
EXCLUSIVE Traveller family WIN right to stay at car park after it is ruled their human rights were breached when council turfed them out - but they say it's not enough
A family of travellers who have won a landmark case to stay at a car park have insisted they will 'never stop fighting' for permanent residency.
The group, comprising of 15 adults and 14 children, first arrived at the former park-and-ride site in July 2023, setting up home at the Wigmore Coach Park, just off the M2.
Medway Council, based in Kent, had initially granted them permission to stay at the site for three months if they paid a monthly fee and stuck to a number of rules.
However, in October last year, the local authority handed the Romani Gypsy family an eviction notice, stating that they had planned to sell the land, previously a park and ride used for those commuting to London, in the near future.
Now, a judge has made the milestone judgement that the authority wrongly interfered with the group's human rights by attempting to turf them out, having heard that no steps were taken to sell the site.
Speaking to MailOnline about the milestone case, described by one involved solicitor as the first of its kind in a decade, Julie White, who lives at the site, said: 'We're over the moon with the initial decision, it's like winning the lottery. To have somebody on our side that is willing to help us has been absolutely amazing.'
However, much to the family's fury, the significant decision means that while the travellers can remain on the site for now, they still do not hold the permanent rights to stay at the car park.
While an initial planning application was submitted last May, it was refused just two months later. An appeal against the refusal set to take place next Wednesday, with the family anxiously awaiting the verdict.
Oldy Herring, 67, the eldest member of the family, described the battle with Medway Council as the 'fight of our lives'.
He added: 'There's nowhere else we can go. If this place is not fit for us, then where is fit enough?
'We've been all over Kent. We've been pushed from pillar to post all of our lives, this is the only thing we have been given in our lives.
'People don't understand our lives or our culture. We don't cause any harm to anybody, we just want a home. We are literally begging for help.'
The family said that the rules placed on them by the council when they first arrived at the site included 'no anti-social behaviour', 'no work', 'no complaints' and that they had 'to keep the place tidy'.
They insisted that all of these rules have been 'strictly' followed and that the council has 'no good reason' for kicking them out.
Relying on generators for electricity and water, the travellers currently pay £33 a month to the council for the bins and animals on the land.
Now, as they fight for permanent residence, the family have indicated that the council's refusal to grant the planning application is bound to have 'worrying' impacts on their children's mental health.
And, with no fixed place to stay, members of the group have no postcode and therefore have limited access to essential services such as healthcare and education.
Marie Conde, who lives on the site alongside her husband and children, said: 'I do worry about the kids, moving them out of school would be awful for them. They have finally been accepted and been able to make friends, they're getting an education which is so important.
'It's the first time they've felt truly settled and accepted, how can they take that from them?
'We are decent people and a close family that deserve to be together. We just want to make this our permanent home and a place for our children and grandchildren, the next generation.'
Speaking about the landmark case, described by one solicitor as the first of its kind in a decade, Julie White (pictured), who lives at the site, said: 'We're over the moon with the decision, it's like winning the lottery'
Meanwhile, Tina Herring, 17, who spent the majority of her young childhood on the road, described the car park as 'the closest it's got to feeling like home'.
The teenager added: 'Being here has made me feel so much more settled and safe, rather than being on the road all of the time.
'Not knowing what's going to happen next is so stressful for all of us, but especially on the younger kids.'
While the family celebrated the decision as a 'turning point' and anxiously await the results of next Wednesday, Medway Council, however, said that it was deciding 'how best to move forward' - describing the judge's verdict as 'disappointing'.
Cllr Louwella Prenter, Medway Council's Portfolio Holder for Housing and Homelessness, said: 'We are disappointed with the county court judgement not to grant possession of the former Wigmore commuter car park in Maidstone Road, back to Medway Council.
Previous investigations have shown that many local authorities in Kent are still failing to meet the accommodation needs of the travelling community, despite it being a legal requirement
'This is a lengthy and detailed decision, and we will give it due consideration before deciding how best to move forward.
'Granting use of the site was only ever intended as a temporary three-month measure, and the car park is not deemed to be suitable as a long-term site for permanent occupation.'
Previous investigations have shown that many local authorities in Kent are still failing to meet the accommodation needs of the travelling community, despite it being a legal requirement.
After legislation was introduced allowing local authorities to evict, fine or arrest travellers setting up unauthorised encampments, they are often left being moved from roadside to roadside.
In 2021, there were 5,405 people across Kent who identified as a Gypsy or Irish Traveller, representing up to 0.3 per cent of the population, according to the ONS.
Meanwhile, an additional 2,225 people identified as Roma, amounting to 0.1 per cent of the population, with many of these individuals housed on traveller sites.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Katie Piper reveals dine and dash date left her with £740 restaurant tab after doing a runner
Katie Piper has revealed a date once left her with a £740 restaurant tab after running off due to her facial disfigurement. The British author and TV presenter, 41, was the victim of a horrific acid attack set up by her ex-boyfriend when she was 24 - leaving her with severe scarring to her face, neck, chest, arms and hands. Speaking at the Hay Festival, Piper recalled the shocking moment a man she had met in a bar invited her to the famously expensive Japanese restaurant Nobu in central London, before doing a runner. 'We'd met on a night out. I'd had pioneering treatment with incredible results, so when I would go out somewhere with dark lighting, where people were very drunk, often they weren't able to see what I fully looked like,' she said. 'So I met this guy and we messaged for quite a long time. He suggested we go out for dinner. I hated going out for dinner because I had a lot of oesophageal damage and often I'd choke when I ate, so the whole idea of eating in front of someone on a first date was nerve-wracking, but I agreed.' The date took place in summer so it was daylight, the star said, and she realised straight away the man had not realised she had a facial disfigurement when first meeting her in the bar. The date had chosen the dinner location and ordered a three-course meal, Piper added. 'He said, ''I've seen some people I know over there, I'm going to go and say hi to them and I'll be back''. He didn't come back.' Piper, now happily married and a mother-of-two, said she ran through 'ridiculous excuses' as she sat at the table, considering if the man might have suddenly become ill. She didn't have a lot of money at the time - living on disability benefit after the attack - but ended up paying the £740 bill on her own. Shockingly, Piper said the man got back in touch with her years later after seeing her on Strictly Come Dancing, not to offer an apology but to joke: 'We must catch up!' The mother said she wishes she had replied with a more assertive response but simply replied: 'Lol yeah, let's do that. Haha.' Since the attack, Piper has been a fierce advocate for the well-being and inclusion of survivors of burns and traumatic scarring. She believes in the importance of improved after-care, rehabilitation, and a world where scars do not hinder a person's quality of life.


