Traveller site public inquiry - "bitter sweet" outcome

The Royal Borough has described as "bitter sweet" today's announcement of the long-awaited decision into the future of the unauthorised traveller site at Shurlock Road in Waltham St Lawrence.

The mixed reaction comes in the wake of the Secretary of State's decision to uphold the council's enforcement notice served on the unauthorised encampment in December 2009 - but to allow the travellers a further 18 months to comply with the notice.

Cllr David Burbage, council leader, said today: "This really is a bitter sweet pill for everyone involved in bringing this issue to a conclusion. We are obviously delighted that the Secretary of State has upheld our original enforcement notice - but very disappointed that the travellers have been given until February 2013 to leave the site.

"This has been going on for far too long already and our residents have been particularly angry and frustrated at the stop-start nature of the public inquiry and the uncertainty of the whole situation. It is totally unacceptable that they should now be facing the prospect of the travellers being allowed to remain on the site for another 18 months.

"We are studying the Secretary of State's report in detail and are currently taking legal advice on the various options open to us to take this further on behalf of the local residents."

A public inquiry was scheduled after the council served an enforcement notice on the unauthorised encampment on Christmas Eve 2009 after 10 caravans moved onto the site in Shurlock Road.

The notice required the site to be cleared of the caravans and a large area of hardsurfaced land but was appealed by the appellant Mr Mark Picket.

The original public inquiry date of July 2010 was postponed due to the serious illness of the appellant's agent. It was further adjourned in November after three days to allow further witnesses to give evidence and was finally held at the end of January this year.

The Secretary of State awarded part of the costs of the inquiry in the council's favour on the basis of the appellant's "unreasonable behaviour" during the appeal process.

How do you rate this information/service?