Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Hazelmere

Army Major's fury at being 'penalised' in planning row

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 July 2010
An Army Major entangled in a bitter planning dispute with a council believes he is being penalised for fighting for his country.
Major Alex Forsyth and his wife Virginia have spent around £80,000 in legal fees trying to secure the right to live at the Lodge in Marsh.
The property was originally an annex to nearby Marsh Green Cottage, which was owned by Mrs Forsyth's father.

The cottage was sold on after his death in 2006 but the Forsyths decided to settle down at the Lodge.

However, Wycombe District Council says the building cannot be used as an independent living space from the cottage.

The planning dispute has rumbled on for three and a half years and in 2009 the council served an enforcement notice ordering the Forsyths out.

The couple appealed to a Government planning inspectorate, claiming that the property had been used as a home for at least four years prior to the notice, thus giving them planning immunity.

But the council disputed this and inspector Steven Fox ruled in its favour, stating that there was a crucial break in the Lodge being lived in between 2006 and 2007 – during which time Major Forsyth was serving in Afghanistan and his wife was staying in Army accommodation as she felt uncomfortable being by herself.

The inspector did, however, grant the Forsyths planning permission for the Lodge as he believed it was not causing the surrounding area any harm.

But just when the couple thought they were able to move on with their lives, Wycombe District Council took Mr Fox's ruling to the High Court.

Earlier this month the planning permission was quashed after the Government decided not to contest the hearing, meaning the Forsyths are facing yet another costly inquiry to secure the right to live at their home.

Major Forsyth, 35, who serves in the Queen's Royal Hussars, said: "I feel really upset that in effect there was an occupancy break because of six months I was in Afghanistan, that is really unjust."

He went on: "I cannot understand what the council get if they win, or lose, I see no change to the landscape either way – some richer lawyers, and us bankrupt."

Mrs Forsyth said she had an emotional attachment to the property and wanted to raise a family there – something which has been put on hold due to the dispute.

"We wouldn't have gone through this heartache and stress and huge cost for the last three and a half years if we did not feel very sentimentally attached to the property.

"I was baptised and married there and my father's ashes are scattered there. He would turn in his grave if he knew how we were being treated and having to fight over our family home."

She added: "We will keep fighting as this is our home and we genuinely believe we are in the right.

"We have told the truth throughout and feel very bullied – after all our only aspirations are to continue the status quo of living in our own house."

Major Forsyth added that he hopes to have the dispute cleared up by the time he goes to Helmand Province for a six-month tour next year.

"It causes immense additional stress on wives and family when you only have 30 minutes a week on a crackly satellite phone to co-ordinate public inquiries," he said.

A spokeswoman for Wycombe District Council said: "The council strongly refutes that it has penalised Major Forsyth for serving his country.
"This is a planning matter and the council has been dealing with planning issues only.

"The council had very strong planning reasons for appealing the planning inspector's decision to the High Court.

"The creation of an independent residential dwelling unit has an impact upon the character and appearance of the area.

The building is situated in an area of flood risk and the implications of this were not dealt with adequately by the planning inspector during the public inquiry."

"The council cannot comment on the possible use of The Lodge as the land is in private ownership and it is for the owners to decide any future lawful use."

She said the cost to the council of taking the case to the High Court is being met by the Government.

"While the council appreciates there is a cost to the public purse this cost is considered to be justified to ensure national planning legislation is adhered to," she added.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 July 2010 11:48 AM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Aylesbury
 
Prev
1
2
1

,

27/07/2010 12:31:35
Comment Reported Unsuitable By User
2

Begamo,

27/07/2010 13:13:18
I believe he is being penalised for being away for six months! This is ridiculous, claiming the property was not resided in for six months is unfair. Imagine if you will if the Major was single then he would be taking time away constantly for six months at a time.

Wycombe District council you should be supporting people trying to safe guard your lives not making their lives more difficult. I imagine the people that made these decisions are large and whale like, and also regularly attract Greenpeace whenever they go to the beach. Maybe they should come out of their nice shelters and actually look at what the forces are doing for them.

