Hinds? No point in lobbying anyone else outside parliament. They cannot change the law.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (5th Mar 2013 - 16:06:34) Pam, Damian Hinds office was spoken to and some councillors were informed that if they needed help it was there. I assume they did not take up the offer.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - may (5th Mar 2013 - 19:46:58) Sounds to me like a lot of sour grapes, most people would love to be able to do what these travellers have done, but, sadly for them they cannot prove their heritage which is the crucial part in any succsefull planning application of this kind, get over it, that is the law and the law must be upheld, its about time things went the way of the traveller, for too many years they have been the victims of racial abuse, at long last thingsare changing, no more pushing from pillar to post, all I can say is good.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (6th Mar 2013 - 11:02:48) This is what human rights should look into. One persons heritage is supposedly more important than an others persons. Just because one wants to live a different way should not give them exclusive rights to do so. As for being jealous , I don't think so. The land has been so badly managed it is no more than scrub land filled with ragwort. There is no privacy up there as it can be viewed from virtually 365 degrees.by properties and gardens, and the amount of usage the lane gets is constant. All comings and goings can be viewed from every lane leading to the land. No I would think most people would find it too exposed to live up there.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - may (6th Mar 2013 - 15:54:42) Its not about one persons heritage being more important than anothers, its about a way of life that has been in existance for generations, not simply because a person "chooses" to live in a certain way, that way of life has to be proved in order to obtain planning permission, travellers who live this way live a much greener life than the rest of us, caravans can be removed, and the small buildings that are built, eg, utility rooms are easily demolished, leaving the land intact, not like your developer or even a self builder, hence the condition that the land is for the use of travellers only. Why should they change their way of life, after all they cant travel anymore as there is nowhere to stop, the travellers way of life should be preserved, it is a rich and colourful culture, people should take the time to educate themselves on these people, I believe their culture should be taught in schools the same as any other is, maybe then barriers can be broke down and we could all be more accepting of each other.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - H (6th Mar 2013 - 17:36:01) I agree that genuine gypsies have a cultural heritage but that should not allow for such inequity in the planning rules.The permissions are given at the moment purely because of the lack of official council sites in Hampshire. The planning laws also may change and the inequities removed.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Mable (6th Mar 2013 - 19:49:39) May says " it is a rich and colorful culture" Oh please ... a lot of people here and the surrounding areas went to school and grew up with some of the families.. We all know of their "culture" and it is not the romance of the lovely old caravan being moved around, with jolly old songs by the fire. For one, the police I am afraid, are usually one step behind. No details will be put here , but some will be well aware. Colorful , yes, usually the language, and I don't mean the rich cultural language of the past. But getting back to the point , it appears that the Irish travelers have more rights than the the boring old Brit, with his boring old culture.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - may (7th Mar 2013 - 06:17:42) Mable, you I am afraid are the very type that keeps rascism alive, you are tarring a whole community with the same brush. I too went to school with them and witnessed first hand bullying of them, I wonder if you were one of those bullies, you know, the name calling,, smellie, fleabag, amongst other things of course. why do some people think they are above others? As for Irish travellers as far as I am aware the people in Devils lane are English and their family date back to Liphook for around a hundred years

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - may (7th Mar 2013 - 06:22:37) Mable, you have also shown the real reason why you oppose them living there and it has nothing to do with greenbelt or preserving the countryside.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (7th Mar 2013 - 08:06:48) May, Remember these remarks you made dated !st August 2011, I think no one has been racist to any one, just voicing concern over truthful matters, but this, this is clearly inflammatory.... As you say a lot of bad apples etc. but how often do you hear of a traveller doing a murder or being a child abuser not very often no that is the other breed, the so called law abiding perfect breed that is the gorgies, that is the travellers word for non travellers who travellers regard as dirty filthy rotten people who feed their dogs off their plates and wash their plates in the same bowl as their underwear rotten people, not the travellers who cherish their old folk, they dont put them in an old peoples home and get thir money, love their children, and have more understanding of their animals then you could ever know. So if you dont understand the culture you should not comment because you do not understand what you are talking about and you never will. The thread started on 4th July 2011 makes for interesting reading..

