AN enforcement appeal hearing over gypsies living on land on the outskirts of Liphook came to a close this week.

The hearing, led by Government inspector Tim Belcher, heard an appeal against the issue of the notice on Felix Connors by East Hampshire District Council last February, for using the agricultural land as a gypsy caravan site.

A decision is expected within three months.

The Chiltley Lane Action Group highlighted its main issues as the effect on highways safety and the free flow of traffic, the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, the effect on the biodiversity of the site and whether temporary permission would be appropriate.

Action group members felt the development was not in accordance with the development plan as a whole and there were no other material considerations which outweighed the presumption against granting of planning permission.

They also stated it imposed a policy of general restraint on the site which is in open countryside and the aim was to protect the countryside for its own sake. An action group spokesman added that the appellants’ evidence fell well short of showing a genuine and proven need for a gypsy site in a countryside location.

There are also populations of dormice – a protected species under EU law – living in hedgerows.

Before granting any permission for the removal of hedgerows to build a new access to the site, the action group called for a statutory dormouse survey to be carried out.

In addition, it pointed out several highways issues including the extent to which the immediate road network could accommodate the likely additional and nature of traffic movements and whether the location would encourage the use of means of transport other than by car.

Moreover the nature of traffic generated would include caravans and commercial traffic, which would be particularly unsuitable for the area’s narrow lanes.

In response to the new proposed access to the site, the action group said Chiltley Lane, one of Liphook’s many sunken roads, is a single track with limited passing places which would result in difficulties in bringing caravans to, and from, the site – regardless whether or not there is a new access.

The lane has to be designated by the highways authority and neither Devil’s Lane nor Chiltley Lane have been designated.

The action group pointed out the site is almost as far away from schools as it is possible to be, and no facility is within easy walking distance of the gypsy site, with bus services extremely limited which means it is not conveniently located for access to medical services and other community facilities.

Mr Masters QC, representing the Connors family, said it was not within gypsy culture to cycle or walk to facilities but to use the car, indicating the likelihood of the occupants walking or cycling was remote.

He also claimed there were not enough suitable existing sites in the district to house gypsies and travellers, and the site was in the best location for a gypsy family, close enough to a settlement and accessible.

He accused EHDC of an absence of a five-year supply of gypsy sites and of consistently ignoring and failing the need to identify sites for travellers to live on, which has led to them having to buy land instead.

He stated government policy directs gypsies and travellers to find land near settlements. The site east of Devil’s Lane complied with that and was highly sustainable as well as extremely well-hidden from sight.

According to the action group, since the site was occupied in February 2015, it has been used as business premises and a place to house eastern European workers for Oakland Paving, Abbey Driveways and Taylor Mande Driveways.

Even though the injunction allowed five caravans to be stationed on the site, none of the families said to be in need of a settled base arrived to use it as a settled base from February 2015.

Only Felix Connors, his wife and their three children arrived for a short time in 2016 and the real need for the site has been for housing eastern European labourers.

The action group called for the appeal to be dismissed, as the proposed development was contrary to the development plan as a whole – and because it considered 12 months as a very generous time period in which to comply with the steps in the enforcement notice.

But Mr Masters referred to the Government’s planning policy for travellers’ sites, dated August 2015, which stated local planning authorities should work collaboratively, develop fair and effective strategies to meet need through the identification of land for sites, as well as promoting more private traveller site provision while recognising there would always be those travellers who could not provide their own sites and ensure its Local Plan included fair, realistic and inclusive policies.

An application for change of use of land, previously used for grazing, to a residential caravan site for six gypsy families, each with two caravans, was made at the beginning of last year. Mr Connors, the applicant, also proposed to erect six amenity buildings as well as the construction of an access road.

The encroachment began early last February when two caravans, generators, two diggers and a truck appeared on the land.

EHDC issued a temporary stop notice to halt further development for 28 days, taking the occupiers human rights into account before obtaining a High Court injunction last March, prohibiting further breaches of planning control.

The council’s enforcement notice sought to stop all unauthorised occupation and the removal of all caravans and associated development within 12 months, to allow the occupants time to find an alternative location.