Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Travellers may fight Gummer's refusal of `living village'

Jojo Moyes
Saturday 23 March 1996 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A group of travellers may appeal to the High Court after the Secretary of State for the Environment turned down planning permission for them to build an "experimental sustainable living system" in a field they had bought in Somerset.

In what was seen as a test case, the 20 members of the Kingshill Collective were the subject of a planning inquiry likely to set a precedent for "alternative dwellers" across Britain.

Nearly two years ago they bought four acres of land near Glastonbury and applied for permission to set up home. Their alternative village, comprising 16 "benders" - semi-permanent homes made from largely organic materials - takes its power supply from solar panels, uses dead wood for heat and draws water from a bore hole at the top of the field.

But it was denied permission by Mendip District Council, which said it was seeking to protect the rural and visual character of the area. The refusal and appeal triggered several cases where John Gummer, the Secretary of State, "called in" theirs and similar judgements for reconsideration.

In a letter Mr Gummer, said: "The considerations favouring the grant of planning permission include continued security, savings to the public purse, sustainability and experimental value . . ."

But he added: "The view is taken that all of these considerations . . . are not of sufficient strength to outweigh the strong planning objections, including the highway objections."

The inspector's report accompanying the letter referred to the "applauded efforts of the collective to minimise their impact on the environment within the site . . . There was considerable public support for this project and no one doubted the sincerity of the group's aims and intentions."

But it said that local residents were concerned that the granting of planning permission would set a precedent that would encourage further travellers to settle.

"My view is that a favourable decision here would lead to similar applications and consents for temporary sites for benders or tents with a serious cumulative impact on the rural landscape and the provisions of public services," the inspector said. The collective has 12 months to find new homes.

Ravi Low Beer of the Public Law Project, who has represented the collective, said that the decision was "disappointing but not unexpected" and that they were considering ways to appeal. "We say that these people shouldn't be evicted, that once humanitarian issues have been raised the onus is on the public bodies concerned to show why people should be evicted," he said.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in