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - may (7th Mar 2013 - 09:02:44) A, I beg to differ, read Mables comments, quite clearly she has something against the whole race, can I ask why you took the time to go back over old threads, you must be really angry that they got permission, or jeaulous maybe, or both.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - may (7th Mar 2013 - 09:30:54) And yes I stand by what I said, its all true.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - lily (9th Mar 2013 - 11:34:08) Mable, "Colourful languge". I did literally lol at this. So I suppose travellers are the only people to use offensive language! Considering their own language derives from punjab, I suspect they picked up "colourful" language from non travellers. Dear oh dear! Go to any pub in the country, never mind the village and you will hear bad language lol. Perhaps you dont go out, or watch t.v, bad language is in use daily, and shock horror, it is not limited to travellers. You say you wouldnt mind them living next door as long as there were no "fisty cuffs" That is so stereotypical it is unreal. Or is every pub brawl, domestic violence case, teen fight etc etc related to being a traveller? You truly do talk nonsense. I am laughing, yet I am appalled. I am astonished at your ignorance. Someone mentioned police, and how they manage to defeat them. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. If the travellers are running rings around the police Id suggest they should apply for a job at MI5, or we seriously need a new policing system. I think our police do a fabulous job, but hey, thats just my opinion. The fact is they have their permission temporarilly, and those who dont like it will, in this case just have to lump it. Along with the espionage, swearing, and "fisty cuffs". Good luck to them, and god speed!

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - lily (10th Mar 2013 - 01:02:10) Mo, DUH! The reason they travel is because they have never been allowed to stay! They cannot pitch up anywhere anymore, and never really could. Travellers are called that because thats what they have had to do, from the influence from people like you. What do you want them to do? Travel and be hated? Settled and hated? Would the gas chamber be the final solution? Would that suit you? Why cant you all see that these people are in fact people, with feelings. Perhaps it is some on here that lack that very basic human compassion. I do hope the slight few on here dont represent or reflect the majority. Shame.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (10th Mar 2013 - 11:09:24) I get the feeling this thread has become The May and Lily Show. They forget that this was about a retrospective planning that was being complained about. They forget that there was the issue of the rural lane having been damaged by a digger to accommodate a mobile home. They forget that no other family apart from the distinction of being called a Gypsy gives you the sole rights to being allowed to live where others would not. Of course if someone wants to live in a caravan, that is perfectly acceptable, I would think no one disputes that. There are in fact quite a few nice mobile sites in the surrounding areas. This particular planning should not have been allowed, solely on the lane being one way, and quite dangerous to pedestrians. It was quite inappropriate for any building to be allowed there. The lane has also become badly damaged due to the constant use, that the council will be picking up a larger bill having to repair it. I think Lily and May know all this, but are playing the racism, and you are all picking on us card. Sorry but it just doesn\'t wash with most of us. The issue is regards the planning. You can Google Devils Lane to see what once was a beautiful lane. It does not look like that anymore.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - FT (10th Mar 2013 - 14:00:09) Yes, and if you go on Google Street Maps you will be.able to spot that the travellers gouged an enormous chunk of established bank and hedge to gain entry into the field!

