Travellers lose battle to settle in National Park despite 'token' promise 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.
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.'
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'.
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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Chagos Islands deal will see Mauritius ‘receive £35bn over 99 years'
A deal to keep the UK-US military base running in the Chagos Archipelago is projected to see £34.7 billion handed to Mauritius over the next 99 years. Conservative shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel has accused ministers of trying to "cover up" the cost of ceding the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, alleging an "accountancy trick" was used to price the deal at £3.4 billion. The higher £34.7 billion figure, released after a freedom of information request to the Government Actuary's Department, is a nominal amount. Adjusted for inflation, the deal is worth an average £101 million annually in 2025/26 terms, reducing its value to around £10 billion in today's money. The UK Government has agreed to cede the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius but retain control of the military base on Diego Garcia. Ministers feared that without a deal, the base's future was in doubt amid challenges in international courts and tribunals. 'We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers,' Dame Priti wrote in The Telegraph, which first reported the figures. 'But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts.' Dame Priti also warned that 'instead of owning up to the costs, Labour has used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only £3.4 billion – still a vast waste of money'. She described the £35 billion figure as 'mind-blowing', and labelled Foreign Secretary David Lammy as ''Calamity' Lammy'. Dame Priti accused him, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, Attorney General Lord Hermer and special envoy for the negotiations Jonathan Powell of being 'the worst team of negotiators in history'. The figures, seen by the PA news agency, show that the Government used a Treasury principle to reduce the figure by between 2.5% and 3.5% per year to £3.4 billion. This 'social time preference', used since 2003, is based on the idea that taxpayers would prefer to get their return on the deal sooner rather than later.
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
27 ‘is typical age parents expect children to reach financial independence'
Twenty-seven is the age at which children are typically expected by parents to have stopped relying on them financially, a survey indicates. Yorkshire Building Society commissioned a survey of 2,000 parents of children aged five to 17 years old, and found that around 27 and a half is the average age at which parents think their children will have stopped relying on them for money. Some parents expect to remain open as the 'bank of mum and dad' for a significantly longer period, potentially affecting their own plans for retirement and clearing any mortgage debt. One in 20 (5%) believe their children will be at or approaching 40 by the time they are fully fledged financially. Meanwhile, 1% think their child will have already turned 50 – an age when they may be considering their own plans for retirement – by the time they are no longer relying on any parental financial help. Along with financial independence, the ability to save regularly, manage debt, and own a home by 30 are among parents' key hopes for their children, according to the survey, carried out by Opinium across the UK in March. More than a quarter (27%) of parents surveyed said they are 'very worried' their children will face more financial challenges than they did at the same age, rising to 31% of parents aged 55 and over. Nearly half (48%) of parents surveyed worry that home ownership will be out of reach for their children. Other major concerns include rising debt (34%), job insecurity (42%) and wages not keeping pace with living costs (38%). Nearly four-fifths (78%) of parents regularly give their children money, often as pocket money or in return for chores, with the average child receiving £10.50 a week. Two-fifths (40%) of parents still use physical cash, while others use digital transfers or child debit cards, with 65% of children already having their own bank account. On average, parents believe children should start managing their own money by the age of 10, the survey indicated. A fifth (20%) of parents think children should start learning about money management before the age of five, while 27% suggest starting between the ages of five and seven. The research was released to mark the launch of a limited-edition passbook cover by the building society. Children can draw or write what they are saving towards on the cardboard cover, and colour in an illustration of a pile of coins to visualise their progress. The covers will be available in branches from August 18 2025, while stocks last. Pete Lewis, senior savings manager at Yorkshire Building Society, said: 'As parents, we want the best for our children. 'We hope they'll have a home they feel safe in, the ability to choose a job they love, and the confidence to manage whatever life throws at them. But behind those dreams is a quiet fear: that rising costs, economic uncertainty, and a lack of support will make their path harder than ours was. 'We hope to raise children who feel in control of their future, will be able to save, to plan and to make and reach their financial goals. But we fear they'll be burdened by debt, economic pressure, and a system that doesn't fully prepare them for the real world. That's why conversations about money matter – not just in our homes, but in our schools and communities too. 'It's incredibly encouraging to see so many parents taking proactive steps – opening bank accounts, setting savings goals, and starting conversations about money early. These small actions lay the foundation for lifelong financial confidence and show just how deeply parents care about giving their children the best possible start.' Parents wanting to support their children financially could consider opening a Junior Isa for them and asking family members to chip in on occasions such as birthdays and Christmas. Some mortgages will also allow parental support to enable their adult children to get on the property ladder. Here are the ages at which parents believe their children will become financially independent, and the percentage of parents who think this, according to the survey for Yorkshire Building Society: 18 to 24, 25% 24 to 30, 40% 31 to 35, 13% 36 to 40, 5% 41 to 45, 2% 46 to 50, 1% 50-plus, 1% Not sure, 13% And here are the percentages of parents who selected different age groups when asked at what age they believe a child should manage their own money and have their own bank account, according to Yorkshire Building Society: Under five years old, 12% Five to seven, 14% Eight to 10, 23% 11 to 13, 28% 14 to 16, 14% 17-plus, 4% Not sure, 5%
Daily Mail
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Reform UK's DOGE efforts 'save more than £100m in council spending in 100 days' since local elections as Nigel Farage's party 'rolls back Net Zero'
Reform UK claims to have saved taxpayers more than £100million in council spending in 100 days since this year's local elections. Nigel Farage 's party won more than 650 council seats and took control of 10 local authorities in contests across England in May. It established a 'DOGE' unit - based on the Department of Government Efficiency set up by Tesla boss Elon Musk in the US - to try and cut spending by councils. Reform said, since the local elections on 1 May, it has now made about £110million in savings. This has included scrapping Net Zero initiatives within local councils, 'streamlining and modernising' services, and focusing on pay and allowances, the party added. Mr Farage said: 'On May 1, we showed that if you vote Reform, you get Reform. 'In the 100 days since, Reform UK councils across Britain are actioning the change we promised and already delivering on their manifesto commitments. 'From rolling back the devastating Net Zero agenda on a local level to cutting wasteful spending, Reform councils are standing up for the priorities of local people, not the whims of bureaucrats or the entrenched elite.' In Durham, the Reform-led council last month rescinded a formal declaration of a 'climate emergency' and claims to have saved £25million. This included not upgrading to a fleet of electric vehicles, scrapping the installation of a heat pump in the new county hall, and scaling back investment in solar panels. In Kent, Reform said it had saved £32million in spending over four years, which had been earmarked to make buildings more energy efficient. In Staffordshire, the party claimed to have saved £4.5million by halting the roll out of electric vehicle charging in areas where there is little to no customer demand. But this was said to be central government funding and not from the council's budget. The Liberal Democrat opposition in Durham claimed Reform's actions would cost the council money in the long run. They argued that investments made in solar panels and heat pumps had so far saved the council more than £9million and attracted central government grants. Reform's claims of success 'should be nominated for a fiction prize', added Lib Dem councillor Amanda Hopgood. A Labour spokesman said Reform's first 100 days in local government had been 'beset with chaos' and full of 'vanity spending of taxpayers' cash'.
