A group of travellers has lost a battle with a council to settle on a land in a National Park despite promising to install e-bike chargers to prove their eco credentials.
Michael Chalk and Tom Butler were accused of including ‘token sustainability features’ in their planning application in a bid to impress councillors and to get them to approve the plans for the site in the New Forest.
Their application sparked a furious row in the village after the pair set up pitches with their families and proposed to install e-bike chargers and cycle sheds on former pony paddocks.
This came after they set up caravans on the agricultural land in the heart of the Hampshire site, and proposed to build grey, plastic e-bike sheds and charging ports on the field.
However, this failed to impress locals in Burley, who branded the move ‘performative’.
They said the ‘superficial additions’ were merely an attempt to mitigate the potential environmental impact of the development.
Now, councillors at New Forest Park Authority have refused the application and said the families did not have an ‘established local connection with the New Forest’.
Chiefs described the development as both ‘intrusive and incongruous’ and said it would result in the ‘suburbanisation’ of the rural area.
Their application sparked a furious row in the village after the pair set up pitches with their families and proposed to install e-bike chargers and cycle sheds on former pony paddocks
This came after they set up caravans on the agricultural land in the heart of the Hampshire site
Mr Chalk and Mr Butler made the retrospective application to install two static caravans, two touring caravans, parking, bin and cycle stores, e-bike charging points and boundary fencing on the former pony paddocks in Burley earlier this year.
Their plans sparked backlash amongst locals who are opposed to the ‘urbanising nature’ of the development.
Philip Mosley said: ‘Token sustainability features, such as electric vehicle and e-bike charging points, do not genuinely offset the environmental impacts of permanent housing, increased traffic, waste production, and extensive hard surfaces.
‘True sustainability should align naturally with the environmental context, rather than serving as superficial additions.’
Mr Mosley said approval would set a ‘concerning precedent’ and encourage similar applications.
He added: ‘Protecting the unique character of the New Forest National Park should be a top priority.
‘While acknowledging the need for suitable accommodation options for all communities, including Gypsy and Traveller groups, this particular proposal significantly fails to meet essential planning criteria.
‘The negative consequences clearly outweigh any perceived benefits.’
Dr A Lawrence Dr C Walter even described such application as ‘mischievous’, suggesting that it ‘seeks to legalise an encroachment of a built residential environment onto rural land, and that in a National Park’
Burley has a population of just over 1,300 and is surrounded by the open heathland of the New Forest.
The traveller site is located just off Ringwood road, which runs through the ancient village.
Andrew and Rachel Holloway live next to the paddocks and said before the site was developed in March, they overlooked fields and hedgerows.
The couple said the land has ‘completely changed’ since the travellers built on the site.
Mrs and Mrs Holloway said: ‘The Pony paddocks have been urbanised and the natural beauty of the fields and surrounding area in this conservation area damaged.’
They said the addition of the caravans and grey plastic bike sheds does not enhance the landscape and ‘scenic beauty’ of the New Forest.
The couple added: ‘It certainly harms the character and appearance of the area, and would never be considered as high-quality design.’
Another neighbour, named as Mr Briggs, said while the application is framed as a ‘multi-functional rural enterprise’, the true proposal is ‘unambiguously residential’.
Andrew and Rachel Holloway live next to the paddocks and said that since the travellers have built on the site the land has ‘completely changed’ as the pony paddocks have become ‘urbanised’, while the ‘natural beauty of the fields and surrounding area’ has been ‘damaged
He wrote: ‘The application appears to exploit features-such as electric vehicle and e-bike charging points-as superficial nods to sustainability objectives.
‘These token elements cannot reasonably be construed as mitigating factors for the intrusive environmental and visual impacts of permanent dwellings, waste generation, hard infrastructure, and increased vehicular activity.
‘Sustainability, in planning terms, is holistic and must be contextually appropriate-not performative.’
More than 70 neighbours objected to the plans.
Mr Chalk and Mr Butler have also been criticised for putting up ‘threatening signage’ outside the site when they moved in.
Outside the front of the site is a sign which reads: ‘Strictly no entry without permission. Please beware. Reactive guard dogs roaming loose which will bite you.’
In their application the two men said their families intend to integrate into village life, using local shops and other amenities.
But one objector argued: ‘The tall fencing and aggressive signage displayed at the entrance do not suggest a willingness to integrate with the community.’
Dr A Lawrence Dr C Walter said in their objection: ‘This is a mischievous application that seeks to legalise an encroachment of a built residential environment onto rural land, and that in a National Park.
‘The proposal is for static homes with attendant infrastructure – charging points, bin stores, cycle stores.
‘It urbanises and its fences suburbanise what was a pony paddock in a rural setting.
‘There is nothing temporary in this proposal just as there is nothing rural or agricultural.
‘Already mostly built, it sets a damaging precedent for incremental (sub)urbanisation of the village.’
The New Forest Park Authority have since rejected the application.
A council officer said: ‘Insufficient information has been provided in order to ascertain the gypsy status of the applicants for planning purposes, nor that the applicants have an established local connection with the New Forest.
‘The need for the two gypsy pitches to be within the National Park has not been satisfactorily or clearly demonstrated or that there is a locational need which cannot be met by an alternative site outside of the National Park.
‘The development is intrusive and incongruous in this setting, resulting in the suburbanisation and erosion of the rural area and significant harm to the character and appearance of the protected landscape of the National Park.’