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - may (10th Mar 2013 - 14:12:02) And the planning has been decided so end of story

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (10th Mar 2013 - 19:38:12) No, far from end of story, as those that allowed this planning have ruined a lovely rural lane and have a lot to answer to. Maybe they should have taken a leaf out of Prince Charles\'s way of thinking.... \" The countryside is “as precious as an ancient cathedral” that must be protected,\" this according to the Prince of Wales as he warned rural areas are suffering from issues like insensitive development, The previous poster was spot on, there has been a huge area in the bank that has been dug out, and large trees and branches removed to improve the visibility, which was a criteria from the Highways. How sad that the council allowed such devastation, just to pave the way for the retrospective planning to go ahead. Some one could have said \"no\" to this but they let Alison Heine win another Gypsy case.and nobody on the council could be bothered to fight it.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - lily (11th Mar 2013 - 07:06:50) Prince Charles is a pampered prince who knows nothing about real life. Im not sure that it is \"fair\" (that word being used alot) for him to be able to pick and choose where he wants to go...Balmoral/Windsor/Buckingham/Kensington.Who cares what he thinks? Id like to put him in a council house for a year on jsa and see how he does.In any case Prince Charles is not allowed to voice any political opinion. Rural Lane? What about before the houses were built? Im sure it was much more beautiful then before the existing houses were plonked on there. As for being the Lily and May \"show\" isnt it refreshing to have opinions that differ from your own AR/AP whoever you decide to call yourself today? I havent used the word racism. I would say discrimination is a much better term, I however would not like to feel that I have been either/or towards anyone. Are you peeved because Lily and May tell you how it is rather that allow you to hide behind \"rural lane\" issues? You dont care about the pretty little lane, you care about kerching!

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - lily (11th Mar 2013 - 07:18:19) AR I must advise you that "picking on us" bears no relation to me. I cannot be picked on because I am nothing to do with them. I simply defend them, it is certain that apart from myself May and Tony, that no one else will. Are you that astonished that some other people dont harbour your dark opinions/thoughts on others?£££££££££££££?

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (11th Mar 2013 - 10:32:25) Lily, For someone who has nothing to do with the family who put in the retrospective planning, you certainly have got the bit between your teeth.The issue is of the planning and to where it is, but you keep bringing back to a personal level. Why? If you do not know the family, how in all honesty can you, as you say "defend them ". and what is it you are defending? The issue has nothing to do with them personally, only the actions to which they have taken to wanting to live there. Why do you assume the house prices in the lane will go down,do you know something the rest of us don't ? As has been said in a previous post, no one should be allowed to live there.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - H (11th Mar 2013 - 11:52:47) Caring about the countryside is not a political issue. Prince Charles is not alone there, and if people are allowed to get round planning to make hundreds of thousands in the future, when permission is sought to remove gypsy status, as has happened recently at Hill House Hill, that loophole should be closed. By having to pay prices for the land which reflect the fact there has been permission granted, would they bother moving? don't think so.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - may (11th Mar 2013 - 14:18:11) Ahhh so it DOES come down to jealousy lol

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Kevin Jackson (11th Mar 2013 - 15:05:35) This posting has degenerated into insults and side- tracking and Keith Budden and Pam are the only ones who have actually stated the facts as they are - ie as the law stands at the moment District Councils must allow travellers/gypsies to live on their own land either with temporary or permanent residential permission if no other suitable site can be found within the district/parish. THAT IS THE LAW and the only way to change it is to lobby your MP and get the law changed through the Parliament. Whether A.R. likes it or not the hands of local councils are tied. They cannot change the law nor seek to have it changed. Only we the electors can do that. Whether it should be changed is another matter, but blaming local councils and their councillors and trading unpleasant insults is a waste of time. So to those who do not think travellers/gypsies should be allowed to live on land they own without going through the due planning process by which the rest of have to abide, get off you backsides and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Only you, the electors, can get the law changed - that is what living in a democracy is all about. Quit moaning and take action if you think that this law should be changed. If it is changed then local councils will be able to enforce the due process of planning across the board and travellers/gypsies will have to go through the planning process in order to obtain permission to live on land they own, the same as everyone else does.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (11th Mar 2013 - 15:27:17) Kevin, What do you think the residents have been doing ? And it's not "sitting on their backsides"

