Heath Charnock Travellers: appeal rejected by judge (From Chorley Citizen)

Heath Charnock Travellers: appeal rejected by judge

2:15pm Monday 27th September 2010 in Adlington

Travellers who set up home on a swathe of green belt land in Heath Charnock have lost their fight against enforcement notices after a judge ruled they could not take their appeal to the high court.

Judge Grenfell rejected the application for ‘leave to appeal’ to the high court from one of the landowners Joseph Boswell.

In a hearing at Leeds Combined Court, the high court judge ruled that the Travellers had no grounds for further appeal.

Councillor Peter Goldsworthy, Leader of Chorley Council, said: “We are delighted with the result and it proves we were right to protect our beautiful green belt land.”

“It totally vindicates the work of our planning service and shows we made a fair and correct decision.”

The dispute dates back to June 2009 when Travellers set up home on their land, which was due to be used for horses and stabling.

A retrospective application for two mobile homes and 14 caravans was rejected by Chorley Council and the planning inspector also refused to grant planning permission.

Two enforcement notices were issued to stop any further change of use to the land and to prevent any further development at the site until the matter was resolved.

The three appeals led by the Linfoot and Boswell families went to a three-day public Inquiry in March and the independent planning inspector decided to dismiss the appeals against the enforcement notices and also dismissed the appeal against the refusal of planning permission.

On Thursday, barristers representing the council, neighbouring residents, the Treasury Solicitors Department and the applicant made representations before Judge Grenfell.

The judge decided there were no reasonable grounds for an appeal against the enforcement notices, which means the Travellers must now comply with them.

They will be left with no option but to move on from the site, which has been described as “jarring to the eye” and “seriously damaging” to the area if their separate challenge against the inspector’s decision to refuse planning permission is unsuccessful.