From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Andy Burns wrote:

GB wrote:

In this case, the landowners probably expect to string this matter out
for years, getting years worth of residential development for the
price of a field plus a bit of hard core paving. I've previously
argued that councils should have far more draconian powers to
intervene, so as to make that an unprofitable option.

There was a similar case near me last year;-a after several years of
refused applications and refused appeals, a JCB turns up over August
bank holiday weekend, rips opening in hedge, spreads gravel, static
caravan placed on land, gates installed.

The latest I can tell is that the council imposed an enforcement action
in December, but the site is still in use ...

The site has been allowed to stay for 3 years.

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g517pdd0yo>


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 02/06/2026 22:50, Andy Burns wrote:

GB wrote:

The latest I can tell is that the council imposed an enforcement
action in December, but the site is still in use ...

The site has been allowed to stay for 3 years.

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g517pdd0yo>

Andy is local, I used to be just up the road to that one. People in the
area are livid. The Council, or their Officers, are really not in the
real world. This is why Reform et al are gaining traction in the
Country. It should have been an instant refusal, then enforcement to
move them.
Strange how if you have a planning problem when building a house, the
council will take enforcement action, but arrive in a caravan, when
planning permission has been refused, and you get a 3 year pass, which,
of course, will then be made to full approval.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2026-06-03, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:

On 02/06/2026 22:50, Andy Burns wrote:

GB wrote:

The latest I can tell is that the council imposed an enforcement
action in December, but the site is still in use ...

The site has been allowed to stay for 3 years.

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g517pdd0yo>

Andy is local, I used to be just up the road to that one. People in the
area are livid. The Council, or their Officers, are really not in the
real world. This is why Reform et al are gaining traction in the
Country. It should have been an instant refusal, then enforcement to
move them.
Strange how if you have a planning problem when building a house, the council will take enforcement action, but arrive in a caravan, when
planning permission has been refused, and you get a 3 year pass, which,
of course, will then be made to full approval.

Your comments are not consistent with what the article says, which is
that the council *did* immediately refuse the application, and *did*
take enforcement action, but that the council was then overruled by the Planning Inspectorate.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Jon Ribbens wrote:

Your comments are not consistent with what the article says, which is
that the council did immediately refuse the application, and did
take enforcement action

They did refuse the retrospective application FWLTW, but they never
moved anyone from the site, which has been continually occupied since
last August bank holiday weekend ...

There's anther site a mile away, that was denied, but given similar "3
year" breathing space, which last week was granted permission for the
initial pitch plus four more (one pitch seems to cater for 2 mobile
homes and 2 caravans)

Ad Alan suspects, there's little doubt the 3 year "life" of the bank
holiday case will follow the same path ...


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2026-06-03, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

Jon Ribbens wrote:

Your comments are not consistent with what the article says, which is
that the council did immediately refuse the application, and did
take enforcement action

They did refuse the retrospective application FWLTW, but they never
moved anyone from the site, which has been continually occupied since
last August bank holiday weekend ...

I'd be surprised if it was legally possible to move anyone that quickly, especially given there were clearly appeals in progress.

I'm not sure what a defunct Swiss engineering company (Foster Wheeler)
has to do with it though...

My point is that it doesn't seem reasonable to blame the council, given
it's not obvious what more they could have done.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 03/06/2026 11:44, Jon Ribbens wrote:

Your comments are not consistent with what the article says, which is
that the council*did* immediately refuse the application, and*did*
take enforcement action, but that the council was then overruled by the Planning Inspectorate.

Then it is the Planning Inspectorate who need to up their game, and
refuse to allow people to do what they want when local people are
vehemently opposed to building on a greenfield site.
Like I said, this sort of decision plays into the hands of Reform who
will be quite happy to say how the local People do not get what they
want, and the blame will fall on the Councils.
That Reform will be no better will not register, this decision was
totally against what locals want, against the local housing plan etc,
yet it was given permission, so people who are Law abiding will again be saying 'two sorts of justice'.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 03/06/2026 12:43, Pancho wrote:

Apart from immediate neighbours, why do people care? It's not visible
from Church Road. There is much more visible building going on just down
the road in Ovenden Rd. There have always been lots of Travellers in the region, I was told there is a concentration of them in Edenbridge.

This one is in Blaby, Leics.
It is a conservation area. Bounded by a small country park, next to a brook.It's never been built on as it's an imperfect plot , with a number
of tree preservation orders on the trees, and, of course, planning
permission would never be given for anyone who actully went through the correct route to apply to use the land.
Of course the trees have been cut down without permission, and as Andy
said, they've levelled the plot, put gates up, made a vehicular access,
and sited a caravan there.
All without permission, and now they've been allowed to stay there.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 6/3/26 12:25, Alan Lee wrote:

On 03/06/2026 11:44, Jon Ribbens wrote:

Your comments are not consistent with what the article says, which is
that the council*did* immediately refuse the application, and*did*
take enforcement action, but that the council was then overruled by the
Planning Inspectorate.

Then it is the Planning Inspectorate who need to up their game, and
refuse to allow people to do what they want when local people are
vehemently opposed to building on a greenfield site.
Like I said, this sort of decision plays into the hands of Reform who
will be quite happy to say how the local People do not get what they
want, and the blame will fall on the Councils.
That Reform will be no better will not register, this decision was
totally against what locals want, against the local housing plan etc,
yet it was given permission, so people who are Law abiding will again be saying 'two sorts of justice'.

Apart from immediate neighbours, why do people care? It's not visible
from Church Road. There is much more visible building going on just down
the road in Ovenden Rd. There have always been lots of Travellers in the region, I was told there is a concentration of them in Edenbridge.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2