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Tanaka (11th Mar 2013 - 19:21:24) I have been reading through the thread and would ask everyone to calm down. I walked down Devil's Lane twice recently, last time on Sunday. The first time I did not even notice a travellers' site or any rubbish. The second time I was aware of the argument and took a good look at the site. Everywhere was clean and tidy. I do not think that the site presents any problem. Why not give this family a chance before people start a campaign. It is a big mistake people make when they say 'travellers are like this or like that'. There are as many different people amongst travellers as there are amongst the rest of us. I had quite a lot of dealings with travellers through my previous job. I met some very lovely people with very good social skills who love and care for their children and are proud of their very clean and tidy homes and I also met a few who were not so pleasant. Please do not tar everyone with the same brush. Intolerance and stereotyping groups of people is very counterproductive. Give each one a chance and do not assume anything. I believe that there is room in any society for people who choose a different life-style as long as they do not harm anyone else. We need to respect each other's way of life. On the other hand, not all people who own their home/mortgage are interfering nimbys either. On another subject, I agree that the local community in Liphook has been robbed of beautiful open spaces which used to be accessible to the public, such as the Bohunt Manor and King George's Hospital site. I am sure that Lady Holkham would be horrified to see that her beautiful lake with waterfowl, which everyone could enjoy for a small donation to WWF, which she apparently left to WWF was turned into a commercial development with everyone else barred and the latter, once a popular area for walkers has been turned into a heavily fenced 'ghetto' apparently guarded by dogs. I am not aware of any public consultation re either of these former beauty spots and marvel how the sprawling development was ever allowed. Compared to these concerns, one family settling near the Devil's Lane does not deprive anyone of the right to walk freely and enjoy the ever-shrinking countryside.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - may (12th Mar 2013 - 12:13:48) Tanaka, Very well said

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - liz (12th Mar 2013 - 14:06:59) I think most people will agree with what Tanaka has said. But she hasn't addressed the question as to why one group of people should have preferential treatment when it comes to planning, whoever they are - and I think that is what concerns most people here.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (12th Mar 2013 - 15:36:22) Liz, Very well said

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - mary (12th Mar 2013 - 15:50:59) well done for geting planing in devils lane i would not call it a travellers site becouse its just one family, a travellers site is a lot of caravans and a lot of familys,get your facts stright,and i can see no problem,at the lane when i loooked in at the caravan it was clean and tidy no noise,people get a life stop being races

