In any drama, there are at least two sides with opposing ambitions. In the long, complex and divisive wrangle being played out in Enborne over application 23/02596 (for “Use of land for the siting of up to 24 travelling showpersons plots”), there are five.

The main actors 

• The first is the applicant, Martin Burton, the founder of Zippo’s Circus. He’s the landowner and Zippo’s will be the users of the site, if approval is granted.
• The second is a decent chunk of Enborne residents, many of whom oppose the scheme (there  have been 74 letters of objection).
• The third is Enborne Parish Council which also opposes the scheme, though often expressing its objections in a different way, and which on 23 July launched a judicial review to challenge the site allocation and the policy, RSA29, which provides for this.
• The fourth is West Berkshire Council, the planning authority, which in 2014 first allocated the site for this purpose, which accepted the current change-of-use application and which will determine its outcome.
• The fifth is a shadowy and as-yet unidentified group of people who will, so some claim, seek to turn this instead into a travellers’ site.

The themes

As well as being about a planning application, there are various other themes. These include, in no particular order…

• Concerns over how the needs assessment was done in 2014 (and subsequently confirmed);
• The previous applications and work at the site;
• The events at Michedever near Winchester where a travelling showpersons’ site was allowed to morph into a travellers’ one;
• The distinction between showpersons and travellers and the reactions that these different groups can evoke;
• The recent examination of WBC’s local plan which resulted in RSA29 being enshrined in it;
• A wider debate about what the planning system, or local councils, can or can’t or should or shouldn’t do; and whether their first responsibility is to local residents, the district as a whole or government policies.

I won’t go into any detail on most of these points here. However, I want to make three observations that I hope will be useful.

Two observations

The first is that Martin Burton recently contacted me and suggested what he feels were errors in two leaflets distributed in the parish (not, he has been assured, by the Parish Council). I feel he should be given a right of reply.

The second is that although I think the leaflets at times confuse prediction and certainty, the drift of their message is one I broadly share. Put simply, there’s nothing I’ve seen or heard to suggest anything much stands in the way of a repetiton of Micheldever in Enborne if circumstances permit. Forget the arcane planning details: this is the nub of it.

The third observation I’ll come to at the end.

Martin Burton’s comments (part one)

• The front cover of the “Save Enborne” leaflet has a computer-generated image of Longcopse Farm as if a traveller’s site – “This bears no relation to my application.”
• Page two has a photo of a field with circus equipment – “This was during Covid when circus folk were stuck there. The vehicles were parked with planning consent.”
• Page two says: “In 2014 WBC had already decided that it wanted a traveller site in the district and selected Long Copse Farm as the location. It had not received a request for this” – “Not true, I put in an application to WBC for these showmen’s yards.”
• Page two says: “WBC approached the landowner and convinced him it was a good idea for him to agree in principle with their plans for his property.” – “Not true, they were my plans for my property.” [I understand that WBC did approach Martin Burton in 2014 when it became clear that it had no allocation for showpersons. However, this was a for a site allocation. Martin Burton was free to put in any application he chose.]
• Page two says that “Sensitive habitats and precious farmland” are threatened. – “WBC’s planners have concluded that application as it stands offers no threat to wildlife.”
• Page two says that “with no protections or enforcement provisions considered, they [WBC] cannot answer the simple question ‘what is to stop this site becoming Micheldever II?'” – “There are protections and enforcement provisions in my application, any consent will be for exclusively for Showmens Yards, to be occupied by Showmen. WBC will be able to stop the consent being used by Gypsy travellers.”

This is the nub of the matter. I agree with the leaflet’s author on this point, for the simple reason that I’ve asked this question of WBC and received an underwhelming response. Martin Burton’s response displays a sense of trust in the planning system which WBC’s officers (obviously) share. The residents of Enborne, and Micheldever, do not. That’s the issue in a nutshell.

Martin Burton’s comments (part two)

There was also another, more recent, leaflet, headed “Save the West of Newbury”.

