Brookmans Park Newsletter Community Discussion Forum

General Discussion Boards => General Issues => Topic started by: Bobb on March 25, 2007, 05:01:08 pm

Title: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bobb on March 25, 2007, 05:01:08 pm
I've heard that Hertsmere are providing 15 sites for Travellers at least one of which will be on Swanland Road and a few others dotted around Potters Bar. Does anyone have any more information on this  - is it correct or just a rumour? Are there any going in to Welham Green or anywhere else near BP?

I've heard this from a fairly reliable source and am seriously concerned about crime levels rising due to this.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Ferdie on March 25, 2007, 08:21:47 pm
Whilst we may have concerns regarding certain communities, and in some cases they may be justified, we must be careful about linking crime to a particular group. There has long been a traveller community at Bignalls Corner at the end of Swanland Road and one in Barnet Road, Potters Bar. Crime has many sources and too often one or another group gets blamed unjustifiably. There are many other traveller communities in the local area too, not least 'Barbaraville' near Cole Green and the A414 Colney Heath. There are other smaller sites and resident individuals who have a 'traveller' background in Welham Green and North Mymms. All councils have a duty of care towards all sections of the community and have to provide suitable sites for the travelling community, (whatever our personal feelings are on this matter). I don't know whether the rumours are true but Bobb may wish to refer to http://www.hertsmere.gov.uk/environmentplanning/parksandopenspaces/gypsyandtravellersites (http://www.hertsmere.gov.uk/environmentplanning/parksandopenspaces/gypsyandtravellersites) for further details. There is a phone number on this page and people concerned about rumours should check this. If the plans are legitimate, then normal planning processes will need to be followed. Unlicensed and illegal camps do cause concern and sometimes they have criminal elements. If there are 'plans' then this doesn't sound to be 'illegal'.
The usual sensible advice about not allowing unknown individuals into your home, not getting work done on your house, drive or garden by unknown doorstep callers and keeping your premises locked apply. Unfortunately, crime is mobile and it is not soley the domain of one community.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on April 24, 2007, 11:08:58 am
Provision of gypsy sites is an on-going issue.  Here is an extract from a Hertsmere Council meeting on 1 Feb 2005 of its Regulatory Committee

'In terms of current provision, the study estimates that there are 193 families/plots in the study area, with 103 plots on the six residential HCC sites; 15 plots on the HCC transit site at South Mimms; 36 plots on seven authorised private sites; 37 families living on unauthorised private sites without planning permission; and two families living on the roadside (unauthorised encampment). There were an unknown number of Gypsy and Traveller families in housing need.'

A very recent newspaper article said that a report has been published outlining 21 proposed sites in Hertsmere for the traveller and gypsy communities .  The locations have been suggested in line with new planning guidance which requires local authorities to provide legal pitches. They have been allocated a score in terms of their preference with six sites given the highest score of one'.

These are the eastern side of Hillfield Lane South in Bushey; the land adjacent to Elstree Recycling Centre; a site further along Allum Lane opposite the paddocks; Swanland Road, Southgate Road and Bakers Street all in Potters Bar.  The other sites may require work to be done or are located on narrow roads. These sites have been kept in mind in the event that the more preferable locations become unavailable.

A spokeswoman for Hertsmere Borough Council said: "Providing additional pitches in Hertsmere to meet identified needs is now a requirement for local authorities under national planning guidance.  "Although it is widely accepted that well managed pitches can be of real benefit to the gypsy and travelling community, local authorities throughout Hertfordshire are determined to ensure there is a partnership approach with extensive local consultation."

My guess is that fewer than 5 sites will be approved, and not 21.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on April 25, 2007, 09:14:31 am
Are you aware that the majority of English 'travellers' are now on permanent sites or living in houses.

A lot of the 'travellers' you see today are mainly Irish and are extremely different to the English 'traveller'.
They do not want a permanent site, pull up anywhere, blitz the area e.g tarmac drives etc and move on.

Pointing the finger at English 'travellers' that have lived in the area for years and years is wrong.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: peppermint on April 27, 2007, 09:46:50 pm
I heard today that Sunnybank School has been earmarked as a permanent site for Eastern European travellers!!!!!!

Where on earth do these rumours start???
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on June 12, 2007, 11:36:16 pm
 
Travellers Site Swanland Road

Remember the old adage, rumour today, fact tomorrow
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on June 13, 2007, 08:27:02 am

I heard today that Sunnybank School has been earmarked as a permanent site for Eastern European travellers!!!!!!

Where on earth do these rumours start???


In terms of this site, the rumours about Sunnybank appear to have started with your post.

Also the concern is not quite clear. Is the fear about Eastern Europeans or Travellers or a bit of both?

David



Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on June 13, 2007, 10:46:18 am
All councils are strapped for cash so they are not likely to put a new travellers' or gypsies' site where a lot of expense would be involved.  On that basis I refer to my previous posting where Hertsmere Council said   

'The locations have been suggested in line with new planning guidance which requires local authorities to provide legal pitches. They have been allocated a score in terms of their preference with six sites given the highest score of one'.

These are the eastern side of Hillfield Lane South in Bushey; the land adjacent to Elstree Recycling Centre; a site further along Allum Lane opposite the paddocks; Swanland Road, Southgate Road and Bakers Street all in Potters Bar.  The other sites may require work to be done or are located on narrow roads. '

It looks as though Sunnybank School is not being considered, but I cannot speak with any direct knowledge.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on June 22, 2007, 05:44:08 pm
Hertsmere Council is holding two public meetings at 6pm and 8.30pm on 17 July in Potters Bar about new sites.  Admission by ticket only.  According to the Potters Bar edition of the WH Times you can order up to 2 tickets by emailing tickets@hertsmere.gov.uk stating which meeting you wish to attend.  They will be issued on a first come first served basis.  Or write to Public Meeting tickets, Hertsmere BC, Elstree Way, Borehamwood, Herts WD6 1WA.

You may be wondering what Welwyn Hatfield Council is doing about providing new sites.  A Cabinet Planning meeting was held on 21 June and the relevant paper can be seen on www.welhat.gov.uk by clicking through the 'meetings' series of links. 

The paper says 'given that WH is tightly constrained by the Green Belt, it is unlikely that a new site could be located within the existing urban area.  All three existing sites lie within the Green Belt.'
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on October 08, 2007, 03:57:06 pm
Check out www.welhat.gov.uk for a news item today.  The following includes an extract.

Accommodation needs for gypsies and travellers in Northern and Eastern Herts.

This study covered the Council areas of Broxbourne, East Herts, North Herts, Welwyn Hatfield and Stevenage. 

Councillor Mandy Perkins said: “Welwyn Hatfield Council has a statutory responsibility to assess and meet the accommodation needs of the gypsy and traveller community in the area.

The two separate studies, which have now been undertaken by the partnering local authorities, will help inform the development of our respective future planning documents.

Welwyn Hatfield will be undertaking widespread consultation from 2008 onwards on all of the Borough’s development needs for the next 15 to 20 years, including those for gypsies and travellers.”

The study has identified 21 potential sites for consultation in the five council areas.  The only one in Welwyn Hatfield is at Bulls Lane South, Bell Bar.  The various papers in the www.welhat.gov.uk website include a map which appears to indicate an area where White Lodge Farm/ Fox's Lane is, but I would not swear to its exact location.  The map is copyright otherwise I would post a copy with this item.

There was a proposal in the early 1980s for a site at the junction of the A1000 and Swanley Bar Lane, Little Heath, opposite Leggatts Park entrance but nothing came of it.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: francis on October 09, 2007, 03:12:14 pm
I wonder if anyones going to "suggest" the 20 acres field ? (unless it was to be given planning permission for a house ?!!!)           Ive noticed references in the Guardian to certain groups buying up chunks of land around the South East and divying it up in to plots
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: sasquartch on October 09, 2007, 04:00:24 pm
Unless the council buys the site I don't think that's likely.

If someone buys it there's nothing to stop it being split into smaller plots but planning restrictions would still apply. But at £900k that seems unlikely.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on October 10, 2007, 10:55:01 am
Francis would appear to be thinking of the 'Property Spy' type of company that buys up land at agricultural prices, divides it up into smaller plots and sells them off at greatly increased prices to mugs who think/hope that planning permission will be given for housing.  At £900,000+ a large chunk of their profit would be eaten up by that purchase price.

Further investigations show that this site which is being considered is on the south side of Bulls Lane opposite Fox's Lane and White Lodge Farm.  The western end of the site is opposite the entrance to Linden Lodge.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on October 15, 2007, 11:31:26 am
NM Green Belt Soc has now been advised by Welwyn Hatfield Council that the report provides a starting point for the preparation of the Local Development Framework (LDF) which is in its early stages.  The council will start consulting on this in 2008. The LDF will replace the current District Plan

I gues this is a situation where Welwyn Hatfield Council is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.  By letting us know now about this possible site it has upset a lot of people, particularly those who live on Bulls Lane, Bell Lane and Fox's Lane.  They now have this possibility hanging around for a few years until the LDF is firmed up.  I know it is causing sleepless nights. 

However if the Council had kept quiet about it until next year then rumours would have started.  As it happens, because this was a joint report commissioned by 6 councils they all had to agree to a common publication date which was last Monday.

The site is 7.2 hectares - about 18 acres or nearly the size of the 21 acre Friday Grove !!!!!.  It is big enough for 17 pitches, or caravans.  It is on the south side of Bulls Lane and extends from opposite the entrance to Linden Lodge on Bulls Lane for about 800m eastwards.  Apparently it is owned by White's Estates, one of the main developers of Brookmans Park from when it first started about 1930.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grant Shapps MP on October 18, 2007, 02:16:41 pm
On this subject I have made the following post on the Welwyn Hatfield Forum which may well be of interest to those concerned:
http://www.shapps.com/forum/index.php?topic=1943.0

Kind regards
Grant Shapps MP
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: sasquartch on October 18, 2007, 03:34:16 pm
Why is the site so big ?? 17 pitches on 18 acres - my house, driveway and garden occupy no more than 0.2 acre - why do these people need so much land ???
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on October 18, 2007, 05:50:26 pm

why do these people need so much land ???


Surely, 'these people' have needs and rights? The issue is, how to house them adequately and appropriately. If land is identified to meet the need, then it needs to be considered.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: sasquartch on October 18, 2007, 06:02:13 pm
I'm not suggesting they don't have needs and rights.

However, over an acre of land to house a caravan seems excessive that's all.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Mr Green on October 19, 2007, 09:46:57 am
How much consideration does it take to see that the land is too big for 17 pitches?

Before a single penny need be spent on site surveys and public hearings an official with decision making responsibilities should assess a site on basic specifications.

The fact is they probably have and given that 17 pitches on 18 acres is nonsense - clearly 17 pitches is just the start. Once this battle is won more pitches on the same site will follow.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Gashead on October 19, 2007, 09:55:44 am
According to Grant Shapps' link there are already three "travellers" sites in Welwyn Hatfield - how many are we supposed to accommodate?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on October 19, 2007, 10:54:42 am
The three sites I think you are referring to have been there for years and years.  According to one of my friends, further back than the 1950's when sites weren't official.

Travellers do have off spring, just like you and me, and need somewhere to live.

As for a gypsy site in Bulls Lane - what a load of bull!  I can't see that happening....can you?

It seems to me that it's just more vicious rumours when it comes to travellers.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on October 19, 2007, 01:11:28 pm
Andy Graham, Community Liaison Officer at Welwyn Hatfield Council has contacted me about this subject and we had a quite a chat. If you wish to know anything about this proposal, or to be consulted in 2008 on this subject, let him have your questions and details in an email to a.graham@welhat.gov.uk.  You can phone him on 01707 357289 - direct line.

He confirmed that this is just one item for consideration in the updating of the District Plan.  Consultation should take place in Spring 2008, and then decisions on sites should be in 2009.  He said that 17 pitches would only occupy about 1 hectare (2.5 acres). 

I pointed out to him that:
1 - the consultants report had only suggested one site in the whole of Welwyn Hatfield.  Compare this with Hertsmere who have been recommended several optional sites particlularly round Potters Bar.  By only suggesting one site, the impression is that it has to be this site.  He said this was not correct, and it is for WH Council to decide whether or not to accept this site.

2 - The timescale is what the law says the council has to follow but this has now put a blight on the surrounding area which will exist for possibly two years.  In the meantime people have got things to do like selling houses, and at least two are known to be for sale on Bell Lane.  House sellers are obliged by law to declare anything that might affect the property, and this certainly does!    Also the man who farms the land is said to have learned of this through reading the local newspaper.  Terrible public relations! 

3 - People are concerned at the idea of 17 pitches on this one site and not the size of the site, be in 1 hectare (2.5 acres) or 7.2 hecatres. 

I expressed my personal view that the consultants have not done a proper job in identifying potential sites.  As an example, their map has coloured in green the areas of land which had a high potential.  Part of Brookmans Park Golf Club course has been shaded green.  It is the western end of the course behind the houses on Brookmans Aveneue, the parade of shops and the houses on Bradmore Way.  How stupid can you get.   
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Neville Hobbs on October 19, 2007, 02:08:18 pm
Looking at  the photograph used for the home page headline "Travellers Site Identified", there are about 26 caravans on a plot of approx. ONLY ONE acre! Was this photo staged or did the Gypsies site them this close to each other because that is how they like them sited?
Neville
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on October 19, 2007, 10:04:25 pm
If you go and knock on any travellers caravan door that is not on a permanent site and ask them what the council is doing to help, it's the same old story - possibly one here, possibly one there.  It's been like this for years.
The council have to be seen to be doing something but nothing ever materializes. It's a load of hot air and I wouldn't worry too much about a site on Bulls Lane. It won't happen. You've got more chance of seeing Elvis in the Brookmans!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on October 21, 2007, 03:21:06 am


There was a proposal in the early 1980s for a site at the junction of the A1000 and Swanley Bar Lane, Little Heath, opposite Leggatts Park entrance but nothing came of it.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             This site used to belong to the water board and was a sewerage treatment plant which was very dangerous with deep pits full of water. When the old St John's Church in Potters Bar High Street (where the war memorial is) was demolished it was all dumped in this site.  When the gypsies found out about this they no longer pursued the site due to superstition.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on October 22, 2007, 10:42:27 am
Thanks for the info Stevea.  Another little nugget of local history which is unlikely to be in official records.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on October 22, 2007, 11:52:36 am
Hi Bob.   If I remember correctly, they demolished and dumped the old church on that site around 1973-1975.

I was in the area recently and did the Folly Arch walk to Gobions Lake. Passed throught the Kissing Gate.
Nice one.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on October 26, 2007, 01:05:50 pm
Ignore all the rumours about the possible gypsy and travellers sites.  Get the facts.

Welwyn Hatfield Council will be discussing the proposals at a Cabinet meeting at 7.30pm on Monday 29th October 2007 in the Council Chamber, Campus West, Welwyn Garden City.  It is the building with the theatre/cinema, art gallery and Roller City skating rink.  The adjoining car park is free after 8.15pm.

The meeting is open to the public although you will not be allowed to speak.  I am hoping to speak on behalf of the North Mymms Parish Council, and Cllr. Keith Pieri as the local Borough Councillor.

NM Green Belt Soc will be represented at the meeting as well as other parish councillors.

The agenda and papers are on www.welhat.gov.uk.  Click on
http://coins.welhat.gov.uk/agenda/1047.asp. for the agenda.  Click on item 7 for the two reports.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on October 27, 2007, 03:07:44 pm
I have now been told that  ANY member of the public can ask questions at this meeting.   ;D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on October 29, 2007, 12:51:23 pm
Oops
My source of information got it wrong

The paper on gypsy sites will be presented to the meeting this evening and only the Borough Councillors on the panel will be able to discuss it and ask questions.  The public have until 2pm today to send questions to Mrs Edgar, secretary to the meeting.  These questions will be put to the officers at the meeting if they have not been covered in the discussion.

If, after the meeting, you have further questions you can send them to Mrs S Tiley at WH Council for an answer - if she is able to give one of course.

If it is any consolation, WH Council will be consulting the public possibly in March 2008 about this proposal, so please do not worry if you are unable to ask questions this evening.  It is early days yet.  There is a long way to go before any site is agreed upon.  At the moment it is just that - a proposal.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on November 14, 2007, 10:35:41 am
Friday 7th December 2007 starting at 5.30 pm in NM Youth & Community Centre, Station Road, Welham Green (next to the Catholic church)

Our MP Grant Shapps has arranged a public meeting regarding the proposed gypsy and travellers site on Bulls Lane, Bell Bar.  This subject has been discussed on this Forum and this meeting will be your chance to hear the latest information and discuss what you can do.

For info contact Bob Horrocks via this Forum.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: francis on November 14, 2007, 05:24:21 pm
its increasingly fascinating as to the seemingly ever-increasing amounts of "needs" which apparently can ONLY be met by building in the green belt.    and the upcoming review of The Green Belt will make it easier ?  and easier ?    worrying !
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on November 14, 2007, 11:22:45 pm
Out of interest, has a representative from The Gypsy Council of GB been invited to the meeting?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on November 15, 2007, 08:00:58 am
Good point stevea. information from the existing sites near us would be helpful too.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on November 15, 2007, 11:44:03 am
I will pass on to Grant Shapps the suggestion of having someone at the meeting to speak on behalf of the gypsies and travellers.  Thanks Stevea for the thought.

The Parish Council is about to send a letter to Welwyn Hatfield Council expressing severe misgivings as to the suitability of this site, and giving reasons for that viewpoint.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on November 15, 2007, 05:24:38 pm
I think it is worth adding Bob that the Council also has misgivings over the quality of the report recommending this site and indeed I on a personal level wonder what the terms of reference were and how they came to be instructed.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Birch on November 15, 2007, 05:32:12 pm
For background reading this link might be useful.

http://www.welhat.gov.uk/planning/localdevelopmentframework/evidencebaseforthelocaldevelopmentframework/gypsiesandtravellers
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on November 27, 2007, 12:34:02 pm
Grant Shapps MP has had to postpone his public meeting on 7th December 2007 about this proposal.  Because of the Welham Green local by-election on 3rd January 2008, he wants to have full representation by all Welham Green councillors.

A new date has been arranged at 5pm on Friday 18th January 2008 at the NM Youth and Community Centre, Station Road (behind the Catholic Church).  All are very welcome.

Further info available from Bob Horrocks - see email and IM links at the side of this posting.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on January 03, 2008, 05:40:52 pm
Local residents are invited to a public meeting later this month to discuss plans to provide 17 pitches in the borough for travellers. The public meeting will be held at the North Mymms Youth and Community Centre on Friday 18 January at 5pm. Local MP, Grant Shapps, will be on hand to hear concerns. Click here (http://www.brookmans.com/news/january08/travellers3.shtml) for more details.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 07, 2008, 07:30:07 am
Just wondered if anybody knows - are any gypsies going to this meeting? When I last spoke to a gypsy friend he knew nothing about the proposed site on Bulls Lane. I was quite surprised as most gypsies know everything that goes on amongst themselves in a 50mile radius!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on January 07, 2008, 08:45:06 am
Just wondered if anybody knows - are any gypsies going to this meeting? When I last spoke to a gypsy friend he knew nothing about the proposed site on Bulls Lane. I was quite surprised as most gypsies know everything that goes on amongst themselves in a 50mile radius!

Good point, Steve, will your friend pass the word around? 

There are a number of sites that represent travellers, including...


... I've let them know.

David

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 08, 2008, 03:47:31 am
I've left a message but no response as yet. Will keep you updated.  To be honest, I  can't see any gypsies turning up at the meeting.  The problem being is that such proposed sites are all over the country and it's such a long winded process that many ignore these proposals because they rarely eventuate. If the authorities said to a particular group of gypsies that this is the site that we will build for you and your families it would probably be worth fighting for.  As there are many types of gypsies e.g Irish, English etc it is of no use to specify a proposed site without stating what particular group of gypsies the site would be for. For example, the gypsy site on Barnet Road, Potters Bar was fought for by a friend of mine for years. When the site was eventually approved, a different group of gypsies was allocated the site. It caused terrible problems.  I can't help feeling that these proposed sites are a part of political correctness knowing full well that many of these sites will not go ahead.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on January 19, 2008, 02:33:02 pm
Bob Horrocks has submitted a report about the public meeting, called to discuss the proposals for the travellers site on Bulls Lane. Click here (http://www.brookmans.com/news/january08/travellers4.shtml) for more.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on January 19, 2008, 05:51:01 pm
In drafting the report I omitted to mention that Grant Shapps, your Welwyn Hatfield councillors and your North Mymms Parish councillors will be happy to try and answer any queries you may have on this subject.

Also at the meeting there were some copies of 'Freqently Asked Questions about gypsies and travellers'.  You can read it on this link    http://www.welhat.gov.uk/planning/dnld_200074/GAndT_FAQs.pdf
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 20, 2008, 02:52:38 am
If I'm correct and this land is owned by White's Estates - does this mean that White's Estates are thinking of leasing or selling this land to the council? If I'm not correct, who owns this piece of land and do we know the reason why this particular piece of land was suggested in the first place.

Also, out of interest, were there any gypsies at the meeting or any representative?

If truth be told, I would not want a gypsy site on my doorstep, however, I have some very close gypsy friends that are very nice and genuine people.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on January 20, 2008, 02:59:20 pm
As I understood what was said, the council can only identify land that would be ok to build such a site on. If the traveller community then want to buy it and make the site or not is up to them.

My personal view and judging largely by what Grant said, properly managed and sited traveller sites work fine, as you say the people are no problem. The problem here is the expert consultants have basically produced a fairly weak piece of work, recommending a site where noone with any local knowledge would have put it.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 20, 2008, 09:42:41 pm
Can someone please tell me how the council can identify a piece of land suitable to build a gypsy site on, if the land is private property?    Don't they have to liaise with the property owners to see if they are interested in selling before even suggesting a proposal? Isn't this illegal? All it's doing otherwise is upsetting people in the area.
None of this really makes sense to me. Can anyone enlighten me further? Surely you just can't wander around the countryside saying that bit there will do. :icon_scratch:
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on January 21, 2008, 08:28:00 am
The council is being asked to plan how such a site could be built, in the same way that they may be asked to arrange the building of 10k new homes. They identify the sites, others buy them, get the planning and do the building, not the council.

the decision on this is years away and as you can see we are a long long way from having a travellers site round the corner.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 21, 2008, 09:13:56 am
Sounds like bureaucracy gone mad. What's the point of causing anguish on both sides of the coin - residents and gypsies.   I still query why this particular piece of land was identified and how and why it fits the criteria. I suspect it doesn't and that's why it was chosen.   ???
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on January 21, 2008, 10:55:12 am
Peter Hastings is quite right.

Blame the planning system, not the council.  The Welwyn Hatfield District Plan must identify sufficient potential sites to 'prove' that it is possible to produce the number of new dwellings required by Central Government in the period covered by the plan.  The list includes 'Claregate' on the A1000 next to Christ Church, Little Heath.  It is in the current and previous plans but who knows when it might get developed?  Not me.

Consultants were employed by the council because the council does not have planners available to carry out this on-off task of identifying potential sites for gypsies and travellers.  The fact is that they had to recommend sufficient land to accommodate the 17 pitches required by the East of England Regional Assembly.  In their opinion this was the only land that came near meeting the criteria, but they acknowledged that it was not ideal.   Cllr Stephen Boulton clearly stated at the meeting that this was not a 'done deal' and that the Council did not accept the recommendation since the site did not seem to meet the criteria.

The report said the consultants contacted all land owners.   In the case of this Bulls Lane land, it is owned by Whites Estates as a residue from when they were one of the main developers of Brookmans Park. 

The farmer who has leased the land for nearly 40 years spoke to me at the meeting.  He said the first he knew of this possible site was when he read the report in the WH Times.  Any decent landlord would have spoken to him before that.  If the worst comes to the worst and this site is chosen, any deal would be subject to this farmer's lease.  Could be a huge legal stumbling block.   :'(
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 21, 2008, 11:33:46 am
Thanks for making it clearer Bob.  Seems such a waste of time, money and anguish. It's a shame that the pin isn't pulled on this now.   As I said in my previous post, these sites rarely eventuate. I think this one will be a classic example.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on January 21, 2008, 12:39:05 pm
The real lesson from the meeting was dont let yourself become chief planning officer! You dont want to be in Chris Conway's shoes.

Not only does the council HAVE to go through this process but as I understand it, they have not been allowed to finish their own district plan so they are or will be wide open in future when people dont like individual decisions.

Furthermore, the requirement for pitches is to 2011, there will be a continuing requirement thereafter to 2021 but no-one knows what it is yet. Even when we get to the end of this muddle, we wont really be at the end!

this is a real education in how major planning is carried out and it doesnt seem all that impressive and certainly not efficient.

(One small point, I think Stephen Boulton said the council planning commitee had noted but not considered the Scott Wilson report.) Either way, it hasnt been approved by any means. I wonder how much it cost and what the terms of reference were. I cant help feeling we are in danger of creating paper just for the sake of it-it certainly hasnt helped the decision making process.)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on January 22, 2008, 05:53:39 pm
Welwyn Hatfield Council have accepted i.e. formally acknowledged receipt of the consultants report.  BUT they said it was accepted for information ONLY since the council did not necessarily agree with its recommendations.

Sometime later this year the council expects to consult the public at which time residents can formally make known their views on the suitability of the Bulls Lane site.

Incidentally, I underestimated the number of people at the meeting.  The organisers recorded about 200 names of those attending.  Not bad for a meeting at 5pm  on a Friday evening.  Had it been later in the evening I think the Albert Hall would have been needed.

To enlarge on Peter's second paragraph, one of the points Chris Conway was making related to the current District Plan and its replacement.  The current Plan is for the period to 2011.  There will be a major problem if the update (Local Development Framework) is not adopted by 2011.  There will be a period when there are no official planning policies against which new planning applications can be assessed.  Unscrupulous developers will try to exploit that gap by trying to get approvals on Green Belt land etc.  that would not normally be permitted.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 24, 2008, 06:54:55 am
This is all coming across a bit cowboyish to me.  I wouldn't want them running my business! Perhaps we should change the topic from Travellers Site Meeting to Gun Smoke on Bulls Lane or Bonanza! Think I'll saddle up and go west!  ;D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on January 24, 2008, 11:39:31 am
Someone phoned me on the day of the meeting to ask if it had been cancelled.  I was able to tell her it was still being held.  I have now learned of another person who would have gone except she had also been told it was cancelled.

Can anyone shed light on how this rumour started? 

It did not stop people attending because about 200 turned up.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 25, 2008, 04:19:11 am
Rumour has it, it was Jesse James and his brother, Frank!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 25, 2008, 11:00:11 am
Bob. Has anyone looked at the terms and conditions of the farmers lease? It would be interesting to know when the lease is up for renewal/expires. 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on January 25, 2008, 03:28:44 pm
The lease is being checked very carefully since it is of great interest to Welwyn Hatfield Council.  Apparently it is an Agricultural Lease given to a limited company. It is thought to be indefinite as long as the company exists.

If this is correct it will affect the availability of this land for a travellers site.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: sasquartch on January 25, 2008, 04:55:56 pm
So if some locals got together and bought or leased the land...then the camp couldn't go ahead.

Not too much different to what was done to save Gobions from development.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 26, 2008, 04:12:24 am
So basically, what has been proposed is technically illegal.

I'm not a lawyer, but if this went to court it would be pulled apart.  If this was the US, the farmer would sue, and he would win!

How can consultants recommend land that is under a legally bound lease? Surely the consultants were given more information than just to identify a piece of land. Did they not have criteria to follow? If the council have a legal team that vets proposed contracts and proposals, why wasn't this particular site squashed immediately? What's the point of acknowledging receipt of a proposal knowing full well that it won't eventuate? Is it just to play the game?

Instead of placing various authorities under pressure, the powers that be who designated the travellers site idea in the first place, should really take a good, hard look at what they are designating and stop playing at political correctness.

This just proves what I have been saying all along in my previous posts. The whole process is a shambles and has just caused angst for the community. What a waste of time and tax payers money. It's a bureaucratic bungle and I bet it's happening in other areas as well.

I wonder where the gypsies fit in to all this mess.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on January 26, 2008, 04:36:37 pm
Actually I dont think the consultants were asked to do more than identify land. The report specifically allows that outside factors such as general planning and the question of the availability of the recommended site have not been considered.

As I have mentioned before it would be very interesting to see the terms of reference and the invoice for this work!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Ferdie on January 26, 2008, 06:02:29 pm
So if some locals got together and bought or leased the land...then the camp couldn't go ahead.

Not too much different to what was done to save Gobions from development.

or as happened in Crays Hill, Wickford, Essex, with widely publicised consequences the travelling community could get together and buy the land then apply for retrospective planning permission having occupied the land. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4596007.stm

Either way, a lot of this is an highly emotive subject.



Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 27, 2008, 03:31:22 am
Why were the consultants instructed without a criteria? You might as well throw money in a ditch!

When is the council actually going to pull their finger out to try and do this properly instead of a half hearted, amateurish cowboy job that they've done so far.  Are they going to accept blame for this blunder? Are they going to re-employ the consultants to look again? Are they going to advise that there is no suitable site and stand up for themselves? What exactly is their plan?

Even the site meeting held was poorly timed - 5.00pm on a Friday is not the best when people are working and looking forward to their weekend etc  It's quite incredible that around 200 attended but I bet there would have been a lot more if it was held at 7.00pm on a day other than a Friday!  Does anyone know if a representative from the travelling community was there? Considering the whole point of this is focused on them, it would be pertinent to get their view point.

I am not sure of the outcome, but having looked at the link that Ferdie posted, do we really want a situation to arise like the one at Cray's Hill?  I'm not saying it would and know that Irish Tinkers are extremely different to Romanies or English Travellers, but it's something to consider IF a suitable piece of land is available!

Did you know that David Essex (singer/actor) is Patron of the Gypsy Council.  I wonder what he would make of this!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on January 27, 2008, 07:51:49 pm
The consultants were employed by a group of councils, not just ours and I dare  say the terms of reference were a matter of negotiation, or perhaps even imposed by central govt.

The consultants report is just one part of the evidence the planners have to consider. There is a lot more work to be done and a long process involved in which the public will be consulted on both which criteria should be used in the end and which site if any should be chosen in our area.

I really dont understand the whole process or who drives it so I really wouldnt want to pin all the blame on our Borough Council.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 27, 2008, 09:44:41 pm
It's all fair and good to have public consultations - but based on what?  The council can't even get over the first hurdle.  So far, land identified will involve major legal issues - why consult on something that can't eventuate?

Why can't the Borough Council approach the 'powers that be' and explain the difficulty instead of wasting time and money? It's a joke.

If glory and credit was to be gained by finding a suitable site, it would have been found already. Nobody wants to take responsibility for finding a site in any case. Too many lost potential votes and losing favour or credibility with the public.

Also, can anyone please tell me if a travellers representative was even invited to the meeting?  If not, why not?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on January 28, 2008, 10:22:09 am
Why can't the Borough Council approach the 'powers that be' and explain the difficulty instead of wasting time and money? It's a joke.

The joke  is our so-called 'listening' Government which dictates.  It does not listen.  It even insists on new housing being built on flood plains despite the events of 2007.  Be glad you do not live in Tewksbury.

The meeting was held by our MP not the Council, and I assume that this was the only time he could fit it in with his schedule. 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 29, 2008, 07:25:40 am
Does anybody know the outcome of the consultants reports in the other council areas?  I wonder if it is the same sort of scenario?    :)

Also, does the council have some sort of travellers waiting list for the 'proposed' site?  Believe me, this would be my greatest concern. As I mentioned previously, Irish Tinkers are extremely different to Romanies and English Travellers.   If you've ever wondered why there are so many Irish Tinkers around in the UK it's because specific families were told to leave their homeland..or else...by a certain political party in Ireland. This is no hidden fact.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: jet on January 29, 2008, 06:27:59 pm
When the "travellers" turn up near by things dissappear mainly because the kids go on the rob.
They leave junk and filth everywhere.
Took my neighbours dish leaving the bracket and tried to tow away trailer while house was occupied. Fact!
They do not help themselves by their attitude, however things have changed due to various cases where householders have defended themselves and been exonerated by the courts.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 29, 2008, 07:29:48 pm
Jet.  I have friends and family that live in Eire, mainly in the horse business. They've all had lots of problems with Tinkers and have found that resorting to baseball bats is a lot easier than calling the police. More effective and actually gets results...i.e property back!  Out of all the travelling communities, it's 90% Irish that travel today.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on January 29, 2008, 07:35:12 pm
Stevea........... how could you suggest "baseball bats" in your comment !! Are you closetted BNP by any chance ? Disgraceful attitude. I would not condone this at all, as I am sure many would agree. 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: jet on January 29, 2008, 10:03:28 pm
In the real world where the Guards or Police don't turn up because they are to busy getting interpreters to deal with drunken ethnics :( it is desirable to use minimum force as needed.
Over here we use a Hurley and in Munster most carry them ostensiably for sport but they come in handy as a deterent.
Travellers are very good for VAT free turf though :)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 30, 2008, 02:53:48 am
I must emphasise that I do not condone the use of baseball bats or hurleys but this factually happens. In fact, their favourite weapon is a tyre wrench which is kept behind a seat of a truck and is not illegal to carry. No matter what the type of traveller they rarely call the police unless it's a case of murder or of a missing child, and they tend to sort things out amongst themselves.  The tyre wrench and a good right hand has solved many an argument!

This is all relevant to my asking who the proposed site is for.

PS - Why would you think I'm closetted BNP? Your remark indicates that you think the BNP are violent. Well, you know they are. The only thing I have in common with the BNP is Nick Griffin, the Chairman - both he and I have both been known to throw a good right hander - only mine would be in self defence. We'll leave it as that.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Paul Zukowskyj on January 30, 2008, 11:23:12 am
Hi,

I've been doing a bit of reading of the documents that the consultants provided. Their 'criteria' for exclusion of sites are not described in detail in the report and are therefore very difficult to determine. I suspect much of the criteria are related to the borough council's local plan, which determines what are acceptable landuses across the borough. Which landuses they determined were acceptable and which not is somewhat unclear. One criteria they DID describe as being used however was the landscape character assessment for the area. A further criteria was access for field visits. If a site was inaccessible at the time the visit was made that site was excluded. Not a good criteria. Suggests that if you DONT want a site near you, you just need to lock your gates and restrict overlooking of the area.

As for a development on Bulls Lane being unlikely, the driver for this is policy from a national level requiring consideration of pitches. The East of England assembly decided that two options should be considered, each of which stated that Welwyn Hatfield (specifically) should look to site an extra 17 pitches by 2011. They then advise sites should have between 10 and 15 pitches, with 10 being the optimum. Either way this means TWO new sites in WH, not just one. The consultants report suggests just one, so to meet the requirements, ANOTHER site will be needed as well as Bulls Lane.

The site identified consists of a small area that matches further requirements (access to local transport, health services, etc) well, a much larger area that matches less well and a small section that is rated as matching poorly. As such it's far from ideal. The consultants also discuss transport access to the site and list it as OK, despite Bulls lane being less than ideal with overhanging vegetation, a poorly maintained road surface and lots of potholes. Not sure I'd like to meet a van pulling a caravan coming the other way down the lane personally.....

The consultants also state that the site would need significant modification for use. This would include building embankments, access roads and other significant infrastructure, meaning a period of building works prior to the site being used. So a building site before a travellers site, possibly for a significant period.

It's also very unclear why this particular site was selected over other potential sites. The maps show significant areas around the borough where there are similar criteria matches and better matches with further requirements, but no other sites are suggested for consideration. Why is the area rated 'good' around Essenden not suggested? The report simply doesn't comment. If it's because access could not be gained for a field visit, that's a very poor reason to exclude it.

All in all, as an experienced GIS expert and someone with some significant experience of the planning process, this document leaves a lot to be desired. There are big holes. If I were Chris Conway, I'd be on the phone asking the consultants to fill in all the gaps if they wanted to get paid.

Personally I'd suggest shooting holes in the document might be a very good way of getting the council to reject the findings and look again at this issue. The consultants comments on existing sites being unsuitable also looks like it needs re-assessing as the key issue appears to be the building work required, whilst they then advocate a site where significant building work will be required!

Hope you find this info of interest,

Paul
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on January 30, 2008, 11:35:12 am
Thanks Paul. I agree that the conclusion to the report doesnt actually follow the technical work such as it is and I agree the best approach is not to knock the council who have made no decisions yet but to encourage them to reject the report because it is clearly a flawed piece of work.

The report doesnt just cover our the WHBC area and of course does recommened sites outside our area but the arguments in respect of our area are weak as Paul has exposed in detail.

Can I also reiterate a point Grant Shapps made several times-properly sited and managed sites for travelling communities work fine with no problem and no detriment to the wider community. Anyone who argues on a NIMBY basis or who advocates violence is likely to get the response they deserve-ie being ignored. There have been travelling communities in this country for hundreds of years-most of us probably have their DNA in us so dont reach for the tyre wrench too quickly.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 30, 2008, 08:06:23 pm
Paul. It was interesting to read your comments and I am pleased that you suggested that the council reject the findings as did Peter Hastings. I have been saying this for quite a while as Bulls Lane is obviously not a suitable site and they should find an alternative instead of wasting time and money.   I would also like to emphasise to anyone that may think otherwise, that I am an advocate of certain travellers - mind you, this would be pretty obvious from my previous posts on this matter!      BTW, my last post was meant to be humorous - well I was chuckling!  :)    I certainly do not condone violence.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: jet on January 30, 2008, 08:25:58 pm
I may be a bit dim but humour me.
Something I have never understood.
If someone who is " coventional" wishes to have a caravan etc then they get one on a commercial park and pay rent etc.
If someone is a " traveller" then for some strange reason the community has to accomadate them.
If they wish to travel why do they want a fixed abode?
I suspect its all summat to do with some EU directive or other.
I wish to live in a mansion on an country estate, its my ethnic wish, will someone pay for my wishes for me?
So much effort for so few, beyond belief.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on January 31, 2008, 06:51:52 am
Another take on this story from This Is Hertfordshire (http://www.thisishertfordshire.co.uk/news/newsindex/display.var.2006147.0.traveller_site_fears_in_welham_green.php).
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on January 31, 2008, 08:28:35 am
According to the article..."no decision has been taken on the placement of Gypsy and Traveller accomodation in Welwyn Hatfield".........we all know this!  "Residents will be consulted at an appropriate juncture when suitable sites are identified".........we know this too, when?!! - next month, next year?.....and the proposed site is STILL
being assessed for suitability!!   What a load of twaddle. Why is it taking so long? Obviously this site has legal issues besides not being suitable...so why not just pull the plug.  Same old story.   Is there a plan B or C?!!...and we still don't seem to know what particular group of gypsies this site is for......nor if gypsies have been consulted.....or if any representative for them attended the meeting.  I'd like to hear their side of the story - wouldn't you?

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on February 29, 2008, 02:40:54 pm
The North Mymms District Green Belt Soc and North Mymms Parish Council are both doing what they can at the appropriate times to oppose this site, but is very early days in the process of deciding on the final sites.  Chris Conway clearly stated at the public meeting held in January that no decision is expected before 2010.