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Kevin Jackson (12th Mar 2013 - 18:53:07) A.R. Nowhere in any of your posts on this Thread have you stated that you have contacted the one person who would possibly be able to facilitate a change in the law governing planning when applicable to gypsies/travellers. You seem to have spent your time villieying the local councils and councillors who can do nothing to change this planning law and exchanging heated insults with people who support the travellers/gypsies. If local councils do not adhere to planning laws they will be taken to appeal by the applicant(s) at great expense to the electorate and in all probability the applicants will win on appeal if there is no planning reason why they should not. If you have contacted him, however I apologise for making assumptions, but would ask you in that case to share with the rest of us what the outcome of any such consultation with Damian Hinds was. I read Tanaka's very well written post with great interest and accept that all she said may be true, but the fact remains as Liz so succinctly put it "she hasn't addressed the question as to why one group of people should have preferential treatment when it comes to planning, whoever they are - and I think that is what concerns most people here." Liz is completely correct - there is an inbalance in the planning law when applied to travellers/gypsies. The law has become outdated, unnecessary and unfair and I have an inherent dislike of unfairness. It seems that the "rest of us" are being discrimnated against by this law in favour of travellers/gypsies and not the other way round.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (13th Mar 2013 - 19:53:25) Kevin, I would recommend you re-read the posts, as this was posted by A. R. (5th Mar 2013 16:06:34) Pam, Damian Hinds office was spoken to and some councillors were informed that if they needed help it was there. I assume they did not take up the offer. A lot of time and effort was put into keeping the lane rural, but it seems the law was always going to be against us. It seems you can not prevent these things happening because the laws that be can not be seem to biased to certain ethnic groups. But by being so, discriminates against others. Kevin , please read all postings as you will find every legal path was taken on this.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - may (13th Mar 2013 - 23:37:40) Why is the lane not now rural, I am sure there are many such lanes up and down the country that have horse boxes going up and down them, equestrian pursuits are after all a country thing to do, I dont think there are too many stables in inner cities.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Kevin Jackson (14th Mar 2013 - 11:29:51) A. R. I have been reading the postings very carefully and did read your posting 5 March and I quote: \"Damian Hinds office was spoken to and some councillors were informed that if they needed help it was there. I assume they did not take up the offer.\" I actually asked if you had contacted Damian Hinds not his office. That is the only way forward either by telephone to arrange a meeting or by letter. This is the only way forward to get this outdated law changed. No good speaking to a faceless office and I am very, very surprised it they offered help to the District Council. Help to do what? Flout the law of the land which clearly states that unless suitable sites can be found for travellers/gypsies within a parish/district then they must be given permission to live on land they own. I have lost count of how many times this has been repeated on this Thread and yet some people still do not seem to understand it. With reference to this particular site as Mable said in her posting 21 Feb., and I quote \"The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers as defined in Annex 1: Glossary, paragraph 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, March 2012. Reason - The site lies in a locality where permission would not normally be granted for residential development.\" What is clearer than that? A.R You seem to spend a great deal of time writing postings for this Thread. If you have not already done so, would not your time be better spent in writing to Damian Hinds voicing your concerns about this law. He is then bound to forward your letter on to the Minister concerned and will reply to you when he has the Minister\'s reply and you and other like-minded people will have to pursue it from there. It could be a long drawn out process but in this life there is no gain without pain. If you have written to Damian Hinds, what was his reply? Please share it with us all as I am sure there are many people reading these posts who would like to know. If you haven\'t yet written, I would advise you to do so without delay. Three years will pass very quickly and unless the law is changed by an Act of Parliament, temporary or even possibly permanent permission for this site,will be granted because the District Council will have no choice.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - may (14th Mar 2013 - 14:53:35) The law should not be changed in my opinion, why shouldnt travellers be allowed to live their traditional way of life, they are not permitted to travel anymore as there is nowhere for them to stop, how many times have we heard "if they are travellers why dont they travel" the answer is simple, because they are not allowed to travel, not in the traditional way of yesteryear, so it seems they are not allowed to travel and they are not allowed to settle, well at least not unless it conforms with societys way of what they see as settled, If people cant or wont see the difference between a planning application from someone of gypsie culture and that of someone who is not of gypsie origin then it is because they must be blinkered and refuse to see the reasons behind the law governing such applications.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (14th Mar 2013 - 15:07:29) Kevin You are right, speaking to Damian Hinds, might have helped, but I am beginning to have my doubts. His office was spoken to and they were quite helpful, but at no time was he spoken to personally. I would have thought that this could have been done by some of the District Councillors as they have been elected by the local community to represent its views,( which really is quite a joke when their views have, in the long run been ignored.) Coming from them might have been better than from " the little man" But, by the by, this issue it appears was always going to fail, as the council were just going through the legal motions, and the planning application was always going to be recommended. It seems that the goal posts can get widened in these matters. As you so rightly put it, three years will pass and they can appeal for permanent residency . The phrase " the council will have no choice" is quite prophetic really as it seems they really do not have a choice.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Kevin Jackson (14th Mar 2013 - 17:35:59) Yes that is exactly what will happen in three years' time if the electors do not lobby their MP's not just in East Hampshire but throughout the country. This situation is happening in all areas of the UK. This old and outdated law was made by Parliament NOT local councils and it can only be changed by Parliament It is not the job an elected local councillor to seek to change the law of the land on behalf of a local council. However he or she might well want to do so on a personal level. That would be up to him or her as an individual. If you look at history - it is the "little man" as you so quaintly put it, and I would add to this "or woman" that in the end will make a difference if the will is there. I can give you two names without even thinking about it - Mahatma Gandhi and Aung San Suu Kyi. However it takes dedication, self sacrafice, hardwork and patience to change hearts and minds and more prosaically laws.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. R. (14th Mar 2013 - 19:25:52) Oh, if only some of us were as dedicated as Mahatma Gandhi and Aung San Suu Kyi. Sometimes greatness is thrust upon some regardless if they want it. Some are just in the firing line at that moment. I suspect though that in trying to change this law, there would be some who would accuse those of being racist, or worse, as has been mentioned by some in previous posts. The laws on retrospective planning for some should be changed, but it is such a controversial subject no one wants to muddy their hands with it.. .

