Travellers leave wealthy neighbours 'living in a nightmare' by buying £5million field and moving in

The proposals include a new access road to the site, parking areas including space for "easy manoeuvring" and a day room.

The site is located within a conservation area, close to listed buildings and is within the green belt.

Residents say they have been "living in a nightmare" since the travellers purchased the land at auction and moved onto it in October.

They purchased the site for £175,000, though property experts say it would have cost £5million on the open market with permission to build.

In the heritage statement submitted as part of the application, it is argued the proposals are "essential to meet a shortfall in accommodation for Travellers".

It added that approval would benefit children by allowing them to "continue to attend school and attain an education, and have access to doctors and other key essential services the settled community take for granted".

"The proposal would have some physical and visual impacts upon the character of the Conservation area and some minimal, ‘negligible’ impacts upon listed building(s) but these impacts would not outweigh the benefits of the proposals," the planning document reads.

The application has been met with several objections from concerned residents, many of which refer to possible harm to the green belt, where the average house price stands at £560,000.

Commenting on the planning documents, one resident wrote: "The field in question is in a conservation area and within the green belt.

"There should not be an automatic right to apply for any sort of planning in these cases and particularly not for caravans or other non tax paying residencies."

Another added: "This land sits within the Green Belt. It used to be open pasture, but has now been cleared and fenced off, which has already changed the character of the area.

"The proposed development would further reduce the openness of the Green Belt."

A third resident said their "strongly object" to the application.

"It is essential that those who live in the borough can have confidence in the council to apply planning rules in a consistent manner and not to treat any one individual or group of individuals differently to others," the comment read.

In a lengthier objection, another person urged Guildford Borough Council to refuse permission in full and "pursue appropriate enforcement action to restore the land, as far as possible, to its original condition".

The statement added: "The integrity of the planning system depends on ensuring that unauthorised development is not rewarded.

"Residents need to see that planning rules apply to everyone and that the Council will uphold its responsibility to protect the Green Belt and community interests."

A decision is expected to be made on the application by January 28.