• The front cover has, he says, “the same photoshopped aerial picture of my property occupied by Gypsies.”
• Page two says that Martin Burton “retired from the circus ten years ago”. He retorted that he’s in his fifty-first year in the business and that, “as my wife will tell you, I will never retire.”
• The rest of the leaflet makes similar points to the first and brings matters up to date by referring to the examination of WBC’s local plan earlier this year and Enborne PC’s decision to launch a judicial review.
• Martin Burton’s comments here were mainly about “misidentifying showmen as gypsies, or vice versa” which “obscures the rich cultural heritage of showmen. It’s important to approach showmen with respect and an understanding of their unique historical and societal contributions.”
• Martin Burton then repeats that he’s “confident the planning restrictions would be robust enough to prevent Gypsy occupation in perpetuity.” Enborne’s residents, however, almost certainly don’t share this opinion. Nor do I.
• He also makes a point he’s made to me before, that circus folk have no particular love for travellers.

One problem is that, unfortunately, the policies bracket the two together, albeit dealing with the differeing requirements separately. The simpler point is that the vast majority of us who are static have long distrusted those who are, for whatever reason, mobile: and vice versa, probably. This has complicated the issue.

Another is that in Micheldever, to which we return yet again, exactly this blurring took place, and in a way that the planning authority was unable to prevent.

The real enemy?

The leaflets in places state possible outcomes as if they were certainties: the second one, for instance, states on page three that “a huge mixed-use traveller site” is proposed in Enborne. This is not what the application is for: although, this is exactly what many people fear it might become.

Martin Burton clearly felt annoyed by some of the comments. However, a closer reading of the text shows exactly who the leaflets’ author feel is the villain of the piece – not Martin Burton but WBC. Both of the leaflets start off with criticism of the applicant but soon turn to far more numerous and scathing attacks on the planning authority.

The main thesis is that WBC knows that this will be a travellers’ site and doesn’t appear to care. The local community is being sacrificed in pursuit of the aim of siting contentious development outside the AONB. The integrity and governance of WBC is called into question, as its decision-making in allowing a problem to fester which will require expensive and divisive enforcement options to remedy (if they are).

The applicant

Anyone who owns land can seek to change its use or increase its value through the planning system. It does indeed seem that there is an unauthorised development on the site in the form of hard-standing: a black mark against Mr Burton (though it should be dealt with in this application). However, if everyone who’s broken a planning condition or done unapproved work were to be hauled before the courts there’d be a mile-long queue.

Martin Burton has done what many have done. He’s applied to use his land for what he wants and used the system and policies. He has the right to sell the site at its higher post-permission value. There’s nothing new about this. In fairness, I must also repeat that he’s always denied that a travellers’ site his intention. I have no reason to doubt him. None the less, land (and minds) can change.

Were the use to be restricted to travelling showpeople, I doubt that anyone in Enborne would greatly care. The problem is that many now don’t believe this is where it will end.

The third observation

WBC has faced various accusations in the matter, several of which we’ve covered. I’d just like to repeat two questions:

• Given that the application was controversial, including unfinished business in the form of unauthorised development and that the Micheldever situation was by then widely known, why did it not insist that more details (such as about operational development and drainage) be included? This would have given it more control over what happened there rather than having these matters deferred for future planning or licensing consideration: if, indeed, they are ever lodged.
• What steps have been taken to disscuss with Martin Burton as the landowner and/or Zippos as the operator how Martin Burton’s assurances about his intentions could be enshrined in an S106 and/or another legal agreement to ensure that his stated intentions would survive any transfer of the site or other change of circumstance? If they have been taken, nothing has been communicated to residents: something which might help calm some local tempers.

Other questions might be asked of WBC as well (as some have been in the leaflet) but those will do for now.

And finally…

In general, the leaflets convey the threat better than the actual situation. Martin Burton’s comments do rather the reverse. I can see that Enborne’s residents and its Parish Council feel they have no other route other than an expensive judicial review. Any recourse to the law suggests that the system has failed.

The applicant might claim he’s the victim of misinformation as to his motives. The residents might claim that they’re the victims of maladministration by the Council. WBC might claim that it’s the victim of a misunderstanding of its obligations.

Allowing for some understandable hyperbole in how they’re sometimes esxpressed, I find the reactions of both the applicant and the residents rational. WBC’s seeming insouciance I find rather harder to fathom.

It remains to be seen if WBC will bring the application (which was validated in December 2023) to planning committee before the JR has been decided. How these two lotteries will pan out might not be pretty. Should Micheldever v2 come to pass, that will lead to a lot of “I told you so’s” and arguments about enforcement. That might not be pretty either.

Brian Quinn
brian@pennypost.org.uk