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Kevin Jackson (14th Mar 2013 - 20:47:09) A.R. That may be true but if you do not try you will never know.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - D (15th Mar 2013 - 19:14:37) If travellers stop travelling then they are no longer travellers so they are maybe subject to the same laws as non travellers

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - may (16th Mar 2013 - 13:09:24) But they havent stopped travelling by choice, there are no stopping places anymore, so this is the only way they can sort of preserve their lifestyle, if the council provided stopping places, it would take away the reason why travellers gain permission

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - sjenner (5th Jun 2014 - 16:39:57) I see a new planning application planningpublicaccess.easthants.gov.uk/online-applications 52747/008 is this a variation on the original or a new application? 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.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. Ryan (5th Jun 2014 - 18:27:22) This is a variation of conditions to the first application. I believe par for the course. Everyone is going through this nonsensical rigmarole, with what will end up being that their lawyers will get them what they want. As for everyone commenting on the application, well that is just farcical, as the EHDC and Parish Councillors will bow down to their demands.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Val (6th Jun 2014 - 14:48:15) The Parish Council and EHDC do not have a choice until the law of the land is changed on gipsy status by the House of Commons. Don't knock local government, lobby your MP.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - A. Ryan (6th Jun 2014 - 18:17:24) Val, you are correct in your supposition. It's a pity that the Parish Council and EHDC could not be more transparent in what they can or can't do. Leading one up the garden path springs to mind .

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - sjenner (1st Nov 2014 - 04:52:33) This is now under planning reference 'Hill Top Stables, Devils Lane - 52747/008' I notice that the appeal hearing takes place on December 3rd at 10:00am which is a Wednesday morning when most people who work will be at work. If the appeal hearing is meant to decide an outcome then how is anyone going to be able to “take part in the discussion” at a time when they will unlikely be able to attend. Write to the case officer lesley.wells@easthant.gov.uk and tell her that a poor turnout at this event is no indication of the depth of feeling against the application.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Dawn Hoskins (1st Nov 2014 - 11:00:51) If you are interested in the location of the site and the reason for the appeal you can click on the links below. planningpublicaccess.easthants.gov.uk/... easthants.moderngov.co.uk/documents/...

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - helen (1st Nov 2014 - 12:26:03) I think you may be able to comment on EHDCS site under the appeal section it would cover the same grounds as the original objections. I am not 100 per cent sure but worth a look, in case writing a letter does not get noticed! most things are done on line these days!