To answer another question put to me, Welwyn Hatfield Council will not buy the land on which any gypsy/travellers camp is to be sited.  It will be up to the land owner to get planning permission and then either provide the site or sell/lease the land to others to provide the camp and all its facilities

The Government Office - East (www.go-east.gov.uk) has just started a 12-week consultation on the report sent to GO-East by EERA about the number of new pitches.  There will then be a Public Inquiry and the final decision on the number of pitches in each local authority is not due until 2009.  That means 2010 on past performance!  A waste of time and money since EERA has already done a consultation.  Welwyn Hatfield will still have to find 17 pitches.   ::)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on February 29, 2008, 11:05:02 pm
It seems to me that this site was deliberately chosen to fail.  Agree with you Bob, what a waste of time and money. The council obviously know who, what, why and where and if they don't they shouldn't be in power. The consultants were brought in to pass the buck. Nobody wants to take credit for establishing a new travellers site - unless there was glory or political gain. I don't think we're being told the truth about Bulls Lane. It's a cowboy job from start to finish all the way down the line - and what about the poor old farmer and his indefinate lease???
Mmmmmmm....... :icon_scratch:
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on April 27, 2008, 08:26:55 am
Leaflets have been delivered to local homes opposing the proposal for a site for the gypsy and traveller community at Bulls Lane. Click here (http://www.brookmans.com/news/april08/gypsy_travellers_site_opposition.shtml) for more details.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on April 28, 2008, 10:47:56 am
I have changed my mind from when I made my last posting.  Thank goodness for the current consultation by the Government.  The Green Belt Soc Newsletter is being delivered to every home in the parish (Brookmans Park, Welham Green, and parts of Little Heath and Bullens Green).  This is your chance to tell the Government what you think on this subject.  Return the completed response form to me or put it in the collection boxes in Brookmans Park Newsagents and Dellsome Lane Post Office.  The boxes will be emptied on Monday 12th May and the forms sent to the Government.

According to my understanding of the consutation documents, the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) has carried out numerous studies and concluded that a minimum of 1,187 more pitches are needed by 2011.  Yet the Government Office - East website www.go-east.gov.uk says there are only 1,140 caravans on unauthorised pitches.    Why does the EERA consider more pitches are necessary than there are caravans on unauthorised pitches?   ???

Added to which, each authorised pitch has an average of 1.7 caravans on each pitch.  Using that as a base figure, these 1,140 caravans would only need about 670 pitches.  So 1,187 new authorised pitches would be a vast overprovision.

Welwyn Hatfield Council considers there are enough pitches in this borough already, and any additional need should be met at the Holwell site.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: sasquartch on April 28, 2008, 10:53:11 am
Who actually pays for these sites ? Is it local government, central government or the gypsies themselves ?

Do travellers pay council tax or any other charge to use these facilities ?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on April 28, 2008, 11:16:46 am
Sasquartch - I'm not quite sure how it works with local or central government but I have known gypsies in the past buy their own land and pay rates, services etc just like any of us that live in private housing.  It used to be that if the site was owned by the council - then it was a similar set up as if one was renting a council home. I don't know if it was based on an individual caravan or the overall site.  I have seen caravans on permanent sites with gas and electric meters fitted.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on April 29, 2008, 07:43:52 am
The Council have made it clear they wouldnt buy the land if a site were approved. It would be up to the gypsies or travellers themselves to buy and develop the site.  OR I suppose anyone could buy it and develop it and rent it to the travelling community.

All we are looking at is whether this site could be approved to be used for such a development IF someone wanted to do that.

Lets hope members of the travelling community are aware of all this and get involved in the consultation. If none of them is interested in this site we are all wasting a lot of time and money!

In general this consultation exercise is flawed. The document we are assessing is flawed and instead of consultating on a range of options we are being offered take it or leave it with implications both ways.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Birch on May 01, 2008, 01:32:01 pm
Has anyone seen this article today about travellers in Essex? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=563133&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=563133&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 01, 2008, 08:48:08 pm
I think you'll find that these gypsies are Irish and are some of the families I mentioned in my last post under "A Better Borough". 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on May 04, 2008, 09:14:55 pm
Are you sure they are "IRISH". You seem to me that you are  a expert on the travelling community.could you explain why they are Irish. and not from Norfolk,Suffolk.Essex,Herts,Hackeny etc. Do I love experts or What.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 06, 2008, 04:56:29 am
The Rock. Well you sure are full of sarcasm. Yes, they are Irish - from Ireland!  Not English.  If you google
Cray's Hill Irish Tinkers you'll also see information about smuggling cocaine from Europe.

I don't claim to be an expert on the travelling community - but I do have a good understanding as well as tolerance of them.  Something you clearly don't have.

The council have been trying to do away with Cray's Hill for years. It is notorious in the travelling community and
the police didn't want it closed as it's been under surveillance for a very long time. Maybe now there's been a few major arrests things will change.

What have you got against being informed about facts?  - or do you just want to hear what pleases you? We do live in a democracy.   

I know you obviously think that I'm a 'gypsy lover' but I'm far from it. I have many friends that are gypsies and  what I would really like to say about the travelling community - English, Irish, whatever - would not always be printed. I also do not want to offend or upset people as some of my factual knowledge is based on politics, violence and drugs.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 06, 2008, 08:19:27 pm
For those living overseas and those not familiar with the local countryside and the proposed travellers site on Bulls Lane, here are some pictures of the field and the road approaching and leaving the site.

(http://www.brookmans.com/news/may08/bl1.jpg)

(http://www.brookmans.com/news/may08/bl2.jpg)

(http://www.brookmans.com/news/may08/bl3.jpg)

(http://www.brookmans.com/news/may08/bl4.jpg)

(http://www.brookmans.com/news/may08/bl5.jpg)

(http://www.brookmans.com/news/may08/bl6.jpg)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on May 07, 2008, 12:43:47 pm
Re the Government consultation on 1,187 additional gypsy and travellers sites in the East of England

The NM Green Belt Soc Newsletters should have been delivered to every household by now.  Hopefully those delivered in Welham Green will not have got lost in the avalanche of election circulars.

So far, 347 response forms have been received through my letter box and via the two collection boxes at BP News and Dellsome Lane Post Office.  These collection boxes will be removed next Monday so please sign and return yours by then, if you have not done so already.   
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on May 07, 2008, 05:52:19 pm
Now Now Stevea,
I must have hit a nerve?. I do actually know a lot about our travelling fraternity.I have a few associates whom I know who live on certain sites local to the A414.  Regarding The site you are reffering to in Crays Hill I know for a fact that the Police are scared to go into the site remember what happened the last time they tried to move the "Irish Gypsies" from this site there were riots. If they are dealing drugs etc what have we got a Law for go in a do the Job clear the site and make arrest. You know and many many many people know that there seems to be one Rule for them (gypsys) and one rule for us. This is fact. I am not tarring all the travellers with the same brush but I know a lot of unhappy people in this area especially a few old ones who's driveways,fencing ,tarmacing etc are not upto scratch and have been connned out of money for a simple job that has cost a packet. This as everyone might say is their own fault but you try and tell 3-4 travellers with there New recruits (Eastern European ) Labour that you want them to stop the work .......I dont think so.

Regards......THEROCK
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 08, 2008, 12:42:10 am
The Rock - Let's start from the beginning;-

I am NOT an advocate for the Bulls Lane site - never have been. The whole thing is a fiasco and is illegal in any case! All I've done all along is try to coax out of the powers that be who the potential site is aimed for - what type of traveller...and did any of the travelling community attend the meeting, and if so, was it a representative from the Irish or English travelling community - there is a HUGE difference. I've never had a straight answer and probably never will. You would NOT want the Cray's Hill type of traveller there IF this site was approved.
Fortunately, there are also good gypsies in the community, that are down to earth and genuine people. If there was more tolerance and you met some of them you would understand what I mean.

A lot of your comments I agree with!  It's you who made the pop at me about the travellers at Cray's Hill - so I'm not sure why you queried my statement that they were Irish. You now seem to concur that they are. I'm also anti the negative side of the travelling community - fix the roof, tarmac the drive etc etc

What I have said about Irish travellers is factual - many of their families HAD to leave Ireland or face getting their knees capped - in fact, some did get their knees capped!

I'm not sure what you mean about hitting a nerve :icon_scratch: - somehow I feel that you're taking this personally - all I've done is provide facts about the different type of travellers and some do deserve respect which appears to be sadly lacking. As I keep repeating, there is good and bad in every community including the likes of you and me.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on May 09, 2008, 01:13:06 pm
My dearest Stevea,

Firstly I am not taking anything you have said or written personaly. I say it as I see it and as you have stated everybody is entitled to his/her opinion.

Just for the record I have known travellers park up where I used to live in Hackney in London and they were the Ok type who only stayed in the place for a day.I have also been to Dublin (Ballymun) and seen the real travellers who are a eyesore and as you might now put the Crayshill site to shame.

Let the well paid Councilors and do gooders sort the problem out as they always do...and then let the normal community pick up the bill and clear up the mess. My opinion and it wont change. Should this offend anyone this is my opinion and Im sticking to it... Have a good day one and all....
Regards,
THEROCK
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on May 09, 2008, 06:48:11 pm
 I have followed the discussions on the proposed travellers site with interest. Why is it that any one who just states the facts is immediatly labelled extreem, facist ect ect. So lets talk some facts, for instance, look at the south mymms site by the M25 on the St Abans Road. Mercedes parked, yet Herts council provides a cab service to get the kids to school.

Look at the fights and drug dealing in the pubs at Potters Bar, etc etc. not all travellers we know, but a good many, even if its only one, its one we do not need.

I am simply amazed at the naivity of some of you, just look at the changes in our society over the last thirty years with the so called liberalisation.

Before anyone accuses me of being anti Irish, I am married to an Irish lady, and who agrees with me. 

If a site is granted, then watch the For Sale signs go up. It will then be to late.

I might be grumpy and old, but I am a reallist.

Grumpy Old Roy



 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 10, 2008, 04:26:52 am
At the end of the day, I think we are all generally agreeing with each other for being against the site.

The Rock - what is your answer? Kneecap all gypsies and send them to France, take Hitler's approach......no matter what, every human being deserves to have a roof over their heads.  Not all gypsies are
low life.

Surely in the whole of the UK there are areas available that would suit both gypsies and the local population.
People really need to think this out instead of passing the buck and proposing sites that are legal minefields. Perhaps Bulls Lane was purposely chosen because the powers that be know it would fail. The root of the matter all boils down to politics and lost votes. It's wrong. From the top to the bottom of the political arena it's just a vicious circle and nobody has the balls to take control of the problem.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 10, 2008, 04:47:56 pm

dont really care where they put a site so long as its not near me. THEROCK

In fact lets just send them back to the countries they came from originally along with anyone else who cant show 6 generations of white anglo saxon protestant stock on both sides.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on May 10, 2008, 10:55:44 pm
The Rock - what is your answer? Kneecap all gypsies and send them to France, take Hitler's approach......no matter what, every human being deserves to have a roof over their heads.  Not all gypsies are low life.

dont really care where they put a site so long as its not near me. THEROCK

In fact lets just send them back to the countries they came from originally along with anyone else who cant show 6 generations of white anglo saxon protestant stock on both sides.

The Rock - what is your answer? Kneecap all gypsies and send them to France, take Hitler's approach......no matter what, every human being deserves to have a roof over their heads.  Not all gypsies are low life.

I admire both Peter Hastings and Stevea for their statements. Some of the attitudes shown towards travellers are highly disturbing and reek of arrogance and ignorance.



Editor's note: Edited only to fix quote boxes.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 11, 2008, 08:24:21 am
So lets talk some facts, the majority of the itinerant Irish so called travellers here have never financially contributed to our society. For instance, look at the south mymms site by the M25 on the St Abans Road. Mercedes parked, yet Herts council provides a cab service to get the kids to school.

Look at the fights and drug dealing in the pubs at Potters Bar, etc etc. not all travellers we know, but a good many, even if its only one, its one we do not need.


I think you'll find the travellers on this site are English and it is owned and run by the council, therefore, they will be paying tax,electic,gas,rent.......just like anybody who rents council accomodation. As for the cab service, I would imagine it's simply because it's on a dangerous corner and there are no school buses nearby. I know they've had problems with lunatic drivers on that bend.

I don't think you'll find drugs on this site - they're not that type of traveller although I daresay they wouldn't be shy to a punch up. It's in the gypsy blood. Also, some of the travellers on this site descend from the original gypsy site in the Travellers Lane area in Welham Green.  My father was born in the early 30's and there was a site there before he was born. Many now live in houses in Welham Green and I believe there still might be Romany Gypsies living in Marsh Moor Lane.  Before Borehamwood was built up, there was also a huge site there for years.


Editor's note:  Edited only to fix quote box.
 



 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 12, 2008, 06:46:51 pm
Just in from Herts Police ...

NEW GYPSY & TRAVELLER LIAISON OFFICER FOR THE CONSTABULARY
By Corporate Communication Dept


AIMING to build trust and improved links between the police and the travelling community is the role of the Constabulary’s new Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer.

PC Kevin Moore, an experienced officer with 26 years’ service with the organisation, has been appointed to the role and has spent his first few weeks visiting some of the 33 official sites across the county and forging links.

“I don’t want to go into this role with any pre-conceived ideas – I’ve got a lot to learn and want to spend the first few months meeting people and building up trust within a community that sometimes feels its relationship with the police could be improved,” said Kevin.

He added: “Gypsy and Irish Travellers, like everyone else, want to be treated fairly and with respect. This community is proud of its history and heritage and it’s clearly in the interests of the police to build up trust so that they feel more comfortable approaching us to report crime and other issues that may be affecting them, such as domestic violence. Like everyone else, the vast majority don’t want offenders in their community either, but in the past may have found it difficult to approach the police for various reasons.”

Kevin concluded: “There’s a real opportunity here to develop something new, to learn from other officers and to explore different ways of working with other agencies. Some of my work will involve liaising with other sections in the community to address their concerns and challenge misconceptions where necessary. I’m keen to hear from anyone who has any views about how this work can be progressed.”

Kevin can be contacted via the Constabulary’s non emergency number 0845 33 00 222.

/end of news release.

Picture of PC Kevin Moore below.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 12, 2008, 11:33:04 pm
What a great idea. I hope it works out well for PC Kevin Moore. It would be interesting to see what he has to say once he's become more established in the role.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Paul Zukowskyj on May 13, 2008, 02:56:07 pm
There has been some further developments late last week on the Gypsy and Traveller site provision issue from the East of England Regional Assembly. You may (or may not) know that the driver behind these proposals was the Assembly agreeing to a proposal to provide extra sites across the East of England by assigning a minimum number of pitches per district/borough, irrespective of whether they were appropriate or needed.

One of the main driving forces behind this proposal, Conservative Hertfordshire County Councillor Derrick Ashley, who seconded the original proposal in the assembly, now appears to be backtracking somewhat on his position and has publicly stated his opposition to the proposals that the group he chaired (planning committee) put forward. Apparently he may need to send a strongly worded letter to himself!

Hopefully the pressure applied to the Conservative-dominated assembly at both a local and regional level is beginning to yield results. We may be seeing the beginning of the end for the laughably daft proposal for a site on Bulls Lane.

Paul


Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on May 14, 2008, 05:50:59 pm
If you do gooders are so  pro-Travellers/Gypsys why not all club together and buy some land for the poor people so that you can all look after them. As regards the knee capping whats that all about?. I am pproud to be a white Anglo Saxon, so was my father brothers who fought in the Falklands and 2nd world war. Whats wrong with that. You have long distance  veiws,but when reality creeps nearer the old bubble burst doesnt it ?.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: jet on May 14, 2008, 06:52:30 pm
I still cannot understand why people who wish to live in some kind of permanant camp are known as travellers?
As for neighbours, I would not wish some of my old neighbours ( not all) on my worst enemy and that includes both Imp land and the posher bit. :)
An Anglo Saxon, Irish,Norse,Norman,French,German,Spanish, a touch Jewish but by no way European contributor.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 14, 2008, 07:13:14 pm
If you read the posts THEROCK you will see that I am not in favour of the site proposed. My objection is based on the fairly useless consultation document and the conclusions it draws, the history of provision locally and so on.

My grandfathers were "white anglo saxons" and fought in the 1st and 2nd World Wars so I can match you there but are you really saying all that is relevant or just joking?

The point of my post on WASPS is that there is no such thing. Whatever you might like to think you are a Muggle just like the rest of us not a pure blood and your effort to decide this planning issue on your perceived racial grounds are exactly the kind of non-reasoning the BNP prey on.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 14, 2008, 10:11:00 pm
The Rock - I'm also a WASP - so what.  I also have family that were in WW1 and WW11. You're not alone!

As for the do gooder bit - what's wrong with people stating facts? Perhaps you should read the posts more thoroughly and then maybe you'll understand them more.

As I keep repeating, I'm also not in favour of this particular proposed site - who is?  As for your remark that you don't care what people say - who wants that type of attitude?  What makes you so special?

All I've been trying to do is establish if this proposed site would be council run and what type of gypsy it would be for - there is a huge difference.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on May 15, 2008, 06:50:15 pm
As a reply to STEVEA as to why I am so special the answer is quite simple really  because Im "ME".  And I dont care.

Its good to have the Police involved well done.

Regards to all From the "special one" 

THEROCK
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 15, 2008, 07:42:00 pm
And what if noone wants a "special one" living next door to them?

I am still hoping THEROCK is just having a joke! Otherwise why are we debating this? Why not just ask the special one and build the first gas chamber as soon as we can?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on May 15, 2008, 09:37:20 pm
The Rock - I am also white - but not A.S.P. My family were also in WW1 and WW11 - some were also in the
Siberian & Russian Army - forced to the frontline as it didn't matter if they got killed!

All some people have done on this topic is put forward information - not one person has said they are in favour of the proposed travellers site.  I am quite pleased that I don't live next door to you otherwise I have a feeling that you'd expect me to wear a yellow star on my sleeve!  Why not have a look at some of the holocaust web sites - the figures vary but between 600-800,000 gypsies were murdered.  The photo's are not at all pleasant.

How would you solve the site situation for gypsies?  It cannot be ignored no matter your personal attitude.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 16, 2008, 05:08:14 am
During WW11 the British Government built caravan sites for gypsies who served in the army or performed farm labour. Unfairly, they were dismantled when the war was over. The first recording of gypsies in Ireland was in the early 12th century - in England, Scotland and Wales, the early 16th century. All factual statements. Gypsies have lived in England for hundreds of years and they deserve to have sites - end of story. People that usually self proclaim they are special are social misfits..Hitler is a good example. There was a programme on Discovery Channel called The Untold Story. Hitler often heard voices saying he was special, was bullied as a child, including by gypsies, and as he feared them because he did not understand them, he wanted rid of them. He became a bully to the extreme.
Instead of patronising remarks from some people why don't they put forward a solution to the travellers site situation?
Sarcasm does not solve a problem. As long as they're not in my back yard does not solve a problem. I'm alright Jack does not solve a problem.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 16, 2008, 07:24:00 am
Agree with stevea and naomi. Dont agree with therock. Dont know why therock sent us into the war and racial background but I bet there are others who see this as a racial issue and this is extremely dangerous.

would like to hear from anyone who lives on a similar site or might live on one provided by WHBC to see what they actually want.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: shevans on May 16, 2008, 08:41:49 am
As long as they're not in my back yard does not solve a problem. I'm alright Jack does not solve a problem.

All Therocksaid, and no doubt many local to North Mymms, is the he does not want a site in the area, he speaks his mind. It all very good having a high moral standard  stevea when you reside in Australia!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 16, 2008, 11:03:17 am
Shevans - NO, that's NOT all he said and at least some of us on this forum have some standards!  Where I live is irrelevant. Most of my family live in and around the BP area and have done so for more than 200 years!
- and PLEASE tell me who has said on this forum that they want or support a travellers site in Bulls Lane.  :icon_scratch:     





Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: shevans on May 16, 2008, 12:57:00 pm
- and PLEASE tell me who has said on this forum that they want or support a travellers site in Bulls Lane.  :icon_scratch:     


Made no such implication  ???
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 16, 2008, 02:17:20 pm
I certainly do not want a site down there. And Shevans, I agree, its easy to have high moral standards when one lives under the Gum Trees in Australia.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 16, 2008, 07:36:58 pm
Bob Horrocks, secretary of the North Mymms District Green Belt Society, has updated the site with a report about the result of the society's prepared response opposing plans for the Bull's Lane site. Click here (http://www.brookmans.com/news/may08/gypsy_travellers_site_opposition_response.shtml) to read Bob's report.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 16, 2008, 07:42:53 pm

I agree, its easy to have high moral standards when one lives under the Gum Trees in Australia.


PS, this forum is open to all local residents and former local residents to express their opinions on local issues whether they live in Bulls Lane or Perth. The perspective of those who have moved away can often be as valuable as that of those who have lived here all their lives and new residents who have only just moved here.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 16, 2008, 08:29:57 pm
As far as I know, no one, not even me who lives in Brookmans park, has agreed with the site.

 However some of us are trying to discuss this and seek information and some are dismissing the whole idea because they dont want people with a different ethnic background living near them.

i dont think one is setting up some "high moral standard" in saying "no non wasps in my back yard" is no way to debate this important local issue.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 16, 2008, 10:09:41 pm
Instead of all the negative debate which is not solving the solution, does anybody have some constructive feedback?  As we all know, it's unlikely that Bulls Lane will eventuate.....but there probably will be an
alternative site....somewhere.  Ever nearer to BP for all we know!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on May 17, 2008, 09:42:11 am
Peter Hastings - Perhaps PC Moore knows of a representative that could put the travellers viewpoint to this forum?

PS and Shevans - Are you trying to say that only people in Australia have high moral standards?!!!  :icon_scratch:

Instead of some people posting sarcastic remarks - come up with some sensible answers to this problem.



Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 17, 2008, 10:07:24 am
Bob,

Thanks for the report on the prepared response returns (Click here for Bob's report (http://www.brookmans.com/news/may08/gypsy_travellers_site_opposition_response.shtml))

If 3,600 went out and if 665 (18.5%) were returned (and some might have been photocopies from people sending multiple replies from the same family), I presume that means that at least 2,933 (81.5%) of the forms were not returned.

Do you think that means that 81.5% either don't care, don't know enough about the issue to have an opinion, or just didn't get around to returning the forms.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 17, 2008, 10:14:08 am
Naomi - if you are suggesting constructive comments then I have one - build a "new town" [or towns across the uk] but limit to a handfull and give the travellers the opportunity to all get together and live like one community. You may raise your hands in horror and scream political incorrectness. But for me, to hell with PC - one of the major root causes of the problems we face today after many tears of this PC madness.

Anyone else wish to have a proposed solution ?   
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: sasquartch on May 17, 2008, 11:15:28 am
PS - nice idea but unworkable - by very definition travellers move around which is why pitches are required around the country. Also many (not all I'm sure) have businesses such as tarmaccing, block paving and so on whose customer base are in effect the rest of the community.

The fact is, many or indeed most people living in 'nice' predominantly owner occupied communities do not want a gypsy camp nearby because of various factors. These factors may be more due to perception than fact, but perception is that crime will rise, the countryside will be littered with rubbish etc etc. Perception, that may or may not be fact.

The issue has nothing to do with race or ethnicity - whether or not these people are ethnically different is irrelevant. People would be just as horrified if WH Council said a 20 storey council tower block was to be built in Green Close and problem and single parent families were to be housed there. Just as ridiculous as the gypsy site in Bulls Lane according to some.

Dave's view that because 80% odd people did not respond to a survey means they are either in favour or not bothered is a very flawed argument. I am against it, and I'm afraid I never got round to filling it in. Why ? I just forgot, I'm certainly not in favour of the site. Also, whilst a very valid exercise, such surveys are not controlled in as much it would be easy to vote multiple times and so on. On the basis that the survey only asked for people in opposition to the site, not for it means that perhaps 20% or so who replied is actually a very good response. I know of no-one in favour that's for sure (OK, anecdotal evidence only)

The whole problem is a thorny one because realistically there will never be a site that does not generate local opposition. The best way forward, in my opinion, is to get a proper consultation done by people who understand the problems - not the half baked report that has so far been produced, doubtless at great cost to us all, WH council tax payers.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 17, 2008, 11:28:05 am
Dave's view that because 80% odd people did not respond to a survey means they are either in favour or not bothered is a very flawed argument. I am against it, and I'm afraid I never got round to filling it in. Why ? I just forgot, I'm certainly not in favour of the site.

Hi Sasquartch, I actually did allow for the 'didn't get round to returning the forms' category, which could include those who forgot.

Do you think that means that 81.5% either don't care, don't know enough about the issue to have an opinion, or just didn't get around to returning the forms.

Also, I didn't express a view, I was asking Bob for his interpretation of the results.

 :)

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 17, 2008, 11:32:22 am
Sasquartch - I fully understand, hence the term "traveller" - that is obvoius. But how long will these people stay on any one particular site ? Are we suggesting that Bulls Lane [if it comes to that] will be a short term measure and if that is the case, then why all the fuss? I suspect more that once they settle, they will find it cosy and it will be difficult to move them on.

I am afraid it seems that we have to "bend over backwards" for minority groups, and in this particular case giving them "sites" as their culture seems to demand it. What about the rights of the established communities that will be affected by all the problems that will surely arise - which they will, no question about that.  Again, the new town concept would serve the purpose - contain to within THEIR community.

It only takes the govt / councils etc to have the balls to do it.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 17, 2008, 11:38:11 am

I am afraid it seems that we have to "bend over backwards" for minority groups


Hi PS, could it be that minority groups need extra help because they might have been ignored in the past? It seems to me that there is some confusion between a term much used in this thread, 'political correctness' and the real issue which is a society which caters for all.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 17, 2008, 12:01:01 pm
Hi David - I am sure that this was the intention - to protect minority groups [this concept having its routes sometime from the 1970's if memory serves]

However, as we all know / have experienced, its simply been taken advantage off and it is now the minority groups that cry "wolf" when it suits them  - criminals having more rights than the victims etc etc etc. Its got to stop.

Any responsible government has a duty to cater for the needs for everyone. In my eyes, keeping the travellers contained in new towns serves a purpose - they can all become one !! It will also serve the purposes of established communities - to keep them out. More social harmony etc

After all, why do people move to certain areas ? eg Brookmans Park - probably peace and quite, away from areas they do not want to be associated with. Perhaps to be surrounded by like minded people.

Should Bulls Lane go ahead, the consequences will be the fault entirely of the decison makers who place them their.

Thats a fact. Forget PC.   
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 17, 2008, 12:02:28 pm
At one time it was the English gypsies that used to travel around the country fruit and vegetable picking, seasonal farming etc  As modern technology has taken over these gypsies started to settle on permanent sites whilst still
keeping their caravan culture. You will find that it is the Irish gypsies who travel around today - some having no choice but to be in the UK because they will not be well received in trying to return to Ireland. Maybe if the  political stance of certain Northern Irish parties could be sorted out this would alleviate some of the problems we are having today. I wonder if there are any politicians out there who are willing to take that problem on! At least it would be a start.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 17, 2008, 12:18:45 pm
Stevea comes to the crux of the issue - they are becoming more permanent !! Hence, a social disaster for scattered sites all over the uk - a blessing for new town containment. Now the politicians have to get together, and make it work.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 17, 2008, 12:43:22 pm
Hi PS - I'd like to hear the gypsies views on a "new town". I'm not sure what you mean by containment.  What are your views on the Irish problem?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: rainbow on May 17, 2008, 01:16:39 pm
 :icon_jokercolor:how about bringing back the ten pound ticket to australia deport all undesirables not just gypsies and cardiff to win the FA cup
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 17, 2008, 06:27:13 pm
Hi Stevea - you'll have to ask the gypsies for their views on a "new town". By containment, I mean that the travellers will not be dispersed around the country but can be more easily managed within a few pockets their own.

My views on the Irish problem is not one that I am too familiar with. Needless to say, if returning Irish travellers for whatever reason do not wish to return, then the solution is obvious - new towns or go back.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on May 17, 2008, 07:14:35 pm
Just a footnote for Peterhastings,Naomi,Stevea. Ist I am not a racist.I live next door to Non Europeans and they are the nicest neighbours you can wish for. 2nd My oldest sons goodfather is a GREEK, my second sons godfather is a TURK and my 3rd sons godfather is a West Indian from Barbados.  3rd I have many many Jewish Friends. How dare you Imply that I am a racist. If you look at some of the comments that STEVEA has made on this site regarding, Kneecapping,Baseball bats, Tyre wrenches etc it shows what people are really thinking in there MINDS.

As regards to the comment by NAOMI regarding me putting a yellow star on her How dare she make comments like that I  would like to reming NAOMI that I am aware of the web sites regarding the Holocust, and the ones that the Russians did to the Germans, and what STALIN did to his own people and the Japanese to prisoners of war, and the Serbian,etc,etc,etc,etc. I do not need to be preached to by anyone on these facts.

STEVEA stated that he would like the opinions of the TRAVELLERS,GYPSY, in the area. His posting on 30th Jan 08  said that he had spoke to one of his Gypsy freinds. Is there anycome back on his VEIWS  I for one would welcome STEVEA contacting his friend and putting his/her point of veiw on this site As regarding  "A NEWTOWN"

Less of the VERBAL to Individiuals and state the Facts on the situation. And less of all this Balony about HITLER,IRELAND,RUSSIA,JEWISH,etc
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 17, 2008, 11:42:51 pm
The Rock - As I am forever repeating, all I have done is state FACTUAL comments about gypsies and seek or provide information.  My statements about knee capping, tyre wrenches, Irish gypsies etc etc are all FACT and
NOT  my opinion of how things should be - it's how things are as well you know. The gypsy friend I spoke to  is not on line but knew nothing about the proposed site when I spoke to him. I would think that somebody involved in the consultation process, local council, PC Moore, a politician.....would know of a gypsy representative for the area.

YOU are the one that brought up the War and stated 'Long live the good old Anglo Saxon' - what do you expect people to think?  Some of your posts have been unhelpful and sarcastic.  It seems that you are happy to dish out acid statements but don't like receiving them back. FACT.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on May 18, 2008, 05:54:40 am
The Rock - I did dare! You preached about being proud of being a WASP and mentioned the war. What has that got to do with gypsies? I'm sure you'll find that some of them are quite religious and would take umbrage as well. You said to Stevea "less of the verbal to individuals and state the facts of the situation" - isn't that what he's trying to do!
 
PS - It's good to see some constructive viewpoints, however I can't help feeling that your comments are fodder for BNP propoganda especially about travellers being "contained in new towns" - I can't help seeing a picture of a camp with barbed wire around it! People aren't being 'PC' and you are twisting their statements.

Sasquartch - Unfortunately, some of the comments posted are very clearly due to ethnicity.

Rainbow - I see that Portsmouth won the FA Cup!  :D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 18, 2008, 08:32:08 am
Naomi - I am sure some will consider my comments as fodder for the BNP, but it is nevertheless, a practical solution. As we all know, we have seen over the last decade or so, that the decisions made to protect minority groups, give protection to criminals from being prosecuted, etc etc etc has done nothing more than create the problems we have today. It is a FACT that the travellers have left sites filthy and dirty beyond recognition [just look at some of the newspapaer pictures in the past to see] have contributed to rising crime rates [police in general prefer not to deal with them] and it all falls back on the law abiding citizens to pick up the pieces usually associted with personal expense.
I believe very strongly that despite the "do-gooders" intention to integrate travellers into everyday society [multi-cultarism etc] very rarely works. I also believe that these do-gooders actually do more harm than good, by contributing to the problems that will actually happen - in other word, they are at fault and they are partly to blame.
If you strongly believe that its fodder for BNP, then perhaps our current political crop start thinking about these problems and start coming up with some real solutions, as opposed to just experimenting with social engineering.   
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 18, 2008, 08:58:05 am
PS - I really think that it's very important not to generalise all gypsies as being the same - they are not and as I keep repeating - English and Irish gypsies are VERY different.

The filthy sites you mentioned are left in a state by Irish gypsies who are on illegal sites - they pitch up, flaunt the law which they know to a T and know exactly how long it will take to get evicted.  Another issue which could be looked at and speeded up throught the court system. 

The English gypsies are very p'd off with taking the flak for Irish gypsies. They are chalk and cheese.

You also have to remember that there are many good gypsies in society - and they are sick and tired of getting the blame for things they haven't done. I'm not saying they are all saints - but neither are we.

Ultimately, you cannot integrate English and Irish gypsies - it just won't work.







Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 18, 2008, 09:07:06 am
Stevea - I like what you say - it also goes quite some way to resolving the problem. By giving the travellers new towns, all the facilities that would be built, would be there for them to utilise !! Running water, proper drainage, regular refuse collections etc - it would be a dream for them !! [and for us] No more pitching up on illegal sites [Bulls Lane ?!?], no knocks on ours doors on Sunday mornings asking for work to "repair"  dodgy pavements / drives etc at huge cost etc.  That way, the fear of the problems that society has with them would start to eradicate.
Now it just takes the ball for govts to do something about it and start to think about this excellent concept.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 18, 2008, 09:18:02 am
PS - sorry, perhaps you misunderstood me. I'm not saying yes or no to a 'town', and that's something that really needs to be discussed with the gypsies themselves - but have to reiterate that English and Irish gypsies do not and will not mix - they despise each other.

If you're wondering why I know so much about gypsies - my father was half gypsy and I was very involved with the gypsy culture in my youth.  I must have visited nearly all the permanent sites in the UK - although I have to admit that I steered my life in a different direction. My father was not too happy with me! 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 18, 2008, 09:46:00 am
THEROCK your comments regarding the war and being WASP and the like were irrelevant to this discussion and the way you relied on them instead of facts to support your "argument" bordered on the racist and you got the treatment you deserved.

Saying you dont want Gypies near you coz they aint like you is on the slippery slope that led to Auschwitz which is why you got such a strong response. You must be aware that Hitler did his best to exterminate all gypsies as well as Jews. If you didnt realise how dangerous your views sounded when you made them I hope you do now.

Your "some of my best friends are Greeks" line doesnt get you far. Not only is this not an issue to be decided on racial grounds but there are not any such issues or any such grounds. I was trying to point out that you probably have all sorts of blood in you. I have 2 WASP grandfathers but I still have eastern european and jewish blood in me. The travellers are not all of the same ethnic group either so why on earth is this relevant in any way?

Are you really saying it would be ok to have an estate in Bulls Lane as long as they were all proper WASPs?

In my view its a bad place to develop and thats an end to it. Your perception of race really has nothing to do with it and any attempt to move on to race just leads us to the BNP and from there on to mass graves and burning flesh. Is that what you really want?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 18, 2008, 10:07:17 am
Stevea - thanks for the clarification - see - amazing how solutions can develop from healthy debate and considered discussion. In that case, to push the solution a little further down the road, perhaps we can segregate the different types of gypsies into different new towns ie Irish Gypsies one part of the country, and English Gypsies another !! It could be good for the The Govt too, especially as they could employ some "Traveller Liaison Facilitators" or the likes, to oversee the "new towns" project. That way, the Govt retains its love for PC and can claim success for its social engineering, and the public will retain its love for a clean and crime free counrtyside that gypsies are renowned for.
Can anyone offer a better proposal here on the Forum ?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on May 18, 2008, 10:26:01 am
PETER HASTINGS,
Get a LIFE.This is the real world we are living in Read page 36 of Todays "NEWS OF THE WORLD" regarding the new propsed Sites for  Travellers. And I quote from the Tory MP David Davies " People don't want these sites in their areas and certainly dont want to pay such a vast amount of money for them. Go out and buy the paper and have a good read. You seem to have a Opinion on everybody and everything. Please don not keep quoting about the Jews  and Hitler this is old news. I have my veiws and a person like you will Not and I repeat Not change them. And could you please read my POSTING correctly. I did not and I quote " say that some of my best friends are Greeks" please get your facts right,or read the posting again. I think that  

You do not seem to get the point I do not want a site near me thats the end of the story. Why has the big house in Bulls Lane next to the proposed site been put up for sale ?. New Neighbours I wonder.....A lot of people may respect your opinion but me personaly  A BIG NOOOOOOOOOO.    Naomi, Read the article  in the paper above and you will see that this is what the Goverment intend to do. The local council in Tipton West Midlands offered the Gypsys house but they refused  so now the council has to at the Tax payers Cost  provide the caravans with New kitchens bathrooms, and then make roads and a play area..all down to the tax payer, and according to the paper a lot of eastern europeans will occupy the new 13 sites. This the Paper talking not me. I think that a few of the people on this site are going to get EGG on their faces and One of them wont be me.

ARSENAL for The Premiership..........REGARDS TO ALL except MR HASTINGS.

THEROCK
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 18, 2008, 10:04:30 pm
Read this week that some Italians burnt their local gypsey site to the ground while their police stood and watched. Is that where we are going with this?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 19, 2008, 12:19:05 am
Hi PS - I've been thinking about what you've been saying about "new towns" for gypsies.  I can't see it working for English gypsies as most of them are settled on legal sites - either privately owned or council run. You'll find that 50% of English gypsies today live in private houses or council housing. In the big picture, it is not the English gypsies that are creating the major current problems.
 
I keep repeating, there is a BIG problem with Irish gypsies. There are about 40/50 families constantly moving around the UK. You never know when they will turn up on your doorstep. Once pitched up on land, the police cannot do anything. They have to get a court order to move them on and this can take up to two months - once this is done - they move on leaving their rubbish and mess behind them.  It is these gypsies that would  probably be interested in what you have to say as many would be willing to settle. Like you said, we just need a politician to put it in gear - who knows, it might work for the Irish gypsies.

Going back to the Bulls Lane site - I've been asking all along on this forum who the site is intended for if approved but no one has provided an answer. Someone must know or why put forward such proposals?

I don't know anything about Polish or other European gypsies. Is there something the government is not telling us? Are we going to have a rude awakening?  Why are there so many proposed sites in the UK?

As for English gypsies - surely there is a waiting list (like council housing). If the English gypsies don't need these sites and the Irish gypsies don't want them - who are they for??? - or is Brussels thinking of dropping the whole European gypsy problem on the UK?  That wouldn't surprise me!

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: JESB on May 19, 2008, 05:20:44 pm
I have watched this debate rant on for weeks now and have decided the only race who are a minority in this country are the English as they are the only one's not allowed a voice. Any mention of a disagreement or view to defend their right to an oppinion is immediately deemed racist. Not so for anyone else.  Why not then let the English have an area to themselves much like the Gypsies so they can be allowed to live their way of life in peace Or is that deemed racist. What a strange country we live in no wonder most of the WASP are leaving the sinking ship!!!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on May 19, 2008, 07:03:46 pm

 Travellers Site

 I do not know where my last two comments have gone on this subject, but they have certainly not appeared.

 However let me ask sanctimonious Steva, if he is so keen on Travellers rights, what about the Aborigines rights ? Steva, its their stolen land you are living on. 

Grumpy Old Roy
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 19, 2008, 10:11:53 pm
Noone is denying anyone the right to an opinion.

What is saying you are against a travellers site because they are not the same race as you but racist? If someone posted on here saying you couldnt live somewhere because you were a WASP I would react in the same way. This is a question of planning procedure and priorities and I am not prepared to let people with a different agenda take us down the road to racism without expressing my opinion.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 20, 2008, 04:08:08 am
Grumpy Old Roy - I wasn't in Australia in 1770 but I think you'll find it's our ancestors that stole their land!
Something to take up with Captain Cook if you have a good clairvoyant! No doubt he'd have something to say about the proposed travellers site(s).

I'm always supporting Aboriginals and had never had a problem with them and am fully supportive of MABO and of the government saying 'Sorry'. This is a totally different issue to those of gypsies - we did not steal their land, fill them up with booze and isolate them from society.

You are entitled to your opinions and so am I. I am neither for or against gypsies. I just tell things like they are and I am baffled as to why you feel that stating facts are sanctimonious.

I am supportive of the BP community and do not agree with the proposed traveller site. Sasquartch quite rightly stated that having a big council block would cause the same reaction. Yes, the UK has changed, especially with the opening up of Europe and as a result there have been many problems, but these problems won't go away and instead of sarcasm some constructive solutions would not go amiss. The WASP days as we knew it have long gone - fact. The UK is not the empire that it used to be - fact. Times have changed, sometimes for the worse - fact.


Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: rainbow on May 20, 2008, 10:25:38 pm
hi naomi, i think the word is robbed, no portsmouth played better good luck to them, i was a bit worried about them winning coz i sold an FA cup 1925 ticket ( cardiff lost to the gunners) for £200 i should have held on to it.
Theres nothing wrong with gypsies but they leave a hell of a mess when they move on.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on May 21, 2008, 06:20:30 am
JESB - I don't think people are ranting - and not everyone who is defending their opinion is deemed to be racist - some people simply are, and that's clear by their statements.

Grumpy Old Roy - Stevea is not being sanctimonious - he has provided much background info about gypsies that I'm sure many of us did not know about - at least we're learning something!

The Rock - Your remarks to Peter Hastings were extremely arrogant and I'm sure he has a life. To summarise, you're basically saying I'm alright Jack - not on my doorstep - how does that solve the problem?

Rainbow - I have to admit that I'm an Arsenal supporter! I grew up in between Arsenal and Tottenham - so it had to be one or the other!   ;)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on May 21, 2008, 05:17:02 pm
Re; Naomi s comments. You have got it in one my dear I am arrogant and I can assure you that I am alright Jack. I do not want Gypsy/Travellers living near me. That is the end of the argument if these sites are given to these poor  hard done by souls who struggle in this hard life of ours. Then Many people will sell up and go that is the Fact of the Matter.

Im alright Jack is absolutley true about me you have got it in one.If you are a caring person as you seem to make out please,please,please go to one of the sites in Hatfield. 1.Barbaville on the A414 or Holywell site on the A414 and ask the people living there what we can do for them. Im alright JACK but I lookforward to hearing from you once you have visited the sites......I THINK NOT.

As for you being a Arsenal supporter I suppose you go to all the games like you visit all the Gypsy sites...I think NOT.


Regrads to all
IM ALRIGHT JACK
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 21, 2008, 11:10:20 pm
THEROCK. You dont want gypsey/travellers near you but you are ok with other racial and ethnic groups. You are a racist pure and simple and that is why your views are being taken apart by people on this site.

I read the posts carefully. If you read mine you will see I was paraphrasing your comments and I am afraid taking the mick a bit to highlight how weak your arguments are. Sorry you didnt pick that up.

If I were you I would read the posts by Naomi and Stevea carefully too-they clearly know a lot more about the subject than you do and we never stop learning.

Many regards to everyone on the site especially you.

PS Please tell me you just trying to wind everyone up.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: ADM on May 23, 2008, 10:53:12 am
I think it's unreasonable to brand someone a racist for saying that they don't want a travellers' site next door to them.  If someone perceives that the people that inhabit a certain type of dwelling (eg a travellers' site) exhibit anti-social behaviour, then that would be a good reason for not wanting that type of dwelling next door.  That's not racist, that's sensible.  Whether their perception is accurate is another question.

My friend doesn't like Indian takeaways.  Is he a racist?  Clue: he doesn't like Mexican food either.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 24, 2008, 08:00:33 am
Bob Horrocks - You mentioned in your post ( one which was lost) that the government are trying to determine how many sites should be allocated.  How do they work that out??  Do you by any chance know who these sites are directed at?  I wonder if it's for Irish Tinkers or European Gypsies.

Susan - Although your post was also lost, thanks for pointing out that there are some ok sites around. The Rock has been mentioning Cray's Hill which must be one of the most extreme sites made up of hardened criminals from the north of Ireland.

ADM - Not sure who your post is directed at, but nobody has accused anyone of being a racist because they do not want to live next door to a travellers site - it's the undertones of some of the posts. 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Hillside on May 24, 2008, 09:13:58 am


ADM - Not sure who your post is directed at, but nobody has accused anyone of being a racist because they do not want to live next door to a travellers site - it's the undertones of some of the posts. 

Stevea
I believe ADM is referring to the post by Peter Hastings which read as follows:

THEROCK. You dont want gypsey/travellers near you but you are ok with other racial and ethnic groups. You are a racist pure and simple and that is why your views are being taken apart by people on this site.





Also Stevea, your term "Irish Tinkers" is no longer PC acceptable. You are distinguishing between members of the travelling community by the way you perceive their ethnicity. "Tinkers" is a derogatory term and many years ago was changed to "Travellers".  All travellers are now "members of the travelling community" and considering Ireland is in Europe they are all European Travellers. I note you using a collective term for European Gypsies and segregating "Irish Tinkers" as a class of its own. How can you possibly do this? How can you tell if they are Irish or English? Many that may have originated in Ireland 30/40 years ago have had their families as they travelled throughout the UK.They do not speak with Irish accents and many of them have never been to Ireland. Would you still call them "Irish" or are they "English" ?
You have said :


PS - I really think that it's very important not to generalise all gypsies as being the same - they are not and as I keep repeating - English and Irish gypsies are VERY different.

The filthy sites you mentioned are left in a state by Irish gypsies who are on illegal sites - they pitch up, flaunt the law which they know to a T and know exactly how long it will take to get evicted.  Another issue which could be looked at and speeded up throught the court system. 

The English gypsies are very p'd off with taking the flak for Irish gypsies. They are chalk and cheese.














How do you know that all filthy sites are left by "Irish Gypsies"???

There are plenty of (to use your term) "English Gypsies" that pitch up and flaunt the law too. They have bought agricultural land for horses and pitched up mobile homes on them and won't move...

To be PC, it is my view that we, "members of the settled community", don't want "members of the travelling community" to move into Bulls Lane. It would not be in keeping with the area. As the Planners have often put in their refusal for planning permission, "It would be out of character with existing dwellings an incongruous feature to adjoining dwellings".
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 24, 2008, 10:03:10 am
Hillside - The comment you quoted from Peter has been taking out of context. If you read the The Rock's posts  further back, you will see what I mean along with the reaction to them.

I used 'tinkers' because a 'lost' post mentioned itinerants - they mean the same.  I also get the feel that you are implying that I may also be racist???  I have physically lived in the gypsy community - there is a clear distinction between Irish and English 'travellers' and no 'traveller' would say otherwise. I mentioned 'European' so people reading these posts can understand there is a difference of culture between e.g Polish gypsies, Italian gypsies, Spanish gypsies etc etc etc  They are not called 'EU' gypsies and nor would they want to be.  95% of gypsies travelling today are Irish. Fact.  For the record, tinker, itinerant and didicoy means that the person is not a true gypsy. Fact.

Another thing, which I must have repeated about 10 times - nobody is for the Bulls Lane site - albeit illegal in anycase - nobody has answered who these proposed sites are for - and my question to Bob Horrocks i.e who are the sites for - if he can help - is extremely pertinent.  I don't think people are really getting this and what can happen to the area.

The type of 'traveller' is very pertinent.  A lot of people have attacked me for providing information about gypsies/travellers.......and a lot obviously think I am totally pro gypsy/traveller....I can't win - but I will still continue to provide factual information and not pretend that everything will sort itself out......it won't.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Hillside on May 24, 2008, 11:06:19 am
Stevea

I have read all of the posts and am quite aware of the undertones. You said nobody had called anyone a racist, Peter Hastings clearly wrote :

THEROCK. You dont want gypsey/travellers near you but you are ok with other racial and ethnic groups. You are a racist pure and simple and that is why your views are being taken apart by people on this site.



Whether or not previous posts or parts of them were taken out of context is of no consequence. He clearly labelled the Rock a racist.

Why does everything have to be brought down to Racism...You now say you think that I am implying you are racist!

I merely corrected your derogatory term,  asked you how you can say that all "filthy sites" are those of "Irish Tinkers".and how you can tell who is Irish , English or otherwise.........still awaiting your reply and fail to see how any of these questions would imply that I think you are racist.

95% of gypsies travelling today are Irish. Fact.  For the record, tinker, itinerant and didicoy means that the person is not a true gypsy. Fact.






If "tinker, Itinerant and didicoy" means that the person is not a true gypsy then why do you refer to them as "Irish Gypsies"? If you are differentiating surely the term "gypsy" cannot be used?


Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: jet on May 24, 2008, 11:17:58 am
This thread clearly demonstrates how "we" won The "war" but lost the peace.
Everyone agrees but wants to score points and nit pick.
As for rascism, it is a natural human trait, everyone is rascist to a larger or smaller degree.
Every one I have ever met has been at some time rascist, despite their origins or colour.
Has anyone on this thread never used the N or W or P or T or J or.....etc word at some time or even thought it.
Clearly a cast the first stone situation.
And while you all argue about travellers the EU is working towards obliterating England as a country.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 24, 2008, 11:31:47 am
Hillside - If you are aware of the undertones why are you trying to pull what I have said apart??? I have explained and explained for about six months now either on this topic header or others.  By the way, tinker etc is NOT derogatory........I know the difference between Irish and English gypsies......it's as simple as that...and what I said about the sites that are left in a mess is true.  End of story.  I shouldn't have to keep explaining myself.
As for Peter's comment to The Rock - good luck to him.  Read back to some of the posts....can you really not see why people didn't take offence????  It wasn't just Peter that wrote to The Rock.
Bottom line is.....who are these proposed sites planned for???  -  and I've never ever met a PC gypsy yet - they would be in hysterics reading this and some of these posts.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Hillside on May 24, 2008, 11:44:14 am
Stevea


You cannot continue to just state whatever you want and expect that if you put the word "FACT" in capitals at the end that people will just accept it.  I am questioning your "FACTS";......still awaiting a reply!

I know the difference between Irish and English gypsies......it's as simple as that...and what I said about the sites that are left in a mess is true.  End of story.  I shouldn't have to keep explaining myself.



What is the difference between "Irish and English gypsies"?
What determines whether they are "Irish" or "English" ?
How do you know that it is the "Irish" that leave filthy sites?  :icon_scratch:
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on May 24, 2008, 03:14:25 pm
Stevea,

The bottom line is That its not your Problem. You Live 10,000 miles away in Australia . Typical  Do-Gooder who gives opinions on things that really dont concern you. You maye have family in the area but let them speak for themselves on this site.

Should and I say the word SHOULD the Travellers be granted permission to stay in Bulls Lane I bet we dont hear from you 10,000 miles away in your safe haven.

Regarding the Racist Slant This does not bother me but for someone to imply that I am a Racist is in my opinion a bit below the belt. Peter Hastings does not know me and as I have said in my postings I take offence at these accusations.

Regards to all
THE ROCK
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 24, 2008, 04:15:24 pm
The Rock - I could'nt agree with you more. Due to the "missing day" - when a posting of mine was edited, I will now say, in a very toned down version for Forum PC reasons[i.e. sofely, sofely do-gooders approach to adhere you you understand], that. I hope the message can be interpretted for what it was meant to be.   




Editor's Note:  Edited in order to comply with the forum rules.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 24, 2008, 04:59:24 pm
Dear PS,

Your post was edited because it broke forum and site rules, as I explained to you in a personal message.

It is not about being PC, it is about avoiding causing offence and alienating a social group.

You signed up to the forum rules when registering. If, as it seems you no longer agree with what you call the 'do-gooder approach', there are other forums where you are able to express yourself more freely and in terms with which you may be more comfortable.

While using this forum, can you also post in sentence case, please. Posting in capitals is not only harder to read, but is commonly accepted as shouting in internet usage.

Regards

David

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 24, 2008, 09:03:30 pm
Dear David,

Let me first of all apologise for causing extreme offence to the Forum Rules. Please may I have the honour in re-phrasing what I was intending to say, which is as follows - - "Dear Travellers I appreciate your desire to occupy the various sites that will [you believe], be made available to your goodselves, and of course, your [no doubted] pieous and righteous intentions to spread your most honorable culture onto a well established community. Could you [most humbly] advise us of (a) how you intend to ensure that crime rates will not rise, and (b) how you will ensure that we can, as an established community, all have an "open arms" policy that we can all hug and greet you all as "part of the family"
I [together with the rest of the well establised community] look [most humbly] forward to your reply. David, are you [Forum] now happy ?

My most sincere regards

PS
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 24, 2008, 09:56:40 pm
THEROCK I am afraid you brought up the subject of your WASP grandparents and how the travellers were not welcome because they were different from you. You brought up the war etc none of which some of us find remotely relevant. I meant no offence and I dont know you but I do know your "arguments" are not based on facts or information but on generalisations and prejudices. I dont think such decisions should be made the way you are suggesting and in fact people with simplistic and irrational reactions weaken the genuine case there is against this proposal.

I dont think calling names helps either,especially when all of us are agreed in opposing the Bulls Lane site.

When the time comes for public consultation you wont get anyway just saying you dont want a site in your back yard, especially if you mention the WASP question too. Your comments will just be ignored.

Onto the broader question- will this be a transient or permenant site, does anyone want it, is there really nowhere more suitable in WHat area/ how much did this flawed consultation cost, our MP reports no problems with other similar sites in the area so is there any evidence to the contrary---facts and informed opinion thats all we want.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Mr Green on May 24, 2008, 10:31:38 pm
Is this site for travellers - or is it for settled communities. If the site is for settled communities, let’s stop calling them travellers.

Can anybody give me a plus point for the adoption of this site? Please spare me any cultural enrichment tosh in your reply.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on May 25, 2008, 12:00:41 am
PS (and all),

You agreed to abide by the forum rules when you signed up. If you didn't like them you shouldn't have joined. If you don't wish to abide by them any more you should leave. If you feel they are being applied unfairly or arbitrarily, you are a liberty to set a forum of your own at any time.

I think it would be a same if people stop posting, but this thread is generating too much heat and and almost no light Benford's law - The passion shown in a debate is inversely proportional to the amount of information available.  After six pages I think everyone can has expressed their opinion to exhaustion. Would it now possible to move this argument beyond the "They're racist - They're do gooders" name calling and start addressing some of the requests for facts? At the very least, people should start counting to 10 before they post.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 25, 2008, 12:44:07 am
Hillside - It is a very hard thing to prove on-line so you will just have to believe what I'm saying is true. I have a very good knowledge of the gypsy community. I can't help that.

The Rock - G'day! Yes, I am 10,000 miles away in the land that my old mate Capatain Cook stole. Bless him! As you seem to be so interested in my life in Australia - and what a nice place it is indeed - I'll tell you about it. There was a time when I lived 6 months here and 6 months there to avoid the harsh British winter. As our daughter got older we decided to provide her with a good education in Australia. The climate is sub tropical, the sun shines every morning. I live by the sea and often catch my own lunch....shall I carry on?

The Australian's are funny people - they swear profusely but only the other day they were complaining about Gordon Ramsay swearing!  They love sport and think that anyone who goes to a football match in the UK is a thug! We all know that's not true - just the same as you can't brand all gypsies as one.  Funny old world we live in.

I do not condone a travelles site in Bulls Lane - never have - and you're right, I wouldn't live next door to one - never said I would.  BP is my homeland and I have a right to be passionate about my homeland. Who are you to tell me that I can't? I know more about the area than you'll ever know - in fact, my family tree has now gone  back to the 1700's in the area. I know a lot about its history, its people, its land and gypsies. I am not a do-gooder - far from it - and I do speak for my family. We all feel the same.  Doesn't matter if I'm writing this under Follys Arch, on a glacier or under a gum tree.

Night London - I have kept asking who the proposed sites are for and will emphasise yet again that there is a difference between certain types of travellers. It  is not a case of cultural enrichment tosh - you have to understand and have an acceptance of people, cultural differences etc to make decisions.  The English gypsies chose to accept permanent housing/sites - this made it easier for the Government at the time and enabled these gypsies to keep their culture. Again, they have been here for hundreds of years and are part of the culture of the UK whether you like it or not. If you're saying that travellers have been given the soft touch - then you can say the same for people that are provided with council housing.  No one has a plus point for the proposed site - never have.  The major concern is to what type of traveller these proposed sites are planned for - it's a serious issue. We all know that the UK is already over populated - but then, if you lived in poverty and there was an opportunity to improve your lifestyle, what would you do?

I honestly think that the Government must have a secret agenda for these sites - it just doesn't make sense - or they are simply playing a political game to keep the EU happy.  Peter Hastings is right - we need facts and informed opinion.  John Fraser is right - we need facts.  PS - It's a shame - this topic had reverted back to a proper debate - Naomi said in one of her posts that this is providing good fodder for the BNP - she's not wrong.

Surely one of the Politicians out there can tell us a bit more - maybe PC Kevin Moore has some more information  now he has been in his role for a while.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 25, 2008, 10:17:18 am
There may be lots of politics being played here. Maybe those in the know know this is a pointless exercise leading nowhere except to show the govt we tried but couldnt find a site in the end. If so its an expensive waste of time.

On the other hand we are entitled to treat the process as a straight one, criticise the consultants report and ask for some answers to our questions. Who is going to answer them? This is all part of the East of England plan created by an unelected body with the govt pulling the strings.

Looking back through the posts it is true we havent come up with much in the way of facts and perhaps we need to wait for some more before getting more agitated?

By the way stevea, proper british bank holiday here; pouring with rain. forced to stay in and post on the forum!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on May 25, 2008, 12:44:52 pm
Stevea,

Be rest assured that I am not one bit interested in your "LIFE" in the COLONY, Whoops that could be Racial. Glad you are out there and not Living in Bulls Lane.... PS Have been to the Colony on a visit. glad to get back to the cold harsh winter..know what I MEAN !
 

ps  Please do not get drawn into deep,because so many people on this site contadict themselves just look back on a few of the old postings and you will see what I mean.

Long live the Good Old BRITISH Harsh Winter.

Regards from Happy BP
THEROCK
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on May 25, 2008, 05:00:10 pm

 Travellers Site.

 My two other long winded postings once again appear to have been Lost. Yes, this subject has generated an awful lot of comments, so lets try and simplify the matter. These people are not gipsies, repeat, not gypsies but itinerant Irish travellers who are not even wanted in the own counrty. Their way of life is incompatible with ours, and as much as you do gooders will throw uour hand up in horrer, its a fact, ask real Irish gypsies what they think (I know, I was married to to a real gypsy)

 I also find it very disquieting that my honest held feelings are not allowed to be shown on this site because some minorits mighjt find the truth hurtful. Is this what our once great country has desended to!!!! It seems that PC and minoritiy opinions and needs are taking precedent over the honest majority.

All you soft namby pambys who who ignore reality just because you are not prepared to face the reality of what is happening, are going to have to answer to your to descentdants as to why you allowed the rape of this once great land.

I am sorry if I am upsetting some of you, but these issues are much to important to sit back and say nothing, and |I am not prepared to.

All that evil needs to triumph is that good men do nothing. And that a fact.

Grumpy Old Roy

 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 25, 2008, 07:05:05 pm

All you soft namby pambys who who ignore reality


More name calling! Is this what we have descended to?


All that evil needs to triumph is that good men do nothing.


Quite right mate. That's why some of us wont let generalised comments based on race go by without objecting.

No facts to offer then? Shall we all just call it a day until some one has something solid to add?


Editor's note: Edited only to fix quote box.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: LongTallSally on May 25, 2008, 07:45:53 pm
Peter, I couldn't agree more.

Let's see what the council decide so we can have an informed debate.



Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on May 26, 2008, 11:43:56 am

 Travellers Site.

 So once again race is being sited against an opinion. All I am saying is that different people have different values, nothing wrong in that. What is wrong is when those imported values are at odds with the host sociaty. For instance, when I was a child living in Finsbury Park we all aspired to live in the suburb of Palmers Green, it was a quite peacful place to live. But now we have had the police patrolling Green Lanes with sub machine guns to separate the Tukish and Kurdish drug gangs. Is it racist to acknowledge that, is it racist to complain about the travellers recently using the 414 for pony racing while the police stood by rendered powerless by PC. 

I really do wish to be positive about having these travellers in our community, but all the evidence is to the contrary, some two years ago Travellers camped at the back of Britannia Road WX, within days the site resembled a council tip, old vans, washing machines etc. They moved on after six weeks and the cost to the rate payer ran into tens of thousands. This will happen here, maybe on a smaller scale, but it will happen. Take a look at what happened on the site in Coursers Road on the left, need more evidence.

I do not blame the travelling comunity, its our mea culpa attitude that is at fault, all I ask is that if people from a foreign country wish to live here then please live by our rules. I have travelled all over the world and have always been aware that I was a guest in the country and if I did not like the rules, then simple, I left.

One last example, I was politically involed in Tottenham (Conservate Parlimentary Candiate) and especially in Broadwater Farm, despite continual warnings from the local police and myself to the council about the impending trouble brewing I was branded a racists. Worse still, instead of taking note most of the leading Conservative Goverment also branded me a racists. The result of this turning the other cheek was the death of PC Blacklock in the most dispicable fashion. Thats what happens when we refuse to face reality.

The morale of the above, is that there is a correlation and unless we now stop turning the other cheek and confront these problems, then this current exponential headlong rush of people entering this extemely overcrowed tiny Island will be chaos. One travellers camp today, two tomorrow, three, four, if you, yes you, then object, will you then be the racist!!!!

I will not apologise for the above, some issues are to impotant to to worry about being Mr Nice Guy. So, please do read the above with an open mind.

Thank You.

Grumpy Old Roy



Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Alex on May 26, 2008, 02:34:15 pm
Grumpy Old Roy,

Your comments are well put. Congratulations on bringing common sense to the debate about the travellers site.

"PC" is ruining this country, it's gone too far.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 26, 2008, 02:39:49 pm
I have no problem with the police stopping pony racing on a public road.

I do have a problem with people calling me names when they have no argument.

Not all travellers race their ponies along the road. All generalisations are dangerous and generalising about people leads direclty to racism.

I object to the proposed site as I have said several times.

Please lets have some grown up debate and stop the playground name calling. Please lets have some facts and information not gut instinct. Thats not the dreaded PC, thats common sense.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 26, 2008, 02:52:59 pm
The initials 'PC', most commonly associated with 'political correctness', have been used a lot in this thread, although it seems different correspondents may have different ideas about what it really means.

The Wikipedia entry for the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness) indicates a fair amount of confusion about its origins and meaning, too.

That being the case, it might be worth finding alternatives, because PC for some will be a pejorative term and for others might include values they hold dear, which are too easily rubbished and dismissed in one catch-all phrase. Far better to try to find the words to express a point of view in terms others can follow (but which remain on the right side of the site's oft derided "do-gooder PC" editorial guidelines).

 ;)  ;)

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 26, 2008, 03:34:02 pm
Grumpy Old Roy - may I also congratulate you on the splendid manner in which you have articulated the problem we will all face if we allow the  Bulls Lane scheme to go forward. Like you, I too have travelled extensively, and worked overseas in many locations spending months away from WG at a time - indeed I am working overseas right now as I post. You are absolutely right - if we flaunted the rules of the host country, we would all be locked up [and a lot more where I am currently !!].
It is very clear to me [and should be to any person] that PC is killing the very fabric of the UK [its almost destropyed anyway] As mentioned in a previous posting some time ago, the UK is the laughing stock of the world. I personally get very frustrated and angry inside myself when the locals ask me how easy it is to chaet the citizens of the Uk, and name the various scams that their Brothers, Sisters etc get upo to when in the UK.

Personally [and I will tone down for the "forum rules" sake - and for being edited again - we must bow to PC you know !!] I do not want nor wish to have a Bulls Lane site nor the problems that are likely to arise from that. I suggested earlier on in the debate, that the concept of the New Towns could be a viable alternative, and have asked if other members feel that is a doo-able concept. So far I have nothing.
Grumpy Old Roy, continue as you are - a breath of fresh air.
 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on May 26, 2008, 07:52:44 pm
 Travellers Site

 Thank you Peter fpr your comments, OK, not all travllers pony race along the 414, but even one being allowed to flout the law is one to many. Why should we allow minority groups to take advantage because of the threat of a possible riot. It was also repoted in the WH times that the men dropped their trouser's to moonie at the WPC's, again even if its only one (and  it was more that one) it cannot be right .

For information I have seen them racing, exercising their pony's and rigs on  the verg on the 414 on many ocasions. Peter, I am at a loss as to why you feel the need to continualy critisise those of us who base our statments on facts. If you wish to support even one law breaker by saying they dont all do it, then lets take it one step further, not all Englishmen are burglers, so why not forgive them all.
 Peter I do not know how to not personalise this as I do not know your background, but I was brought up in a tough area were one became grown up very quickly. This gave me the abilty to see life as it is in its true colors. I have no objestions to any one trying to better themselves, (its amillion miles from 6 of us in two rooms in Finsbury Park to BP).
Sorry if I upset certain people but, ignoring facts alters nothing, remember, one can only negotiate from a position of strengh, never from weakness or appeasement, ask Neville Chamberlain.

Lastly, how sad that we have to disagree like this because groups decide they want to live here by their own rules and flout ours.

Grumpy Old Roy

 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 26, 2008, 08:17:31 pm
Editing this thread for discriminatory and offensive comments is getting tiresome.

A number of posters continue to flout the forum rules. Please read them again, make sure you are comfortable with them and then consider them before making any posts. If you feel you don't agree with the forum rules, please stop posting.

Thank you

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: jet on May 26, 2008, 08:23:21 pm
Over here in Tipp, we have "trottin" on the N24 ( main Cork to Dublin Road ie our MI)
As a councilor said on the radio the other day, "the travellers have their kids riding on the yokes while an older totter trots the ponys and traps".
The point being that if you have an un restrained kid in your car the Guarda come down like a ton of bricks and give you a fine, points or confiscate your car!
When the trotting takes place they look the other way or go elsewhere to get someone for speeding.
They are confiscating cars for simple things like mobile phone use as well.
I can fully confirm what Grumpy Roy wrote about the once pleasant suberb of Tottenham.
The first immigrants, the West Indians were generally hard working and raised their families very well indeed. Some remain and are great folk.
Then came the various others, some from places where civil wars were occouring,thus started gang type warefare. In some instances lawlessness followed, to be further fueled by those who got on the bandwagon and infested youngsters with propaganda about their "roots" etc. Backed up by corrupt local goverment the society that we see today was created.
The area is now the dumping ground for all races of missfortunate people from around the world who are treated like rubish and are forced into crime to survive.
The original inhabitants tended to move Northwards, via Enfeld etc, Brooky and environs. Then they left for Spain etc.
Unnatural EU fueled migration then finished off the job that all the political parties started.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on May 27, 2008, 12:07:06 am

 Travellers Site

 I seem to have spent the entire weekend on this subject, but needs must. I am never knowingly pesonally rude to anyone or do I discriminate, yes, some of my forthright (but totally honest) remarks might unwittingly be offensive. However, I find it offensive that this insidious political correct ideology now influences our every day life to the extent where one cannot hold honest opinions. I thought BP, unlike the BBC allowed honest free speech.   

 Would any one have said to Winston Churchill he was offensive when he called Hitler a Nazi swine, thank god he did, otherwise the word offensive would not be able to be used in the context it is today and this forum would not exist.
 
I trust the above will not bar me from contributing honest, factual points and views to this forum, albeit, even if they are interpreted to be offensive to some groups, if it's true, what does it matter.

Grumpy Old Roy




 

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 27, 2008, 02:37:10 am
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation - Providing Gypsy and Travellers Sites, Contentious Spaces - is well worth a read.  Go to www.jrf.org.uk - on the home page click on our search and enter 2142.

The study provides up-to-date advice and examples of how Gypsy and Traveller sites in England are being developed as an integral part of overall housing provision.  It  also examines the barrier towards new sites and analyses some of the methods of conflict resolution.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on May 27, 2008, 08:14:55 am
Grumpy Old Roy (& all),

I don't think there is anyone in this debate who is not saying it as they are seeing it. If you want your honesty to be respected I suggest you respect that of others, even if you do not agree with what they are saying. Enough with the name calling!

Honest free speech is welcomed and encouraged, but it does have limits and those limits are clearly spelt out. No one is allowed to post racist comments or comments that are liable to cause undue offence to a section of society. That goes for all sections of society, including White Anglo Saxon Protestants. People my hold their views to be the honest truth but the people who run and moderate this board have no wish to allow offensive postings, be they from Nick Griffin or Abu Hanza.

People, please make your points without name calling and without offending. If you are unable to, I doubt you have a point worth making.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Susan on May 27, 2008, 01:17:42 pm

 Travellers Site
Would any one have said to Winston Churchill he was offensive when he called Hitler a Nazi swine, thank god he did, otherwise the word offensive would not be able to be used in the context it is today and this forum would not exist.

But if he had said "German swine", I would say that that would have been very offensive.

Not all Germans were Nazis, and not all travellers are criminals.

Many WASPs were Nazis and many are also criminals.

That sounds a little like a maths exam question :)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: sasquartch on May 27, 2008, 01:41:33 pm
Quote
That sounds a little like a maths exam question

I seem to remember from my O Level maths Venn Diagrams can be used to solve this problem  :icon_jokercolor:

If only the traveller site problem was so easy to solve.  >:(
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 27, 2008, 07:20:56 pm
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation - Providing Gypsy and Travellers Sites, Contentious Spaces - is well worth a read.  Go to www.jrf.org.uk - on the home page click on our search and enter 2142.

The study provides up-to-date advice and examples of how Gypsy and Traveller sites in England are being developed as an integral part of overall housing provision.  It  also examines the barrier towards new sites and analyses some of the methods of conflict resolution.

Thanks for bringing some information to the debate.

Two points very interesting  1 Well managed sites are best for both the travelling and non-travelling community. i think this is what Grant feels we have at Barbaraville

2 A positive approach to managed sites cuts down instance and therefore cost and poor relations caused by impromptu unmanaged sites-what I call the roundabout pitch problem.

Of course this doesnt mean Bulls Lane is a good place for a site and I remain against it but it is interesting to see how it can be done to the benefit of all.

I am still concerned that we dont know whether the proposal is for a transient site or for permenant pitches.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 27, 2008, 07:26:20 pm
Sasquartch
Quote
If only the traveller site problem was so easy to solve
What is your opinion the the "new towns" approach that I have raised to the Forum ?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: jet on May 27, 2008, 11:15:42 pm
Moderating on this thread.
The job that a moderator volunteered for was to moderate.
This is easily done by contacting the person concerned by IM.
It is therefore unnecessery and counter productive for someone to be critiscised in public for something that they have writen.
Regarding the earlier description of people of a certain nation. Having had family members killed by people of various nations I think that certain descriptions are more than apt.
Posting them is of course not PC and could cause offence, therefore it must not be done. This is in accordance with European dictate.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 28, 2008, 07:02:31 am
Having looked at the Department of Communities and Local Government site there is some interesting information www.communities.gov.uk  - search gypsy and travellers;-

Gypsies and Travellers are estimated to make up less than 1% of the population of England but only a proportion live in caravans - three years ago there were around 16,000 gypsy and traveller caravans with around three quarters of these on authorised sites

Some gypsies and travellers have an actively itinerant lifestyle however traditional patterns of work are changing and the community has generally become more settled

It is partcularly important that authorities consider all the racial groups - Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers have been recognised by the courts as being DISTINCT ethnic groups since 1976

I'm sure some of you have read the article in the Daily Express regarding 20 million pounds(I can't do the pound sign on my computer in Aus!) in grants to create legal encampments. Some quotes are;-

It is only by providing mre authorised sites that local authorities can deal with the problem of illegal encampments.

Both the gypsy and traveller and settled communities must have equal rights and carry the same responsibilites.

This means all gypsies and travelllers must pay council tax for the services they use. Only when this is seen to happen will there be reduced friction.

Communities Minister Ian Wright said "A good supply of legal sites can break the cycle of evictions that is costly in terms of local tensions and taxpayers cash".

The repeal in 1994 of the 1968 Caravan Sites Act which had required authorities to provide sites has accelerated
illegal camps and land grabs.

Travellers groups suggest that 90% of their applications for legal sites have been turned down - prompting the desperate measure of moving on to land first and applying for permission later. Lengthy planning inquiries and legal challenges to enforcement action can result in travellers remaining on illegal sites for years.

A spokesman for the charity Friends, Families and Travellers said "The estimated shortfall in legal pitches is 4,000. That translates into 20,000-25,000 people who don't have anywhere they can go to be legal.  There is a desperate shortage. Local authorities push them over the borders of neighbouring authorities".

Ministers insist the move will save money in the long run by cutting the 18million pounds spent annually on trying to evict travellers from illegal sites.

We are clear that that effective enforcement against unauthorised sites will only be possible when there is appropriate provision of authorised sites.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 28, 2008, 09:07:29 am

Gypsies and Travellers are estimated to make up less than 1% of the population of England but only a proportion live in caravans - three years ago there were around 16,000 gypsy and traveller caravans with around three quarters of these on authorised sites

So most travellers want to be settled more or less permenantly? So lets get them settled and, as the report says, taxed! Not enough to bale out Gorden but at least they can pay for what they get.

Does the travelling community actually want any transient sites then or ist that way of life gradually coming to an end?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: sasquartch on May 28, 2008, 09:22:45 am
PS

Quote
What is your opinion the the "new towns" approach that I have raised to the Forum ?

Regarding the new towns idea, I think I answered that on my previous post.

PS - nice idea but unworkable - by very definition travellers move around which is why pitches are required around the country. Also many (not all I'm sure) have businesses such as tarmaccing, block paving and so on whose customer base are in effect the rest of the community.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 28, 2008, 10:20:49 am
Hi Peter - First of all, many gypsies on permanent sites - private and council - do already pay council tax etc. I think the statement below is aimed at illegal sites.  With regard to your question about "transient sites", I think you'll find 90% of English and/or Romany Gypsies do not travel in their caravans anymore and want to be on permanent sites whilst keeping their caravan culture alive.  You might sometimes seem them travelling to major events like the Horse Fairs at Appleby in Cumbria, Stow in Gloucester, Barnet Fair and Epsom Derby Day. 
Also, on many permanent sites today, the gypsies will have both a mobile home and caravan.  As I've previously posted, you'll find that about 40/50 families travel round and round the UK and they are Irish Travellers.
Yes, the travelling part of the English Gypsy has more or less come to an end.  There's no reason for them to travel anymore. They used to do so for seasonal farming etc Many of them have fixed business addresses involved in scrap metal, car breakers, demolition, second hand vehicles etc 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on May 28, 2008, 12:57:37 pm
I am still concerned that we dont know whether the proposal is for a transient site or for permenant pitches.

Peter - the answer to your question is in the Government consultation paper which said at paragraph 5.20 'The figures in Policy H4 [totalling 1,187 pitches in the whole of the East of England including 17 in Welwyn Hatfield] above do not include any level of transit pitch provision nor do they include any consideration of plot requirements for Travelling Showpeople.  Both these issues are the subject of ongoing research.' 

Therefore they will all be permanent pitches, with more to be added for transients. 

Each week I get the RTPI Planning magazine, looking for items affecting the Green Belt.  In the appeal decisions section there are many where gypsies have appealed against refusal of planning permission for new sites, with quite a few in a Green Belt or in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Planning Inspectors sometimes allow permission particularly when there are children attending a local school, or someone in the family has a long-term medical condition. 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: jet on May 28, 2008, 10:28:20 pm
As Dougal said to Father Ted......
" So we are all agreed then Ted, we want a travellers site in B P"
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 29, 2008, 12:35:40 am
Some positive news for a change - Billie Joe Saunders, an 18 year old welterweight boxer from the Holwell Travellers Site in Hatfield is the first person from the Romany Gypsy community to qualify for the Olympic Games!
He is one of seven boxers to make Team GB for Bejing.

Billie's brother Tommy, is a professional boxer, his father Tom was an amateur boxer and his grandfather, Absolom Beeny, now aged 96, was a bare knuckle fighter who made his living fighting in the old fairground boxing booths.

His father said "I hope what Billie Joe has done will help people understand a bit more about our Romany culture - that would be fantastic".

Lets hope that Billie brings back a Gold Medal for Great Britain and goes on to be a great Welterwight Champion.





Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on May 29, 2008, 05:44:45 am
I must profess that I know more about football than boxing! - but I think it's great that Billie Joe Saunders will be going to Bejing.  Stevea is correct - it's about time we had some postive news and perhaps something like this will
enforce a sense of pride from the area for both gypsies/travellers and the general local population.  It has also been interesting to read some factual information about the proposed travellers sites - makes it much easier to have an informed debate! :D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 31, 2008, 06:20:28 pm
Bob and Stevea thanks for the information. We are now getting more light than heat from this thread!

So if travellers want to be settled and are happy to pay their taxes and play a part in the community like everyone else, arent we back to the fac tthat the Bulls Lane site is not a place for development for anybody?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on June 01, 2008, 05:43:49 pm
As the say at Millwall Football Club......LET EM COME, LET EM COME,
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Mr Green on June 02, 2008, 02:34:45 pm
Please lets have some facts and information not gut instinct. Thats not the dreaded PC, thats common sense.

I want to read local views, opinions and general ramblings from Roy, PS, THEROCK and all the other non-conformists of BP.

If we are going to limit ourselves to Joseph Rowntree Foundation facts, National Statistics and Wikipedia definitions then why bother having a BP forum.

 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on June 02, 2008, 06:47:46 pm
Well Said "Nightlondon" Thats what I thought free speech was all about.  Whatever happens we shall give our opinions wether the Good-goodies like it or not.

REGARDS TO ALL

THEROCK
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on June 02, 2008, 10:10:47 pm
Nightlondon and The Rock - What factual information have you both put forward?  We all know your opinions - you've made them very clear - and you both are obviously using your free speech. Why is somebody classed as a do-gooder for providing information?  The whole point of the forum is to listen to everyone - you don't have to agree with them - nor they agree with you. Why the need to attack with sarcasm all the time?  Yes, it is interesting to read 'ramblings' but it is also interesting to read posts that are outside the box and give insight to the travellers site big picture. 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on June 03, 2008, 02:56:23 am
Please lets have some facts and information not gut instinct. Thats not the dreaded PC, thats common sense.

I want to read local views, opinions and general ramblings from Roy, PS, THEROCK and all the other non-conformists of BP.

If we are going to limit ourselves to Joseph Rowntree Foundation facts, National Statistics and Wikipedia definitions then why bother having a BP forum.

 

Problem is some of us with local views are being told we are do gooders and PC because we are trying to get at the truth. I have a lot to learn on this topic and so do the people you list.

"Opinion" without facts is a pretty good definition of prejudice isnt it?

Approaching a subject that way is not "non-conformist". The reverse is true. gut instinct prejudice is easily led and feels best as part of a crowd for comfort. Ok when supporting your football team but not for deciding the future of thousands of people including me.

Now i wonder who will be the first to call me names?

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: ADM on June 03, 2008, 09:23:17 am
Aren't you calling people prejudiced?

Let him without sin cast the first stone...
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on June 03, 2008, 09:47:04 am
I can see this going down hill again. Facts are great, opinions (within reason) are welcome, but please can everyone avoid name calling.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on June 03, 2008, 09:35:14 pm
 
 Travellers Site

 My PC (personel computer, not the other PC) is now back on line. Firstly the Rowntree trust should not quoted, because, like the Guardian Newspaper they are unashamedly biased against any thing that remotely resembles commom sense or is to the right of Wedgewood Benn.

I have been admonished for giving offence to certain minority groups, BUT, unless statments are personel, how can, and why should the truth be offensive. Just read todays papers where it identifies certain racial groups with certain crimes, (even the BBC's crime watch admits this) Unless we confront the truth on this subject, where do we stop? Look where hiding from the truth got us in 1939 with Neville Chamberlains piece of paper from Heir Hitler, appeasement never worked then, and never will. Is it wrong to quote the papers that £30M a year child allowence is being claimed by Polish people for children not living here? They do not care what they say, in fact the ones I talk to think we are mad in our open handed generosity, including Gipsy's   

Anything I say is never directed at individuals, always at the majority. I am not saying that all travellers are undesirable, but I can only go on the evidence of the past actions of the majority of travellers. Their general style of living is not normally compatible with mine. I have struggled to achive a life style in BP so why should I not protest in the most vigorous manner against what I perceive to be a possible threat to my way of life.  I know I will get the usual accusations of being like Hitler with his gas chambers, but these are cheap shots by those with out realistic aguments.
 
