Page 144 - Archive in reverse date order

3. The Inspector further ruled that although the visual impact could be mitigated by tree
planting to screen the development from public view, it would remain a significant
inappropriate development in the Green Belt and seriously reduce the openness of the area.

4. In rejecting Mr Button's Appeal in 2005, the Inspector did grant him a period of one year
in which to obtain alternative accommodation elsewhere.

5. In 2008 Mr Button's successor on the site (ie the part that had become Little Haven) Ms
Bothwell, who was now living there, appealed against a new Enforcement Order- Appeal
ref: APP/D5120/A/08/2088892/NWF. In March 2009 the Inspector granted temporary
permission for her use of the land as a Private Gypsy Site for five years.

Soon after, and in defiance of the Inspector's ruling, Ms Bothwell brought an additional
mobile home on to the site for use by another member of her family. These families are
still there – and a decision on Ms Bothwell's current application is awaited (see 1 above).

6. In 2004 and again in 2009 Bexley Council argued that the establishment of Private Gypsy
Sites in Bunkers Hill (Green Belt & Heritage Land) was an inappropriate development.
Both Inspectors upheld this and agreed that there were no very exceptional circumstances to
allow this. Inexplicably, in September 2014, Bexley recommended to its Planning
Committee that the development should be permitted for five years. Not the one year
granted to Mr Button in 2005 by the then Inspector (see 4 above). Furthermore, Bexley now
argued that there were very special circumstances which outweighed the normal
presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt! It seems that these were,
yet again, Mr Button's wish to live a gypsy life style (but see 2 above).

7. You will of course be aware of the Press Release issued by the DC & LG on 6 October,
one headed “Councils must protect our precious green belt land”. This clearly expresses the
government's view that “housing need – including for traveller sites- does not justify the
harm done to the green belt by inappropriate development”.

At the forthcoming Inquiry we would like the opportunity for three people to speak against
the Little Acre application (and, by association, that in respect of Little Haven.

These would be to present the views of:-

our Association (myself, Jean Gammons)

the planning & conservation committee of The Bexley Civic Society (Sylvia Malt, chair of
this committee)

a resident living close to the two sites.

Yours sincerely

Jean Gammons MBE
41 Parsonage Lane DA14 5EZ