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Sarah (1st Nov 2014 - 12:33:41) Sjenner... All appeals whether for an extension or a 5,000 house scheme commence at 10am on a weekday. This is down to the Planning Inspectorate and is standard practice (and has been for many years). The inspector will consider all views put in writing and it is at his/her discretion whether they will hear third parties at the actual appeal (either in support or objecting to the scheme). On this page planningportal.gov.uk/planning/appeals/.... There are guides for taking part in appeals (planning or enforcement) it might be worth taking a look. In essence my point is that the time is standard and has not been set to prevent people from taking part. If you have an issue take it up with the planning inspectorate.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Dawn Hoskins (1st Nov 2014 - 14:22:23) “It's a pity that the Parish Council and EHDC could not be more transparent in what they can or can't do……….” This – I do not understand. There is already ABSOLUTE and concrete law which has to be abided by the planners. If the District Council continue to fail to find a permanent site (which is on the cards) then gypsy families making applications to stay on their own land must be given either ‘permanent’ or ‘temporary’ permission to stay on their land. What can be clearer or more transparent than that? If you lobby EHDC to locate a site then - when applications come in – the applicants can be directed to said site. If the district council refuse to do this, then the families have nowhere else to go - and must be allowed to stay where they are. Unless you want them turfed off their own land and into a layby on the side of the road (which is what this rule is trying to prevent). As it is, there are no identified permanent sites in the area and restrictions already in place stipulate a maximum of 4 caravans. Having read the letters of objection, the one warning of loads of ‘strangers’ arriving and being a ‘danger to the security’ of the children is simply scaremongering. Because of the restriction in number (4 caravans) I do not agree that we will be visited by large numbers of travellers should this permission change from ‘temporary’ to permanent. The ‘Planning’ department can only deal with ‘Planning’ matters. If you have an issue with your neighbour….. perhaps you think they are guilty of anti-social behaviour, vehicle abandonment, rowdy or inconsiderate behaviour, littering, damage to public highways etc [I AM NOT SAYING THAT THESE THINGS HAVE HAPPENED] then this is a matter for either the Police Safer Neighbourhood Teams or EHDC enforcement. It will not (and never will be) a consideration for the planning department. If you have an issue with Government Policy, this is not an issue that can be dealt with by the planners. They are not IGNORING you if you complain about government policy it is simply not on their radar when dealing with planning issues with defined and strict rules in place which must be abided by.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Val (1st Nov 2014 - 20:03:18) Dawn if you took the trouble to read the previous posts on this Thread you would see why people do not understand the planning process. Now you have made it clear but perhaps that should have been done at the beginning of this post months ago. You seem to be the only parish councillor contributing to Liphook Talkback, but perhaps it is a joint effort behind the scenes and you are the allocated spokesperson. It is a pity more councillors don't speak out and PLEEEESE do not pull out that old chesnut that "Liphook Talkback is not the forum for debate - electors should attend the parish council meetings." They did, in great numbers, on Monday about The Willows Nursey and look where that got them. Absolutely nowhere. They were left feeling disenchanted and ignored - which in great part they were.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Dawn Hoskins (2nd Nov 2014 - 11:18:43) Val. I am not a designated spokesperson - it's just me Dawn. That's my way - to speak freely. I don't know why other Councillors don't and I also wish they would. I think it is because people become abusive and personal and that hurts their feelings - which I totally understand. I have seen regular posts here from Jane Ives and Paul Robinson who are also very open, and also Trevor Marony with Plan updates (he started the plan before he was a councillor). I know that a lot of people went to Full Council, and given that the item you wanted to discuss was not on the Agenda I am not at all surprised that everyone, Councillors and Parishioners included, were entirely dissatisfied. I don't know who it was that encouraged so many people to attend this specific meeting? What should have happened is a request for it to be put on the agenda with a list of questions - then have a meeting to talk about it. That way Councillors would have felt that they had given all the correct information and Parishioners would have got all the answers they wanted. I almost feel that the meeting was a cynical 'set up' by someone who knew it wouldn't and couldn't work! Full Council is once a month and is a bit like 'snippets' of information and decisions that have been decided by all the other Committees. The actual 'full debates' are had by the relevant committee prior to Full Council. Full Council is a way for all Councillors to know what has happened on Committees on which they do not sit. I hope this is helpful.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Val (2nd Nov 2014 - 13:43:00) Dawn, thank you for your post but I did not find it entirely helpful. On your first point that you think they reason why councillors do not post on this site with the regularity that you do is because people become abusive and personal, I think you have to take into account that if a person stands for public office this goes with the territory. This does not mean a I condone abusive and personal remarks - I do not - but as the saying goes \"if you can\'t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I knew a councillor, not from found here and this was many years ago, who actually had a really horrible Christmas card from a dissatisfied parishoner, wishing him and his family a horrible Christmas and bad luck for the New Year. He threw it in the bin and he is still a councillor. I realise that the item regarding The Willows was not of the Agenda and was brought up under Public Participation. Firstly I don\'t know which councillors read Liphook Talkback, you mentioned three councillors who have placed posts on Liphook Talkback. You obviously do on a regular basis so some members of the PC must have realised that there would be a great many people attending Monday\'s meeting. The matter should have been handled much more sensitively and sensibly. Either a proper amount of time should have been allotted for members of the public to have their say at the meeting or another evening allocated when members of public could attend for a full and frank discussion. To my knowledge this was not a \"set up\" as you imply just a great many worried parents who were concerned that a wonderful nursery was about to be closed at very short notice. In your last para you say that actual \"full debates\" are had by the relevant committees prior to Full Council. Yes it was on the Recreation Committee Agenda under The Beacon Building (a name which apparently was not associated with The Willows by many people) and it was in another of BLPC\'s much favoured Exempt Sessions which as I am sure most people realise exclude members of the press and the public. Sorry I seem to of hi jacked this Thread - not intentional - I was just trying to convey the mixed messages BLPC are giving to their electorate on many subjects. The thing people most object to is not being heard and that is happening all too often in Liphook and Bramshott.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Editor (3rd Nov 2014 - 14:52:15) You can now comment on the proposed changes in TRAVELLER legislation - see this document - www.gov.uk/government/... The closing date for responses is 23 November 2014. It will be on the next planning meeting for the PC to consider.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Resident (7th Feb 2015 - 18:32:07) Having taken a look at their most recent planning application (submitted at the end of Jan), it appears they are applying for residential use for 6 families, 12 caravans on this piece of land. There were alot of people who have commented on this thread saying "its only one family"! So how do you all feel now? I have absolutely no issues with the current family living here, they are polite and friendly and keep the site clean. I am not sure I am happy at all with the proposed 6 families living in this space....... I assume this WAS the plan all along. Have any other local residents been informed of this new planning application? We haven't!!