Reading many of the criticisms I detect a growing malaise of national guilt, but of what ? to protest against the infux of ever increasing numbers of minoritys cannot be wrong.  Why is it that the Rowntree Trust can make any statement and no one criticise's them,yet Enoch Powell is still vilified by the hysterical left or people that have never listened to him speake. 

So, please lets have some commom sense and real free speech on this subject, if not then we are going down a very dangerous road. If statements are factual, so be it.

I hope once again that I have not offended any fragile ego's but I will not give up my honest views that the increasing amount of travellers sites will be detrimental to our English way of life.

Thanks for your time

Grumpy Old Roy
 





Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: peppermint on June 04, 2008, 10:47:52 am
Grumpy Old Roy  -  I totally agree with your last post.   I dont believe you have shown racism or
                              prejudice in your comments (or at least the ones that have been allowed on
                              this forum).    I do think it is getting to a point on this forum
                              where some are becoming so obsessed with political correctness and
                              accusations of racism that they are almost intimidating people from stating
                              their views.   Most people dont have a problem with immigrants (or anyone
                              else for that matter) living in this country as long as they contribute to
                              society and pay their way.   The problem we have is brought about by the
                              lack of strong common sense leadership in this country.   This is leaving
                              many people feeling frustrated and it is unfair to assume them to be
                              racists.

Peter Hastings  -    You have said in your posts that you want facts and not gut feelings.
                               I do not believe I am a racist or prejudice but I have watched one particular
                               group of people, blatantly stealing from shops in the Galleria, Asda,
                               and shops in The Maltings in St. Albans.   The ones I have seen have all
                               been women either in groups of two or three or accompanied by a large
                               group of under 10 year olds making a lot of noise and causing a distraction
                               whilst others in the group openly steal.   I have reported what I saw at
                               the time it was happening but the general view of the shop staff was that
                               they know it happens but wouldnt personally like to get involved in
                               confrontation with these people.   This is a fact - not a gut feeling.

                               I have a friend who works in Tesco and says that shoplifting is an
                               everyday occurance in the store but none do it so openly and often as
                               the abovementioned community.  This is a fact - not a gut feeling.

 Whilst this whole topic has moved away from the original Bulls Lane Site discussion I think we have to accept that people have historically had genuine concerns about travellers moving into
their community and those feelings, gut or fact, are there.   

On a positive note .............. I cant actually think of one!

Wishing you all a good day.

Peppermint


                             
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on June 04, 2008, 11:24:36 am
Peppermint, I have not said anything about gut feelings. What I said was:

After six pages I think everyone can has expressed their opinion to exhaustion. Would it now possible to move this argument beyond the "They're racist - They're do gooders" name calling and start addressing some of the requests for facts?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: peppermint on June 04, 2008, 11:35:02 am
My apologies John.   It was Peter Hastings comment yesterday to which I was referring regarding fact and gut feelings.

Regards,

Peppermint
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on June 04, 2008, 12:05:41 pm
Fact - I'm having t-bone steak, chips and peas for dinner tonight.  :D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: peppermint on June 04, 2008, 12:43:57 pm
Stevea,

It may be a fact now but it will be a gut feeling later.  :icon_jokercolor:
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on June 04, 2008, 10:11:58 pm

 I have struggled to achive a life style in BP so why should I not protest in the most vigorous manner against what I perceive to be a possible threat to my way of life.  I know I will get the usual accusations of being like Hitler with his gas chambers, but these are cheap shots by those with out realistic aguments.

Grumpy Old Roy

You wont get any accusations from me GOR. You dont want an increased risk of crime and you dont assume every traveller is a criminal. Ignoring your cheap shot about cheap shots i dont have any problem with that realistic argument. If only others had got some facts and serious issues on the thread earlier!

The evidence from Barbaraville and other sites (and our MPs contact with such sites) is that well managed sites are no more likely to produce crime than any other group of people. I cant vouch for that just going by what I am told.

It will be interesting to see what the new police bod comes up with but appointing such a person seems a good first step.

just to repeat personally against this site, against development on Green Belt and not very impressed with way consultation being handled


Edited to fix quoting - John
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Aloo on July 27, 2009, 07:40:56 pm
Has anyone else received copy of letter sent to Welwyn Hatfield Council discussing selling the land at Station Road, as a potential Gypsy site.   

The letter discusses a planning application for a "detached dwelling, following demolition of the existing stables - planning application S6/2008/2417/OP"

The owner of the land is offering the land either directly to the council or to a self funded travellers purchase.     
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Johnny Redd on July 27, 2009, 11:34:23 pm
We have not seen this letter but as we live on the opposite side of the railway we did receive a notice some months ago outlining the planning application for demolishing the stables and erecting a detached house.

Are we now saying the owner is deliberately courting buyers to turn the existing stables into a travellers site??? and if so would this likely be granted planning permission???
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on July 28, 2009, 10:58:35 am
Under the topic heading of 'Green Belt and Housing' I recently posted this item

'The owner of land at Station Road where the livery stables are (behind the metal gates), altered part of a building to form a small dwelling.  He waited more than 4 years and then applied for a certificate of lawfulness for the dwelling.  Since the conversion was done more than 4 years beforehand, permission had to be granted. 

He then applied for, and was refused, permission to pull down lots of the existing buildings and erect two detached houses.  He tried again to build one dormer bungalow but was refused again.  His appeal has also been dismissed this week as inappropriate in the Green Belt.  The removal of some buildings was insufficient benefit to justify approval for a materially larger dwelling in the Green Belt. '

The owner wrote on 21st July to Welwyn Hatfield Council, copied to the NM Green Belt Soc, offering to sell the 20 acres either directly to the council or to a traveller for a gypsy and travellers site. 

My personal comments are that the council has repeatedly said that it will not buy land for any gypsy site.  The council is waiting until the Government issues its final report setting out how many new pitches the borough should have to provide under the East of England Plan.  This is due sometime this year but timetables tend to slip. 
The council's consultants could only recommend one site in the whole borough which was on Bulls Lane.  Local residents, with financial support from the NM Green Belt Soc, produced a thick report setting out why that site was unsuitable, which has been given to the council.  Our local MP and Shadow Housing Minister has gone on record as saying that gypsy provision should be simply part of the overall housing provision.  He has also said that if the Tories win the next election the current 'top down' imposition of housing figures will be done away with and it will be for local councils to decide how much housing is needed in each district/borough.

Taking all that into account I doubt if Welwyn Hatfield Council will do anything about new gyspy provision until after the election.     The problem will be if the owner sells directly to gypsies, as has been reported in the national press when this happened elsewhere in the country.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: crowman on August 05, 2009, 10:34:22 am
In reply to Johnny Redd : Yes I am actively courting buyers for the land from the travelling community, as the
site in Station Road would be an ideal site as defined in the Scott Wilson Report. The land fulfills most
of the criteria specified in having :-(1)  Easy vehicle access with potential to grow in size. (2) Does not
adjoin existing residential developed areas. (3) All local services such as doctors, schools and shops are
within walking distance. (4) Flat well drained land suitable for multiple picthes) (5) Nearby transport links
such as A1M / M25 and railway station. (6) Existing buildings on site suitable for gypsy / traveller self
employment in the building / motor trade. I would be prepared to offer the land directly to the council or
to a self funded travellers purchaser.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Johnny Redd on August 05, 2009, 11:12:27 am
And how much are you asking?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on August 05, 2009, 11:17:49 am
Welwyn Hatfield Council has repeatedly said that no decision will be taken at least 2010 on where to put the 17 pitches that this Government has decided should be provided within the borough.  The council has repeatedly said it will not buy land for this purpose.

an ideal site as defined in the Scott Wilson Report.
(6) Existing buildings on site suitable for gypsy / traveller self employment in the building / motor trade.

If it was ideal, the Scott Wilson report would have said so, but it didn't.  Also the use of Green Belt land for building or motor trade would not be permitted.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: AnneK on August 05, 2009, 11:24:51 am
Just curious, crowman: What happens if the council isn't interested and there aren't any takers in the travelling community? Is the land not available to anyone else, not even to a developer who has the readies and is looking to acquire the land on 'hope value'?

Sorry if I sound a bit aggressive; I truly don't mean to be. It's just that most people who sell their land aren't too concerned about who picks it up or its subsequent use. Usually, money talks in the end.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: chicken legs on August 05, 2009, 11:25:57 am
Bob, what would the position be if members of the travelling community buy the land?  Could they  locate their homes there without planning permission?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: crowman on August 05, 2009, 01:07:40 pm
To clarify the position with regard to my land along Station Road.
Of course the land is available to anyone, but I would prefer to sell to the travellling community, as
I feel they are much maligned and desperately need sites in this area. I have previously sold some of my
land to travellers at Cow Roast near Tring, which unfortunately caused problems with some local
residents (Copy of newspaper report sent to North Mymms Green Belt Society), but this would
hopefully not be the case in Brookmans Park. I have had interest from a small number of traveller
purchasers, but cannot elaborate at this stage.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: MikeL on August 05, 2009, 01:19:48 pm
Let me see if I’m understanding this correctly.

Land owner applies to build on green belt line.

Locals and NMGBS object.

Planning permission rejected.

Landowner writes to all and sundry advertising that he is now going to sell the land to travellers.

Hmm….! :icon_scratch:
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: sasquartch on August 05, 2009, 01:27:35 pm
Of course the land is available to anyone

So how much do you want for it ?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: AnneK on August 05, 2009, 01:39:37 pm
. . . And is a local agent brokering the sale?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on August 05, 2009, 04:47:11 pm
Bob, what would the position be if members of the travelling community buy the land?  Could they  locate their homes there without planning permission?

The news media has carried many reports on gypsies and travellers buying land and creating a camp without planning permission, sometimes over a weekend when the council is closed.  There have been many planning appeals with decisions varying so there is no real precedent.

To clarify the position with regard to my land along Station Road.
Of course the land is available to anyone, but I would prefer to sell to the travellling community, as
I feel they are much maligned and desperately need sites in this area. I have previously sold some of my
land to travellers at Cow Roast near Tring, which unfortunately caused problems with some local
residents (Copy of newspaper report sent to North Mymms Green Belt Society), but this would
hopefully not be the case in Brookmans Park. I have had interest from a small number of traveller
purchasers, but cannot elaborate at this stage.
 

Why does the owner think his interested parties would be any different?  He admits that a previous sale caused problems for neighbours.  Curious.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: MikeL on August 05, 2009, 05:15:58 pm
I'm sure I remember similar types of threats from the owners of the 20 Acre field when they were refused planning permission.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on August 05, 2009, 09:01:06 pm
Crowman - As you are aware, there are many types of traveller in the community. If you don't mind me asking, are the travellers interested in your land English Romany?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: crowman on August 06, 2009, 09:21:49 am
The newspaper article referred to can be viewed at :-
www.hemeltoday.co.uk/CustomPages/CustomPage.aspx?PageID=4155
The travellers concerned at that time were in fact of Irish origin. However, in reply to
stevea the travellers who have expressed interest this time are of Eastern
European origin, so hopefully there won't be any problems. I am not able to to
discuss price, as firstly this forum is not supposed to be used for business
dealings, and secondly I am still in negotiation. If I do place the land on the
open market, then I will arrange for it to be advertised with a local agent.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on August 06, 2009, 10:44:22 am
Hi Crowman - I sit on the fence with this subect having good knowledge of and friends within the travelling community but I don't know much about Eastern European travellers.
The travellers I know who have purchased land are very considerate, fence their land and plant fast growing leylandi trees for privacy, and keep themselves to themselves. By the same token, if I was a resident of BP, I wouldn't like the idea either, however, IF travellers do buy the land, I'd rather they be English or Eastern European!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Johnny Redd on August 07, 2009, 01:44:30 pm
Can someone actually clarify why the original planning application was refused as I saw the plans and wasn't that bothered about a couple of houses on an area of land that no one directly overlooks. I didn't think there would be a problem getting permission. After all, a building was demolished/modified and 4 years went by when no one actually noticed.

Quite frankly a couple of houses is preferable to the regular bonfires and early morning cockeral crows that exist as at present.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on August 07, 2009, 04:52:57 pm
I Hope Crowman sells the land to the person or persons who pays the best Price. He invested in this land and is due a good profit on it from whoever buys it. Be it Travellers,gypsys,romanys,irish travellers,Eastern European ???? .  We shall see and as they say "LET THE FUN BEGIN"
therock
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on August 08, 2009, 12:26:45 am
The Rock - Believe me, it won't be fun if you get the wrong ones in there!!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Indianna on August 08, 2009, 10:48:48 am
In reply to Johnny Redds comments about the bonfires and cockerel crowing at Station Road Stables I can say with all honesty that the stables have not and never has had any poultery. As for the bonfires they are only ever lit if the wind is blowing in the opposite direction to the houses, so as not to cause any distress to the residents on the other side of the railway I do know however that the owner of the land on Peplins side of the railway shows no such consideration to the residents OR TO THE OWNER OF STATION ROAD STABLES!!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on August 08, 2009, 01:21:01 pm
Crowman

Surely singling out a specific ethnic group to sell to, whatever the motive, is racism and no different to whites only,no blacks etc etc.

Also, as an owner of a Livery Stable and therefore presumably a horse lover, I hope you will consider not selling to whatever traveller group that it is that you can regularly see beating their horses to make them go faster in races round here and leaving them tethered and neglected to the point of starvation as recently reported in the local press.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Indianna on August 08, 2009, 04:43:35 pm
As a horse owner and lover myself I can understand your concerns for the welfare of the these animals but, you may not be aware that the trotting ponies are of incredible value to their owners and therefore are very well cared for. This is not to say that cruelty doesn't take place but I think you will find it is in the minority. So to discriminate against selling the property to travellers with horses is surely counter productive.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on August 09, 2009, 07:26:11 pm
Just watching a programme on BBC1 "COUNTRYFILE" Regarding our Travelling Communites. One law for us and another for them... The poor old taxpayer is wrong again.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on August 09, 2009, 11:31:59 pm
The Rock - There's one law for all of us - but unfortunately, in all walks of life, there is a minority who tend to break it - just look at some of our politicians!

Ephiphany - I would think Crowman would answer your statement, but I don't see that he/she is singling out a specific ethnic group and being racist - commonsense would simply take the best offer from whoever that miight be.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on August 10, 2009, 05:57:30 am
Therock - It's not all travelling communities, just a handful in the big picture of things.
(By the way, "down under", your logo would be seen as very suspect!  ;D)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: crowman on August 10, 2009, 09:49:15 am
In answer to recently posted queries. The facts are :-
The last planning application which was refused, would have involved demolishing the
existing two stable blocks together with the existing dwelling house, and the construction of one moderate 
sized bungalow. The two stable blocks would have been relocated inside an existing barn. The
overall effect would have been a reduction in the built footprint of 52.8%, thus significantly
opening up the Green Belt. However certain residents and NMGBS objected to this and
the application was refused. Presumably the objectors do not wish the Green Belt to be opened up. ?
I wonder just how many of the objectors and the 1300 local residents that the NMGBS purports to represent
actually examined the plans !
With regard to the keeping of poultry, there has never been any poultry kept on the
land in the thirty years I've owned it. As far as bonfires are concerned the rumour is that
a builder has taken possession of part of a garden in Peplins Way and burns his rubbish
there, thus causing the smoke nuisance. We very rarely have any fires on my land.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on August 10, 2009, 07:06:39 pm
Stevea,
Glad you like my sheepskin. Wink wink ,nudge nudge.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Aloo on August 10, 2009, 10:01:30 pm
If this is Green belt land, lets keep it as Green belt.   Why can't the local authority purchase the land and create a local park and playing fields for children, cycle paths and woodland walks.   The effect would be to open up land which is currently off bounds to locals and make BP a better place to live.

With the pressures on Leach fields this is perhaps even more important
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on August 10, 2009, 10:55:39 pm
Therock - Personally I'm not in to sheep, but whatever floats your boat!  ;D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on August 11, 2009, 08:16:15 am

 The Rock is right, if I wanted to sell my House to White Anlgo Saxon male OAP's only, I would be in big trouble. But of course, discrimination only works one way.

 Grumpy Old Roy
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on August 11, 2009, 09:29:12 am

But of course, discrimination only works one way.

Grumpy Old Roy

Does it? In my experience human beings are fairly good at discriminating in many ways and directions.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on August 11, 2009, 06:22:46 pm
Lets see what the British justice system is made of when The Evicition of the Illegal and Unlawful Travellers at the foots Cray Site in Essex  starts next week. I would love the comments of people on here as to why certain travellers are allowed to stay in one place whilst breaking the law?.I know that the Baliffs are going in sometime next week. WATCH THIS SPACE. A Englishmans home used to be his Castle......NOT NOW.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on August 11, 2009, 09:00:43 pm
Therock,

Some English men and women break the law in their little castles, too. What's your point?

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on August 11, 2009, 10:41:51 pm
The Rock - this isn't about illegal and unlawful travellers - this is about Crowman POSSIBLY selling his land to travellers. A legal transaction.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on August 12, 2009, 09:29:03 am

 Rock

 I totally agree with you. What nobody has picked up on is the the possable sale of the site to travellers is the wording, car repairs, transaltion, BREAKERS YARD.. I am so frustrated by the short sightedness by the residents of BP to the consequences of defending the indefensible. These misguided attitudes will destroy the very reasons why people wish to live in BP. 
 
As citizens it is our duty to leave this land as a better place for our descendants, this means that any one deciding to live here must conform to our social, judical and accepted way of life. That also means financial contributions from day one.

Putting sentimentaliity to one side, please just look at the facts. Most of the the so called travelling community are itinarent Irish and by the very nature of their way of life, cannot contribute to a host sociacty. Even the birth land,Ireland, recognises this, do not take my word for it, go to Ireland and ask. Before we start accusations of racisim and the usual remarks, let me make it very clear, I welcome anyone here, providing they agree to live by the accepted standards and contribute equally to our sociaty.  Unfortunatly, events over the last thirty years have shown, time and time again that it is the majority who will lose out here in BP. Whilst mindful of the minority, it is the majorty view that must prevail. 

Please,please, do not interpret my realisim for the much misused word racism.

Thank You

Grumpy Old Rpy

 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on August 12, 2009, 10:08:51 am
This was bound to draw this type of reaction. So much so that it could appear to have have been planned for that reason. I am not saying this is what is happening here, but I can see this scenario playing out.


Of course this is not the case here, and the last three bullet points have not happened --- yet.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on August 12, 2009, 10:51:47 am
Grumpy Old Roy - Not one person has said they're in favour of a travellers site in BP. Debate about travellers is a different issue although the context is associated.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on August 12, 2009, 02:13:27 pm

 David.
 
  You are quite correct, these are, or could be the consequences of ignoring problems. Selling land to travellers is just a symptom, declining to recornise or acknowledge the problems of contiually placing the needs of minorites over the needs of the majority is the cause. We objedt to a travellers site because experiance tells what the possable problems it could result in. Is this any different to an OAP living in a sink estate, but who has no voice, except those who we all do not want elected.

Sadly, unless we as a sociaty are willing to say what has to be said, then others will, and even get elected, something, nobody wants. So how about zero tolerance on the curent liberal attitude to crime, benifit fraud, immigration and members of our sociaty who give no thought to the effect their actions will have on the local communities. 

Grumpy Old Roy


Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on August 12, 2009, 03:20:47 pm
In answer to recently posted queries. The facts are :-
The last planning application which was refused, would have involved demolishing the
existing two stable blocks together with the existing dwelling house.......


I wonder just how many of the objectors and the 1300 local residents that the NMGBS purports to represent
actually examined the plans !

The GB Soc audited annual accounts were available at the AGM in March. About 180 people attended which was far more than we expected so not everyone had a copy.  These accounts showed a total of 1.340 paid up members at 31st December 2008.

This is immaterial.  

First of all, there is no 'dwelling house'.  Part of an existing building was converted to a small residence consisting of a living room, bedroom, kitchen and bathroom.  This conversion was done without seeking prior planning permission.  More than 4 years later a certificate of lawfulness was applied for and had to be given because of the time that had elapsed since the work was completed.  The proposed dwelling would be materially larger.

Secondly the simple fact is that an independent Planning Inspector employed by the Planning Inspectorate dismissed the planning appeal.  His report said that a dwelling was an inappropriate development against which very special circumstances offered included decreases of 75% in footprint and 58% in floor area of buildings on the site by pulling down barns and stables.  But these were legitimate buildings that would be demolished to make way for an inappropriate building - a house.  He said this offered little benefit, and a couple of other points had little weight. He decided that the small benefits did not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt caused by the inappropriate development - a house.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on August 12, 2009, 05:54:35 pm
David ,
My Point I will tell you what my point is. I am sick and tired of the Local Councils Pussyfooting to the needs of The so called Travelling community who think they have certain rights to break thelaw and not get prosecuted. Take the site which I have highlighted at Crays Hill in Essex,Go there and ask the local residents if they are happy with their new neighbours,The answer is NO ,NO NO. It started with one Caravan, and now it the biggest unlawful site ine Britain Yes UNLAWFUL. Its has cost 100,000 of pounds in  legal fees to get rid of the UNLAWFUL people and it is still going on. My POINT is quite simple One Rule for the Working man and another for the Travellers. This IS FACT. Thats My Point. And I am quiet sure that many many people agree with me.  I say what I think  and I say what I know. And I know that I dont need being preached to by so many do gooders.
Thats My Point.

THEROCK
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Susan on August 12, 2009, 06:08:33 pm
But surely, The Rock, the previous post from Bob shows how a "working man" used the rules to get planning permission for a house that in other circumstances might not have received planning permission?  ;)

There's good and bad in every community.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: hilarycarlen on August 13, 2009, 02:07:01 am
The families who soon face being evicted from Dale Farm in Crays Hill, Essex, jointly own the land that from which they are being evicted.  Ownership of the land does not confer the right to pitch caravans or set up a breakers yard.  Whether or not the land is owned, planning permission is required.  

So if our neighbour sold his land to travellers, any planning application to pitch caravans would be considered by the same criteria as an application re any other piece of land.  If planning permission were to be given, then at least there would be the public gain of not having to pay for land for travellers pitches, as the council may otherwise end up doing.

And yes, the travellers might meanwhile pitch their caravans unlawfully on it.  But they could equally well do that on some other piece of land that they don't own.  If they owned the land, it might at least avoid the frustration that would be rightfully felt by some other owner.  Either way, after the predictable bureaucratic delay, they might face being evicted.  

Incidentally, let’s not refer to the residents of the Crays Hill site as “unlawful people” to be “got rid of”.  Some of them may be doing something unlawful  but I think it’s still lawful for them to exist…  (Or are we moving full scale into ethnic cleansing here?)    And some of them aren’t even doing anything unlawful - there have been travellers on that site since the 1970s, and 40 of the 100 or so caravans do have planning permission.  
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on August 13, 2009, 07:33:36 am
Hilary is right. Part of the land at Crays Hill belongs to English travellers. One night, Irish travellers turned up in numbers and bullied their way on to the site. World War 3 nearly broke out, but the police stopped it. Had they not, the Irish travellers wouldn't be there now. English and Irish travellers are sworn enemies. There are a lot of dangerous and hard families on that site that were told to leave Ireland by a certain political party in the North, therefore, we got lumbered with them. You can't compare all travellers to this site. I don't think the authorities know what to do about it. If the police turned a blind eye, the travellers would sort it out their way. I'm not being racist, or a thug, I'm just saying how it actually is.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on August 13, 2009, 10:24:39 am
As a footnote,Why dont we let the Travelloing Community use the CAR PARK  next to the station That is always Empty, and it has good local Facilites,and for £3 a day I think that they would be very Happy there. PEACE MAN PEACE
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on August 15, 2009, 08:27:45 am
Therock - They probably would if there wasn't a caravan restriction on the car park entrance!!

(By the way, have you learned to say 'I love you' in sheep language yet?  ;D)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on August 15, 2009, 02:57:23 pm
Stevea,

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BA BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA U     xxxxxx THEROCK
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Indianna on August 15, 2009, 05:19:54 pm
Seen in the Sun newspaper today Sat 15th August pg 36
Gypsies set up camp on site hours after other travellers had been booted off.
Following a six year battle costin £400,000 council officials had just finished bulldozing illegal pitches when nine more caravans arrived. It could mean another court site to evict them in Cottenham, Cambs. One local said "their sticking up two fingers" COULD THIS HAPPEN IN BROOKMANS PARK !
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on August 16, 2009, 09:32:34 am
this could happen anywhere.

This is why we need proper authorised sites.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on August 17, 2009, 10:47:55 am
Just as a Footnote. I thought that the word Traveller's meant people who travelled and did not stay in one place?. So what do the TRAVELLERS want sites for. Can we now drop the name Travellers once they are on a fixed static site????????????????????????????
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Indianna on August 17, 2009, 02:40:49 pm
I thought that the land would have pitches on it so that travellers could park up on the site for a short while and then move on to somewhere else. That was why I continued to use the term travellers. If of course the homes were to be static then I pressume they would no longer be eligable to that title.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on August 17, 2009, 03:15:11 pm

Just as a Footnote. I thought that the word Traveller's meant people who travelled and did not stay in one place?. So what do the TRAVELLERS want sites for. Can we now drop the name Travellers once they are on a fixed static site?


No, the policy, as outlined by the government (http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingmanagementcare/gypsiesandtravellers/), is to offer Travellers and Gypsies the use of authorised sites (rather than them having to use unauthorised, roadside sites) where they can raise their families.

This text is taken from that site.

Quote
There is a rich heritage of Gypsies and Travellers in this country - going back at least 500 years. However, they have been called the most socially excluded ethnic minority in the country and nearly a quarter of Gypsies and Travellers who live in caravans have no authorised place to stay and raise their families. This means that they are forced to resort to roadside camping or other unsuitable locations. This causes difficulties for those families in terms of access to basic facilities and services as well as potentially causing inconvenience for local residents with a consequent risk of community tensions.

The Government's policy therefore is aimed at increasing authorised site provision for Gypsies and Travellers, whilst ensuring that strong enforcement powers are available to tackle unauthorised sites. The Government has given local authorities strong powers to enforce against both unauthorised developments (where Gypsies and Travellers develop land without planning permission) and unauthorised encampments (where Gypsies and Travellers camp on land they do not own without permission).
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on August 17, 2009, 04:42:57 pm
This argument seems to have stagnated into the usual round of accusations about racism, realism, pro trailer, anti traveller nonsense and we need to move it onto a more constructive level. I imagine most people here would prefer this land not to have houses built on it (or caravans placed on it) by anyone, traveller or not. So what would people like done with the land, assuming it could be sourced for the community? I know the scouts could make good use of such a parcel of land. A skate park would be much appreciated and much used by the youth of the village. What else? A nature spot? Allotments? I'm sure people could come up with a dozen good ideas on how this land could add value to the community.

The obvious question is how would we obtain this land? Maybe we should be asking our three councillors Mr & Mrs Dean and Mr Boulton, who seem to be very silent. I know there is a grant of up to 10k available to each ward for improvements, which would help, but what else is there and what can be done to help? Brookmans Park is a nice place to live (Mr & Mrs Dean will have to take my word for this because they don't live here) but it could do with improvements and here's a golden opportunity for them to show some leadership. I think it's time to stop regarding Broomans Park as election fodder and time to be our councillors.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on August 17, 2009, 05:48:03 pm
If the site was just fields, at maybe £5,000 per acre, this 20.5 acre site would be worth about £100,000.  However there are the livery stables, the smallholding, and a small dwelling.  Not being in the valuation business I do not know how much the owner might be trying to sell the land for.

It is not the same as Gobions Wood which the community bought in the 1980s because that had an established use which has continued.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on August 17, 2009, 06:35:00 pm
 
Yes, I would like to hear from our councillors, just what is their view? we trusted them with our vote, lets hear their  opinion.
 
I like the idea of using the land as a local amenity, kids park, scouts & guides, a mini park or a combination of all three.

Grumpy Old Roy



Note: Edited by moderator to ensure post adhered to the site's guidelines.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: colinr on August 17, 2009, 07:42:20 pm
My mother has just sold and bought a new property and the solicitor’s, agents and the bank needed to check that all the monies in both parties transactions were kosher and money laundering was not involved.

So I guess that as long as the European travellers can prove where their money (£100k +) came from and it is a legitimate source, then we will have law abiding citizens living amongst us so no problem!!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on August 17, 2009, 09:49:43 pm
IF the land is sold to travellers, what happens if they are actually nice, genuine people? What happens if there are only two or three caravans and the land is used for grazing horses. That the people keep themselves to themselves. That there are no riots and no crime. There is a lot of scare mongering. Not all travellers are the lowest of the low.......and as I said in a previous post, not one person on this forum has said they're in favour of a travellers site on this land.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on August 17, 2009, 10:14:49 pm
Naomi

2 Points-

1. What if they are not?

2. If I see a lovely part of the Green belt for sale that I fancy living on -  All I need to do is just get myself a few
    caravans and as long as I keep myself to myself thats all right then? - fantastic! I'll start looking straight away.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on August 17, 2009, 10:48:04 pm

 Moderator

 I am dissapointed you edited my comments, there was nothing in the post that was not absolutly true. Would you have taken the same line if I was advocating positive discrimination in favour of travellers. 

 This is truly a sad day, PC takes precdents over honesty. It will be interesting to read comments from the  other contrbutors what they think of this.
 
I am not sure I will want to carry on commenting if making honest opinions, albeit cadid, are not allowed.
Have we really reached the point of suppression for fear of offending groups of people who have no such worries.
 
Sad and very dissapointed, Grumpy Old Roy
 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Mermaid on August 18, 2009, 07:51:42 am
Grumpy Old Roy

It was the Editor himself who made the decision on your post. Unfortunately, your 'candid' comment could have been construed as racist and therefore contravened the rules of the Forum. You must remember that the Editor and his team may be liable for comments published on the Forum and we don't want to be landed in any legal trouble!

Please do continue to post - carefully - as many of your contributions are entertaining and I'm sure many of us would miss you (and your cars) if you go    ;)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on August 18, 2009, 08:34:51 am

 Moderator

 I am dissapointed you edited my comments, there was nothing in the post that was not absolutly true. Would you have taken the same line if I was advocating positive discrimination in favour of travellers. 

 This is truly a sad day, PC takes precdents over honesty. It will be interesting to read comments from the  other contrbutors what they think of this.
 
I am not sure I will want to carry on commenting if making honest opinions, albeit cadid, are not allowed.
Have we really reached the point of suppression for fear of offending groups of people who have no such worries.
 
Sad and very dissapointed, Grumpy Old Roy
 

Hi Roy,

This site's forum guidelines (http://www.brookmans.com/agreement.shtml), which all sign up to when registering, make it clear what is acceptable on this site. There are plenty of other sites where you can post your 'honest opinions' and your views on what is 'absolutely true'.

David

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on August 18, 2009, 09:22:31 am
Come on Roy....remember what Nat Fleischer said to you in the gym.  :)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on August 18, 2009, 10:23:18 am
Epihany - That's my point!  ;)
It's all speculation at the moment.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Indianna on August 18, 2009, 11:34:58 am
If the site was just fields, at maybe £5,000 per acre, this 20.5 acre site would be worth about £100,000.  However there are the livery stables, the smallholding, and a small dwelling.  Not being in the valuation business I do not know how much the owner might be trying to sell the land for.

It is not the same as Gobions Wood which the community bought in the 1980s because that had an established use which has continued.

Iwas suprised to see that it was said that agricultural land would be worth about £5000 an acre. When I inquired about the land for sale in Little Heath I was quoted £25000 an acre. Oh well what's £20000 between friends !
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on August 18, 2009, 02:56:42 pm
Roy,
 I have never met you but I lived in Hackney for 30 years and by reading your comments I agree with you 1,000,000 percent on your constructive comments. A lot of people dont like to hear the TRUTH and live with blinkers on. There is a real world out there and not just the luvy duvy quiteness of Brookmans Park ( A great Place). Please keep telling it as you see and hear it because sooner or later certain people on this site will
in the future Heed your words.
Best wishes to all, Hindu,Muslim,Protestant,catholic,Jew,oooops Jewish,sikh,eastern orthodox,zoroastrianism,confucianism,shinto,taoism,and many more peace be with you and all our Travelling Friends welcome to BROOKMANS PARK
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on August 18, 2009, 04:55:25 pm
Iwas suprised to see that it was said that agricultural land would be worth about £5000 an acre. When I inquired about the land for sale in Little Heath I was quoted £25000 an acre. Oh well what's £20000 between friends !

My guestimate was out of date but a fivefold+ increase in price in 7 years  is surprising.  About 2002 the RVC offered what was said to be a high price of about £90 - 100,000 for the 20 acres now known as Friday Grove, but was gazumped.  I believe it was sold for £160,000, or £8,000 and acre.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on August 18, 2009, 10:47:48 pm
Therock - I was born and bred in Hackney and am what you describe as "Jew,oooops, Jewish".......
what exactly are you trying to say?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on August 19, 2009, 05:03:40 pm

 Hello Rock

 Thanks for your support. It grieves me no end that the good people of BP see me as an ogre just for telling it as it is. I lived the first thirty five years of my life in Finsbury Park, just a couple of hundred yards from where that Iman preched his hate in the road outside the mosque. (please do not edit this bit as it is aboslutely true, he is now in prison)
 
Finsbury Park, althought at the bottom of the finacial heap, was never the less, by and large a safe place. Yes, we did have bank robbers, but mugging and house burglary were unknown. (there was nothing to steal) When I visit my friends now, all of them OAP's they are terrified to leave their council flats. Why, because of drug dealers on the estates,the fear of being mugged or burgled,in fact most are house bound. Rock, you know who the majority of the perpertrators of these crimes are, but we are not allowed to say so.

 All I am trying to convey to the good people of BP is that ignoring the problems will not stop it happening here in BP.  Condeming me for highlighting reality is just a means of salving ones conscience or having a very honest, open discussion about the possible consequeces travellers sites.
 
In a perverse way I almost want the site to happen, sit back and watch the fall out if the proposed sale goes through.The so called motor trade, tranalated, scrap yard , lorrys coming and going, ect ect. Then, when the value
 of property tumbles, observe those who harangued me put their thumbs in their mouth and exclaim, how did that happen? when all it needed was to address the situation with complete candour.

Please please, good burghers of BP, if not for your selves, then for your children, stand up and demand our local councilors and others of influence, put their heads over the parapet of PC and be counted on this issue.

Grumpy Old Roy




 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on August 19, 2009, 09:40:03 pm
Hello Roy. I think you'll find that the majority of people in BP, if not all, are not naive. I'm sure many come from rough areas of London, you and me included, and we have seen all sorts in our upbringings. The bottom line is, not one person on this forum has said 'aye' to a travellers site in BP or near to it and I don't think they ever will.
It's coming across as if you think certain people are in favour of a site - they're not. It's the same old story - some have pointed out facts about travellers, it doesn't mean to say they're in agreement to a site, however, their views are not as radical as yours. There's good and bad in every culture and religion......if I was a traveller reading this topic, I wouldn't feel too good, and nor would you.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on August 20, 2009, 04:02:28 pm
Naomi,

Being Jewish, is of no concern to me. What I was trying to say in words was like saying
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on August 21, 2009, 06:00:02 am
Therock - You keep mentioning the East End, well, on the border.  Who do you think you are? Ronnie Kray?!!  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on August 21, 2009, 09:39:08 pm
Nice to see this debate sink back into its usual sterile cycle. In truth, no matter what your view of travellers, it is extremely unlikely the land will be sold to them. A little bit of detective work on the web will show you that crowman's political leanings make it doubtful he is as sympathetic to travellers as the postings appear. Of course I could be wrong, but I think it is far more likely this is being raised to stir up local feeling. Sadly, some people seem to be falling for this.

Far more interesting, is what could be done with this land - assuming crowman really does want to sell it. I appreciate Bob's point about the cost, but that is why I am looking to our councillors for some leadership. The land is conveniently between Brookmans Park and Welham Green, it is green belt but with some existing buildings. But because of a lack of imagination by our elected representatives we will lose a resource which won't come onto the market again for a very long time.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on August 21, 2009, 10:53:05 pm
John - I wouldn't call it a sterile cycle. People obviously have strong feelings...and at least some have a sense of humour.
Yes, perhaps this has been engineered to cause debate.....and yes, as has been pointed out before it is unlikely the land will be sold to travellers, but we don't know that...well, even if it was, can you imagine the outcry, and by the same token, not all travellers are troublesome people.

Therock - I'm still  not sure what you're trying to say.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on August 24, 2009, 06:01:09 pm
No Stevea,
REGGIE. And Ihope you are giving the Aussie Roos some stick. oooooooops you may be one of them....SHAME.
THEROCK
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Indianna on August 24, 2009, 08:36:16 pm
Mr Fraser's views that it is extremely unlikely that the Crowman will sell the land at station road to travellers doesn't ring true, if Mr Fraser had done a bit more detective work at the land registry he would have found out  as I did that he did in fact sell the land at Cow Roast, Tring to the travellers as he described in his post no 15 on August 6th, the results of that sale are described in the following article
 
www.hemeltoday.co.uk/CustomPages/CustomPage.aspx?pageID=4155
 
I hope we don't have to find out if Mr Fraser is right or wrong in his assumption.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on August 25, 2009, 05:09:28 am
Therock - don't worry, I give the Aussies plenty - so much so, when England wins they hide from me!  :)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on September 04, 2009, 08:01:25 am
I have just noticed the following advert on page 36 of this weeks Welwyn & Hatfield Times.


20 ACRES OF LAND + BUILDINGS -
BROOKMANS PARK
For Sale - 20 acres of land with two
commercial uses.
Stable blocks and two barns.
Small dwelling house, parking for vehicles,
electricity and water services to
existing buildings.
Within walking distance to centre of
Brookmans Park.
Can be sold as one lot or broken down into
1 acre plots.
Please telephone Brian after 6pm on 07958
668806 to discuss your requirements and prices etc.
Withheld numbers will not be answered.

Interesting!!

Maybe now is the time that all the financially able people in the area could pull together and see how much could be raised??



Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: southbury on September 04, 2009, 08:27:52 am
.. it's time to be patient...

We are just about to enter the next ' leg down' in the Real ecomomy and very specifically in Property and Land values.

Let's see how he gets on
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Indianna on September 04, 2009, 10:25:17 am
How long is the proposed wait and see? Long enough for the Crowman to start negotiations with a potential purchaser? Until the a price has been agreed? Until the deal has been done? Or shall we just sit back and wait for the caravans to start pulling in?  After reading that newspaper article Wait and see doesn't really seem an option!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on September 04, 2009, 10:56:45 am
Can be sold as one lot or broken down into 1 acre plots. 

This tactic is similar to the 'Property Spy' type of operation where unsuspecting buyers pay over the odds for part of a larger plot in the hope that planning permission will eventually be given for housing, thereby vastly increasing the value of the land.  It is a case of caviat emptor - let the buyer beware.  Prospective buyers would be foolish of they did not ask the council about the chances of housing on the land.  But greed and ignorance can lead to foolish actions.

If the land is sold in parcels, the council can take legal powers to stop each plot being fenced off.  So we must keep an eye open should this happen and notify the council at once.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Aloo on September 05, 2009, 08:01:47 pm
This maybe an opportunity for the local community to show leadership, and look at developing a vision for the land which would benefit Brookmans Park as a whole. 
For instance perhaps given the complaints about young people hanging around the village green, residents could look at how the land could be landscaped with play/skate/cycle areas but still remain in keeping with Green belt/planning guidelines.
Time to be creative and look at how to act as a community to improve BP.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Ferdie on September 06, 2009, 10:08:04 am
Lovely idea Tumbliboo, but so many people forget the Community Centre less than half a mile from this site. A community resource that so desperately needs support of the community for its survival. For many years this site and other media has had appeal after appeal for help, much of it falling on deaf ears. The resource of land and facilities are already there, but are sadly under utilised through lack of community support to 'manage' the facility. For example The Scouts 'repaired and extended' the Centres BMX track not that long ago, only for it quickly to fall back into disrepair through a variety of reasons, not least, lack of use and abuse.

