Illegal Site Must Be Cleared Says Planning Inspectorate

Published on: 8 Apr, 2026
Updated on: 9 Apr, 2026

The area off Unstead Lane where the illegal site is situated.

By Chris Caulfield

local democracy reporter

An unauthorised encampment in the “Surrey Hills” must be cleared and the site returned to its former green belt glory, the planning inspectorate has ruled.

The landowners moved on to the Tilthams Corner Road plot off Unstead Lane near Bramley, last September and a planning application was submitted for three traveller pitches to each take a static and touring caravan.

Work then began almost immediately, despite the planning application not being – and never being – validated by Guildford Borough Council.

Vehicles on the site. Image submitted to LDRS

The extended family of six adults, one school-age child and two pre-school-age children hoped to create a settled base having been forced to leave their previous site through no fault of their own.

The lack of enforcement action by the council sparked fury among residents who watched as  several caravans moved on to Unstead Lane.

A petition calling on the Government to toughen planning laws to prevent unlawful development has since climbed to 2,600 signatures.

A fortnight later the council issued its stop notice and on November 13 the High Court granted an interim injunction to prevent any further development.

The landowners appealed saying refusal would have a devastating impact, effectively render them homeless and push them to live on roadsides – particularly as the council was unable to demonstrate any other suitable sites.

The planning inspector had to weigh up the impact on the family and the best interests of the children  – but found the permanent harm to protected green belt land in the Surrey Hills was too much to ignore.

The council’s continued failure to provide suitable Gypsy and Traveller pitchers was also a consideration.

The development, while not large, would permanently change the character and appearance of the valued landscape.

The inspector wrote: “It is common ground that no other available alternative sites that would be suitable for occupation by the Appellants and their family have been identified.

“The evidence of the appellants is that if they are unable to live at the appeal site they would have to return to an unlawful roadside existence, potentially further away from shops, schools and healthcare, which could generate increased journeys by private vehicle.

“Unauthorised encampments associated with roadside living also give rise to a range of other problems, including harm to the environment and social as well as economic costs.”

The council has long-failed to deliver suitable land for the community, with its most recent figures showing there is only enough land for new traveller accommodation for the next two and a half years –  well below the minimum of five.

The exact figure is believed to be even worse following government changes that likely have significantly  increased the number of people meeting the Gypsy and Traveller definition.

The council’s Local Plan, which requires pitches to be provided on developments of 500 homes or more has not provided even a single pitch, the inspector noted.

She wrote: “Appellants have provided compelling evidence as to why they and their family are unable to return to the site where they previously lived, and their undisputed evidence is that, if required to leave the appeal site, they have nowhere else to go.

“The council has confirmed that it is unable to identify any suitable alternative site.”

The family, she said, would benefit from having a settled base.

It would improve their ability to secure continuity from healthcare providers and medical teams with whom they were able to build trusting relationships, and removed the disruption from having to register with different providers every time they were moved on.

It would also provide them with “a secure and stable base to bring up their children”.

The inspector added: “Having a fixed and permanent home on the appeal site would enable all of the children living there to attend school consistently, and build relationships with teachers and other children from the settled community.

“Conversely, refusing planning permission for the proposed development and upholding the enforcement notice would make it very likely that the children would, along with their parents, be rendered homeless.

“This would have serious adverse impacts in terms of the stability of their home life, and the conditions in which they would be living if they had to leave with nowhere to go.”

She said: “There was clear evidence the family had to leave where they were previously living, through no fault of their own, and that the council failed to make sufficient provision to meet the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers in its area.

“It is also common ground that no other suitable alternative pitches are available.”

She noted that the family also engaged a landscape architect in the course of the appeal process, to draw up a scheme aimed at limiting harm to the character and appearance of the area, and a highway engineer to design improvements to the access, which have satisfactorily addressed the Highway Authority’s concerns.

However, the inspector was unable to look beyond the fact that there were no “very special” circumstances to justify what was clearly inappropriate development in the green belt and would  be at odds with, and detrimental to, the distinctive character of the area.

When added to the adverse impact it would have on the Surrey Hills National Landscape  she saw no other material considerations and dismissed the appeal.

Share This Post