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Darren (8th Feb 2015 - 08:27:58) Resident and others. The new planning application 52747/009 is not on the piece of land currently occupied alongside the railway line. It is on a separate piece of land at the other end of Devils Lane at the junction of Chitley Lane. I'd recommend looking closely at the application and documents to make your own mind up if this is a suitable place for 6 families and 12 caravans and all that entails.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - wendy (8th Feb 2015 - 11:32:43) most of these comments are dated 2013, so why is it being treated as current issues?? my only dealings with gypsies/ travellers, was not a happy one. My son allowed them to park in a field opposite his business, the children were sent to his offices to beg for money, and they did their 'toiletries' right next to the office, they never used dustbins, when the wind blew, rubbish and other very unsavoury items blew about everywhere, and the dogs barked night and day. He did this kindness out of the goodness of his heart, and he then had to spend the next 6 months trying to get them moved on. .

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Resident (8th Feb 2015 - 12:55:08) Wendy - it is being treated as a current issue because they have just put in planning permission for 12 caravans on a piece of land at devils lane/ chiltley lane. Take a look at the planning application...EHDC planning portal reference 52747/009

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Another Resident (8th Feb 2015 - 15:46:11) Without a doubt this was the plan all along. If the family gets permission, which undoubtedly they will , then all that needs to be done is a bit of in filling. Then hey presto the whole field will be used. At a recent council meeting to determine the the outcome of family already there, the planning consultant who helps Gypsy families win their cases actually said of housing them at the Longmoor site, it would turn it into a ghetto if it got too large. If this is what she thinks, and she is helping them then no wonder people get worried. Is she implying that too many together becomes a problem.

Re: Travellers Site in Devils Lane - Joyce (13th Apr 2015 - 14:04:19) Just been along the lane and it looks much tidier. Rubbish has gone from the road.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home