If this land was used for 'community use' just who would actually support its management? Time after time we see these lovely ideas, but seldom is the thought backed with action. If the Community Centre was full to overflowing with volunteers and used to its maximum capacity, yes, great, but somehow I don't see that happening, much that we might wish it to be.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Aloo on September 06, 2009, 09:54:24 pm
Good point about the Community Centre, which seems to be mainly used for kids parties.   
However how much could the area be transformed and therefore usage increased, if station road was safer and access to the Community Centre did not depend upon parents driving their children to and fro.   

Perhaps a cycle path with good lighting, along Station Road linking up to Welham Green could make the Community Centre and land around Station Road more accessible to young people.   
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: chicken legs on September 06, 2009, 10:24:42 pm
Yess!  A cycle path would be great.  I've given it as a suggestion to the Parish Plan Committee.  However, when you survey the pavement, it would be very difficult to widen it enough to allow for pedestrians and cyclists - would probably cost squillions.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: James Bentall on September 06, 2009, 10:41:36 pm
I have looked at that in the past, and was advised by someone who knows these things that getting funding would be incredibly difficult due to the location of National Cycle Route 12 which runs parallel to Station Road along warrengate road water end - it would apparently be very unusual to fund another cycle route so close to an existing one.

I agree it would be great though. If cost was no object, and the land owners were feeling particularly generous, I'd love to see a bridge over the railway line next to the youth and community centre and a path going through the fields coming out at to the end of Bradmore Way.... there's an existing path from the youth and community centre to Bulls Lane in Welham Green which would mean there would be a traffic free route between the two villages via the community centre. But unless anyone knows any lottery winners?!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Aloo on September 07, 2009, 09:52:46 pm
I agree it won't be easy.   

But unless we try and get the support needed, we'll never know what could have been.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Johnny Redd on September 08, 2009, 07:59:16 am
Lets get some of the Kids viewpoints on what they'd like to have in the area.................
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on September 09, 2009, 10:33:25 am
And why not build a playground......then if travellers do move to the site they'd be able to play on the see saw and the merry-go-round!!.....and not to worry, because if they do get out of hand, you've always got Therock to sort them out!  We know he's hard because he comes from Hackney!  ;D  ;D  ;D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on September 09, 2009, 09:28:02 pm
If the Crowman decides to take an offer from travellers, and accept it, is that not his perogative?
I'm not sure how it works selling off small lots in this case....but if someone should buy a small lot, why are they not allowed to fence it and build a house?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: sasquartch on September 10, 2009, 12:40:27 am
why are they not allowed to fence it and build a house?

Errm, because that would need planning permission, which crowman didn't get, hence the possible sale of the land.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on September 10, 2009, 03:19:04 am
Sasquartch - Think you misunderstood me. If the land is allowed to be sold....which we assume it will be one way or another....and it is legally allowed to be sold and purchased....then why would someone buy land that has restrictions on it to build further...in other words, if I was going to buy a small plot, I'd expect my legal advice to tell me the situation before I purchase.....
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on September 10, 2009, 06:27:06 pm

  Stevea,

  It's easy to be flippant when you are 12000 miles away, whats the saying, it,s OK, do what you want and build what you like, thats fine. Oh, and by the way, make sure its not in my back yard.
 
Think on it Steva. when the reality of the consequences happens you will not be able to turn the clock back.

 Grumpy Old Roy
 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on September 10, 2009, 10:23:23 pm
Grumpy Old Ron

1) I don't know how many times I've said I'm NOT in favour of a travellers site - all I've done is provide factual information

2) Yes, I don't live there at the moment...my family does.....and I was born and bred in North Mymms. I can trace my ancestors in the area for at least 250 years, and I'm probably one of the few on this forum who can claim the same. I have as much right to speak about the area as anyone else.

3) Reality of what consequences?  :icon_scratch:

4) Flippant - When I read self righteous, arrogant and sarcastic posts - yes!

5) You probably think you're hard as well because you're not from the area, just like Therock.
We'll have to start calling you Reg and Ron..Therock already claims to be Reggie, so you'll have to be
Ron!  ;D  ;D  ;D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on September 11, 2009, 04:50:33 pm
 
STEVEA
 
 I can assure you I had no intention of coming across as Hard or wanting to be seen as. Despite being acqauinted with two R's I do not think I am, or profess to be Hard!! However, a year with your Australian Army in 1952 (I was 18/19 and the youngest by 10 years) did harden me up enough to make life difficult for those who think they are hard men.

Your comments do come across as flippant and even some times appear sarcastic, so please allow others the same privilege.   

 The travellers situation is certainly a problem, but of more concern, a symptom of a changing sociaty who have have allowed PC to overtake common sense thinking. Hence the ridicule of those that stand against the tide.

As to the consequences, just look at every site where camps have been established. I have yet to see any local residents agree or applaud this happening in their  community. That, unfortunately is reality.

I know I come across as some little Englander, but I will do what ever is necessary, stand any ridicule, sup or vote for the Devil if need be  (except see Spurs beat Arsenal) to see my my country return to the values of yesteryear.

Grumpy Old Roy







 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on September 11, 2009, 08:11:35 pm
Stevea, Or Aussiue whatever,

I DONT Claimn to be hard I am not  a Mug.  I know more people on this planet than you will ever ever know.If you want to start spouting off and giving it the big One you are chewing on the wrong person. I am pproud of my roots and just because "YOU" can trace your family back 250 years gives you No right to criticize or Gob off on this website.We th Local people pay the Council tax not some  want to be Do gooder 20,000 miles away. You always seem to have a go at what you think are the easy targets on this site,but I would just take a second to think before you launch into one of your No sense Speeches. All I can say is Please Please Stay in The land of the Aussies. Then we can carry on with our own problems in BP.

PS. We can trace our ENGLISH family back 400 years "so there" 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on September 11, 2009, 10:11:58 pm

I know I come across as some little Englander, but I will do what ever is necessary, stand any ridicule, sup or vote for the Devil if need be  (except see Spurs beat Arsenal) to see my my country return to the values of yesteryear.

Grumpy Old Roy


What values of yesteryear are you talking about Roy?


There's not a lot I crave for in the past that doesn't still exist.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on September 11, 2009, 11:37:58 pm
Dear Reggie The hardRock
Yes, I'd agree with you, not a mug, more like muppet! Ooooh, I'm so scared.
I'm not giving you the big one, nor chewing you, nor gobbing off as you so nicely put it.
Just giving as good as I get, and I don't appreciate threats.
I am not a 'do gooder' and am only pc because I have to be. I do not bully people who write
in to this forum, nor criticise race, religion, creed, culture etc I keep repeating the same comment
about a potential travellers site, and fact is, I do know a lot about travellers.
Not sure about knowing more people on this planet than you.....I expect you know a lot more sheep
http://lonestartimes.com/images/2007/04/sheep.jpg
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on September 12, 2009, 12:03:24 am
Grumpy Old Roy - Funnily enough, my mother became very good friends with Reg.

I only give as good as I get. Ever since I have posted my views and facts about travellers, I have constantly been slated, and I only poke people in the eye that poke me. Quite honestly, I agree with you to an extent. I am fully aware of the problems that can eventuate with 'some' travellers and appreciate that you are proud of your heritage but times have changed.....they always do...and not always for the better....

As for Spurs and Arsenal, I'm totally on your side!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on September 12, 2009, 05:57:38 am
Therock - perhaps you should look back at some of your posts to see who you've treated or tried to, as an easy target!!  As for threatening someone.......:icon_scratch:


Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: ADM on September 14, 2009, 10:34:34 am
Play nicely please.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on September 17, 2009, 02:38:31 pm

David
Sorry for the delay in responding but I have been supplementing my OAP.
This Travellers saga seems to have turned a full circle in content, perhaps we should form a BP debating society, with or without the boxing gloves.
My comments re Englands yesteryear values were based on recent history when England led the world on the beginings of reform.

From !900 till around the 1960's we had the lowest crime rate per 1000 in the world. In fact we had more crimes agaist the person last year than all crimes from 1900 till 1997.
Let me also remind you that it was William Wilberforce(despite, or because of being spaced out on opium)who pushed a miniture slave ship into the Houses of  Commons to bring attention to it. But, it was the Royal Navy who put a stop to slavery.

Yes child labour was an awful blot on our industrial revolution, but once again we stopped it. I beleive it was Lord Shaftsbury who was instrumental in the factory act restricting the hours that children could work. Not good enough I know, but it was the start that grew untill the around 1900 when the school act ensured children stayed at school untill 14 years old.
Women did have the vote from 1918 (women over 30) untill 1928 when all had the vote.

 Before I attempted the reply concerning the intolerance towards homsexuality I must use the usual cliche, which in this case is aboslutely true, three of our very best friends are gay gentlemen, so please no one accuse me of being homophobic.

 Social evolution is exponential and acceptance is becoming the norm. However,since time began hetrosexual men have always had an innate suspicion, distrust, dislike, call what you will, of gay men. I am not saying or agreeing it's right, I am only saying what is fact.
What is distasteful and creats dislike and intolerance is the strident demands of homosexual organisations in demanding special treatments, money for gay centres, gay pride marches. Special council funded advisors to visit public toilets to warn of the dangers of cottaging etc etc. Yes there is still intolerance, but in part fuelled by the homosexuals themselves.   

So to retun to the main point, England, has always been in the vangaurd of social reform. We have had a greater influence than any other nation in bettering this world. Compared with the French. Belgians and Germans we did till around 1970/80 by and large make the world a better place.

To return to the main point, by continually placing the needs and demands of minoritys over the wishs and well being of the majority will destroy the very reasons why they want to be here. I could go on but I think you will have had enough by now.

So, yes, on balance I still firmly believe England of yesteryear was a better place, I know,
I was was there.

Grumpy Old Roy



 

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on September 17, 2009, 05:34:49 pm
I still don't know what you meant when you wrote in a previous post that you wanted to ...


...see my my country return to the values of yesteryear.
 

What values are you talking about that don't exist today?

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on September 17, 2009, 08:10:58 pm

 Values of Yesteryear.

 Children within Marriage, looking after ones elderly relaltive's, a drug free society, a crime rate back to that of the 1920's to 50's.
 
  A system that rewards effort in education, work and everyday life. Politics out of education. Members of Parliment and local councillors to view their positions as a calling, not a career. Lastly, that the current expectation of it's my rights attitude to be replaced with, how do I earn that right. Plus of course a society where effort equals success.

Hows that for starters.

Grumpy Old Roy
 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on September 18, 2009, 04:45:51 am
Grumpy Old Roy - Are you not really referring to the immigration boom in the late 1950's- early 1960's?

Some 'travellers' have been in the Barnet area and surrounds for centuries...long before BP was ever developed.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on September 18, 2009, 08:28:56 am

 Steva

 Firstly I was addressing the values of the times. Very few immigrants arrived in the 50's it begain to accelerate in the 70's and has been ever since.

 The travlelers you refere to were Gipsy's who came over from Ireland for the Horse fair ar Barnet (hence Barnet Fair for hair) and returned.
 I know it's convienent for your PC to call travellers gipsys, have you to acknowledge, or learn the differance between Gipsys and travellers. Most travellors who arrive here become welfare dependent, whereas Gipsys are are quite different.

Also I lived in that period so I am talking from experiance, not politicaly motivated history.

Grumpy Old Roy

PS. Perhaps we should start a new post on recent history values and the demise of Good Old England.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on September 18, 2009, 09:07:07 am
Roy - Perhaps boom wasn’t the right term for those years – acceleration, yes, but it’s not just the UK –
The world population has increased tremendously.

No, I wasn’t referring to Gypsy’s from Ireland that returned, a lot of them were English and still are..and yes, I am fully aware of the differences
between the term Gypsy and the pc ‘traveller’…..that’s why I distinguish between Irish and English
‘travellers’……so what do we call them Roy?? A lot of the English travellers I know like to be called Gypsies!
A lot of the Irish call themselves tinkers…..I didn’t make up pc rules…

In the late 60’s-early 80’s, I used to travel to all the major horse fairs, Barnet, Stow, Appleby, Epsom. Frome etc
60-70% were English travellers and the others were Irish.

I’m not saying that you’re talking politically motivated history.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on September 18, 2009, 06:12:15 pm
 
Steva

 You have got it all wrong, I am the realist, and not a subscriber to politically motivated PC history. Of interest I have a have an email from Denmark which will wash the mist from your eyes, so perhaps you can get your email address to me. Buts thats only if you wish and can deal with complete honesty.

Its by a Susan MacAllenand a journalist from Demark which I would dearly love to reproduce it on this site but I think the contents, despite being absolutly truthful would upset the fragile sensibilities of many, who for reasons which sadden and are beyond me, refuse to come to terms with what is happening to Europe and the UK.

Grumpy Old Roy
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on September 18, 2009, 08:34:41 pm

I would dearly love to reproduce it on this site but I think the contents, despite being absolutly truthful would upset the fragile sensibilities of many, who for reasons which sadden and are beyond me, refuse to come to terms with what is happening to Europe and the UK.


Dear Roy,

Thanks for being sensitive to our "fragile sensibilities".

 ;)

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on September 19, 2009, 03:56:21 am
Grumpy Old Roy. Sorry mate, but what you’ve written about Gypsy’s is a load of old tosh.
You seem to make it up as you go along. I really don’t give a toss about
pc and I don’t know one Gypsy that does either. I used to live and work with Gypsies and
I am the last person to be pc!

I can’t believe how you’ve got me so wrong.

I googled Susan MacAllen and read some of her articles….and fail to see how the
Muslim situation of Denmark , for example, is connected to Crowman possibly selling land to
travellers.  This topic is not about Islamic issues.

By the way, you can send me an e mail using the guidelines of the forum.
You can do that with members who allow their e mail to be shown…just click on my name.
In fact, I wrote  you a personal message a while ago suggesting that we meet up over a beer. I never got
a reply.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on September 19, 2009, 06:24:03 am

 Steva

 You may think its old tosh, but I think I do know, I was married into a Gipsy family. 

Grumpy Old Roy
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on September 19, 2009, 08:06:51 am
Grumpy Old Roy - I didn't know that you were a gorger - Well, then you'd know that the Gypsies have been round the area for the last 200/300 years.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on September 20, 2009, 09:40:22 am

 Steva
 The term is gorgerbread, no I am not one, just was married to one. For info they have been around for since 200AD. The difference then was that Julies Ceser would not allow them social security.
 
Grumpy Old Roy
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on September 20, 2009, 11:07:26 am
Grumpy Old Roy - Gorger or Gorgia is someone who is non Gypsy, but is accepted in to their community e.g by marriage, friend, associate etc or lives the same way of lifestyle.  Have you ever eaten Hedgehog Pie?


Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on September 22, 2009, 01:54:49 pm
To Stevea (Bl bla bla bla) and Naioma or whatever,

Where are these threats coming from ????????????????. And I have looked back on my previous post, and I like them.. at Least they are Not BORING..  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Best wishes to ALL
the rock solid as ever and as Hard as
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on September 23, 2009, 02:40:51 am
Therock - Just thought this might interest you..just think of the benefits, no more muddy feet, conveniently deflates into a suitcase, briefcase, glovebox etc, always at arms length and for when that very special occasion arises..even says I Love Ewe.....http://www.inflatablesheep.co.uk/images/sheep.jpg   also available in black.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on September 23, 2009, 07:43:14 am
Hi guys,

Can we try to pull this debate back on topic. Please use the personal message system for one-to-one banter.

 :)

Dave
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Indianna on October 08, 2009, 10:49:59 am
I must agree with David,let's bring this discussion back to it's origins.
I read in a national paper today that Harriet Harmen has stated that more green belt land (Station Road Stables) must be given over to the gypsy community as well as more time with doctors and more time in schools. So the plot thickens. Is it not hard enough to get an appointment to see your GP already or get your child into the school of your choice?
It is with that in mind that I am asking the members of this forum to treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves.
 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on October 09, 2009, 01:57:40 am
So the plot thickens.

Hi Indianna,

Not sure what the "plot" is that is thickening. The only concern should be the provision of adequate services to meet the needs of the whole community, no matter who the individual members of that community are. Travellers' children will need a school and travellers will need to see a doctor when sick.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on October 09, 2009, 07:29:40 am
I was sort of assuming that traveller families were entitled to education and health resources like the rest of us whereever they lived. 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: ChiefofMen on October 10, 2009, 05:50:24 pm
perhaps someone could help me with this.the county council is trying to build a surestart centre at essendon school where there is no apparent need and there story is that it is mainly for cuffley and brookmans park !.There first application was withdrawn following determined village opposition.but they are determined to carry on and are intending to build on the protected playing fields (and this is listed building on green belt land)they are so determined (they skipped consultation and tried to fly under the radar)we believe they have an ulterior motive namely the construction of a support centre for the school which already has a large number of roma travellers.When the go for planning permission for a site in 2010 in BP they can say the children can go to essendon(falling rolls) and support is already in place.I would be interested in your views.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on October 11, 2009, 07:03:32 pm

 Entitlement, means social resposibilty, contributing to the local purse. The assumption is that travellers pay NHI and taxes, whereas this is generally not the case (during my short spell as a mini cab driver I frequently used to take travellers to the DHSS to collect their payments) they also use social services to have their children taken to school whilst having two Mercedes outside their mobile home, anyone disputing this can visit the site with me or call social services to verify.

 Carry on like this and other budgets will have to cut, and when the money runs out, what happens then? More rate increases affecting the real needy, OAP's who have to suffer in silence. If only the same effort was used in assisting them(who created the wealth in the first place) as is to those who come here with out having first contributed a penny.

 Those advocating these very laudable views must understand that there only so much cake to go around. Very soon the very reason they come here will be lost, who will then pay the piper. I believe the saying is, It's killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

I know my views are unaccepable to some, but some one has to be the voice of reason.

OK I am ready for the flak, but before you do, think on this, Homes for Heros and The Star & Carter Home for totally incapacitatedr service  men and women have to rely on charity, shoundn't that be were our philanthropic thoughts go first.

Grumpy Old Roy

 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on October 11, 2009, 07:20:42 pm
Grumpy Old Roy - you are a breath of fresh air - at last someone on the forum who says it as he sees it. A man after my own heart with true morals and virtuos convictions.

And, to his last post, I concur -

Unfortunately, as intimated in other postings on a different subject matter, nothing ever gets done about it. For this posting the same sad story from a spent Govt - let the OAP's suffer whilst the fraudsters get away with blue murder.

RIP Britain. 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on October 11, 2009, 10:23:48 pm
Grumpy Old Roy - I hear where you are coming from, but there are dole ponces in all walks of life.

What is happening with Station Road anyone - is it still up for sale?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Barry Bloxham on October 12, 2009, 02:34:45 pm
Hello David how is the golf?  ;D

Are you talking about that small strip of land next to the railway line and what is maybe still be the Scout hut or the other side of Station Road?

Or is it the building further down the road in the next photo?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on October 12, 2009, 03:26:06 pm
 
Are you talking about that small strip of land next to the railway line and what is maybe still be the Scout hut or the other side of Station Road?

Or is it the building further down the road in the next photo?

Hi Barry

The land is between the railway line and Station Road.  It contains 20.5 acres and is almost from the Scout hut northwards up towards (and including as far as I know) the smallholding opposite the Potterells Medical Centre.  You can view the site plan from the list of documents on
http://publicaccess.welhat.gov.uk/rpp/index.asp?caseref=S6/2008/2417/OP
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on October 12, 2009, 04:31:12 pm
Hello David how is the golf?  ;D

Are you talking about that small strip of land next to the railway line and what is maybe still be the Scout hut or the other side of Station Road?

Or is it the building further down the road in the next photo?


Hi Barry,

I think you may be mixing me up with someone else; I am not a golfer.  But, anyway, I think Bob has answered your point in the post above.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on October 12, 2009, 06:43:59 pm

 Steva

 Yes I agree, but why invite more. when would you stop, 10 more, 100, 1000, 4000, 10,000, come on give me a fiqure you would consider too many or not enough. I notice you are always trying to find reasons to justfy the unjustifiable, are you just trying to be contentious or do you really have no idea of the consequences of your misplaced unthoughtout magnanimous views.

Do you not take heed of what is happening, 154 thousand ayslum seekers to be given an amnesty (thats just heads of families) that means a precedent will be set for the other 450 thousand already here and waiting. And what about the 6.5 million also waiting in Europe???

 Of course its the usual MIMBY attitude, as someone living 12000 miles away you can have the luxury of being Mr nice guy and more holy than the rest of us. But  as it is us that live here, your views are really quite irrelevant.

Grumpy Old Roy

 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on October 12, 2009, 06:57:52 pm
Dear Roy,

Please abide by the forum rules regarding Flaming and Trolling, explained here

http://www.brookmans.com/guidelines.shtml#forum (http://www.brookmans.com/guidelines.shtml#forum)

and copied here.

Quote
Trolling is going onto a board for the sole purpose of starting trouble or instigating an argument.

Flaming is going onto a board and insulting people because of their beliefs, sexual preference, gender, ethnicity or any number of things.

If you want to continue to challenge Stevea's position in such terms, please do it via the personal message system and not in the public forum.

Thanks

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: crowman on October 14, 2009, 08:26:01 am
David Brewer

I have beeen keeping up with developments on this topic over the last few weeks, and
noticed yesterday that there was a posting from 'indianna' which was on the forum
yesterday afternoon, but has now mysteriously disappeared. I saw nothing that should
have offended, or given people cause for concern. Could you tell me if this has been
censored ?, and, if so, for what reason, and by whom ?

Although the views expressed in the posting, would not have necessarily been my views,
I think the residents of Brookmans Park should be able to see all opinions, provided they
are not untrue.



Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on October 14, 2009, 09:06:51 am
Dear Crowman,

The post contravened forum rules.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on October 14, 2009, 09:14:56 am
I know some people that would find this whole topic offensive, and if I showed it to them, they would go berserk.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on October 14, 2009, 09:23:10 am
Hi Stevea,

Yes, I agree, some of the comments, including some removed, are either verging on racism or are racist. It is a balancing act between allowing people to freely express their views, and applying forum rules. Moderators will never please everyone.

I suspect some are posting in order to inflame a situation for potential political gain.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: crowman on October 14, 2009, 11:06:53 am
David Brewer

Although I can't remember the exact wording of yesterday's deleted posting from Indianna, I can't see
how this broke forum rules. Surely Indianna was saying simply that all people who have paid their
taxes should be treated equally, and no ethnic group, faction or any group of people should receive
preferential treatment because of their lifestyle, ethnicity or beliefs. I believe Harriet Harman's statement
last week, proposing to give the travelling community preferential treatment in education, medical
treatment and siting of their homes in Green Belt, must surely be fundamentally wrong, and
therefore comments on the matter should not be censored, provided they are made in a reasonable manner.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on October 14, 2009, 12:53:01 pm
If that was all Indianna had said then the post would have stood.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on October 14, 2009, 03:11:43 pm
comments on the matter should not be censored, provided they are made in a reasonable manner.

Agreed and as long as those comments are made in a way that doesn't discriminate (in terms of tone and language used) against one part of the community.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on October 15, 2009, 05:09:53 pm

 I am most confused that some postings are considered offensive, certainly if a remark is aimed at being offensive then I find it unacceptable. Unfortunately, some posting concering travellers, although unpleasent, may never the less be true.
I think we are losing sight what what all the concern is about. Is it unreasonable to expect individuals or groups of people who decide to live amongts a host sociaity to obey and abide by the legal, social and moral rules already in place ?? Yes be tolerant, but when that tolerance is abused by groups whose life style is incompatable to the majority of the communityand, rules blatanly flouted,then the hosts have a lawful right to complain without the fear of being accused of the currrent in vouge percived crimes, racism, intolerance and discrimination.
 
To censor honest held views or brand them offensive is to go down a very slippery road and is itself a form of discrimination. Real truth must never be suppressd, however it is distasteful to some.
Like many residents in BP I believe that a travellers site in Station Road will be detrimental to the area. This not based on any biased opinion but on observation and practical experiance of the effect on the areas where sites have been given over. It is so wrong to voice these concerns.

Grumpy Old Roy
 
 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on October 15, 2009, 10:02:21 pm
Roy,

Don't be confused. Only those posts that contravene the forum rules are removed or edited. Those rules are there to prevent racist and intolerant views that discriminate or alienate a part of the community, which we are all part of.

We seldom have to edit or remove posts, but some of the comments recently have been such that I have had to act in my do gooder PC-obedient capacity.

If people don't like the rules I am sure there are other forums they can air their views without being censored.

 ;)

David

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: ChiefofMen on October 15, 2009, 11:56:45 pm
getting back on message has any one got any thoughts on why brookmans park and cuffleys surestart centre is in essendon.apparently your all coming by bus ? and Bike?.pay attention people something affecting you is happening here and we don't know what and "they"won't tell us.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on October 16, 2009, 05:04:43 am
Grumpy Old Roy - In a previous post you mentioned that you were a mini cab driver - not for Barry from PB Radio Cars!!!? - and were driving travellers to the dole office. Considering your view point of this, weren't you aiding and abetting, or were you the getaway driver!!  ;D

As for my life in Australia which you seem to be infatuated by, well, it's 34c today, sunny, summer is coming, not that we really get a winter, might have a barbecue later and watch the dolphins in the bay.  8)

By the way, I've never been in favour of a travellers site in BP, however, do have gypsy friends who are totally legit in every way and are really nice people.....and I will continue to defend them. As for me wanting to invite more assylum seekers in to the country....I'm really not sure where you're coming from...
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on October 16, 2009, 09:49:31 pm
ChiefofMen - Have you written to the county council or asked your local MP about it?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on October 18, 2009, 01:22:26 pm

 STEVA
 
 The issue of the traveller situation is to important to trivialise and personalise. What is it that you do not understand on my postings that you continually misinterpret or misunderstand.

1. As a licenced cab driver one is not allowed to refuse a fare without a legitimate reason.
 
2 I am not infactuated by your life in Australia. My comments are, its easy to be magnanimous when the problem is 12K miles away and one does not have to live with the consquences of liberal attitudes.
 
3 Please note yet once again I have never, never, slighted gypsys, my concerns have always been the proplems of travellers moving into the community and the potential problems they may bring.

4. I do not recall ever posting that you are in favour of more asylum seekers, nor am I, to use a modern idiom, a racists or extreemist as you have sometimes alluded too.  I have always maintained that it is ecomic madness, but more probably national suicide when at a time of unprecendented unenployment (real fiqures 5M) to allow 120.000 (heads of families only) economic migrants and travellers to swell the ranks of the dole queues and add to the already overburden infrastrucure. This is nothing to do with race, colour or creed, just the amount this tiny nation can asorb.

Steva, please, please when commenting on my postings, please do so on facts I post, not what you would like them to mean to suit your particular outlook. This may come as a shock to you but most people in BP when talking to me in private totally argee with me

Thanks

Grumpy Old Roy
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: ChiefofMen on October 18, 2009, 10:07:37 pm
i am pursuing these options as yet without enlightenment.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on October 19, 2009, 04:08:17 am
Grumpy Old Roy
This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but I’m also on the side of the BP people
and I keep repeating that. Doesn’t matter if I live there or in Timbuctoo…
I don’t think you’re reading my posts properly. I’ve only provided
factual information. I admit to taking the mick in my response sometimes…
but you can’t blame me. I’m not misinterpreting your posts…if anything, you’re
misinterpreting mine. You’re the one that keeps attacking me.
As for “economic migrants”, I have made no comment in this topic about that situation.
I still don’t think that there will be a Travellers Site near BP, I just can’t see it happening
somehow, can you?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: saffie on November 13, 2009, 11:38:51 am
Does anyone know what is happening with this and how definite the plans are??
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on November 13, 2009, 12:30:24 pm
The current situation is unfortunate but there is a system of stages that has to be followed by Welwyn Hatfield Council.

The East of England Plan now states that there has to be 17 more pitches in Welwyn Hatfield by 2011.  It is for the council to decide where.  This stage of the process will not be reached until 2010 at the earliest.  It would seem that they will not all be put on one site.  The council will not provide them but will designate sites which could be used for this purpose.  The Government has said it can provide some funding, but that was before the current financial situation.  Goodness knows if that money will still be available.

Consultants produced a report to the council which suggested that a site on Bulls Lane might be a suitable location but iit did not fully meet the criteria.  Welwyn Hatfield Council have accepted the report but not the recommendation.  So it is up in the air and nothing will happen officially until summer 2010 at the earliest.  No doubt the council is working on it behind the scenes, but cannot say anything until next year at the earliest.

Just to add to the unhappy situation, there must be a general election by June 2010.  If the Conservatives win they have said that regional plans, such as the East of England Plan, will be replaced by a new system which gave greater powers to county and district/borough councils.  This is likely to cause a delay while the new system is put in place.    

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: saffie on November 13, 2009, 01:36:34 pm
I have spoken to planning this morning and they said they are not going to put it in their local plan but it is still in the East of England plan, so I suppose this means nothing really.

Shame as I like a house down there.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Big Red Daddy on November 13, 2009, 04:20:51 pm
Bob. I'm just curious about something. I have recently been to the Caravan sites on Barnet Road Potters Bar, and St Albans Road South Mimms, neither of which was full, ie there were pitches available. Where does the figure of 17 new pitches come from and is there really a need?
Thanks
BRD
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: saffie on November 13, 2009, 04:30:33 pm
So it is still very possible that this would become a site then???
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on November 13, 2009, 05:07:33 pm
Bob. I'm just curious about something. I have recently been to the Caravan sites on Barnet Road Potters Bar, and St Albans Road South Mimms, neither of which was full, ie there were pitches available. Where does the figure of 17 new pitches come from and is there really a need?
Thanks
BRD

Those sites are in Hertsmere which has its own number of pitches to produce.  The figure came from lots of research carried out on behalf of the East of England Regional Assembly.   You can agree or disagree with the methods used to arrive at the figure, but the simple fact is that 17 in Welwyn Hatfield is now the official figure in the East of England Plan.

I have spoken to planning this morning and they said they are not going to put it in their local plan but it is still in the East of England plan, so I suppose this means nothing really.

Shame as I like a house down there.

It means that any piece of land in Welwyn Hatfield could be designated at some time for new pitches.

There are, or were, at least three very nice houses for sale near the Bulls Lane site, and all these sales seem to be blighted by this issue.  Like a number of occasions in life, sometimes you take a chance after weighing up the known facts.  It is up to you because nobody can, or will, tell you about this site until the council has decided.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on November 13, 2009, 06:09:06 pm
Could someone inform us of the exact location of the proposed / planned site in Bulls Lane ? For example, is it closer to the Skimpans Bridge, or near one of the nurseries, or near Bell Lane ?

Would be obliged of anyones knowledge on this subject.

Thank you
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: ChiefofMen on November 13, 2009, 08:30:07 pm
page 4 of the thread "travellers site on station road" has a google map.(thinking about it this might not be bulls lane(wherever that might be)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on November 14, 2009, 08:17:11 am
I have recently been to the Caravan sites on Barnet Road Potters Bar, and St Albans Road South Mimms, neither of which was full, ie there were pitches available
Thanks
BRD

Maybe they've gone travelling!  :D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on November 15, 2009, 10:47:01 am

 Oh dear, oh dear, it seems that the setting up of travellers sites is moving inexorably ever closer, despite the wishes of the local electorate. I do not believe for one moment that a change of goverment will change anything (note the broken promise on a referendum) it will only happen if we get true representation.
 
The trick is to convince our local and national politicians that they will not receive our vote unless they 100% reflect our wishes. How do we do it, by being very vocal, very positive.

If we wait on the next goverment, (and assuming its one of a differant hue, although I suspect it will be a hung parliment) and they do nothing, what do we do then??
 
It is not only the travellers sites, it is the 44000 houses they wish to build in south Herts as well.
I wish I could think of something useful I could think of, but as a lone voice for positive action to stop these injustice's I feel totally politically impotent. Thank goodness 80 is not far off.

There must be some one out there who can be a very vocal campaigner, come on where are you ?

Grumpy Old Roy


Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Mermaid on November 16, 2009, 07:15:39 am
PS, your last post has been removed for being racist in tone towards Travellers. Please abide by the rules of the Forum!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on November 16, 2009, 01:24:22 pm
Quote
PS, your last post has been removed for being racist in tone towards Travellers. Please abide by the rules of the Forum!
Mermaid

Absolute rubbish - I am being victimised!!!

Then why did'nt you remove Naomi's comment then Fyi -
Quote
Maybe they've gone travelling!
All I added was 'lets hope for a long time'

Explain to me how that is "racist" ???
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on November 16, 2009, 01:35:26 pm
Quote
It means that any piece of land in Welwyn Hatfield could be designated at some time for new pitches - but not in my back yard!   
Bob Horrocks

Mermaid - please ensure that you remove this implied racist comment "but not in my back yard !"

Quote
Shame as I like a house down there.
Saffie - again, not as strong but it needs to be removed.

Mrmaid - please be consistent and not show favouritism when editing what YOU consider have been a breach of Forum Rules.

To me, the two above certainly are !!!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on November 16, 2009, 02:22:43 pm
Dear PS,

There is a fine line in all discussion between what is acceptable and what is not. Deciding what crosses that line is difficult.

Unfortunately, the task of the volunteer moderator (who spend many hours trying to ensure this forum doesn't disintegrate in tone) is tough.

I fully support Mermaid's edits. I don't think Naomi's crossed the line, but I think Bob's was unnecessary and have removed the last few words - I will write to Bob and explain.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on November 16, 2009, 02:57:15 pm
David - Good.

I may have strong opinions that from time to time spill over into these forums [and in private all the more so, believe me, just like the majority of the posters here, but we all restricted by you know what...]

I just expect that everyone has to carry the can for "abuses" to this forum thats all.

Period. 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Mermaid on November 16, 2009, 04:43:45 pm
PS you are being disingenuous and you know it! Your comment was twice as long as you have admitted, and in my view, and that of the Editor's, it was a breach of the Forum rules.

If you do not like the way that this Forum is moderated, you are perfectly free to leave and join another forum where the rules may suit you better!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on November 16, 2009, 05:29:49 pm
Quote
Your comment was twice as long as you have admitted
,

Mermaid - I will not argue - but you know it wasn't !!! Please don't use your moderator position to change history - we have politicians who do that all time, thank you.

Now lets move on.
 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on November 16, 2009, 05:33:36 pm
Absolute rubbish - I am being victimised!!!

I'd come to your defence, but I don't want to be seen as a "do gooder"
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on November 16, 2009, 05:55:53 pm
Quote
I'd come to your defence, but I don't want to be seen as a "do gooder"

Absolutely not !!! We already have enough of them all around us !!! Just wish the UK hadn't got into this state.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on November 16, 2009, 07:35:46 pm
 What a sad state of affairs that we now cannot voice honest held opinions, it looks like the PC minority have now finally imposed their will over the majority. Just because an opinion might offend does not make it none the less true. So what is it to be, suppression of the truth, or free speech. Certainly, personal slights or direct insults on colour are unacceptable, but one should be able to say that a certain group of people behave in a way that is unacceptable without being called a racists or facists or that opinion stifled.
 
We are going down a very dangerous road in stoping opinions being voiced, Hitler and Stalin took that road. Please, please wake up to how insidious this is becoming. So if a contributor posts something that offends a certain group, but it is never the less true, why is that not allowed ?

So Mr Moderator, I understand the difficulty you might find your self in, but what is more important, suppression of an opinion, or your view of what is PC.
 
I trust you will accept the above in the sprite it is posted, and hopefully not decide its distasteful.

Thank you

Grumpy Old Roy

Edited for infringing the forum rules.
 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Dezza on November 16, 2009, 08:51:01 pm
Grumpy Old Roy

"I wish I could think of something useful I could think of, but as a lone voice for positive action to stop these injustice's"


Unfortunately, you are a Very Vocal Voice for Negative Reaction......Take a deep breath and count to Ten or preferably just take a deep breath and count!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on November 16, 2009, 09:08:36 pm

 What a sad state of affairs that we now cannot voice honest held opinions, it looks like the PC minority have now finally imposed their will over the majority.


Dear Roy,

You can voice what you like, as long as it is abides by the forum guidelines. And please don't lecture on freedom of expression. Those moderating may have far more experience of this than you realise.

By the way, I have had to edit your recent post because you have overstepped the mark.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on November 16, 2009, 09:09:50 pm
Very much against any opinions being censored in principle but there are limits and I suggest we just move on-it wasnt an earth shattering comment either way.

I know more about gypsys than other travelling communities and they have always had some difficulty mixing or cohabiting with the more static community which most of us live in. Across Europe and over centuries they have been seen as a bit different. I generalise of course but they tend to stick together, carry out their own trades, move in and out without a by your leave and eschew education and more formal business methods. My general experience having done business with some only recently is pretty much the same. The ones I have met have been pleasant, no less honest than any other business person I have met and focused primarily on their family.

for all those reasons and differences to the norm and perhaps because they tend to intermarry and keep outsiders out they invite fear, aggression and indeed persecution. it is easy to get into a circle of mistrust and abuse both ways with neither side being right and that is what we and they need to avoid.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on November 16, 2009, 10:00:08 pm
Well said Peter.  It's very easy to be negative about a minority and make rash statements as an outsider. When reading some of these posts, it's no wonder that some gypsies keep themselves to themselves. I would do the same...so in effect, each side alienates each other...the difference is that the gypsies understand "us" but it's not the other way round in a lot of cases.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on November 16, 2009, 11:23:28 pm
So Naomi - and I am trying to contain myself, here goes with just a few examples -

(a) why is it then, that when our beloved travellers decide to settle close to an established community, does the crime rate go up ? This is a proven fact time after time and don't deny it. Do you consider that a "coincidence" ?
(b) why is it then , that many of these sites when abandoned are left with piles of rubbish that even rats would not live in ? Again a proven fact, and look over the years with all those newspaper pictures to prove the point 
(c) how and what financial benefits do our cherished travellers provide ie contributing into the community [eg council tax etc] ?

Not wishing to be disrespectful to these lovely gypsies, perhaps you could explain why these occurences as stated above [and believe me, these are just a few] seem to be happening ?

I would be most grateful for your answer [go on, on this occasion, I don't mind a bit of PC thrown into the pot!!!] ;D 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on November 17, 2009, 02:37:33 am
Bob. I'm just curious about something. I have recently been to the Caravan sites on Barnet Road Potters Bar, and St Albans Road South Mimms, neither of which was full, ie there were pitches available. Where does the figure of 17 new pitches come from and is there really a need?
Thanks
BRD

Did you ask if these pitches were available?  If not, it doesn't mean anything really...it's a bit like saying someones car isn't on the drive....doesn't mean to say they don't live there.
What you'll find on sites is caravan, space for a vehicle which could be a truck, space for a caravan etc
On council sites, some people pay for two lots.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on November 17, 2009, 02:56:02 am
As you're aware, gypsies (English Romany) are very suspicious people, if you're not one of their own they can spot you a mile away. If they're in doubt, they will ask if you're a mushy or a gorger. Your reply will tell them everything. Like any business, money talks. PS, like I've said in previous posts, I've already explained about the different types of gypsies and travellers, and about the ones who are causing trouble in the UK and why. It is not ALL gypsies and/or travellers that are causing these problems. 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Mr Green on November 17, 2009, 10:03:39 am
...the difference is that the gypsies understand "us" but it's not the other way round in a lot of cases.

