Gypsies lose in High Court bid to quash eviction order - Staffordshire

From the Tamworth Herald

A COMMUNE of Gypsies have lost a High Court challenge to an order forcing them to leave two sites in Hurley.

Pacer Sutcliffe and Hope and Lisa Taylor, and their fellow residents at Wrens Nest, had hoped to persuade High Court judge Mr Justice Duncan Ouseley to quash a Government planning inspector's decision to uphold enforcement notices issued by North Warwickshire Borough Council.

They wanted the judge to order the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to have their case reconsidered, and ultimately hoped to win at least temporary planning permission allowing them to stay there.

But the judge ruled that the inspector's decision was "lawful" and must stand. As a result, in accordance with the inspector's decision, the Gypsies must leave the site within 18 months.

The Wrens Nest representatives had claimed the inspector failed to consider the cases of the gypsies on the eastern site and larger western site separately.

They felt the inspector wrongly took into account a Travellers site with a temporary planning permission when considering available alternative sites, and wrongly held their unlawful occupation of these sites against them.

Pacer Sutcliffe, of the western site and Hope and Lisa Taylor of the smaller eastern site also argued the need for Gypsy sites in the area justified a grant of a temporary planning permission until an alternative was available.

However, the judge said: "In my judgement, he has reached lawful and adequately reasoned decisions in relation to each site.

"He has properly divided the report into common and individual sections, the former dealing with issues common to both sites and the latter with the personal and planning considerations arising on each site separately.

"There is no improper confusion between the two."

"I'm not persuaded that there was any error in appreciation of the facts, let alone a significant one, on the part of the inspector."

He also said that the inspector had been entitled to refer to their "opportunistic" occupation of the land: "The inspector was concerned to point out that acting in breach of development control, as the appellants had done, was not something which they were entitled to do by virtue of being Gypsies and Travellers. That is obvious."

He added: "There was no breach of natural justice in his approach."