Villagers fear wildfires as residents of illegal South Downs ‘shanty town’ repeatedly burn rubbish inside tinder-dry national park
Villagers near Soberton in the South Downs National Park say they fear a wildfire could break out after repeated fires were lit at an illegal "shanty town" of caravans that has occupied the site for more than a decade. Firefighters have been called seven times in recent weeks to tackle blazes started at the settlement, and nearby residents also worry about health effects from the acrid smoke, despite years of legal action and eviction attempts failing to clear the land.
Locals report fires being lit nightly between midnight and 1am, alongside frequent vehicle traffic and fly-tipping, with one resident estimating around 20 people currently living there, down from roughly 50 at its peak. The land, sold and subdivided around 15 years ago despite being agricultural, has been the subject of enforcement efforts for about five years; in April last year, resident Lara Kim Deroubaix was given a four-month suspended sentence for breaching a High Court injunction, with the South Downs National Park Authority awarded £14,945 in costs. Residents say some occupants are believed to be clearing houses for scrap and burning the waste in large firepits, and describe feeling intimidated when raising concerns.
- Illegal caravan camp in South Downs sparks wildfire fears from repeated fires
- Firefighters called seven times recently; smoke also worries nearby residents
- Years of legal action, including a 2025 suspended sentence, haven't cleared the site
New here? Start with this
Villagers near Soberton, in the South Downs National Park, have been living alongside an unauthorised settlement of caravans for more than ten years, built on land that was originally agricultural but was sold off and divided up around 15 years ago. Despite the site being illegal and subject to years of legal action, including a High Court injunction and prosecutions, attempts by the South Downs National Park Authority to clear it have not succeeded, and people continue to live there.
The number of residents at the site has fallen from around 50 at its peak to roughly 20 now, but nearby villagers say fires are lit there regularly, often late at night, and that rubbish and scrap materials are sometimes burned. This matters because the surrounding land is dry parkland vulnerable to wildfire, and local people are concerned both about the risk of a blaze spreading and about smoke affecting their health.
The dispute sits at the intersection of planning and land-use law, wildfire risk in a protected national park, and the practical difficulty authorities have faced in enforcing eviction orders against an established community.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Villagers and the National Park Authority argue that robust enforcement to clear the site is justified by genuine, evidenced safety risks: seven fire brigade callouts in recent weeks during tinder-dry conditions is not a hypothetical danger but a real threat to residents, wildlife and a protected landscape. They point out that the land was agricultural and never lawfully approved for residential use, so allowing occupation to continue undermines planning protections that safeguard the countryside for everyone. Years of injunctions and a suspended sentence show this has gone through proper legal channels rather than being arbitrary, and neighbours who say they feel intimidated when raising concerns have a legitimate claim to protection and clean air.
The case against
Advocates for the residents would argue that a decade of failed evictions reflects the genuine difficulty of removing people without pushing them into homelessness, and that enforcement must weigh housing precarity alongside landscape protection. With numbers reportedly down from around 50 to 20, some might argue the community is already shrinking and that blanket characterisation of the site as a lawless "shanty town" risks unfairly implicating residents not responsible for the fires or fly-tipping. They may also contend that criminal sanctions and injunctions address symptoms rather than the underlying lack of affordable housing or alternative sites, and that any resolution should include a credible rehousing plan rather than displacement alone.