Does that include your case? Or are you more qualified in this field to pass comment than PS.

PS is correct, if not a little blunt, in his ascertain that crime and transient travellers do come and leave illegal settlements with uncanny symmetry. I know of a few major retailers who have been held to ransom to pay travellers large sums to leave their car parks and stop frightening the customers. It is also well documented that within the travelling community they leave signs in the areas they visit which identify vulnerable people so the next lot of travellers can target them as soon as they arrive.

Are the travellers who wish to have a settled site and those who prefer to roam any different? If they are different and given the exceptionally bad press of their roaming namesakes, why don’t they try harder to disassociate themselves. I suggest at the very least a re-branding exercise; hey it worked for New Labour.

Stevea, perhaps you could help with this worry. These are not flippant questions, I suspect they are all correct but I don’t actually know. If they are correct then this is just one of the issues which have potential to alienate.

     Is it correct that literacy levels amongst settled travellers’ children fall well below the national average?

     Is it correct they tend to have more children per couple than the national average?

     Do they attend main stream local schools in the communities they move into (or are born into)?

If it is a yes to all of the above then I understand the concerns of local parents who may fear that teaching staff at their schools will be spending a disproportionate amount of time trying to bring the travellers’ children up to speed while their own child is not receiving the attention they should.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on November 17, 2009, 12:29:32 pm
It is also well documented that within the travelling community they leave signs in the areas they visit which identify vulnerable people so the next lot of travellers can target them as soon as they arrive.

Do you care to provide an example of this documentation? If it is well documented that should be easy enough.

There are too many people here, on all sides of the debate, posting opinions as fact. By now we know most of the opinions. A few facts would be nice. More light less heat please.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on November 17, 2009, 12:56:16 pm
Nightlondon - First of all I'd like to address the car parks - I think you'll find these are Irish Travellers.
So, that makes PS correct in one way and wrong in another.
Your questions to me - I don't have factual percentages to give you, not without googling, maybe you'd like to have a look, but I would agree that the literacy levels are probably lower and I'd say yes, they would attend local schools. That would be a concern to me as well if I felt my child was not receiving a good standard of education, however, there are children from all walks of life who have special needs. As for having more children, yes, Irish, Travellers or not, generally have big families.  Goodnight, I'm very tired and I'm going to bed. I've had a hard day!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on November 17, 2009, 09:09:30 pm
Not all travelling communities or individuals are the same but I think any travellers' site is going to be for all travellers.

The answer to a fear of a higher crime rate is to make sure there isnt.

The answer to the council tax problem is to make them pay like everyone else.

All of this is far easier on a dedicated site than when they pitch up on a roundabout and disappear just ahead of the bailiffs.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on November 17, 2009, 10:00:22 pm
PS - If you read through this thread, and others on this subject, there is a great difference between Irish Travellers and English Romany.  I am also not PC, tolerant, yes....and certainly not extremist in my views as some seem to be.

Nightlondon - No, I'm not more qualified to pass judgement than PS....but then, I'm not passing judgements or dictating in any way at all. I think my statement was quite clear...there is a divide....and until there is more tolerance and understanding then alienation just expands.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on November 17, 2009, 10:34:23 pm
Quote
PS - If you read through this thread, and others on this subject, there is a great difference between Irish Travellers and English Romany.


Oh Naomi, not you too !!

Does it matter the difference - if you try to segregate our beloved travellers into "good" and "bad" gypsies for site selection purposes, you will be seen to be "racist" with all the PC do-gooders.

Best solution ?? Have NONE - thus you prevent yourself from being branded a "racist"

And for the record, that approach you suggest is one of the main reasons why we have such a major mess in the uk

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on November 17, 2009, 10:54:44 pm
PS,

Have you ever thought about moving the debate forward? That last post is just a self pitying rant. You don’t like travellers/gypsies. We get it. Now the hard bit: suggest something constructive.

John
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on November 17, 2009, 10:59:30 pm
PS - yes it does matter! and not in a racist way, so please don't twist my comments and turn them in to a racist issue!
You know exactly what I meant - I am not segregating in to good and bad. Simply put, there is a difference between their cultures and nationalities....the same as we are different to Germans or French for example.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying 'Have NONE' and the "approach I suggest".
The fact is, we are talking about human beings...the same as you and me...there is nothing that makes any of us more special than the rest in that regard.....even if certain people would like to think so. We, the human race, created racial separatism, but we are all in this world together. Nationalism has been the blight of all our history.
Yes, there is a problem with some Travellers..I've never said to the contrary...but it's not all.  You know, it's very easy to have a self righteous attitude.  I'm not in favour of the proposed site either, but I like to think that I'm humane in my thoughts.   As for your continual use of  'PC Do gooders', I find that quite demeaning...in fact, it's another case of segregation. All are entitled to a viewpoint without a preach being involved.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on November 17, 2009, 11:34:29 pm
Quote
PS,

Have you ever thought about moving the debate forward? That last post is just a self pitying rant. You don’t like travellers/gypsies. We get it. Now the hard bit: suggest something constructive.

John

John - what I would suggest would not be accepted by the moderator. And that is the reason why we have no constructive comments on the subject here at all - its all talk, talk and talk - explanations of different types of gypsies etc

Now John - here's the HARD bit for you !!

Will you allow me to come up with constructive comments that you will print ?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on November 18, 2009, 03:49:46 am
PS - This is the EASY part for John - if you're constructive comments are rude, offensive and racist all he has to do is press delete!  ;D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: southbury on November 18, 2009, 07:49:05 am
Guys,

Stop indulging him.

Now who'll be at the Christmas Tree Lighting ceremony a week on Saturday ?

rgds
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on November 18, 2009, 07:51:41 am
Quote
PS,

Have you ever thought about moving the debate forward? That last post is just a self pitying rant. You don’t like travellers/gypsies. We get it. Now the hard bit: suggest something constructive.

John

John - what I would suggest would not be accepted by the moderator. And that is the reason why we have no constructive comments on the subject here at all - its all talk, talk and talk - explanations of different types of gypsies etc

Now John - here's the HARD bit for you !!

Will you allow me to come up with constructive comments that you will print ?

I'll decide when I see you post one. Up to now it hasn't been an issue.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on November 20, 2009, 03:04:36 pm
Stevea, indeed - talk about "media thought control engineering" - rather like the BNP appearance with Dimbleby on the Newsnight program recently !! ;D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: LongTallSally on November 20, 2009, 03:26:40 pm
And now we're back to the BNP!!!!



I agree with John, we need to move this along and talk about what uses of the land would benefit the people of this area.

My suggestions are :

1. a camping area for the local scouts group to use rather than going to Tolmers all the time.


2. If the area is large enough how about a park for all.

And lay off John. All the forum moderators work on this site on a voluntary basis and the appalling posts I have read must annoy them. If you want to lose this valuable resource then continue with the snide remarks.


(two posts merged - John Fraser)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Mermaid on November 20, 2009, 04:33:00 pm
Both of those ideas are great LongTallSally, and there will be lots of forum followers who agree with you   :)

However, I think that someone has to buy the land first. We certainly don't have the money in the Scout Group and I don't think the Parish Council does either     :-\
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on November 20, 2009, 05:00:10 pm
we need to move this along and talk about what uses of the land would benefit the people of this area.  

The land is owned by the estate of one of the people who developed Brookmans Park in the 1930s onwards.  Neither the parish council nor Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council have funds or, I feel safe in saying this, the desire to puchase this land.

Apparently it is extremely waterlogged in winter which limits the use of the land.  That is one of the reasons why the land is unlikely to be suitable for a gypsy/travellers camp.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: LongTallSally on November 21, 2009, 08:03:55 am
Thank you mermaid for your excellent reply to my post. You've taken my suggestions further and explained why they are not viable , which is exactly what a debate is.

And also to you, Bob.

Are we back on track now?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on November 21, 2009, 09:07:33 am
I didn't think anything could be built there....hasn't the farmer got an indefinite lease on this land? The government asked local goverment to find locations...I'm sure the council chose this land knowing full well that it wouldn't eventuate. They had to be seen to be doing something.  I feel sorry for the people that are trying to sell their houses in Bulls Lane...proposed travellers site will probably come up on the search and put buyers off.

I bet if you ask any gypsy in the area about the proposed site at Bulls Lane, they wouldn't have a clue what you're talking about.  I think if the real truth was known, this has been just one big set up from start to finish.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on November 21, 2009, 09:33:36 am
Yes there is no suggestion any traveller community is remotely interested in the site and speaking personally I wouldnt want the Parish Council to be running round spending council tax on any bit of land the Borough happened to mention might do as a traveller site.

If the Borough decide they need a site and this one is not available they will pick the next best.

The debate should in my opinion be about whether such sites should be identified and whether the council should focus on this one or not.

I should also repeat we are a long way from any decision and it is quite possible (especially since there will be a change of govt in between) that no traveller site will be required in the WHat region at all

My immediate gripe is that the document identifying this site is pretty sloppy shall I say and one wonders how much iwe have paid for it all.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Alex on November 22, 2009, 02:11:00 pm
 8)

Hi,

I have recently spoken to the owner of the land referred to in these discussions and my take on this is  not to  underestimate what might be going on between local authority and the land owner!
At the end of the day life is ( apparently) about you scratch my back, and I will scratch yours. Who knows what the outcome might be?

Alex
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on November 23, 2009, 02:13:42 pm
I feel sorry for the people that are trying to sell their houses in Bulls Lane...proposed travellers site will probably come up on the search and put buyers off.

A search is unlikely to reveal this since it simply a suggestion in a report to the council.  There has been no planning application or anything firm about it.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on November 23, 2009, 09:39:15 pm
I feel sorry for the people that are trying to sell their houses in Bulls Lane...proposed travellers site will probably come up on the search and put buyers off.

A search is unlikely to reveal this since it simply a suggestion in a report to the council.  There has been no planning application or anything firm about it.

Thanks for that Bob...I thought house sellers were obliged by law to declare anything that might affect a property.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on November 24, 2009, 10:56:56 am
Point accepted but it is still only a suggestion in a report and not a firm proposal by the council.   I was at the council meeting where the report was formally accepted but not the suggested site.

Not having moved for over 20 years I am out of touch on the finer points of what has to be disclosed to potential buyers.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on November 24, 2009, 06:00:04 pm
I dont think it would show up on a search of local authority records as Bob says, it is not a firm proposal at all. The buying solicitor wouldhave to ask the right questions to get the full answer from the seller. However even then he can deny there are any proposals or plans. Buyer beware and all that.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: ndonko on November 24, 2009, 08:12:03 pm
Hi everyone,

Sorry to interupt this thread- I'm a 3rd year Geography student at the University of Nottingham, who is currently completing a dissertation on social relations with the gypsy and traveller sites in Hertsmere.

As part of my project, I would like to get the attitudes of the public towards the current sites, and potentially any more that may be created. As I can see from the thread, this is a higly debatable issue, and I would love to capture this through a sample group.

I am therefore looking for about 8 volunteers who will be happy to attend a short meeting at 8pm on Monday 14th December, at St John’s Methodist Church, Baker Street, Potters Bar. Refreshments will be provided.

It will be really useful to get a wide range of views on this topic-of both men and women; people of all ages; and those who have no problems with the gypsy/ travellers sites, and those that do. In particular, I would really appreciate and encourage anyone who is a local resident near the local sites to participate.
 
If you are happy to take part, please do get in contact on 07929 441 274 or at ndonko AT hotmail DOT co DOTuk. If you also have any friends or family that may be able to help, please encourage them to contact me too.

Thank you, and any help you can lend will be greatly appreciated.  

Edited to shield the email address from spammers

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on November 25, 2009, 07:32:33 am
Hi ndonko - Have you also asked members of the traveller/gypsy communities from these sites to attend the meeting? If not, are you planning a similar meeting for their representation? It would be very interesting to see how they feel.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: sasquartch on November 25, 2009, 10:17:03 am
gypsy and traveller sites in Hertsmere.

We are in Welwyn Hatfield Borough, not Hertsmere, so perhaps opinions on the proposed site in Bulls Lane will not be relevant ?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: ndonko on November 26, 2009, 10:37:14 pm
Hi guys,

RE: stevea- I haven't invited any members of the gypsy/ traveller community along to this meeting for 2 particular reasons:
Firstly, because of issues relating to bias and influence for my study, I want to collect the view of residents separately to those of the gypsy/ traveller community.
Secondly, I have already held separate interviews with the community on the Barnet Rd site, as well as other gypsies/travellers on other sites in Hertsmere, and with the council officers responsible for these council owned sites. All of these groups were more than happy to help, and so the residents are the only group I still wish to get opinions from on a first hand basis!

RE: Sasquartch- From the meeting, one of my aims is to get the general opinions and experiences of the gypsy/traveller community from the participants, irrespective of where they live. Although Hertsmere is my study area, the meeting will not be solely focused on sites in this borough, and your contributions would be more than welcome.

Hope this explains why I am doing things the way I am- if anyone else has any questions, please feel free to ask.

Thank you
 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on November 27, 2009, 04:50:49 am
Hi ndonko - I agree. I wouldn't bring the two groups together either in this instance. As you know, some gypsies/travellers are easily excited and wouldn't be shy in throwing a right hander if someone was being rude.  :D
I used to be very involved with the travelling community but not so much now as I live Down Under. I still have very close gypsy friends to this day. I wish you well with your dissertation and I also appreciate your unbiased reply. It makes a change!  ;D
Please let us all know how you get on.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on November 27, 2009, 05:27:50 am
Ndonko - yes I think we would all appreciate a wide ranging study. This should of course, not only include the good points  ;D that the travelling community can bring to our society, but also to the reasons as to (1) why they feel, that some of their members, cannot leave their sites clean on departure ; (2) why there appears to be a public perception on why crime seems to rise when they are around [perhaps they have a logical explanation to these perceptions and must be given opportunities to explain their side of the story etc] and (3) why the more settled members of the community seem to get the perception that their property prices will drop when our cherished travellers occupy a site closeby.

It would be otherwise extremely unfair   :'(  if they were not given the opportunity to state their side of the story to these all too familiar, and probably, very 'unfair' questions that our settled members will wish to have answers to.   
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on December 07, 2009, 02:39:25 pm
Northamptonshire county council site has an interesting myths section about Gypsys and Travellershttp://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/councilservices/Community/gyp/Pages/Myths.aspx (http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/councilservices/Community/gyp/Pages/Myths.aspx)

They also seem to be doing a lot to bring communities together.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: crowman on December 17, 2009, 03:15:38 pm
 :icon_scratch: Have just looked at Northamptonshire County Council's website as suggested by
Peter Hastings's post. - but didn't realise that Enid Blyton was alive and well, and working
for their organisation. Have asked then to uregntly confirm is this is the case ?

Regards
Crowman
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Mr Green on December 17, 2009, 09:33:26 pm
Northamptonshire county council site has an interesting myths section about Gypsys and Travellershttp://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/councilservices/Community/gyp/Pages/Myths.aspx (http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/councilservices/Community/gyp/Pages/Myths.aspx)

This site has such gems as "Gypsies and Travellers have to comply with the same rules as the rest of society."

No s**t Sherlock. I didn't need the council to tell me that !   -   What matters is do they , not should they.

Northamptonshire go on to say "there is no evidence of higher crime rates among Gypsies and Travellers" - Has a study been done. Maybe they are more likely to commit crime; maybe they are less, whose opinion is this?

But, by my reckoning, this is priceless. "Homeless Gypsies and Travellers have to stop in unsuitable, often dangerous locations and are constantly moved on." - Is that moved on because they are trespassing under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and does this count as a crime for the purposes of the previous statement?






Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on December 17, 2009, 09:54:54 pm
Hi Nightlondon - Why don't you e mail them with your questions/statements and see what they say...
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on December 18, 2009, 03:44:03 am
Nightlondon - Hasn't it occured to you that people who break the law come from all walks of life, not just Gypsies and Travellers, and that includes bent Old Bill.

I don't suppose this will interest you, but the forecast on the bay here for the next five days is 32c and sunny.  8)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on December 18, 2009, 06:06:47 am
Nightlondon - well said relating to your post. Unfortunately I cannot say too much as it will censored - but you reflect my sentiments [and seem to get away with it, but not me  - how come Moderator x,y or z ??] - I believe it's the Council via their web link that HAVE to look as if they are protecting all in Society, regardless of whether its actually true or not. And do not even start me on whether the crime figures are more or not with Travellers around ...

Stevea - stick to the subject - 32c and sunny is bad for skin cancer and weathers your skin. A forecast of 27c and overcast where I am currently is far more sensible !!! And no targetting the "bent Old Bill" - that is against forum rules !!  :o Moderator ??? 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on December 18, 2009, 06:36:05 am
- Is that moved on because they are trespassing under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and does this count as a crime for the purposes of the previous statement?

Trespass isn't a criminal offence and it isn't confined to one group.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on December 18, 2009, 06:43:42 am
PS - Please don't twist my words...We all know that you don't like Travelllers and Gypsies, so why don't you go to the nearest travellers site with your A4 paper and your superglue and stick your pennies worth on their windows.

By the way, I'm very sun smart - "Slip, slop, slap...don't forget your hat"!   ;)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on December 18, 2009, 06:58:14 am
 
Quote
so why don't you go to the nearest travellers site with your A4 paper and your superglue and stick your pennies worth on their windows.
Thanks for the advice Stevea, there are other approaches  >:D FYI - I do not dislike Travellers - just their attitude to other members of the established community which as we all know has caused, currently cause and will continue to cause problems.

In a nutshell, if they are that well liked, then how many forum members here on this topic would welcome them in the heart of the village. Put simply, would you all accept a site next to YOUR properties ?

I bet none of you would.

And if so - WHY ?

PS
Quote
By the way, I've very sun smart - "Slip, slop slap...don't forget your hat"!
So I assume you can be considered a "slaphead" LOL ;D 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on December 18, 2009, 07:15:03 am
PS - Nobody has been in favour of a site. That was established a long time ago.

Slaphead....hmmmm....if I'm a slaphead, then I assume you must be considered a d*^%head!! LOL  ;D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on December 18, 2009, 07:28:04 am
Quote
PS - Nobody has been in favour of a site. That was established a long time ago.

Well now we have got somewhere !!!

We can all presume thus, that by implication of Stevea's statement, no one wants Travellers next to them, and hence are "disliked" in some way.

So why all the fuss about me making such "derogatory" statements against Travellers, when in fact the forum posters feel the sama way - they just can't say it.

Suggest the topic is now closed.

 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on December 18, 2009, 07:51:11 am
PS - No, we haven't got somewhere!!! Because people aren't in favour of this particular proposed site, it doesn't mean that all the people are against a travellers site elsewhere or dislike travellers. There you go again, twisting words.......

And why do you continue to suggest that topics should be closed when it suits you...



Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: southbury on December 18, 2009, 08:03:16 am
stop indulging him ..
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on December 18, 2009, 08:16:51 am
PS I am sure you know you are making a huge logical jump there with no safety net of facts. If like me you have read the consultation document which put forward the Bulls Lane site, you will know it is full of holes and contradicts itself. It also cost a lot of money which I feel was wasted.

There are lots of reasons why it is not the best place for any development at all including a travellers site.  My issues with the plans have nothing to do with the fact that it would be travellers there, but a lot moreo to do with the poorly planned imposition of yet more development in the green belt where for all we know, no travellers want to go anyway.

These are issues which should be debated because our community needs in my view to stop being dictated to like this.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on December 18, 2009, 08:25:36 am
Quote
PS - No, we haven't got somewhere!!! Because people aren't in favour of this particular proposed site, it doesn't mean that all the people are against a travellers site elsewhere or dislike travellers. There you go again, twisting words.......

Oh Stevea, so, so shameful !!!

So, just WHY are people not in favour of this particular site - but are prepared to have one elsewhere ? Is it a question of not having one near BP so "I'm all right Jack" but s*d everyone else if its on someones else's doorstep ?

Are the BP forum posters so like that ??? They do not dislike Travellers but simply don't want them near them?  Perhaps the BP forum posters could be considered somewhat "hoity-toity" !!!;D
Quote
stop indulging him ..
et tu Southbury - are those the only words you can put together for the forum topic [yawn,...]a repeat of a repeat etc.
Lets have some useful debate here !!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on December 18, 2009, 08:39:48 am
Peter Hastings.

We all know that no matter where you are in the country, there will ALWAYS be opposition to certain proposed developments. Most members of the community wherever you are, will ALWAYS find reasons to reject what they want to reject [the reasons can be personal eg loss of property values if a Travellers site is close by - I certainly would steer clear of buying anywhere of such a proposal - and I truly believe so would you and all the forum posters here] or they will accept because it gives them something [eg perhaps money to be made]

My belief is - that with the BP community, they are renowned for their "protection" of the village - probably discussed  around many a coffee table in houses throughout BP during these coffee mornings !! I can imagine attending one of these -

Veronica - "Oh no, no, no, its not that we dislike the travellers, oh, no, perish the thought, its just that it wouldn't be for BP"

PS - "Well why not..."

Veronica "Well, its not proper is it ..."

PS - "Yeah, but why !!!!!!!!!! Veronica "Eh, well, ehm ...oh..."

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on December 18, 2009, 09:14:02 am
PS - are you sure you're not politically motivated?  ???

Peter provided a frank and factual response...Southbury was fair in the statement.....Stevea was not being shameful.....yes, I'm sure many are proud of the BP community and that's nothing to be ashamed of...
but I'd say quite a few would feel offended by your take on coffee mornings...give some people credit where credit is due and stop pigeon holing....and by the way, I prefer tea!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: crowman on December 18, 2009, 09:14:50 am
 :( With regard to the comments of Forum members being censored - yesterday I posted a
quotation from Article 10 of the Human Rights Act concerning free speech, which has now been
removed. I simply asked if this applied if this applied to moderators. I can't see how this
European Statute could be considered controversial
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Mr Green on December 18, 2009, 09:33:57 am
- Is that moved on because they are trespassing under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and does this count as a crime for the purposes of the previous statement?

Trespass isn't a criminal offence and it isn't confined to one group.

If you wander into a farmers field then he (or she) can remove you as a trespasser and the signs that are often seen nailed to trees, such as "Trespassers will be prosecuted" are indeed incorrect as this type of trespassing is not an offence and therefore you can't be prosecuted.

However there are specific types of trespass where you can be prosecuted. The law has moved on. Keep up.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on December 18, 2009, 09:38:43 am
Quote
but I'd say quite a few would feel offended by your take on coffee mornings...

Naomi - its a fact of life - it happens !!! People simply protect what they have and send out whatever messages they wish to. Govts do it, corporations do it and so do individuals & communities. Many a time without apparent rhyme or reason.  

Of course some will be offended - as they wouldn't want to be pigeon holed into that category - no body does.

Crowman - to have your posting on Free Speech sounds like too much of a threat to the moderators - I assume that's why its been removed !!!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on December 18, 2009, 09:58:26 am
Crowman - Are you still actively courting buyers for your land at Station Road from the travelling community?

PS - shameful? please explain...

Nightlondon - Allo, allo, allo.....what's going on here then, evening all  ;D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: southbury on December 18, 2009, 10:18:04 am
stop indulging him
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on December 18, 2009, 12:11:52 pm
:( With regard to the comments of Forum members being censored - yesterday I posted a
quotation from Article 10 of the Human Rights Act concerning free speech, which has now been
removed. I simply asked if this applied if this applied to moderators. I can't see how this
European Statute could be considered controversial

In a effort to try and keep this on topic, I moved your post to a separate topic Censorship on this site  (http://www.brookmans.com/forum/index.php?topic=2399.msg19264) where it has received several replies.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on December 18, 2009, 12:17:55 pm
Stevea and PS, Please cut out the name calling, it is very boring.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on December 18, 2009, 12:32:02 pm
Quote
Stevea and PS, Please cut out the name calling, it is very boring.


Hey - John Fraser - comon' loosen up a bit !!!! It's harmless banter

And in case it escaped your attention, it is supposed to be the Season of Goodwill !!! 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Aidan Winwood on February 02, 2010, 04:54:32 pm
Hi,

Sorry Dave if this exists elsewhere, I couldn't find a similar sounding link...

Just under the railway bridge heading out of Welham Green the land on the right has been flattened and a large concrete slab set in place.  Anyone know what is going on here?  Something new being built?

cheers,
Aidan
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on February 02, 2010, 05:35:57 pm
Hope its not that threatened Gypsy site !!!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: chicken legs on February 02, 2010, 09:42:33 pm
I have it from the Green Belt Society that permission was granted in 2007 for demolition and erection of 17 stables in an Americal Barn style of building, plus a menage.

It will definitely improve the appearance, but is hard luck on the swallows that used to nest in the delapidated stables.

And it's good to know it's not housing.  We'll have to keep a check that noone lives in it for four years and outwits the planners  ;)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on February 03, 2010, 04:27:52 pm
I think the concrete slab is from the old Gasometer.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on February 04, 2010, 04:31:28 pm
The circular concrete area was the base of a now-demolished gasometer.  I think there is a picture of the gasometer in a booklet of old photos published by the NM Local History Society about 2002/3.  If I can get hold of a copy I will add the picture for you to see.

The approved stables will be for 10 horses, not 17 as I thought going by memory (bad habit!).  You can see the plans on http://publicaccess.welhat.gov.uk/rpp/index.asp?caseref=S6/2007/1009/FP (http://publicaccess.welhat.gov.uk/rpp/index.asp?caseref=S6/2007/1009/FP)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on April 07, 2010, 03:06:32 pm
As was strongly rumoured, over the Easter weekend 2 caravans were moved onto this Bulls Lane site, and a Transit type of van parked across the gateway presumably to prevent anyone else moving on site.  I understand that no action is possible because a planning application is imminent, and that it will be for 2 caravans plus a toilet block.  Apparently a septic tank has already been sunk, on the basis that it was to collect the urine from the horses!
 
If the planning application is refused it will no doubt go to appeal, then the High Court, then the European Court of Human Rights – the usual routine.

The NM Green Belt Soc has contacted Welwyn Hatfield Council about this, as have many others no doubt.  Unfortunately the history of such situations is not good, and could take years to resolve.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on April 07, 2010, 03:25:44 pm
I'm surprised the same thing has not happened at the site by Foxes lane.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Hillside on April 07, 2010, 05:12:10 pm
Well there's a rather unsightly prefab type of dwelling and some monstrous gates on Foxes Lane...
Where next???...on Bradmore Green??...keep any eye out for any concrete pouring! >:(
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: chicken legs on April 10, 2010, 08:55:43 am
The works that were carried out at the Bulls Lane site must have cost shedloads of money.  If they are travellers, they are very wealthy ones.  And presumably they bought the land as well.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: saffie on April 12, 2010, 10:06:49 am
Yesterday whilst driving down Bulls Lane (just before the bridge if coming from the Bell Lane end) there is a fenced area that is gravelled with 2 caravans in it.

Is this the Travellers Site? and if so does this mean that they are now moving in.  If this is the site it looks a lot smaller than everyone expected.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on April 12, 2010, 06:02:52 pm
Yesterday whilst driving down Bulls Lane (just before the bridge if coming from the Bell Lane end) there is a fenced area that is gravelled with 2 caravans in it.

Is this the Travellers Site? and if so does this mean that they are now moving in.  If this is the site it looks a lot smaller than everyone expected.  

Different sites.

The site on the east side of the railway bridge has permission to demolish the old stables and erect 10 new ones, subject to various conditions.  Subsequently it has changed ownership and the new owner is putting in a planning application as I stated above.  That application has not yet been listed by Welwyn Hatfield Council so there might be some technical problem with it.

The suggested site for 17 gypsy / travellers pitches is further east on the south side of Bulls Lane starting almost opposite to the entrance to Linden Lodge and extending eastwards.   You may recall that as part of the East of England Plan, councils were required to allow more camps and the final version of the Plan required Welwyn Hatfield to allow 17 pitches.  Consultants employed by the council could not fully recommend any site(s), but suggested that this Bulls Lane site could be suitable.  The council accepted the report but not the recommendations.  The whole issue is now in limbo pending the General Election results.    
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Hillside on April 13, 2010, 11:09:16 am
Took a walk down Bulls Lane yesterday evening and there are now 3 caravans in residence...toilet block has been painted ..basketball hoop installed...flower pots...childrens toys....

Doesn't look like anyone is moving on anytime soon.... :'(
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: peppermint on April 15, 2010, 08:44:49 pm
We have just driven down Swanland Road and approximately 15 caravans together with the obligatory white trucks have moved in on the field between the A1 and Swanland Road just north of Warrengate Lane.   Police are there.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on April 15, 2010, 09:57:51 pm
No police there now but predictably the caravans are.
Strangely they are extremely near one of the Hertsmere proposed gypsy sites just as the ones in Bulls Lane are near the Wel/Hat proposed site. Is their some sort of roadplan going on here?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on April 15, 2010, 10:54:15 pm
At a guess, I'm 99% sure that these Gypsies would not be connected to a proposed site. I'd say they are rogue Irish Travellers that have just been moved on from somewhere else. They know how to flaunt the law and they will probably stay there until the landowner has gone through the Courts to evict them.  My advice is to keep well away from them. They can be dangerous people if provoked. I suspect there will be a lot of door knocking in the next few weeks for extremely cheap tarmac driveways etc.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on April 16, 2010, 09:06:43 am
I have just driven past and they appear to have completely disappeared - maybe last night was just a bad dream!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on April 16, 2010, 09:11:52 am
They probably haven't gone far and are looking for firmer ground to pitch on because of their caravans.
It's good money for them to be earned with summer coming, especially in the North London area.
They won't be far away from a M25/A1 access etc.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on April 16, 2010, 09:55:29 am
I have just driven past and they appear to have completely disappeared - maybe last night was just a bad dream!

You know - this is a "politically independent" discussion forum - are you infering that this sector of our community shouldn't be here ? If so why not ? Think of the 'cultural diversity' that they will bring us all  ;D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on April 16, 2010, 12:05:25 pm
PS - If they are the two families I think they are, you wouldn't want to be super glueing your two bobs worth  on their window screens! You might end up in hospital for a very long spell! That's if you pull through!  ;D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on April 16, 2010, 12:59:43 pm
PS - If they are the two families I think they are, you wouldn't want to be super glueing your two bobs worth  on their window screens! You might end up in hospital for a very long spell! That's if you pull through!  ;D

No worries - I'll go in disguised looking like you, strutt my stuff and wait for the Contract they'll put out on You !!! ;D 8)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on April 17, 2010, 04:13:28 am
PS - The last time I strutted my stuff was probably at a disco back in the 70's!! If you were to moonwalk on to a Gypsy site, girating your hips at 90 degree angles, I don't think there would be any need for a contract. I think it would be all over there and then!  ;D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Mr Green on April 17, 2010, 09:02:52 am
It's good money for them to be earned with summer coming, especially in the North London area.

Doing what work?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on April 17, 2010, 10:25:11 am

 I am surprised at Steva intimating that these wonderful travellers could be violent. Has he not he always been telling us what a rich divesity of culture they bring to our sociaty, how they contribute by working hard and paying all of their taxes NHI and we should all welcome and assist them. ( I wonder who that was I used to pick up and take to Borehamwood DHSS to get payments and get paid by Herts council  take the children to school by cab whilst there was a Merceds parked outside the Caravcan)   

Opps, sorry I forgot, he lives 12000 miles away and it's not his problem or taxes, perhaps I can give them his address, theres plenty of room in OZ.
 
If there is one thing worse than do gooders, it's hypocrisy and the attiude of, thats fine, but not in my back yard.
No taxation, no representation.

Grumpy Old Roy
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Alex on April 17, 2010, 10:54:36 am
Grumpy,

very well put- thanks!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on April 17, 2010, 12:49:01 pm
Night London, Grumpy Old Ron and Alex. Just got home from a lovely Chinese meal with friends and family.
Thought I'd have a quick look at the site, read your posts which I found boring, out of context  :mblah05:
Yawn. Time for bed. Goodnight.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Mr Green on April 19, 2010, 10:37:46 pm
Just got home from a lovely Chinese meal with friends and family.
Thought I'd have a quick look at the site, read your posts which I found boring, out of context  
Stevea: Your pass irrelevant comment on where you’ve eaten before accusing others of being out of context.
Your previous post, which I referenced, implied they engaged in seasonal work which is particularly sought after or available around this locality. I merely asked what that was. How was that out of context?

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on April 19, 2010, 11:30:39 pm
Nightlondon - It's 8.30 in the morning here, and I'm just about to have bacon and eggs for breakfast. Smells delicious.  If you read my post properly, the answer is in Post No 2. ;)  Wake up London.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 26, 2010, 05:27:48 pm
There seems to be some serious liberty taking and complete disregard for the laws of this land especially when it comes to planning permissions and the abundance of hoop jumping most of us have to perform to get any building work done!

It seems that lady who owned the land just under 'Thunder Bridge' on Bulls Lane, where dilapidated stables once stood had recently flattened the area to rebuild some new stables. She then found it difficult to comply with the councils permissions and policies in relation to stables etc. She therefore sold the land for £80,000 to whoever.

The buyers of the land are Travellers and have added fencing, a gate, gravel, toilet facilities and their own letter box and name plaque of "thunder bridge yard".

They have also applied 'retrospectively' for permanent standing for two caravans through the council. Now this is the serious bit that really gets me.....

If you've been down there to have a look, you will see quite clearly that the land has been prepared for far more caravans than is being claimed for. The three caravans currently in existence are dwarfed by the shear size of the prepared area that they sit on. The council with there tortoise paced processes have started their pen pushing and have noted the distress of the local people, who have been complaining in their droves.

The process is very likely to be thus:

1. travellers are applying for retrospective permission to have hard standing for caravans (two has been quoted), this process can take as long as they wish until the council demand an application of intended works.

2. Council take 5 weeks to decide of which they are likely to say no (I believe it is now on the planning portal online on the WH webpage)

3. Travellers appeal the decision which could take up to 2 years to sort out.

4. Appeal process likely to say no

5. Travellers appeal to European Courts of human rights, which can take up to 3 years to sort out

6. ECHR likely to allow them to stay as they are very pro travellers

Basically, they are not going anywhere!!!

I'm afraid unless something is done in the short term, they are here for good and I can tell you, its not going to remain at two caravans for long. House prices will fall, people will struggle to sell, Brookmans Park will be equally affected.

The politician who comes knocking on my door and tells me that they will sort this out, gets my vote! Its literally come down to that.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 26, 2010, 06:09:19 pm
I know I'm not meant to be the only one contributing to this discussion on this topic, but I couldn't bare the fact that there is such a serious lack of knowledge and awareness regarding the sudden influx of travellers in the area despite the overwhelming community rejection of the East of England proposed traveller site plan of 2009 focussing on unsuitable sites in Welwyn Hatfield.


Despite our actions, a group of travellers have snuck under the radar and set up camp anyway!!  This needs awareness and support as much as possible, as this group are doing there upmost not to be moved by playing the system we all have to abide by.

Please support this post so we can gather the overwhelming rejection once again to deal with this serious issue.

Thanks for your time. Sorry for banging on about this but I think you can tell I am seriously p****d off about this!!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on April 26, 2010, 06:16:47 pm
I have removed two posts because in my view they appeared to blame crime on one section of the community. Please do not post uncorroborated accusations.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on April 26, 2010, 06:22:06 pm
I have removed two posts because in my view they appeared to blame crime on one section of the community. Please do not post uncorroborated accusations.

Of course John- how remiss of me.

All -watch this space ................
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 26, 2010, 06:25:51 pm
UPDATE

Rumour has it that the currently dilapidated stables and horse fields directly opposite the Traveller site 'Thunder Bridge Yard (TBY) on Bulls Lane are to be flattened and hard standing laid like the TBY site ready for more Travellers. Now this new site is almost five times the size of the current problem and can accommodate potentially 30+ caravans with plenty of leg room to spare.

Now if people think that Travellers are a temporary thing, you are seriously ill advised and let me just remind those who live in Brookmans Park who may think that they are not affected by this, think again.

Is that better John? Sorry for any confusion of references perceived



Edited to comply with forum rules
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on April 26, 2010, 07:04:09 pm
 
 Thank you Secularian for alerting us to the traveller’s arrival in Bulls Lane. We will now have two problems, one will the illegality of the site through building and planning regulations and the other one will be the suppression of the truth.

Why is it wrong to point out that the overwhelming evidence of certain social patterns that emerge with the arrival of Travellers? This is not discrimination, but borne out by numerous examples of court cases and the constant breaking of planning laws by many of the travelling community. JF, by suppressing genuine feelings you are contributing to the growing anger of the British people to this slavish adherence  of these stupid EU PC laws, anyway what gives you the right to decide why honestly held robust views cannot be posted?

If, and only if, crime does increase in the near future, will you apologies to the victims and compensate them?

The Roman Empire after hundreds of years of existence, completely collapsed in a mere fifty years through complacency, (now called PC) then fast forward 2000 years !!!!

Grumpy Old Roy
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 26, 2010, 07:11:11 pm
I have found a document from the House of Commons Library that may help highlight this issue.

Its called Gypsies and Travellers: unauthorised development

Go to: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsc-03248.pdf (http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsc-03248.pdf) to view it yourself (its quite a read)

In a commons debate John Baron MP quotes and describes the type of case that arises:

A lesser known but growing danger is posed by unauthorised development, especially by the travelling community, which buys and quickly develops land without planning permission. There was a good recent example at Sadler's Farm roundabout... It involved a large field next to a roundabout in the green belt that was bought by the travelling community. There is nothing wrong with that. It is still within the law, but one Friday a 6 ft earth mound was created around the perimeter. On the Saturday, hardcore was laid, and on the Sunday, caravans and vehicles, including heavy vehicles, moved in. By the time the council reacted with stop and enforcement notices on the Monday, it was too late. Consequently, we have entered a lengthy planning and appeals process. Meanwhile, the illegal development continues to this day. Similar situations have occurred in Hovefields in Wickford and Oak road in Crays Hill. All three areas are in my constituency.

We are in trouble!!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on April 26, 2010, 07:27:40 pm

Thanks for your time. Sorry for banging on about this but I think you can tell I am seriously p****d off about this!!

Secularian - certainly nothing to be 'sorry' about - rest assured, we all feel like you. The problem is two- fold (a) tackling the issue and (b) dealing with all the PC. 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on April 26, 2010, 08:09:12 pm
Roy & PS,

If you do not like the rules of this board, or at least are not willing to abide by them,  I suggest you set your own  board up. If you lack the technical knowledge to enable you to do this then I am willing to help.


John
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 26, 2010, 09:15:56 pm
The document above and the plethora of similar cases highlighted around the country, quite clearly show that local authorities are toothless or frightened to act to rid the problem, just in case they offend human rights or upset illegal living conditions.

Because of this we law abiding citizens have to put up and shut up with our job lot despite being subjected to this unacceptable situation.

What are we supposed to do about this issue if no law or agency can help us?



Edited to comply with forum rules
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 26, 2010, 10:03:51 pm
I was waiting for someone to ask....

As luck would have it I was walking past one day last week when I had the opportunity to speak to a man who was on the site at the time, strolling between caravans. I enquired with the man as to what was happening to the site and were the stables likely to be built here again.

The man answered in a strong Irish accent "who the f**k are you?" and "are you from the council?" and "this is our land now and we can do what we want with it, so keep your nose out of our business".

Take from that what you will,  but to me he seemed pretty negative about the moment. I had written more about the confrontation but this has now been removed.


Edited to comply with forum rules
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on April 26, 2010, 10:55:26 pm
I have made a number of edits to posts that contravened forum rules in terms of being defamatory, discriminatory and inflamatory.  The guidelines are here http://www.brookmans.com/guidelines.shtml (http://www.brookmans.com/guidelines.shtml)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on April 27, 2010, 08:34:49 am
Roy & PS,

If you do not like the rules of this board, or at least are not willing to abide by them,  I suggest you set your own  board up. If you lack the technical knowledge to enable you to do this then I am willing to help.

