Land adjacent to Culhams Mill – Unlawful Development

His Honour Judge Bidder finds against the traveller application to vary injunction

In the case of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council vs Thompson (and others) which was recently held in the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division, His Honour Judge Bidder QC has now handed down his judgement.

 

The full judgement comprises a 59 page document and, as His Honour Judge Bidder stated at the opening of the case, probably represents an important legal landmark.

 

The full document can be found on the Calleva Society website here ; however the following is an attempt at a brief summary.

 

The conclusions of the judgement are best summarised in the following extracts from His Honour’s closing remarks of the judgement.

1. There has, in this case, been very substantial environmental damage and there is urgency in the need to bring this unauthorised occupation to an end.

2. I have reviewed the interests of the children.  It is very clear that stability is a pressing need in their lives and their best interest lie in a stable base, and continuous schooling and health care.  However, the problems of providing that to them lie as well in the difficult decision of their parents as to whether they continue to hold by the tenets of their own culture.  Moreover, while the best interests of the children must be a primary consideration they do not overtop other consideration and, similarly, while a decision not to vary the injunction may lead to interference with their and their parents article 8 rights, there are other competing interests and the court must assess proportionality.

3. To vary this injunction would be wholly to undermine the court’s authority and the planning system and would give a green light to “strong arm” tactics designed to bypass or unfairly influence planning decisions.

4. I decline to vary the injunction and, apart from the adding of a defendant, I dismiss the Defendants’ application.

In outline, the Travellers’ case was based on three basic pillars;

1. That they had been in residence on the site since before the High Court injunction was served (despite the slightly perverse recognition that they had not actually been present on the site for much of this time) and therefore, under article 8 of the Human Rights Act, should not be evicted from their homes.

1. That there was a good chance of obtaining planning permission in the near future through their retrospective planning application.

1. That the best interests of the children are served by remaining on the site and that the only option available to the traveller families is to return to the roadside.

Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council, together with Silchester Parish Council and the Calleva Society, produced several hundred pages of evidence to oppose the Travellers’ application to vary the original High Court injunction which would allow them temporary residency until the planning application has been evaluated and determined.  His Honour Judge Bidder has found against the three pillars shown above and instead found in favour of the Borough Council.

So what does this actually mean?  It should be noted that this case was not the main planning application.  Instead it was an application which would effectively mean that the High Court injunction was suspended.  By refusing the application to vary the injunction, the Judge has determined that the injunction remains in place and is enforceable from the date that it was first served on the 21st February 2017.  Therefore any individuals that have brought caravans onto the site or remain in residence on the site are doing so in contempt of court and risk imprisonment as a result.

From the perspective of Silchester Parish Council and the Calleva Society, the next steps will be to continue to apply pressure on Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council to apply for enforcement of the injunction and also to bring about a speedy determination of the planning decision.

We will continue to keep the community updated as things progress and we encourage residents to get in touch with us should they become aware of any new developments on the site.  We would also encourage residents to contact Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council to ask them to enforce at the site; they can be contacted on 01256 844844, or via the website at https://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/planning-enforcement  or email enforcement@basingstoke.gov.uk

Regards

Simon Mahaffey  Chair Silchester Parish Council

Steve Spillane  Chairman   Calleva Society

email – callevasociety@gmail.com

Web – www.callevasociety.org

see full document here Basingstoke – Thompson FULL Document

or click the image below

In the case of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council vs Thompson (and others) which was recently held in the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division, His Honour Judge Bidder QC has now handed down his judgement.

In total the judgement comprises a 59 pages and, as His Honour Judge Bidder stated at the opening of the case, probably represents an important legal landmark.

The full document can be found here however the following is an attempt at a brief summary.

The conclusions of the statement are best summarised in the following statements which comprise some of the closing remarks of the judgement.

1. There has, in this case, been very substantial environmental damage and there is urgency in the need to bring this unauthorised occupation to an end.
2. I have reviewed the interests of the children. It is very clear that stability is a pressing need in their lives and their best interest lie in a stable base, and continuous schooling and health care.  However, the problems of providing that to them lie as well in the difficult decision of their parents as to whether they continue to hold by the tenets of their own culture.  Moreover, while the best interests of the children must be a primary consideration they do not overtop other consideration and, similarly, while a decision not to vary the injunction may lead to interference with their and their parents article 8 rights, there are other competing interests and the court must assess proportionality.
3. To vary this injunction would be wholly to undermine the court’s authority and the planning system and would give a green light to “strong arm” tactics designed to bypass or unfairly influence planning decisions.
4. I decline to vary the injunction and, apart from the adding of a defendant, I dismiss the Defendants’ application.

In outline, the travellers case was based on three basic pillars;

• Firstly, that they had been in residence on the site since before the high court injunction was served (despite the slightly perverse recognition that they had not actually been present on the site for much of this time) and therefore, under article 8 of the UN Human Rights Act, should not be evicted from their homes.

 

• That there was a good chance of obtaining planning permission in the near future through their retrospective planning application.

