Travellers Ordered to Remove Horse Statues After Losing Planning Battle
A Romany Gypsy family in Kingsclere, Hampshire, has been ordered to demolish a controversial boundary wall topped with four horse statues after losing a bitter planning dispute. Brandon Rawlings, 27, and his wife Paige, 25, have accused neighbours of racism, claiming complaints about their equine-themed frontage are driven by prejudice against travellers.
Council Enforcement Action Over Unauthorised Works
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council launched enforcement action after ruling that the 2.6-metre tall brick wall with rearing horse ornaments was built without permission and harmed the character of the street. The council ordered the demolition of what they deemed an "obvious, jarring urban feature" that clashed with the area's hedge-lined streets.
Mr Rawlings had applied for retrospective planning permission in late 2021 after completing the wall makeover, but his application was rejected. He then appealed to the independent Planning Inspectorate, but inspector Shaun Harrington upheld the enforcement notice this month, giving the family six months to remove or reduce the structures to no more than one metre in height.
Accusations of Racism and Victimisation
In planning documents, Mr Rawlings claimed his family were being victimised because of their Romany Gypsy heritage. "I do feel like we are being victimised because we are Romany Gypsies and I feel the street are out to just cause us problems," he stated. He reported being told "our kind isn't welcome here" by neighbours.
Mrs Rawlings defended the family, insisting: "We are being victimised. We are good neighbours. We are kind to people. People just want us to get kicked out. They report us. It's not fair."
Neighbours Describe 'Nightmare' Situation
Local residents presented a very different account, describing the couple as "neighbours from hell" who had created a "nightmare" situation. One anonymous neighbour claimed: "They are a law upon themselves. They have breached planning regulations with the horses but nobody has done anything. They just get away with it."
Another resident criticised the appearance of the property, saying: "The front looks like a prison compound. It's dreadful." Neighbours also complained about noise, frequent fires, barking dogs, and the removal of trees from the garden.
Safety Concerns Versus Planning Regulations
Mr Rawlings argued that the wall and gates were necessary for safety reasons, stating they prevented his children from running into the busy road and secured his property for his "massive dog." He claimed: "My property does not affect the street view at all. We have spent a lot of money on our home to make it tidy and safe for our children."
However, planning inspector Harrington concluded there was "no compelling evidence" that such a tall structure was necessary for safety. The council also noted that the gates were not set back far enough, potentially causing traffic hazards as drivers would need to stop on the road while opening them.
Broader Implications of the Dispute
The case highlights tensions between planning regulations, property rights, and cultural differences in residential areas. Only two formal objections were recorded in planning papers, with one resident stating the wall was "completely out of character for the road."
Mr Rawlings, who is currently in prison according to his wife, had previously vowed to take the dispute to the press, calling the council's reasoning "appalling." The family now faces the prospect of removing the structures they believe have "improved the look of the street 100 times" and made their property "tidy and safe."