John

John - please can you sya what I have said wrong in the posting as below

Secularian - certainly nothing to be 'sorry' about - rest assured, we all feel like you. The problem is two- fold (a) tackling the issue and (b) dealing with all the PC. 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on April 27, 2010, 09:14:21 am
Although I notice that previous references to schools have been removed I thought that this was relevant (and true.)
About 10 years ago Essendon primary school which has/had a number of kids from the local Gipsy site on the A414
had to install panic buttons/alarms in the classrooms because of the climate of fear caused by physical assaults on the staff by the Gipsy parents.
Consequently we moved our child to another school.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Aloo on April 27, 2010, 09:25:08 am
Quote
Has anyone contacted our local councillors or MP to discuss this. If so what has been the response?

The Councillor email addresses are on the Welwyn Hatfield website (www.welhat.gov.uk (http://www.welhat.gov.uk)).




Edited only to fix quote box
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Hillside on April 27, 2010, 10:05:29 am
I've looked at the Wel Hat Planning portal but cannot find the retrospective application...could you please let me know where this is?
 :icon_scratch:
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on April 27, 2010, 10:13:06 am
There are indeed some very serious and genuine concerns to be raised here - and I do hope that Secularian's apparent "confrontation" with our 'new neighbour' was dealt with in the correct manner and reported to the Police, not that I expect any action of course. But to keep a log of such matters [i.e. time, date, place, and nature of incident] can sometimes prove of value as time passes by.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on April 27, 2010, 12:49:06 pm
Roy & PS,

If you do not like the rules of this board, or at least are not willing to abide by them,  I suggest you set your own  board up. If you lack the technical knowledge to enable you to do this then I am willing to help.

John

John - please can you sya what I have said wrong in the posting as below

Secularian - certainly nothing to be 'sorry' about - rest assured, we all feel like you. The problem is two- fold (a) tackling the issue and (b) dealing with all the PC. 

How about you stop playing silly games. I did not remove that post. The post of your's I removed made uncollaborated accusation against a group of people.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on April 27, 2010, 01:30:37 pm
Of course John - and if the worse happens ? As Grumpy has said............social patterns...............
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 27, 2010, 02:27:26 pm
Stevea

I have among many contacted the council regarding this issue. They have informed me regarding the situation as it stands that a someone has purchased a piece of land , conducted unauthorised building upon it and are now retrospectively applying for planning permission. This application is currently being reviewed and is open for comment (I too have searched the planning portal at WH website, but it has not been posted yet).

Regarding what they have done wrong:

This is a recognised illegal process that has been used frequently in recent years, where Travellers knowingly buy land, then undertake unauthorised development, relying upon delays in the planning enforcement system and appeals process to remain on the land for as long as possible. Then they apply to the ECHR and usually win on appeal due to the fact that they have occupied the land for such a long period its considered against their human rights to move them.

I also agree with epiphany that the schooling issue is current and realistic problem and it is also part of the ploy for supporting their appeal at ECHR by forcing the council to school their children by automatic placement at the nearest school and that in this case is Brookmans Park Primary School, which will prevent them from being moved.

Regarding who they are:

I deduced that from speaking with them and the social demeaner that they displayed (and the accent gave it away also)

Unlike you, I don't believe that there is any scaremongering going on, instead I believe I am making people aware of what could be potentially a big issue for all of us.



Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: sasquartch on April 27, 2010, 02:31:11 pm

I also agree with epiphany that the schooling issue is current and realistic problem and it is also part of the ploy for supporting their appeal at ECHR by forcing the council to school their children by automatic placement at the nearest school and that in this case is Brookmans Park Primary School, which will prevent them from being moved.


The nearest school (by distance travelled by road rather than as the crow flies) is St Mary's in Welham Green
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 27, 2010, 02:42:57 pm
On this point you are right, however, I had mentioned in the post that was edited (that you probably didn't get a chance to see), that TBY is actually inside the catchment area for Brookmans Park Primary School, that is a fact!

In terms of prioritising places, schools like other institutions must undertake government targets to set a small percentage of their intake for underprivileged children and offer places automatically to those who have poor family backgrounds.

After Siblings and nursery school kids have taken their allotted spaces, children within the catchment area are next in line.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on April 27, 2010, 03:05:32 pm
Unlike you, I don't believe that there is any scaremongering going on, instead I believe I am making people aware of what could be potentially a big issue for all of us.
Secularian - we fully appreciate what you are conveying to us, and the fact that you say the process is illegal immediately does very little to behold ourselves to our new neighbours - and of course does little to re-assure us in the trust that they would remain legal afterwards, should the worst case scenario happen. Some of course, would disagree, but I remain unconvinced
What do you suggest can be done to ensure the local community protects itself from such an eventuality, and by the same token of course ensure that we help the Travellers themselves remain protected from the intricacies of the law ?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 27, 2010, 03:40:45 pm
Tumbiliboo

I have added the majority of this discussion topic to Grant Shapp's forum site, as yet there has been no response from him directly. I have also tweeted him on his twitter page, to which he replied but only that a tory government would prevent retrospective planning from occurring in these circumstances, that went no way to helping our cause.

I have a friend who is trying to consult with Kieth Pieri and I am awaiting that result. Other than that, I haven't actioned any more as yet.

I am also awaiting a meeting with the Green Belt Society in North Mymms to support us in a leaflet drop across Welham Green and possibly Brookmans Park to rally support and awareness of this issue for those that do not visit either of the web forums.

Is this an action that people would support dependant on the context of the leaflet being accurate and non inflammatory etc?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: sasquartch on April 27, 2010, 03:45:17 pm
After Siblings and nursery school kids have taken their allotted spaces, children within the catchment area are next in line.

Just a small point (probably not relevant to the current discussion), I think you'll find that nursery pupils do not get any priority for primary school places even if they attend a nursery attached to a school.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 27, 2010, 03:47:17 pm
Quote
Just a small point (probably not relevant to the current discussion), I think you'll find that nursery pupils do not get any priority for primary school places even if they attend a nursery attached to a school.

Yes, that used to be the case, but Brookmans Park Primary have added that priority point to September 2010's intake.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: sasquartch on April 27, 2010, 03:54:50 pm
I stand corrected  :)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 27, 2010, 04:05:52 pm
I would like to know what our political parties would do about this problem.

Below is a section taken from the document posted above referring to a tory plan to deal with this issue. Will Grant Shapps support this proposal if he were to be re-elected?

The Conservative Party plan, March 2005

On 21 March 2005, Caroline Spelman announced a new policy for dealing with illegal Traveller camps:

Last November we began consulting on the best way to deal with illegal traveller camps. Today we can announce a seven point plan to deal with both illegal and unauthorised development, to give stronger rights to local residents and to ensure planning controls are fairly enforced for all.

First…we are reviewing the so-called Human Rights Act - if it cannot be improved, we will scrap the Act.

Second, Conservatives will give councils the power to refuse applications for retrospective planning permission. This will stop the cynical manipulation of the planning system by travellers or rogue developers who wilfully ignore the rules.

Third, we will make traveller trespass a criminal offence as they have done in the Republic of Ireland. This will stop local residents having to pay up to evict travellers from their land and give the police a fast track system to evict illegal occupiers.

Fourth Conservatives will give councils new powers to ensure the rapid removal of caravans from illegal sites, and allow the courts to levy larger fines to stop travellers from profiting illegal developments.

Fifth we will extend councils powers of compulsory purchase, where the land is the subject of a continuing breach of a Stop Notice. This will protect local residents.

Sixth, we will provide clearer, more effective guidance for the police. Mr Blair's Government's new guidance is a trespassers' charter, restricting the ability of the police and councils to take action. We will issue revised guidance, undoing John Prescott's changes, and encouraging police to tackle criminal or anti-social behaviour on traveller sites.

Finally, Conservatives will give local people a greater say on where sites go. We oppose the imposition of arbitrary quotas on councils to provide traveller camps. We will abolish the unelected regional assemblies and regional housing boards which now threaten to silence the voice of local communities.


Sounds fairly robust but is it likely to see the light of day?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on April 27, 2010, 04:59:05 pm
Sounds like common sense to me, and fair that ALL sectors of the community are treated the same.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: AnneK on April 27, 2010, 06:25:15 pm
I've just been reading through this thread and am a little anxious about weighing in, because this whole subject is so contentious. Still, I did wonder, when I read Secularian's initial post, if anyone has ever has ever gone to the courts arguing that their human rights are being infringed by a development that has not acquired planning permission.
 
I mean, why not? The courts should recognise everyone's human rights. It doesn't seem correct that any group should be able to circumvent laws that the rest of us must abide by. Also, unauthorised and unplanned development of any kind puts unexpected pressure on an area's infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc), as epiphany points out. A travellers camp of four people, or whatever it is, may not make a huge impact. However if the numbers swell, as Secularian believes they may, it's a different story - especially at a time when resources are so stretched.

Anyway, just musing . . . I know very little about travellers, the planning process or human rights law and am certainly not out to get anyone. I just think everyone's human rights ought to be considered and respected in situations like these. I really hope that they are, and that no segment of society is getting preferential treatment.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 27, 2010, 08:47:32 pm
I would encourage anyone who wants to explore some criminal court cases and adjudications in relation to this subject, then the document I have posted higher up on this thread, is a good place to start. Actually I will add it here too:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsc-03248.pdf (http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsc-03248.pdf)

PS, you asked what options we have in relation to this situation....

Politically its either a vote winner if a candidate gets involved who thinks it can be solved quickly or it could be viewed as too difficult or complicated with no realistic end in sight and avoided at all costs. I tend to lean towards the latter, as it could potentially go on for years and not many MP's or councillors have the stamina or endurance to stay the course or even be in office long enough to see it to a satisfactory conclusion (please prove me wrong on this).

Legislation is one way but is heavily dependant on the councils stance (whether militant or liberal) on how a situation like this should be handled. From what I have experienced the district and county council seem pretty liberal and have clearly not responded quick enough to serve a stop notice to prevent this situation developing as far as it has done. The fact that they are allowing them to apply for retrospective planning is a sign I believe that either they don't know the law or the obvious pitfalls themselves and are buying time to re-educate themselves and/or take advice from central government or they are jobsworths and again do not actually realise that they are playing straight into the hands of the travellers and cannot see that it will result quite evidently in years of bureaucracy and subsequently make an utter mess of the whole thing.

Public outcry and Pressure Groups can be decisive in a lot of well reported scenarios and can force councils, MP's into a corner by using the media to its best advantage. However, this does hinge on the number of pro-active individuals willing and able to rally the majority who also have to have the impetus to support the cause.

There are other options but I am sure they would be edited from this thread.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 27, 2010, 09:16:46 pm
Hello Stevea

I think the only thing that will swing it for you one way or the other is that you pop down and experience the site and the occupiers yourself. I think at the conclusion of the visit (if you manage to speak to someone) you will be assured that this is what the last 34 posts have described it to be.

All though some how I don't think it will in your case....
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 27, 2010, 10:00:04 pm
I noticed that Cheesemonster started a thread regarding Building Works next to Welham Green Train Station. Is this yet another case of someone flattening land, preparing the ground and laying hard core all without permission?

Now that is a huge piece of land and according to Bob Horrocks they have been reported to the council. I wonder what their intentions are if in fact they have been prevented from continuing?

For reference, if you were to extend along that piece of land following the train track towards Brookmans Park, you would find that within 500 metres or so of that site, you would find yourself at the current Travellers site at TBY.

Coincidence!?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 28, 2010, 03:52:02 pm
Stevea

The land that has been occupied is entirely surrounded with a brand new concrete post and gravel board supported 5 foot wooden fence with a double 14 foot wide gate adjoining Bulls Lane at the original dropped kerb entry point.

The fenced area has had hardcore and gravel laid to produce hard standing with ablution facilities in the shape of a portacabin in one corner. Three caravans have been set down in a semi circle along the far south side of the area allowing parking for numerous MPV's and white goods vans in front. I do not believe that the gate is robust enough to prevent other travellers from muscling in, but then again if someone wanted to get in to any enclosure of this type, nothing is good enough to stop a motivated individual.

In terms of whether the site is considered secured is open to opinion of what the definition in this context is, as no obvious locking mechanism on the gate is apparent.  There is potential given the arrangement and space that other travellers could either settle here with permission of the others or as you say muscle in. Despite either of these situations, there are travellers insitu and they cannot remain.



Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 28, 2010, 05:40:27 pm
UPDATE

Having recently spoken again to the Planning Department at Welhat Council, they have provided me with some more information and insight into the Planning departments processes regarding Fox's Lane site and the two Bulls Lane sites (including TBY).

Fox's Lane site behind Welham Green Train Station has now been taken over by the son and cousin of the late owner who used to own the site. This family are members of the travelling community and moved in illegally during the 1930's and have remained on this land despite council injunctions and compulsory purchasing processes which concluded with no resolution recorded. In terms of the activities on this land, the son has replaced an old mobile home with a new one which is allowed (like for like apparently), but have built a gate and surrounding brick entrance and fence and have laid extra hardcore which requires planning permission. They are now applying for retrospective planning permission for these new developments and for extra hard standing for 'vehicles' (caravans are included in this terminology). I have surmised from the conversation that it could be an issue in terms of caravans being added to the site once the land has been prepared. Definitely one to keep an eye on, if so inclined to do so.

In terms of TBY, a family of travellers have legally bought the land and have prepared it for their needs. They are now in the process (as I mentioned in the first post) of applying for retrospective planning permission. The planning department are in the process of validating the application but unfortunately have not been provided with the appropriate information to complete the validation. They have requested that the family through a representative provide the remainder of the information, but he is unfortunately on 'holiday' for an unknown period.

The process will be, once the remainder of the information has been received the application will be reviewed (5 weeks minimum) and a decision made upon the application*. If the application is refused, the travellers then have 3 months to decide whether or not to appeal the decision. If they then appeal, this process will last between 6 and 12 months and again may or may not determine a refusal to the original application.

*At this point the community can write to planning@welhat.gov.uk to add their concerns regarding the application (ref: Thunderbridge Yard). The council will only accept comments on the application as long as they do not make reference to non politically correct aspects and stereotypical views of travellers and the social and moral issues that form part of some peoples perceived ideas of travellers and the problems they may bring.

At this point the council may then serve an enforcement notice to force the occupiers to leave the land and return it to its original condition. This process can be appealed and could take another 6 months to reach a decision on the suitability of the enforcement conditions. These conditions will factor on; the ability of the travellers to find appropriate land to move to; the type and severity such disruption will have on the family; and the disruption to the schooling of the children if they were attending a local school at which they had settled.

Many applications of enforcement fall at this hurdle as the human rights of the family tend to overshadow the overall decision which usually leads to an incomplete or stalled process.

The other piece of land on Bulls Lane opposite TBY is due to be flattened, but no knowledge of what will be done with the land at that point.

The Planning department also made reference to the use of temporary stop notices brought in to deal with unauthorised purchasing and development of land by gypsies and travellers. I was informed that a court judgement ruled on a similar case that local authorities cannot now use the legislation for this purpose. What a joke!

The clear and unequivocal conclusion to all of this is.......any land (brown field or green belt) that is purchased by travellers but illegally developed for the purposes of supporting the caravans of travellers, the community affected haven't got a leg to stand on. In terms of TBY, they are not going anywhere!

I feel very saddened and deeply disgusted by the councils position, the legislation that is not fit for purpose or protects communities from these situations and the clear manipulation of the law by travellers who are completely untouchable in this circumstance. Many transcripts exist in the public and government arena which document time and time again this type of scenario and how gypsies and travellers disrupt stable communities and cause terrible stress and anxiety for the many residents affected.

Whether you agree or disagree with the affect travellers may or may not have within a community, nothing will change the way prospective buyers will view them especially when it comes to trying to sell your house, or the way parents may view them when they are introduced to the same class as your child (this is not inflammatory, just what I believe to be the mainstream view of it).
 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on April 28, 2010, 07:57:59 pm
Dear Secularian,

Thanks for such thorough and informative research.  And thanks for respecting and adhering to the forum rules regarding what is clearly an emotive issue of concern to local residents.

Regards

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: AnneK on April 28, 2010, 08:56:49 pm
Secularian, have you had a fuller response from Grant Shapps on this yet? No doubt he's busily formulating one, but it would be helpful to hear his - and the other parliamentary candidates' - thoughts on the subject before the election.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 28, 2010, 09:11:12 pm
AnneK

Funny you mention it. I sent a fairly lengthy email yesterday to grant@shapps.com of the tone and station David Brewer would be proud of.

I highlighted the situation and the subsequent concerns that have been expressed to me and those of my own. I also raised the expectation of the piece of Conservative policy I attached higher up in this thread and asked (and if he was re-elected and a Tory government does in fact scrape through), would he support the policy and see it through the commons as a white paper.

I have yet to receive a reply.....
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on April 28, 2010, 10:03:40 pm
I have seen Grant Shapps and indeed Mike Hobdays names appear on the front page of this newsletter in the 'Guests and Members currently using the forum' section several times in the last few days so they are obviously looking but strangely neither one of them seem to want to comment on this or any other thread.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 28, 2010, 10:19:41 pm
From your last post Annek, I thought I would do a bit of research into all the main party manifestos and policy documents and see which if any have this type of issue on their agendas.

Please believe that I wish to support the forum rules by ensuring it remains apolitical, so do not plan to expose one party over another etcetera etcetera.

I have scanned through both the Labour and the Lib Dem websites and have found no references to travellers, gypsies, unauthorised planning, that feature within the current context or any policy documents that mention in whole or in part the prominent words searched for (incidently the Labour website doesnt have a search function so found it doubly difficult).

The Conservative website had the following:

It’s time to stop exploitation of the planning system, by Bob Neill, Shadow Local Government & Planning Minister, Monday, February 15th, 2010 .

On Friday, I announced new policies to tackle the growing problem of illegal development, something which has proliferated under the Labour Government.

For too long a small minority of travellers and squatters have been given the green light to exploit the rules and occupy illegal or unauthorised sites, which are often on Green Belt land.

The Government’s own figures show that as of January 2009, a massive 1,279 unauthorised travellers are ‘tolerated’ and court decisions, coupled with weak planning enforcement powers, have created precedents that give travellers the green light to establish encampments on greenfield land.
The British public want to see fair play for all but Labour’s changes to the planning system have undermined community cohesion by creating a legitimate sense of injustice for those affected by illegal development.

To address this we would:
Introduce a new criminal offence of intentional trespass, which would be enforced by the police, as is already in place in the Republic Of Ireland. This is designed to ensure that landowners don’t have to go through the civil courts to evict travellers and squatters, which is an extremely slow and expensive process.

We would also curtail the ability to apply for retrospective planning permission. This will stop the practice of people laying down concrete on weekends or bank holidays and then putting in a planning application (currently, planning enforcement cannot commence whilst an application is pending).

John Prescott’s unfair Whitehall planning rules, which are compelling councils to build traveller camps on the Green Belt and compulsory purchase people’s land to find sites, would also be scrapped.

And, as we have already announced, The Human Rights Act will be replaced with a British Bill of Rights to prevent ‘human rights’ lawyers sidestepping the planning system and demanding special treatment.

Law-abiding citizens understandably have to jump through many hoops to build in rural areas but there are too many loopholes that let a small minority exploit the law. I am confident that our proposals to rebalance the system will bring fair play back into the planning system.


This seems fairly similar to the extracted text I removed from the other document posted on the first page of this thread, just updated.

I have not dug any deeper into other minority parties, for obvious reasons.

I am fairly annoyed that the other two main parties do not even mention anything regarding this type of issue apart from Labours East of England Plan to force councils to identify land for travellers.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 28, 2010, 10:53:17 pm
I have just been informed that the final tri candidate debate for WelHat is at the William Cecil Memorial Hall, 1 French Horn Lane, Hatfield this Sunday (2nd May) at 1930 hours (no tickets required).

I think it might be a good opportunity to pop along and ask a question or two regarding this issue directly to the candidates to generate some form of response on the matter.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 28, 2010, 11:06:39 pm
Stevea

Your 4 posts seemed to have disappeared from this thread....?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 29, 2010, 04:52:17 pm
This is the reply from Grant Shapps regarding the email I sent him two days ago.

Thanks for your e-mail. We have updated our Gypsy and Traveller policy since that time (2005).

1.   We will ban retrospective planning application such as the one that is now in for Bulls Lane.
2.   We will increase the powers of local authorities and police to act where land has been trespassed.
3.   We will replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights which will stress the rights of the wider community rather than individuals.
4.   We will remove housing targets including the regional targets which force local areas to provide unnecessary Traveller/Gypsy provision on greenbelt.

This happens to fall within my area of policy as Shadow Housing Minister.

I can tell you that at Bulls Lane an application has been received by the local council which is of course having to be considered under the current inadequate legislation.

Best wishes,
Grant.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on April 29, 2010, 05:04:52 pm
This is the reply from Grant Shapps regarding the email I sent him two days ago.

Oh - so nothing of significance apart from words.

Great .....
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on April 29, 2010, 05:22:17 pm
I think the only constructive element of the reply apart from what we already knew about the Conservative policy regarding Gypsies and Travellers, is that it is clearly within Grant Shapps's remit as Shadow Housing Minister, so something that he could and should get directly involved with.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on April 29, 2010, 05:27:33 pm
 Secularian.

Well done, well done, well done. It’s now up to all the  local communities to make their feelings known and not leave it to others. We will of course have some who think the travellers are being victimised, but the law should apply equally to all.

This could be the beginning of the ordinary citizen’s fight back if our MP’s and councillors have any sense of justice and the courage to challenge the current laws regarding travellers who take over land illegally.  

Thanks Secularian,

Grumpy Old Roy

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on April 29, 2010, 05:30:40 pm
I think the only constructive element of the reply apart from what we already knew about the Conservative policy regarding Gypsies and Travellers, is that it is clearly within Grant Shapps's remit as Shadow Housing Minister, so something that he would and should get directly involved with.

Yes I agree - but as we all know, this takes time, and in no way can guarantee any success. In the meantime the damage will be done, AND THEY KNOW IT !! Perhaps alternative approaches need to be considered.  
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on April 29, 2010, 05:31:14 pm
Dear all,

I have removed the Direct Action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action) option from the choices laid out in the poll.

The forum agreement  (http://www.brookmans.com/agreement.shtml)and the site's guidelines (http://www.brookmans.com/guidelines.shtml) make it perfectly clear that such a suggestion or call to action is outside of the accepted behaviour on this site.

Thanks to all for abiding by the forum's rules.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: AnneK on April 29, 2010, 05:53:41 pm
Secularian, thanks for all the information you've posted over the past few days. I'm glad Grant Shapps took the time to reply to your email. It's good to know a bit more about Conservative policy on this. Maybe Shapps's responsiveness will encourage Mike Hobday and Paul Zukowskyj to chime in also . . .
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on April 29, 2010, 07:40:05 pm
I have merged this thread with four existing threads on this topic.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on April 30, 2010, 07:38:26 am
What we need here is a more efficient and properly enforced planning system which takes full account of local views and priorities.

What we dont need is yet another criminal offence for the police to run around enforcing. The enforcement section at WHBC is usually understaffed so we need more enforcement officers to deal with breaches of planning and leave the police to deal with crime.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 01, 2010, 02:17:01 pm
Following Secularians' great analysis on this issue - have we heard anything more about this?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on May 03, 2010, 11:04:56 am
Hello all on this fine Bank Holiday morning...

The candidates debate yesterday evening at the Cecil Memorial Hall in Hatfield was fairly insightful into the candidates view points on various topics, but unfortunately due the question and answer process, it was not possible to have questions put to the candidates regarding unauthorised development and travellers.

On arrival there was an opportunity to submit questions of which the parish clergy would then vet for quality and accuracy purposes.

I submitted three questions of which one specifically focussed on this issue (the other two focussed on Humans Rights Act and Broken Britain):

"What are the candidates views of unauthorised development on land purchased by travellers and if voted into government, what would you do to change the law to tackle the blatant exploitation of planning legislation that is clearly not fit for purpose?"

Unfortunately this one was edited out (maybe the clergy thought it was too contentious a subject), which goes to show why this society must remain secular!

If anyone else was there, did it not look like the independent candidate Nigel Parker needed to be slurping on a pint rather than looking slightly out of place on the panel? (I suppose this post could be linked to Davids General election thread aswell).

Remember, keep voting in the poll at the top of this thread. It surprises me of the hundreds of views this thread gets per day, only 9 people have voted since I generated the poll 5 days ago.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on May 03, 2010, 11:27:42 am

I thought this email I received from Grant Shapps yesterday would be of interest -




I Just wanted to let you have a quick update on a couple of Welham Green issues.

First of all the campaign against that incinerator in South Hatfield continues. I've now collected over 2,500 petition signatures both on doorsteps and at www.SaveNewBarnfield.com (http://www.SaveNewBarnfield.com)

I'm meeting with the various companies bidding to provide the Energy from Waste plant to express the extent of local concern and present the petition. Interestingly at least one is indicating that if they're chosen then this isn't their top location. So this fight is not lost!

I also wanted to provide a quick update on the various traveller sites causing concern locally. There are essentially two unrelated issues.

One is that the government is requiring each local authority to make more gypsy/traveller provision. In Welwyn Hatfield the figure handed down is 17 more pitches. You may recall a couple of years back that some consultants recommended some local green belt as the best location. A view not shared by Welwyn Hatfield Council itself.

The second issue relates to a site in Bulls Lane where a retrospective planning application has been received for alterations already made.

So here's something important to bear in mind. If Conservatives win the election on Thursday we are going to scrap this government's top-down housing targets which include that legal duty to provide 17 new traveller pitches on our green belt here.

Secondly, we will ban retrospective planning applications in nearly all circumstances, apart from genuine errors. This will prevent some people from playing the system.

Anyway, I thought you’d appreciate the update on these two issues.
 
Warm regards,
Grant.
 
P.S. I've been working closely with Cllr Keith Pieri on the above two issues, as well as the car parking mayhem on Hawkshead Lane. Following this work, I'm pleased to report that a planning application has been submitted by the RVC in conjunction with a police authorised Clearway Order to prevent the road side parking. An end to the parking nightmare is now in sight and should be in place for the September term.

..............................................
Grant Shapps
Conservative Candidate for Welwyn Hatfield

Maynard House, The Common, Hatfield, AL10 0NF
t. 01707 262 632

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 03, 2010, 11:35:04 am
Secularian - if your very valid question was "edited"as you say, then what chance is there of ANY success that 6 out of the 9 people (as per your questionnaire) who have suggested Lobbying, is the best approach and likely to succeed ?

I really think that alternatives (within the law) have to be considered against those perpetrators (outside the law) to have any chance of success. Unfortunately we cannot fight like with like (re : fire with fire) , as the two are at opposite ends of the poles - and the travellers know it !!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 03, 2010, 07:20:00 pm

Unfortunately this one was edited out (maybe the clergy thought it was too contentious a subject), which goes to show why this society must remain secular!


Absolutely, I hope discussion is not being contained on religious grounds - that would make no sense at all.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Birch on May 04, 2010, 01:24:23 pm
Has anyone noticed what looks like a small gypsy site that has appeared recently. It's along Skimpans alley/road and was previously a stables, but it was recently hardcoared and I thought they were going to rebuild them, but there are now 3 or 4 caravans parked on the site. It's very visible from the trainline.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on May 04, 2010, 04:55:12 pm
Birch

Its what we have been chatting about for the last 40 or so posts on this thread. We are well aware of it and are trying to come up collectively with some measures to deal. Have you voted in the poll?

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on May 04, 2010, 09:27:58 pm
PS

Forming a public pressure group (in my view) is potentially the only way legally and morally we can potentially succeed in dealing with this issue from a community perspective. Yes an attempt was made and failed last Sunday evening, but to be honest, that was hardly die hard lobbying in its true sense especially when the militancy, single focus and passionate drive was absent (purely down to the fact that I feared excommunication and damnation if the god fearing element felt that my interests and views were far exceeding their editorial controls).

I think its fair to say (in my view) that the local authority have not the political will nor the tools to solve the issue, unless they are given new legislation by a new (blue) government that might one day pass new laws. When I say blue (tory), they seem to be the only party (I am aware of) that have set down fairly robust suggestions on how they would deal with this problem.

Leafleting will generate awareness for those who read their junk mail and pizza menu's and not much more (and a few less trees to boot).

Doing nothing (in my view) is just a community spiritless cop out and typical bone idleness and that ignoring something might just make it go away. You could say forming a pressure group is just a complete waste of time, but I feel like I would be doing something with similar minded people for the rights of the larger community whether or not it actually achieved anything in the long run. I would rather try something that I thought might make a difference than watching those that should be doing something, doing nothing at all.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on May 05, 2010, 02:59:01 am
Secularian - I would have thought that the Poll breaks forum rules and to be honest, find it quite offensive.
No matter what your feelings on Travellers this seems to be turning in to a vendetta.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: sasquartch on May 05, 2010, 09:35:40 am
Secularian - I would have thought that the Poll breaks forum rules and to be honest, find it quite offensive.
No matter what your feelings on Travellers this seems to be turning in to a vendetta.

Not sure why you are offended.

What we are talking about here is a group of people breaking the  law - whether or not they are travellers or some sort of ethnic group is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 05, 2010, 09:39:40 am
I think the question is offensive and racist

"What should be done to solve the problem of Travellers in the area?"

Perhaps it should be changed to

"What should be done to about illegal Travellers sites in the area?"

I am able to edit the poll title, but that may not then be a true reflection of the votes cast.

So the best solution is to delete the poll and start again with the new title.  However, I am not sure who posted it.

David



Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 05, 2010, 09:48:57 am
Secularian - I would have thought that the Poll breaks forum rules and to be honest, find it quite offensive.
No matter what your feelings on Travellers this seems to be turning in to a vendetta.

I agree with Naomi and have changed the poll, given it a new heading and cleared all the previous votes.

The question now is "What should be done to deal with illegal Travellers sites in the area? "

Anyone who voted in the past is now able to vote again. 

By the way, I have also removed the option that stated..

"Something but not any of the above" because it suggests taking action outside the democratic process.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Birch on May 05, 2010, 01:39:56 pm
PS

Forming a public pressure group (in my view) is potentially the only way legally and morally we can potentially succeed in dealing with this issue from a community perspective.
Leafleting will generate awareness for those who read their junk mail and pizza menu's and not much more (and a few less trees to boot).


I agree that we should raise the communities awareness by leafleting or an article in the lcoal newspaper.
 Why should they be allowed to stay when there was an application to build an eco-house on greenbelt land in BP that rejected a few times - that house was to be part sub-merged so wouldn't have been visible. Now travellers pitch up with caravans, toys, washing lines that are very visible in the green belt and expect to stay illegally. It's just not right.

I remember when a group of travellers pitched up at WG train station car park a few years ago. They were rude, aggresive, abusive, threatening and left piles of rubbish and excrement in the train shelters, car park and even on the steps.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 05, 2010, 01:54:14 pm
Birch - would you have any idea how long they were pitched up at WG train station - and how they were eventually removed ? This might give us a clue as to how to deal with the current problem.

But I agree - the current lot hould be removed in view of the fact that they are deemed illegal and frankly shouldn't be there
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Birch on May 05, 2010, 02:07:45 pm
It took at least a month or two to move them on. They were evicted by the police for trespass as the car park did not belong to them, but to FCC.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: pbafc on May 05, 2010, 03:52:15 pm
Hi all.
New poster here, hope that is ok ?  :)

 I have been following this forum topic closely over the last week or two as I live very near to this illegal site and have been interested to hear peoples views on it. Not a great deal I can add to this, apart from letting you know any info that I have gained:

1. I have also been in touch with Cllr Keith Pieri and the 'Gypsy section' for Welwyn and Hatfield (didn't even know this existed!) to be told the same as everyone else that has contacted the council - that the site is illegal and retrospective planning permission has been applied for.

2. I also posed the question about the other land next to Welham Green station that to me looks in the process of getting ready for more travellers to set-up here - Keith Pieri told me that so far the residents already there have been fairly straight with them about other matters and he doesn't feel that this will be the case, although they have built a wall and gate illegally  ???  He did say however that if travellers do turn up here and (again) apply for planning permission retrospectively then there is not a lot we can do about it until the planning permission has been looked at by the council, and then through the long process that Secularian and other posters have commented on.

Nothing new here I know, but just showing that there are others in WG that are not too happy with this situation  either :( 

Whatever views we hold on the travelling community, and lets face it these are fairly hard to voice sometimes without being deemed un-PC or racist, we have to remember that this site is illegal and I don't think we should stand back and watch the law, that we all have to abide by, being flouted in such a way. I would therefore agree that certain action within the confines of the law should be taken whether it be a public pressure group, leafleting, or just voting conservative to get the laws changed :) - and would be more than happy to help.

Thanks for your time and I hope I kept within forum rules :)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on May 05, 2010, 05:28:47 pm
I was interested to read  a newspaper article about a village in Warwickshire called Meriden where on Friday gipsies attempted to do the now well rehearsed method of first buying greenbelt land, then moving on just before the Bank Holiday and submitting a planning application just before the council closes for a long weekend.
The locals realizing that the next stage would be the laying of hardcore, formed themselves into an action group called Residents Against Inappropriate Developments (RAID) and working on a rota system, began a round-the-clock vigil outside the 8 acre field. They successfully turned away 90 lorry loads of hardcore - about 1800 tons from the site, preventing its construction.
The villagers have secured a temporary 'stop notice' preventing the gipsies  - who want to build 14 permanent pitches - from doing any more work for 28 days while their application is considered.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on May 05, 2010, 06:03:30 pm
Now thats what I call community spirit! :)

Coming together for a shared cause to prevent illegal activity on purchased green belt land. Not sure if that type of spirit is present in North Mymms and BP ???

Or am I wrong?

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 06, 2010, 07:10:36 am
AAAhhhhhh....... Secularian......now THAT's music to my ears....thinking and acting outside the proverbial Box...get action groups together...none of this political namby pampying ...all these votes above expressing lobbying etc. Waste of time..

And I certainly do agree that there is NOT that kind of spirit in WG and BP - and the Travellers KNOW it !!!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on May 06, 2010, 08:56:04 am
"Action Groups".......hmm....meaning what exactly?  The BP/WG Vendetta Club?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 06, 2010, 09:14:23 am
"Action Groups".......hmm....meaning what exactly?  The BP/WG Vendetta Club?

As the travellers are illegal, then they should be removed - action groups as in Meriden are legal

So what's the problem ?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 06, 2010, 09:49:53 am

As the travellers are illegal, then they should be removed - action groups as in Meriden are legal

So what's the problem ?

It's important to get the wording right here.  

Travellers are not illegal, they are part of our community and have rights as we all do.

The actions of some travellers, as with some of us who live in houses, may be illegal. The are processes in place to deal with illegal actions.

Action groups working through the usual legal channels are probably more likley to be seen as operating legally.

Those working outside that framework, and taking the law into the own hands, may risk taking action that is deemed illegal.

In the end, two wrongs may not make a right.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 06, 2010, 10:06:37 am
OK - let me make it clearer : the ACTIONS of the travellers on that particular site has been deemed ILLEGAL. The action group in Meriden was LEGAL. So can ANYONE explain to me why a similar legal approach should not be adopted in this particular instance ?

Its not a question of saying "two wrongs may not make a right" - its a question of one right putting the wrong to rights.

Because if this cannot be resolved quickly, then we will have trouble brewing.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on May 06, 2010, 10:46:32 am
The constant bickering and nit picking is becoming a little tiresome!

I know what you meant PS, I also understand Davids angle to keep it all within the rules, I understand your views pbafc and I agree with sasquartch on naomi's point.

Can we stop getting so precious over a clear issue that exists and instead of continually looking for someone to blame other than the perpetrators, get on with discussing what we are going to do about it as a community. If you dont see it as a problem, dont get involved, simples (squeak)

I bet the action group in Meriden didn't suffer from all this continual clarity of circumstance, continually trying to justify the definition of the illegality of the situation they faced and the actions they should take, what affect or appearance RAID may be perceived by those who think it is some sort of vendetta or underhanded persecution of a minority group either through racial or xenophobic means. No, I imagine they got together pretty rapidly and got on with the job they felt they had to do for the sake of their community!

Can we do the same here?  I would like to propose a similar group of like minded people from our community (its not a vendetta naomi), for protecting the rights of the settled community here in this area of WG and BP and let those who wish to operate under the radar and play the system, that we the community will not take this lying down (remaining on the legal side of the law). I also invite naomi to be part of the group, to keep a balanced opinion and to make sure that it truly is not some sort of which hunt, otherwise we will not hear the end of it (thats a GENUINE offer naomi)!

It seems due to the daily hits on this thread that potentially hundreds of people are interested in this topic (pbafc has joined the debate for one). Who else has the urge to join this discussion and would like to add their weight to support those in the community who want to do something about it (and I am not referring to heavy people)?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Pescarese on May 06, 2010, 11:09:46 am
I agree. I think this issue is being clouded by the fact that the land on Bulls Lane has been bought by "travellers" . It seems that some contributors to this forum are worried about appearing bigoted for opposing this because the new owners of Thunderbridge Yard are from an ethnic minority. For the same reason, local politicians seem to be pussy-footing around the issue.
The only important thing is that the owners of this site are flouting planning laws and the local council are not acting on this. If we turn a blind eye to this, we'll just be giving a green light to anyone else, "traveller" or otherwise to buy green belt land and do whatever they like with it.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 06, 2010, 12:08:53 pm
Secularian / Pescarese - I agree...lobbying politicians will simpy achieve nothing.

Secularian, what would you have in mind concerning the approach and methodology that the Action Group should apply ?

I think the posters afterwards may feel far more comfortable if they see that the "Doc Martin's & Knuckle Duster" approach is NOT the Action Groups intent ?

PS
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Clark Griswold on May 06, 2010, 01:29:46 pm
@ pbafc and others...

Also coming in off the sidelines for my first posting.

As an observation this is my reading of the comments on this:

1 As presented the primae facie objection is that planning regulations have not been adhered to.
2 Those breaking them acknowledge this by applying, albeit retrospectively, for permission.

Other than that what crimes have been committed, I can see no other issues in play here that are of any standing.

To contemplate anything in addition would be to second guess the law that is claimed to be so strongly supportted, or be based only on a supposition of law breaking that has not yet happened, or some form of discrimination.

Therefore, what exactly is the purpose of the group or lobbying that is proposed?
What exactly is being pussyfooted about?
A shared cause or your cause?

Having said the above, I fully appreciate that it will not sit well with the torch and pitfork crew, but I reckon on being mentally strong enough to take my chances.

CG
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 06, 2010, 01:42:21 pm
I remember when a group of travellers pitched up at WG train station car park a few years ago. They were rude, aggresive, abusive, threatening and left piles of rubbish and excrement in the train shelters, car park and even on the steps.

Other than that what crimes have been committed, I can see no other issues in play here that are of any standing.

So Clark, with the kind of "culture" travellers seemingly bring up and down the country, that we have ALL experienced at some point, you see no issue ??? Can you explain ?

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on May 06, 2010, 01:42:37 pm
Other than that what crimes have been committed, I can see no other issues in play here that are of any standing.



Dear CG

Surely the crime here is against the Greenbelt, something that was created to improve the quality of the environment for all.
It is not there for whoever feels like it to cover in hardcore, vans, caravans, gas bottles and all the other stuff that is required to set up a permanent living place.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Clark Griswold on May 06, 2010, 02:04:00 pm


Sorry PS but you seem not only au fait with traveller culture but you also are a dab hand at seeing the future. I was given to understand that you were worldy wise and widely experienced - have you perhaps in addition to your many credits first hand experience of the traveller community, maybe even a spell with the circus is some form of fortune telling capability.