3

Resident244,

28/07/2010 08:39:24
Actually it seems pretty clear. They attempted to prove it had been occupied for 4 years, and so bypass the planning law via a known "loop hole". They were found to have left a 6 month gap whilst the Major was serving, and cruicially, Mrs Forsyth did not wish to remain in the house, so the 4 year loop hole did not apply to them.

Its interesting that despite her history with the property Mrs Forsyth cannot stay their on her own. Presumably the property will also remain empty for the next 6 month tour?

Its not exactly penalising them, its just they have a more socially valid excuse for the 6 month gap than say, prison or working abroad for any other company. Though I would question why the district council have spent so much on one case, when they could have easily sat behind the inspectors decision.
4

Scout1000,

Aylesbury 28/07/2010 09:23:43
Its a house so why can't someone live in it? Surely its the ultimate recycling, someone used to live there and now someone else wants to live there WHATS THE PROBLEM

maybe the council want it knocked down and an estate of 'affordable' housing to be put in its place.

This case makes a mockery of evrything the council should stand for.
5

Begamo,

28/07/2010 13:40:54
Resident244, you obviously are not member of the Armed forces or you would understand the difficulties and stresses that partners have to deal with while their husbands/wives are away on deployment.

I imagine whilst her husband is away Mrs Forsyth feels very lonely and also very anxious. Moving to a military married patch is more for support for if the worst was to happen, and to be honest I cannot blame her for doing this. If her husband had not been deployed I am pretty sure she would not have felt the need to seek support from other Army wives.

Being in the military is a completely different existence from civilian life, and not just for the person being deployed. It is often said that the people who are left back home go through a harder time than the people deployed.
6

Resident244,

28/07/2010 14:57:53
No I'm not Begamo, but its really a moot point.

The fact is there was a gap in the four year period which they (or their agent) tried to claim to bypass the usual procedures.

Military life is of course different to civilian life, you don't need to experiance it to know that. However, the rules of the UK apply equally to every citizen, so again a moot point.
7

Resident244,

29/07/2010 13:52:29
Anyone interested in this case really should read the planning applications on WDC's website. Postcode HP17 8SP.

Turns out the 6 month gap is the least of their issues.

Not a leg to stand on, it would appear.
8

Porto,

Bucks 29/07/2010 15:31:20
If the property is of such an emotional attachment to the Forsyth's why have they hardly lived there ? As the appeal hearing papers show the property was occupied by rent paying tenants for most of the time, not as a home for the owners. Is this not just a poor attempt at property development by wealthy middle class professionals gone wrong ? Don't the Council have a responsibilty to set a precedent so everyone can't just convert their garage into a flat or rental property without following due process as is the case here. There is more to this than meets the eye. I am sure we all feel great support for our soldiers and officers on operational tours in places like Afghanistan. Is it behaviour becoming of a serving Officer to try and take advantage of our sympathy and promote the fact that the Council and High Court have refused their planning request ? Surely they are not above the law ? Be it planning law or something else. I am sure if the Government have chosen to support the Council it is for good reason. As someone else suggests, go on the Council website and check out the history of this case and read the summary of the lawyers accounts of the appeal hearing. The accuracy of the statements made in support of this planning application have been questioned and challenged by more than one legal expert !
9

DebbieC,

Bucks 30/07/2010 12:23:45
Whilst it would appear that Wycombe District Council were keen to be seen to have followed the letter of planning law with regard to Major & Mrs Forsyth's family property questions should be raised as to why they have not followed the same approach with the Forsyth's near neighbours. It's my understanding that travellers purchased virgin green belt land opposite the Major's house a few years ago, land which incidentally is on the same flood plain, and where the travellers have been permitted by Wycombe District Council to build a permanent residence.

It's also my understanding that a further two residences are now at this site and that Wycombe District Council have failed to act upon this.

How can Wycombe District Council, who are there to protect the countryside and act on our behalf be permitted to spend our council tax contributions enforcing regulations for one home that's stood for over twenty years and yet do nothing about the flagrant disregard to planning on the other side of the road?
10

Resident244,

30/07/2010 15:38:35
Probably as simple as they bought the land and applied for planning permission, they didn't try and circumvent the process by claiming 4 years plus in a converted garage.

As to the other two houses, has anyone advised WDC?
Prev
1
2

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.