The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Essex Boys' triple killer Michael Steele released from prison
A triple killer convicted of the ' Essex Boys' gangland murders has been released from prison, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed. Michael Steele was jailed for life in 1998 for the killings of Tony Tucker, Pat Tate and Craig Rolfe, which he denied, alongside co-defendant Jack Whomes. The three men were found shot dead in a Range Rover in Rettendon, near Chelmsford, Essex, in 1995. A Parole Board panel decided in February to free Steele, now in his 80s, because his imprisonment was 'no longer necessary for the protection of the public' but Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood challenged the decision and asked for his case to be reviewed again on the grounds the decision was legally irrational. Steele was released from prison in May, the MoJ confirmed. A spokesperson for the government department said: 'Our thoughts remain with the family and friends of Craig Rolfe, Tony Tucker and Pat Tate. 'This decision was made by the independent Parole Board after a thorough risk assessment. 'Michael Steele will be on licence for the rest of his life, with strict conditions and intensive probation supervision. He faces an immediate return to prison if he breaks the rules.' The killings took place after a row over a drug deal, prosecutors said, and the case later inspired the 2000 film Essex Boys, starring Sean Bean. The decision in February to release Steele came in the second review by the Parole Board following the end of his initial minimum term of 23 years' imprisonment. He had not been assessed as suitable for formal risk-reduction interventions while in prison, 'partly through lack of need and partly because he had maintained his innocence of involvement in the murders', the Parole Board's summary said. It added that risk factors for Steele at the time of his offending included his 'criminal lifestyle, involvement with drugs and association with the wrong people'. But the Parole Board also found that Steele's behaviour in prison had shown 'marked improvement' and none of the witnesses considered risks would be imminent if he was released into the community. Strict licence conditions were set out for Steele, including to live at a designated address, be of good behaviour, provide financial and business details, give up his passport, and be subject to electronic tagging and a specified curfew. There were additional restrictions relating to the use of electronic technology, contact with the media or other publications, and not to own a boat, plane or firearm. The Parole Board decided Whomes, then aged 59, could be released in 2021.


The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Families of Chinook crash victims to launch legal action against MoD
The families of those killed in a Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 have said they are beginning legal action against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for not ordering a public inquiry. They want a High Court judge to be able to review information which they say was not included in previous investigations, and which they believe will shed new light on the airworthiness of the helicopter. RAF Chinook ZD576 was carrying 25 British intelligence personnel from RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland to a conference at Fort George near Inverness when it crashed in foggy weather on June 2, 1994. All 25 passengers – made up of personnel from MI5, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army – were killed, along with the helicopter's four crew members. The families of the victims, who have coalesced into the Chinook Justice Campaign, said failing to order a public inquiry is a breach of the UK Government's human rights obligations. In a letter to the Government 31 years after the crash, the group said: 'The investigations conducted to date, whether considered individually or in combination, have failed to discharge the investigative duty.' They have also called for the release of documents that were sealed at the time of the crash for 100 years, something revealed in a BBC documentary last year. Solicitor Mark Stephens, who is representing the families, said: 'In this case, the families of those who were killed have seen more than enough evidence to convince them, and us, that there was a failure by the MoD to apply appropriate safeguards in order to protect the passengers and crew. 'In fact, they were put on board an aircraft that was known to be positively dangerous and should never have taken off. 'That is why we are seeking a judicial review into the Government's failure to hold a public inquiry – which the families have sought for more than a year.' Following the crash, the Chinook's pilots, Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper, were accused of gross negligence, but this verdict was overturned by the UK Government 17 years later, following a campaign by the families. A subsequent review by Lord Philip set out 'numerous concerns' raised by those who worked on the Chinooks, with the MoD's testing centre at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire declaring the Chinook Mk2 helicopters 'unairworthy' prior to the crash. Esme Sparks, who was seven years old when her father Major Gary Sparks was killed in the crash, said: 'We don't want to have to take legal action against the Government and MoD but we do want and need answers surrounding the circumstance of this crash. 'We want to know who or what is being protected? Who made the decision to let this helicopter take off? What is being hidden? In our view, a public inquiry is key.' Andy Tobias, who was eight when his father, Lt Col John Tobias, 41, was killed, said: 'It's clear to me that a complete lack of duty of care was given to those passengers because they got on a Chinook that wasn't fit for flight. 'And really, the government need to show their duty of candour and really be open and transparent about what's in those documents and give us the opportunity to really understand anything that's in them that could give us more answers about what happened.' The MoD said that records held in The National Archives contain personal information and early release of those documents would breach their data protection rights. An MoD spokesperson said: 'The Mull of Kintyre crash was a tragic accident and our thoughts and sympathies remain with the families, friends and colleagues of all those who died.'