 

• That the best interests of the children are served by remaining on the site and that the only option available to the traveller families is to return to the roadside.

 

BDBC, together with Silchester Parish Council and the Calleva Society, produced several hundred pages of evidence to oppose the Travellers’ application to vary the original High Court Injunction which would allow them temporary residency until the planning application has been evaluated and determined.  Subsequently, His Honour Judge Bidder has found against the three pillars shown above and instead found in favour of BDBC.

So what does this actually mean?  It should be noted that this case was not the main planning application.  Instead it was an application which would effectively mean that the High Court Injunction was suspended.  By refusing this application, the Judge has   determined that the injunction remains in place and is enforceable from the date that is was first served on the 21^st of February.  As result, any individuals that have brought caravans onto the site or remain in residence on the site are doing so in contempt of court and risk imprisonment as a result.

From the perspective of the Parish Council and the Calleva Society, our next steps will be to continue to apply pressure on BDBC to apply for enforcement of the injunction and also to bring about a speedy determination of the planning decision.

We will continue to keep the community updated as things progress and we encourage residents to get in touch with us should they become aware of any new developments on the site.

Dear Resident,

The 30^th November and 1^st of December saw a further two days of hearing at the High Court in London.  Once again, it was gratifying to see a good turn out from Silchester Residents which will undoubtedly help to demonstrate to the Judge the strength of feeling in the village.  This brings the total time spent on this particular application to five days in court and it is still not over yet.

The Court proceedings are to hear an application from the Travellers to vary the existing High Court Injunction to allow them to continue living on the site until the planning process has run its course – which would include any appeals to the Planning Inspector – a process which could take years. This is opposed by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC). The Silchester Parish Council and the Calleva Society have been supporting the BDBC Legal, Planning and enforcement teams.

On the Thursday (30^th), the Travellers’ barrister completed the case for the Travellers.  In general, their argument was based upon three basic premises.  The first of these being that they claim to have been resident on the site since February 17^th.  This is despite the fact that they acknowledge that the site has been left empty for much of this time and that they have only begun to populate the site since the beginning of October.  During the period that they were travelling over the summer they stated that they thought of Silchester as being their home.  As such, they claimed that it would be against their human rights to be evicted from their home.
The second basic pillar of their argument was that it is in the best interests of the children to be located on the site in order to receive a settled education and that they had no other alternatives locations.  The final piece of the argument was that their planning consultant put forward an argument to the Judge to suggest that they had a strong chance of receiving planning permission in the near future.  All three of these lines of argument were set against a background of the travellers claiming that they were not aware that the High Court Injunction applied to them.

The BDBC barrister responded with a series of strong arguments to counter the position set out by the travellers.  Amongst others these included;

1. A series of photographs taken by residents of Silchester showing that the site has been completely empty all summer and occupied only by derelict caravans.
2. Data provided by our Community Speedwatch team showing that the entrance to the site is on a highly dangerous road.  This was supported by an objection letter from BDBC Highways department.
3. A strong argument showing that children cannon be safely walked along the Little London road to access the school.
4. Evidence from an independent planning consultant working for BDBC to demonstrate the numerous planning grounds that stand against the site.
5. An objection letter from Hampshire County Council Countryside Planning team showing that the access route to the site is a footpath/bridleway and vehicular access cannot be granted without permission of the landowner.
6. Evidence from Simon Mahaffey showing that the AWE have a licence to emit low level radioactive particles through the sewage works.  Of itself this is not a problem but could potentially lead to harm should AWE suffer a radiation leak – something not unheard of in the past.
7. Evidence that the current development breaches the SSSI restrictions and is on a flood plain.

Whilst the evidence was fully presented by the end of the two days there was not sufficient time for the barristers to give their summary statements.  The Judge directed both barristers to make their final statements to him by 11^th December and he committed to making a preliminary judgement before Christmas and then handing down final judgement on January 12^th.

Last week we heard that the Travellers barrister had asked for more time for their planning consultant to respond to “new” evidence raised in testimonies of Simon Mahaffey and Stephen Jupp (BDBC Planning Consultant). The evidence amongst other areas featured the potential problems with Nuclear scenarios relating to AWE and abuse of the SSSI. The Judge has extended the period for the Barristers submissions for a week. This means we are unlikely to hear any more before January. It is also fairly typical of the delaying tactics employed by the Travellers.
In the meantime, both the Parish Council and the Calleva Society are continuing to press BDBC to make a decision on the Planning application and to take enforcement proceedings for the existing High Court Injunction. See below for a copy of our latest letter to BDBC.

Thank you to all those that made the effort to attend the court, it really does make a difference

Also, thank you for all the reports of movements and goings on at the travellers site. These are all captured and passed on. If you see anything illegal or experience anti-social behaviour please report to the Police at 101.

Finally, may we wish you a Happy Christmas and a Healthy New Year.

Simon Mahaffey – Silchester Parish Council Chairman
Steve Spillane – Calleva Society Chairman
callevasociety@gmail.com

To help finance the work of the Calleva Society donations can be made here https://callevasociety.org/make-a-donation/