TITNORE tree campers have vowed to continue their legal fight for occupation of woodland threatened with the chop at West Durrington. At a High Court hearing on Thursday July 27, senior official Master Turner gave them leave to appeal against his decision to grant a possession order to landowners Fitzroy and Clem Somerset. They now have until 4pm on Friday August 11 to lodge their appeal - the day before a planned day of solidarity protests in Worthing.

The main point of contention at the civil hearing was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear it - such matters are usually dealt with by county courts. The Somersets were claiming they could go to High Court because there was "a substantial risk of public disturbance or of serious harm to persons or property which properly require immediate attention”. The defendants from the camp denied this was the case, pointing to the peaceful nature of their protest and their belief in non-violent direct action. But Master Turner found that the prospect of "passive resistance" to eviction, involving people in treetop positions, fulfilled the criteria and he compared the situation to the protests against the Newbury Bypass in the 1990s. He said the removal of protesters would be "extremely expensive" and "it will require what are known as cherry pickers, the use of chainsaws to cut away trees" and "will obviously go on for several days".

On the matter of the immediacy, he said: "The longer this occupation continues, the more expensive it all becomes and the more difficult to evict those on the land". Master Turner added that the county court bailiffs did not have the financial resources or the expertise and skills to carry out such an eviction, while the High Court bailiffs were "capable of planning a properly organised exercise".

Earlier in the hearing, Mr Jones, counsel for the Somersets, said the matter needed to be dealt with urgently through the High Court because in September the period for starting a judicial review against planning permission for the development would expire. It was hoped to start work on the 875-home estate as soon as possible after that point, he said.

Added Mr Jones: "This is, for the claimants, a matter of pressing concern and a matter which involves substantial amounts of money."

Meanwhile, Worthing Borough Council was yesterday threatened with a Judicial Review - possibly in the High Court - that would be based on the decision of the Development Control Committee to recommend the approval of alterations to Titnore Lane, as part of its decision to grant outline planning permission for the development at West Durrington. The council have been told that the evidence submitted to their Development Control Committee, and presented at its meeting on March 28th, was defective in five main areas.

Barristers acting for the claimant, The Worthing Society, have stated that if legal proceedings are required, a quashing order will be sought from the Court quashing the grant of planning permission WB/04/00040/OUT together with an order for costs.

Mr. Mutley defending (pictured) said he was "disappointed that there wasn't a fixed adjournment and it wasn’t referred back to the county court in the area that it should be dealt with" he added that he understood the position of the Judge and said "he has given us leeway to appeal" and said that he was going to appeal. Mr. Mutley called for people to pile on the pressure for a public appeal "We need to tell the government. We need to contact John Prescott, Tony Blair, MPs, anyone you can think of... and tell them straight out that nobody wants this and we will be back in the court of appeal to fight this to the end."