Two travellers have lost their planning battle to set up a caravan site in the New Forest - despite promising to install "eco-friendly" features like e-bike charging points and cycle sheds.
Michael Chalk and Tom Butler's retrospective application for the site in Burley village was rejected by the New Forest Park Authority following fierce local opposition.
More than 70 neighbours objected to the development.
The council ruled the families lacked an "established local connection with the New Forest" and said the development would result in the "suburbanisation" of the rural area, labelling it "intrusive and incongruous" within the protected landscape.
PICTURED: The paddocks in April 2023. Michael Chalk and Tom Butler's retrospective application for the site in Burley village has been rejected
Chalk and Butler had submitted a retrospective application earlier this year to install two static caravans, two touring caravans, parking spaces, bin stores and boundary fencing on a series of former pony paddocks.
Their proposal included grey plastic e-bike sheds and charging ports, which they said would demonstrate their green credentials.
And they also said they intended to integrate into village life by using local shops and amenities.
However, planning officers found that "insufficient information has been provided in order to ascertain the gypsy status of the applicants for planning purposes".
They also determined that the need for the two gypsy pitches within the National Park had not been "satisfactorily or clearly demonstrated".
NATIONAL TRUST
|New Forest planning officers also said the travellers' proof of 'gypsy status' was 'insufficient'
Locals condemned the development as damaging to Burley's rural character.
One, Philip Mosley, said: "Token sustainability features, such as electric vehicle and e-bike charging points, do not genuinely offset the environmental impacts of permanent housing, increased traffic, waste production, and extensive hard surfaces."
Neighbours Andrew and Rachel Holloway said the land had "completely changed" since March, adding: "The pony paddocks have been urbanised and the natural beauty of the fields and surrounding area in this conservation area damaged."
Another objector, Briggs, described the eco-friendly elements as "superficial nods" and "performative".
The council's formal rejection said the development would cause "significant harm to the character and appearance of the protected landscape of the National Park".
Dr A Lawrence and Dr C Walter described the application as "mischievous", arguing it "seeks to legalise an encroachment of a built residential environment onto rural land, and that in a National Park".
Residents also criticised "threatening signage" erected at the site entrance, which warns: "Strictly no entry without permission. Please beware. Reactive guard dogs roaming loose which will bite you."
One objector said: "The tall fencing and aggressive signage displayed at the entrance do not suggest a willingness to integrate with the community."