If not, you are at best sitting in judgement on things that have not yet happened, heaven help you if bump in Mr Brown and he still has his microphone attached.

@ Epiphany - that was already covered, and is before the authorities
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 06, 2010, 02:41:31 pm
Sorry Clark - but established patterns of social behaviour have become the norm with certain sectors of society - (and this doesn't only apply to Travellers) - if you would care to read and delve into some of the history and tales about that section of society, then you don't need to be a "dab hand" at seeing the future.

So taking the soft option is your preferred approach is it ? You don't see a problem ? You think the kind of experience that Birch has had, and the raping of the Green Belt land and total abuse of the planning laws that Epiphany refers to, is not an issue ? And you think that if all is done and dusted, and the Travellers have settled, they will merely change the ways of thousands of years overnight ?

Finally, your comments and sudden appearance on the Forum suggests to me that you may well be one of those new travellers that just arrived ?

   
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Pescarese on May 06, 2010, 03:07:14 pm
Clark, you're quite right. It may well be that Thunderbridge Yard will be rebuilt as stables and the two fields that have been churned  up and flattened by Welham Green station are going to be turned into some sort of park or nature reserve which will make Welham Green an even more pleasant place to live. I'm just a little bit cynical that's all. I specifically chose to live where I do because of its proximity to green fields and nature and hope to remain doing so. That is my cause, it's true.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on May 06, 2010, 03:08:26 pm
Sparky (Wilhem)

Its clear that you have an agenda.

Seen and noted.

(N.B. If you haven't gathered CG, I am referring to you, hence your pseudonym)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Clark Griswold on May 06, 2010, 03:58:33 pm
@PS

PS the apologies for the confusion are accepted, though last I looked the law is reactive in that respect, rather than proactive - shoot first and ask questions later approach that some suggest.

I don't believe I offered any options, soft, hard middling or other merely observed on the position of some in respect of the law and its use as a shield against criticism of prejudice.

If the only proven contention is that of breaches in planning process, which are already being addressed, then your position is untenable and without base.

To your suggestion that I may be one of the new travellers that have just arrived. I would refer you to the earlier and more elegantly presented suggestion.

CG
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Clark Griswold on May 06, 2010, 04:03:23 pm
I had heard that PS was a force to be reckoned with, but it seems that three posts are all that are needed to expose him. PS, suggest you mug up on a little Mr So Crates

CG
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on May 06, 2010, 04:28:14 pm


.

@ Epiphany - that was already covered, and is before the authorities

What with, hardcore?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Clark Griswold on May 06, 2010, 04:32:46 pm
Excellent response and I'm glad you caught that, if there was a smiley shaped like a drumkit I would have there isn't so  ;D will have to do
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on May 06, 2010, 06:52:24 pm
Its clear that you have an agenda.

Seen and noted.


And you don't?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on May 06, 2010, 10:44:16 pm
Clark Griswold - I'm pleased you've written in...I was beginning to get a complex!!  ;)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on May 07, 2010, 01:17:57 pm
Naomi, Stevea and Sparky?

Why dont you stop acting like you need to defend someone and get real. The words and phrases you use are a very familiar and you seem to feel that you have to adopt the stance of protecting a persecuted section of society and seems to be something you are familiar with.  Your not very good at covering your deceptive activities are you! What people are probably not aware of is that you do not even reside in the UK let alone BP or WG.

I apologise for inviting you to the action group naomi (stevea), as I imagine the journey would be too tiresome and costly for you!

PS

Don't rise to these baffoons, that's probably the only enjoyment they get.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 07, 2010, 06:49:17 pm
I have just removed a post because it fell outside the forum guidelines on trolling and flaming (http://www.brookmans.com/guidelines.shtml#forum).

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on May 07, 2010, 08:08:30 pm

 
I am at a lost to understand how anyone can defend the flouting of local planning laws and the desecration of the green belt. Travellers are not part of the community, or show any desire to be so. Being part of a community brings responsibilities of obeying the law, paying taxes, local and national, contributing to sociaty and going along with the social and moral codes of the local community.

Why is it that travellers find it so attractive here? It is because their government of origin do not allow these abuses of the law. It’s our very generosity and moral cowardice that allows these flouting of planning regulations that supersede the rights of the law abiding majority. It is wrong wrong wrong and cannot be defended or argued.

Increasing events over the last few decades have proved conclusively that our hospitality and laws are continually being abused, aided and abetted by misguided intentions, wrong doing cannot be excused by playing the race card. How many more illegal sites in BP, WG and WGC will it take to demonstrate that continual adherence to PC and refusal to face realities just do not work. In fact, it positively encourages others to come here knowing that not only will there will be no penalties for flouting the law, but some will actually defend their right to do so.

Secularian, you can count on my support and no doubt all of the other realistically pragmatically minded residents of BP & WG.     

Grumpy Old Roy
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 07, 2010, 09:15:13 pm
Roy,

Two points stand out from your latest post.

1) Many travellers live here. This is their country of origin.
2) Travellers are not the only people to apply for retrospective planning permission. Nice, white, middle/upper class families in detached four bedroom houses do it too.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Therock on May 07, 2010, 09:18:35 pm
Well Said Grumpy Old Roy, Seclurian speaks for a lot of us.   GOOD OLD BRITAIN
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 07, 2010, 09:23:35 pm
Seems as though some are getting their racist/immigration rants mixed up with their travellers/gypsy rants. One at a time, ladies and gentlemen, please.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on May 07, 2010, 09:31:46 pm
I say David.....

You've got your work cut out

I must agree with you on this one. Those who are supportive of this 'movement' need to be a little more careful in their phraseology as sometimes it can, as above, be seen as being less than a credible standpoint even though the original intention of the post tends to be spawned out of innocence rather than veiled bigotry (or so I hope).

I wouldn't want another group of liberalist nincompoops picking at the bones of throwaway comments.

Lets keep to the straight and narrow and support the majority who want to address the original issue of "travellers in Bulls Lane playing the system for their own ends despite the affect their having on the settled community".
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 07, 2010, 09:36:09 pm
Secularian,

There appears to be three sentiments being expressed in one thread ...

1) Concern about alleged flouting of planning laws
2) Travellers and gypsies settling locally
3) Immigration levels

Some posts appear to be attempting to address multiple issues, which gets confusing.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 08, 2010, 08:13:18 am
In an effort to try to prevent posting off topic or cross threading, here are some of the existing threads addressing some of the issues being touched on in this thread.

It would be helpful to use the appropriate thread for discussing specific issues. 


Another reason for trying to keep the specific threads on topic is that, when mixed, sentiments could come across as discriminator and defamatory and will have to be removed or edited to comply with forum rules.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Clark Griswold on May 08, 2010, 08:53:55 am
@ Grumpy:
You are lost, so lets map it out. Having the flaws in your logic brought out is not an attack, nor is it a defence of a view which opposes yours. It does however draw out, separate and expose the true motivations of those without the courage of their convictions to express themselves honestly.

So bravo for standing up and being counted. And bravo for upholding the patriotic and democratic alternative view to the liberal nincompoops who blindly abide by the laws of the land, first struggle and then pacifism eh.

@ Secularian:
(Shhh) I think you best have a word on the entre nous with Roy, he's going to bring the "movement" into disrepute. (p.s. if you going to have uniforms it may just swing it for me)
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: naomi on May 08, 2010, 09:42:35 am
Secularian – I really don’t know why I am even thinking of justifying myself here, so please don’t try and intimidate me or associate me with others that write into this forum. I find it very insulting….and it is a form of bullying. It is my choice to write what I believe are balanced remarks on the forum…you do not have to agree with me, nor I with you. At present, all I know from reading your comments is that you are anti-Traveller, not just a Site…that’s your prerogative….but your statements are those of an agitator, and I think that is wrong.  I really don’t care if you agree with my view or not, but I repeat, I will NOT be bullied or intimidated by your words. As for everyone else who has mentioned my responses in the last week or so, you have your opinions and I have mine…however, I respect your opinion and do not reply in an antagonistic fashion unless I am provoked to do so. I’m a bit too old for playing games. I do however know what it’s like firsthand to come from a minority background. You’d think some of us would have learned from the past by now. Ironic really, it always seems to stem from land (humans are still tribal) and perpetuating fear.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on May 08, 2010, 11:13:58 am
Oh dear, Oh dear, is it me that is going mad. The issues are blindingly simple, if people wish to move into the community, then fine, but they do so on the clear understanding that there are social and legal rules that have to be followed. What’s wrong with that?
There is irrefutable evidence that the travelling community wish to follow a way of life that is generally incompatible with the local community, how can that be defended? Quite rightly, I have had to go through a rigorous set of local planning applications to build an extension, why should these laws be allowed to be flouted by the travelling community.

David, you remarks both 1 & 2 are just Semantics, ask any traveller what nationality they are and the answer is always Irish, but what ever origin of birth, rules have to be followed. So please answer me this in good old plain Anglo Saxon English, how many travellers’ sites would you allow in BP and what strictures would you place on them?. 1.3.10 20 sites, perhaps on the fields between Bluebridge and Hawkshed, why not? If that’s too many, then surely the nub of the question is, if travellers wish to live a life that is incompatible with the local community, then one is too many.
Griswold, I fail to understand the remark about uniforms, I thought that for those that live here this was a grown up debate.

Grumpy Old Roy
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 08, 2010, 11:38:09 am
Once again, Grumpy has spelt it out fairly and squarely. And here's a "WHAT IF" - I would be interested to hear how David and others would view caravans on the BP Green !!! What reaction then ??? And what is the difference from that as opposed to what the travellers are currently doing now ??

As for Chris G - before I understand anything he writes, he needs to come off riding clouds, surfing lava and level out - come off what he is on - otherwise ........."BKUHKA"  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 10, 2010, 08:07:33 am
Grumpy old Roy. A lot of travellers I have come across have families in this country for generations but are ultimately gypsys from Eastern Europe and indeed beyond, never having been near Ireland. I am not sure trying to judge the people by their perceived ethnicity is going to help in any way.

Retrospective planning consent is a bit of a nonsense except in cases of genuine minor error and I think I am right in saying that Grant would cut down its use if he got to become housing minister. It is also right in general terms that planning laws should apply equally to all citizens.

I am also unsure where you are going with your issue of incompatibility with the local community. How are you judging that compatibility? What base standard are we using?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Clark Griswold on May 10, 2010, 11:36:24 am
@Grumpy-
I didn't realise you had got lost, but if if helps here are the footnotes of that journey:
"the alternative democratic and patriotic view" - home page of the BNP website
"first struggle, then pacificsm" - Mein Kampf, on the chosen few taking control and spreading their flavour of happiness
"the movement" - brother Secularian
"uniform" of the brown shirted variety

@PS-
Well done.
Ownership, Use, Approved Use, - can you spot the perpetual flaw in your What If

@Peter-
Thank you
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on May 10, 2010, 12:13:18 pm
"first struggle, then pacificsm" - Mein Kampf, on the chosen few taking control and spreading their flavour of happiness

I hereby invoke Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1

Corollary:
Once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has lost the discussion.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Clark Griswold on May 10, 2010, 12:38:03 pm
Technically - MK predated the chairmanship of that particular party by what was its is final leader by about five years, and the uniform is that of the facist   ::) - therefore care was excercised in not referencing that which should not be referenced and in fact no metion or reference was made to the unreference or unmentionable until the reference was mentioned by John -  :P

Hope that clears up any confusion, though not sure what that means to the thread......

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on May 10, 2010, 01:06:52 pm
He-who-must-not-be-named became chairman of the unnamed group in 1922 and Mein Kampf was written in 1926.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Clark Griswold on May 10, 2010, 01:37:54 pm
Ah fair point....... but....... that person set out his stall in a published 25 point programme in 1920 as the precurssor to MK......... perhaps a historical society may be called for. :icon_scratch:

Godwin aside, the comparrison was apt, no?

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Secularian on May 10, 2010, 01:44:05 pm
This has now gone way too far....

In essence, what is being referred to here is that persons within the community who feel concerned or uncomfortable that travellers who have recently arrived in Bulls Lane and for some are clearly playing the planning law process for their own ends, are facist bigots who should be wearing the brown coloured uniforms of the nazi party and associated with references and doctrine from Hitler et al!

I am now highly highly offended by these references of CG's and cannot believe that a moderator is also actively fanning the flames by allowing such references to continue and (from a member who is clearly taking the XXXX) go directly unchallenged!

How dare you!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 10, 2010, 01:58:36 pm
Secularian - I agree 100 % - but then that is what I expect our newly arrived traveller CG to say. What more can you say.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Clark Griswold on May 10, 2010, 02:35:18 pm
My comments were merely observational, based purely on the views as set out by those so offended by those observations.

Your arguments are at best weak and when challenged are exposed as such. You cry foul and seek protection from the rules you flout yourselves.

I will now voice an opinion, anyone who evaluates and legitimises a person's right to enjoy the freedoms afforded to them by the rule of law, or argues that their needs and rights are of a higher worth than another's based on social standing  is to be abhorred and pitied in equal measure.

In the recent lifetime of this thread no law has been broken (other than the planning situation which is in process) and yet your attitudes remain unchallenged.

How dare I, are you suggesting pistols at dawn or some sort of sword play on the green? If you are too mentally weak to defend yourself I suggest you stop treating this as your own personal playground where you and your chums can bully people into submission.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 10, 2010, 02:53:46 pm
Hi everyone,

I am afraid a lot of this recent back and forth went straight over my head. I thought JF was just quoting from a light-hearted theory that all long-running forum debates usually end up with similar conclusions. I am afraid I didn't really understand CG's response - sorry if I am a bit thick.

However, I didn't pick up a suggestion that other, law-abiding and concerned local residents were being indirectly labelled as fascists.  If so, clearly, that would be unacceptable. We should not cast aspersions on others just because we don't agree with them.

So, perhaps JF and CG could clarify that was not meant, and, if appropriate, revise their posts.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Clark Griswold on May 10, 2010, 04:13:36 pm
@PS
For clarity, I have never been nor am I a "traveller". I know that statement must disappoint, though I'm sure you hold us both in equally high an esteem. 

For David, I am in total agreement with you and confirm the clarification of the intent was as you suggested

It may also be helpful if those who feel offended similarly set people's minds at rest by confirming that they do not hold such antisocial views. PS, Grumpy, Secularian, what do you say?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 10, 2010, 04:44:10 pm
This thread is a merge of a number of threads that have been started over the years about the provision of traveller and gypsy sites in the community.

More recently, the thread has focused on some local building work that it's claimed members of the travelling community may have undertaken without, it's alleged, having applied for and been granted planning permission - and the fear that, left unchallenged, it may be repeated.

I am not up on planning law and do not know the ins and outs of this case. However, some feel strongly enough to use this forum to try to ensure planning regulations are not abused.

So I would be interested in hearing more about 1) what the local authories are doing about it, 2) how the planning rules are currently being enforced, and 3) what action can be taken retrospectively if people flout the planning laws.

It would be good if we could keep posts on topic and concentrate on these three issues.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on May 10, 2010, 05:31:38 pm

 The forum is not accepting my latest posting, says it exceeds over a thousand words, not so.
What am I doing wrong??

GOR
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: John_fraser on May 10, 2010, 05:36:37 pm
Godwin aside, the comparrison was apt, no?

No. Defiantly not. There's not much common ground between Roy and me, but I would never have the bad taste or lack of common sense to  compare him to Hitler.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 10, 2010, 06:01:09 pm

 The forum is not accepting my latest posting, says it exceeds over a thousand words, not so.
What am I doing wrong??

GOR

Hi Roy,

Just edit your post back a bit.

I set the limit for posts to 1,000 characters a few days ago. The aim was to stop people going on too long because a) if they hadn't made their point in 1,000 characters they are unlikely to make the point in another 1,000 characters, b) they were in danger of going off topic or into a rant and c) it cuts down the work for the moderators who now have to read less.

1,000 characters gives you about six fat paragraphs to make your point.

 :)

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on May 10, 2010, 09:12:16 pm
The main point here is that top down planning rules and directives on travellers dont work. Enforcement of planning breaches is understaffed and undermanned.

Ethnicity and compatibility are not relevant.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 10, 2010, 09:57:26 pm
Secularian and Clark Griswold.  I take it you both live in WG and know each of each other. I used to live there on and off. I’ve sent you both a personal message.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Aidan Winwood on May 10, 2010, 10:58:19 pm
Roy,

Two points stand out from your latest post.

1) Many travellers live here. This is their country of origin.
2) Travellers are not the only people to apply for retrospective planning permission. Nice, white, middle/upper class families in detached four bedroom houses do it too.

David

And in Brookmans Park, far more on average.

Whatever my views on the taking over of empty spaces and travellers reputations / stereotypes, I have seen a number in local watering holes and there has been no trouble / they seem to keep themselves to themselves and have been perfectly polite to staff and other customers.

As with all people I meet in my life, I shall give them the same chance anyone else would get and would prefer to do this and be let down than not to give them a chance at all.  And it has often been rich, 'well-to-do' people who have often let me down before.

Yours,
Aidan
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 11, 2010, 05:18:37 am
Aidan - I totally agree with you.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Clark Griswold on May 11, 2010, 05:38:08 am
@JF
You misunderstand, my intent was not to offend you, but if any iffence was caused I apologise. The comparison did not involve you, rather the others and opinions put forward by them. Though not too sure where taste comes in to it, discrimination is discrimination and any comparison if any was aimed at how that discrimination was and is justified.

Stevea I'm in BP also fairly sure I've not made your acquaintance and I would certainly recall knowing anyone as distinctive as Secularian

Aidan, a good point well made, I agree

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 11, 2010, 07:13:30 am

 The forum is not accepting my latest posting, says it exceeds over a thousand words, not so.
What am I doing wrong??

GOR

Hi Roy,

I have increased the character count a bit, so you should be okay now. 

Dave
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on May 11, 2010, 11:40:16 am

 PH
I am at a loss to understand why and others continual make use of minutiae to shoot down us good guys and thereby assist the bad guys, unintentionally, or intentionally to break the law. I believe you are aware of exactly what I am attempting to convey, if not, read my previous post on the responsibilities of living in a community.
 
You are aware of course of the saying, The way to hell is paved with good intentions, so why is if so difficult to see that your misplaced good intentions are the very reason that we have ever increasing numbers of travellers moving into communities like ours. The liberal idea that everyone has the same good values is the very reason those values are being abused and taken advantage of.

If I moved next door to you and proceeded to have all night parties, left stripped old cars and caravans in the front garden, concreted over green belt land, all without permission, would you not concede that is being incompatible? Well that’s what thousands of law abiding rate paying citizens of this land have to put up with.

Whilst I agree that the law of the land should, advantage every one and disadvantage no one, life aint like that. Witnessing the ever increasing illegal sites spring up unfortunately aptly demonstrates that, being Mr Nice Guy does not work and we are rapidly becoming the disadvantaged.     

So for the good of us all, let’s apply a bit of good old fashion common sense before it all gets out of hand.

Remember, when it’s to late, it’s then to late.     
   
Grumpy Old Roy
 
 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Clark Griswold on May 11, 2010, 01:53:26 pm
Roy - on the matter of hell,  the devil is in the detail.....

And whilst your tempered tones are appreciated, "responsibilities of living in a community"," being Mr Nice Guy doesn't work", "communities like ours", "we are becoming the disadvantaged" these aren't exactly the minutiae of your case, they are you main planks and seemingly part of your valuation of common sense.

Questions:
-Who defines the "good guys"?
-Who defines and enforces these notional "responsibilties"?
-Who should be "Mr Bad Guy"?
-Who defines, polices, acts as the gatekeeper to "communities like ours"
-Who is responsible for define advanted and "disadvantaged" - either qualitatively or quantitatively?

By the way, I'm thinking of holding a birthday bash in the not too distant future, it may go on a bit, do I need permission? As the self appointed arbitor of standards in the community is there a chit that I should fill out, guest list, catering, wine list - perhaps you could advise.

CW
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Pescarese on May 11, 2010, 02:11:28 pm
I do wonder if anyone would be in favour of the flouting of planning regulations if the land in question had simply been bought by a local property developer who had decided to build houses on it even though this was green belt land.
I simply don't buy into the idea that travellers are some kind of oppressed and misunderstood minority who need to be treated more favourably than anyone else. They may well  be in all other ways law-abiding  citizens but the fact is they are not using the land for its intended purpose and this is something that should be addressed.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 11, 2010, 02:14:33 pm
I simply don't buy into the idea that travellers are some kind of oppressed and misunderstood minority who need to be treated more favourably than anyone else.

Hi Pescarese, welcome to the forum.

I am not sure anyone is saying the above. The issue here is one of planning regulations, whether or not they have been flouted and, if they had, what will be done about it.  I don't get the sense that anyone is suggesting any section of the community should get treated more favourably than others.

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 11, 2010, 02:30:06 pm
IF we assumed that the travellers had legal rights to planning permission, then how would the local authorities view the fact that caravans would be next to residential bricks ad mortar ? After all, trying building something that is compatible with the immediate surroundings and planning consent would refused.

So how would the travellers expect to get away with the fact that they could simply park up their caravans next to housing ?   
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on May 11, 2010, 02:46:43 pm
IF we assumed that the travellers had legal rights to planning permission.

No need to assume, PS, this piece offers an interesting view of this issue from the travellers' perspective.

http://www.gypsy-traveller.org/planning (http://www.gypsy-traveller.org/planning)

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on May 11, 2010, 03:01:56 pm
Thank you David - indeed, interesting ............
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Grumpy Old Roy on May 11, 2010, 05:36:35 pm

 
Clark,
You sound much too articulate and intelligent not to have understood my meaning, however, let’s try once again.
My interpretation of the good guys,
Those that conform to known laws, national and local, pay their taxes; play their part in the community by doing what they can. Helping local charities, watching out for ones neighbours, the elderly, those less fortunate than most of us. Understanding that to live in social cohesion rules have to be adhered to.

Defining social responsibilities is, living  ones life in what is considered the norm to live in harmony and being aware that every action has a consequence. Social responsibility cannot be enforced, but a disregard for what is unlawful can, and should be enforced, (lawfully of course)

The bad guys are those that show a flagrant disregard for the above. That really should not take any working out or explaining.

I regard the disadvantaged are those that are, through no fault of their own on the underside of life's wheel of fortune. However the difference should be self evident.

As for the birthday bash, you should have noted that I said parties every night (by the way, when is the birthday bash and do I have to bring my own Jack Daniels) The only chit needed will be for the sausage rolls or do you only partake champers and caviar!!!! See, we can all be contentious.

Grumpy Old Roy 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on May 12, 2010, 05:03:18 am
Thank you CG.  I haven’t heard from Sec(ularian), maybe he’s going to ring me instead.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on May 12, 2010, 09:57:27 am
The enforcement section at WHBC is usually understaffed so we need more enforcement officers to deal with breaches of planning and leave the police to deal with crime.

I think PH has hit the nail on the head here. The issue seems to be not only the breach of planning regulations but more importantly the lack of enforcement, a weakness certainly in this area that is clearly taken advantage of (not just by Travellers).
There was an interesting series on the telly called 'The Planners' that gave an insight into the workings of a planning department, and certainly when unauthorised development was identified, and ultimately refused, demolition orders would be served and owners ordered to remove/demolish the develpment. If they refused to comply within a certain time frame the council would send a team to demolish and charge the owner for the privilege!
Is the WHBC enforcement section understaffed?
Are they possibly a bit of a soft touch?
I know of no unauthorised developments in this area that have ever been enforced to this extent, do you?
A classic case of playing the system I can think of is a property on the junction of Bell Lane/Bulls Lane (what is it about Bulls Lane?) where a piece of greenbelt land was advertised for grazing use only. It was purchased and subsequently a planning application was received in about 1997 to erect some stables, this was refused, presumably because it affected the openess of the greenbelt, the owner went to appeal and gained permission. Construction started and immediately it became obvious by the size of the foundations being put in that someting far more substantial than stables was being ultimately envisaged.
Now at this stage planning should have become suspicious about what was going on.
What happened? In 2003 an application was received  to convert the stables into living accomodation and amazingly was passed!!!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on June 02, 2010, 03:12:10 pm
To follow on from this - (the thread in change in planning laws (http://www.brookmans.com/forum/index.php?topic=2677.msg21891#msg21891)) - any further news on the Travellers Site re : Bull's Lane ?


Note: edited to move and merge with existing thread and to add a link back to the thread this was moved from.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: James Bentall on June 03, 2010, 07:48:02 am
Taken from the recent parish council minutes:

Quote
Councillor Pieri reported that a retrospective planning application has been made to WHBC for the Traveller’s Site on Bulls Lane.  Councillor Boulton reported that the planning officers had advised him that they were minded to approve the plans.  Councillor Pieri advised he had been told entirely the opposite.  However, if the Council turn down the application it will almost certainly go to the Court of Human Rights.  At this stage there was nothing the Parish Council could do.

Guess we wait to see what WHBC decide?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: stevea on June 03, 2010, 09:13:47 am
Hi James - Is this in relation to Thunderbridge Yard in Bulls Lane?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: James Bentall on June 03, 2010, 09:23:00 am
I presume so, although the minutes don't make it clear. Bob H/Peter H - presumably you were at the meeting, can you clarify?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on June 03, 2010, 03:57:48 pm
My understanding is that Thunderbridge Stables site is owned by gypsies or travellers.  No planning application has been listed by Welwyn Hatfield Council so far, although I had been told that one had been submitted. Presumably the documentation was not up to standard.

This site is completely unrelated to the fields further east opposite White Lodge Farm which consultants employed by Welwyn Hatfield Council recommended for a gypsy site.  With the change of Government, the East of England Plan is to be torn up and the housing targets and gypsy site provision with it.  We are now in new territory.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on October 20, 2010, 06:24:19 pm
Welwyn Hatfield Planning Control committee meeting on Thursday 28th October starting at 7.30pm has these two applications on the agenda:

2010/0960 - Foxes Lane, off Dixons Hill Rd - 3 gypsy pitches.
Recommendation - temporary approval for 3 years to 31 Oct 2013.

2010/0707 - Thundersbridge Yard, Bulls Lane - 2 gypsy pitches
Recommendation - refusal.

The meeting is in the council chamber at Campus West, Welwyn Garden City.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Strad on October 22, 2010, 10:33:49 am
Quote
2010/0960 - Foxes Lane, off Dixons Hill Rd - 3 gypsy pitches.
Recommendation - temporary approval for 3 years to 31 Oct 2013.


Hi Bob, just out of interest, if this approval goes through, will it make it any easier in 3 years time to gain permanent approval?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on October 22, 2010, 11:24:24 am
Hi Strad.   The officer's report recommends a 3 year temporary approval for this reason

'To enable the Local Planning Authority to fully and properly assess its provision of allocated Gypsy and Traveller Sites and pitch numbers in the borough. The fact that temporary permission has been granted on this basis should not be regarded as setting a precedent for the determination of any future applications for full permission for use of the land as a caravan site.'

So what happens in 3 years time if the council has decided it does not want pitches on this site?  The newspapers regularly report problems and great expense in trying to get gypsies off sites, particularly when they own the site as in this case.  This is not being anti-gypsy - it is a simple fact.  In 3 years time the council will be even more cash-strapped than it is now so will it have the money, or inclination, to spend on Court action?  Your guess is as good as mine.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on October 22, 2010, 11:54:04 am

The newspapers regularly report problems and great expense in trying to get gypsies off sites, particularly when they own the site as in this case.  This is not being anti-gypsy - it is a simple fact.  In 3 years time the council will be even more cash-strapped than it is now so will it have the money, or inclination, to spend on Court action?  Your guess is as good as mine.


Hi Bob, of course the newspapers will cover stories where there is an incident - that's news; gypsies moving on peacefully and quietly having abided by the law is not a story and is therefore unlikely to get many column inches or much air time, if any.

You wrote (above) when you raised this issue that 'this is not being anti-gypsy'. Okay, it it's not anti-gypsy, what is the point in mentioning such incidents?

David
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: sasquartch on October 22, 2010, 02:11:27 pm

Hi Bob, of course the newspapers will cover stories where there is an incident - that's news; gypsies moving on peacefully and quietly having abided by the law is not a story and is therefore unlikely to get many column inches or much air time, if any.

You wrote (above) when you raised this issue that 'this is not being anti-gypsy'. Okay, it it's not anti-gypsy, what is the point in mentioning such incidents?

David

I think Bob is simply stating that there is a very real possibility that in three years time there will be problems moving them on.


Edited to fix quote box

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on October 22, 2010, 02:36:12 pm

I think Bob is simply stating that there is a very real possibility that in three years time there will be problems moving them on.


Yes, and then again there may not be.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on October 22, 2010, 03:13:01 pm
Yes, and then again there may not be.



They certainly did not seem too bothered about any planning regulations when they erected their brick wall and gates in the green belt!!


Edited to fix quote box.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on October 23, 2010, 09:04:43 am
Do you apply the same "they" to the people in Brookmans Park who might for example have put up high fences and gates without permission or put in a dropped kerb and then sought retrospective permission in some way? These things happen regularly.

It's also not unknown for permission to be granted for a partial demolition and extension only for the building accidently to be knocked down altogether and a complete rebuild permission sought afterwards.

Speaking entirely personally, i would hope one of the changes in planning to be introduced will be to make any sort of retrospective consents much harder to get and so encourage people to stop this fait accompli type approach where the planning authority is tested under pressure instead of being asked before work is done in the proper way.

We are also going to have face the fact that enforcement departments seem notoriously to be underfunded and understaffed and I dont suppose that situation will improve any time soon.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on October 23, 2010, 10:07:38 am
Do you apply the same "they" to the people in Brookmans Park who might for example have put up high fences and gates without permission or put in a dropped kerb and then sought retrospective permission in some way? These things happen regularly.



Absolutely, although most BP residents are not subject to the stringent Green Belt policies that apply in this case.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on October 23, 2010, 10:10:51 am
.

Speaking entirely personally, i would hope one of the changes in planning to be introduced will be to make any sort of retrospective consents much harder to get and so encourage people to stop this fait accompli type approach where the planning authority is tested under pressure instead of being asked before work is done in the proper way.

We are also going to have face the fact that enforcement departments seem notoriously to be underfunded and understaffed and I dont suppose that situation will improve any time soon.



I could not agree more - see earlier post 430
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on October 29, 2010, 11:38:16 am
Foxes Lane, Welham Green (off Dixons Hill Road, between Foxes Lane and the railway line)
Thunderbridge Yard, Bulls Lane, Welham Green (the former stables immediately east of the railway bridge)


These two planning applications for gypsy camps were decided at the Welwyn Hatfield Council Planning Control Meeting on Thursday evening 28th October.
 
Parish Councillor Peter Hastings spoke on behalf of the parish council, I spoke on behalf of the NM Green Belt Soc, and Keith Pieri spoke as the local Borough Councillor.

The Foxes Lane application was refused on a majority vote, because the very special circumstances did not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.  Presumably they will appeal.

The Bulls Lane application was refused outright.  The applicant tried to get it delayed because he is getting further information about overcoming the Environment Agency's flood plain objection.  However he was too late and it was refused.  No doubt he will re-apply once he has the further information.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on November 14, 2010, 11:25:19 am
You will not be surprised to learn that mobile homes have been moved onto the Foxes Lane site this weekend and a wooden picket fence is being erected along the boundary.

The police are aware of it but their hands are tied, and they have been told that an appeal has been made.  The council has been advised, but the appeal will tie their hands as well.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on November 14, 2010, 01:48:56 pm
Why are their hands tied ? If they have moved in illegally, then whats to prevent them ? And why are the Council's hands tied ? Are these "travellers" effectively Squatters then ? I assume so.

And can REALLY nothing be done ?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on November 14, 2010, 04:35:37 pm
a wooden picket fence is being erected along the boundary.



It is more than a picket fence, it is in fact concrete posts and gravel boards with 6ft high wooden panels.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Peter Hastings on November 14, 2010, 05:21:53 pm
Yes common sense tells you that since an appeal is to be made, no decision has been made in their favour and nothing should change. The homes and fence are unlawful so why not enforce? I suppose there is the practical consideration that if the appeal is successful the council would just be wasting its money. However not sure that should mean the law gets flouted. This similar to the tactic used on Green Close in Brookmans Park where the boards round the site have stayed up without approval pending appeals and new applications.

Perhaps our Housing Minister can turn this round?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on November 15, 2010, 11:04:02 am
they have been told that an appeal has been made.  The council has been advised, but the appeal will tie their hands as well.

Update - there has been a misunderstanding and it seems that an appeal has not yet been made.  The Welwyn Hatfield enforcement officer is aware and is said to be dealing with this situation. 
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: PS on November 15, 2010, 01:39:02 pm
Well....one upside is that perhaps one can now keep dates, times, incidences etc and see if there is any corrolation to when the Travellers piched up vs higher crime, other incidences, etc during their 'welcome' stay. And compare these statistics to pre-squatting periods. 

Should put a few misconceptions - either way - to bed.

Than again, we may actually see some members of their community assisting old ladies crossing the very dangerous roads near the village centre !!!  Might help forking out on a few zebra crossings !!! ;D
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on November 16, 2010, 01:48:59 pm
A positive approach...

http://www.harpendenpeople.co.uk/news/Traveller-site-visit-High-Sheriff-Hertfordshire/story-10255561-detail/story.html (http://www.harpendenpeople.co.uk/news/Traveller-site-visit-High-Sheriff-Hertfordshire/story-10255561-detail/story.html)

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on November 17, 2010, 06:19:06 pm
An update which hopefully will clarify the legal situation regarding Foxes Lane / Dixons Hill Road

1          The site is owned by the applicant. As such the people who have moved onto the site are not squatters but have legal title to the land. Therefore no criminal act has occurred and the police have no reason to interfere.

2                  The question remains over the use of the land. As they do not have planning consent the siting of mobile homes and caravans is unauthorised. Today I was reliably told that a planning appeal has been made against the refusal of planning permission  for these mobile homes and caravans so Welwyn Hatfield Council can only take limited action until the appeal has been heard, which could take a few months.

3                  A picket fence up to about 3’ does not need permission, however, a 6' close boarded fence does. It appears what they've done was shown on the planning application which again limits the council's ability to take action until after any appeal is decided.  This means the hands of the council are tied legally.

4                 This kind of behaviour is unacceptable and the new Government is pledged to outlaw it. The Government is about to introduce the legislation which will change the law. It’s in the Localism Bill which is expected in Parliament later this month. This change in the law, pledged in the Conservative manifesto, could take about a year to pass through Parliament, depending on how the Opposition respond. Since they established the current law it is unlikely to get a faster passage. And in the meantime we’re stuck with the existing rules.

4                 It is completely unfair to have a situation where some people ‘play’ the planning system. The Government intends to virtually ban retrospective Planning Applications, apart from where a genuine mistake has been made, and attach a cost to this type of Appeal. The intention is to ensure that the powers required to act will be  in place as quickly as possible.

5         The Council can of course act on any environmental matter, such as noise, waste, contamination if any were likely to occur.

Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Birch on November 23, 2010, 10:07:52 am
Welwyn Hatfield Planning Control committee meeting on Thursday 28th October starting at 7.30pm has these two applications on the agenda:

2010/0960 - Foxes Lane, off Dixons Hill Rd - 3 gypsy pitches.
Recommendation - temporary approval for 3 years to 31 Oct 2013.


Well there now seems to be 3 static pitch homes and 2 caravans on the site now. How many more will turn up?
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on November 23, 2010, 11:07:45 am
Well there now seems to be 3 static pitch homes and 2 caravans on the site now. How many more will turn up?

Birch quoted from my posting on 20 October, but appears not to have read my later posting on 17 November which gives the latest situation.

In answer to his question, it does not matter how many caravans turn up - the situation remains as stated on 17 November
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on November 23, 2010, 11:48:51 am
An update which hopefully will clarify the legal situation regarding Foxes Lane / Dixons Hill Road

 Today I was reliably told that a planning appeal has been made against the refusal of planning permission  for these mobile homes and caravans



This does not appear to be the case according to WHBC Planning online database!
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on November 24, 2010, 12:06:38 pm
The appeal documents go to the Planning Inspectorate at Bristol.  The PI presumably checks that the documents are acceptable, logs the appeal, and copies the documents to Welwyn Hatfield Council.  WHBC then logs the appeal and  advises everyone who wrote objecting or commenting on the planning application of the appeal.  They (the objectors/commentors) can add to what they have already said, ask to attend the hearing/inquiry, or simply ask for a copy of the Inspector's report.

I expect it will be a hearing or inquiry and be held at the council offices in Welwyn Garden City.  

This all takes a little time which could be why there is nothing on the council database yet.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: epiphany on November 24, 2010, 01:36:02 pm
Thanks for the info Bob.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on February 22, 2011, 11:39:30 am
This appeal is to be decided by means of a Public Inquiry which was to have started at 10 am on 22nd March in the Council Offices, Campus West, Welwyn Garden City.  It was expected to last three days.  However it has now been postponed.

.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on March 01, 2011, 03:46:26 pm
land at rear of Friday Grove, Hawkshead Road / Bluebridge Road

Without wishing to raise false alarms etc, did anyone see caravans being moved onto the land at the rear of Friday Grove late last week?  An email or PM would be appreciated if you did.

There are two access gates next to one another. One is for the field where the car boot sales are held.  The other leads to a gravel driveway to land that was sold off in 2010.  The carvans are not where the car boot sales are held so, if they are there, they must be over the hill unseen from the main road.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: LMS on August 31, 2011, 02:47:29 pm
Copy of letter received today:

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE:   Retention of use of land for 2 pitched gypsy site, comprising 2 mobile homes, 2 touring caravans and two washrooms at  Thunderbridge Yard Bulls Lane   HATFIELD 

Public Speaking at Welwyn Hatfield Planning Control Committee

I am writing to you with regard to the forthcoming meeting of the Council’s Planning Control Committee at 7.30pm on 8th September 2011 at Campus West, Welwyn Garden City. You wrote to us with regard to one of the applications that is to be dealt with at this meeting and this letter is to ask you to consider whether you wish to speak at or attend the committee. The Planning Control Committee is a public meeting and all are welcome to attend.

The Council operates a scheme, which allows applicants and/or their agents who have submitted planning applications (and some related applications) or interested parties such as neighbours to speak at the committee meeting where those applications are dealt with. Details of this scheme and copies of the committee reports are available on the council’s website (www.welhat.gov.uk/PCC (http://www.welhat.gov.uk/PCC) ) or from the Planning Support Team (01707 357000).

Please have a look at the details set out on the online public speaking leaflet and call our committee services team on 01707 357349 by 5pm on 7th September 2011 if you wish to speak at the committee.

If you wish to attend the committee to listen it would be appreciated if you could let us know in writing/by email, before Monday 5th September, to give us an indication of numbers attending. Please note that spaces may be limited and will be given at the meeting on a first come basis.

Yours faithfully



Mrs L Hughes
Case Officer
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on September 01, 2011, 12:19:00 pm
RE:   Retention of use of land for 2 pitched gypsy site, comprising 2 mobile homes, 2 touring caravans and two washrooms at  Thunderbridge Yard Bulls Lane   HATFIELD 

The report to the committee recommends refusal on a number of grounds.  It is in a flood zone therefore unsuitable for housing, the flood risk assessment was inadequate and insufficient information submitted to determine whether the site is suitable for use as a mobile home site even on a temporary basis of 3-5 years, given the potential impact from the adjacent railway line.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Bob Horrocks on September 09, 2011, 11:30:57 am
Yesterday evening the council planning control committee refused permission for the application for 2 gypsy pitches at Thunderbridge Yard, Bulls Lane.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Pescarese on September 12, 2011, 10:33:21 am
Obviously a very effective decision as I saw two caravans roll up there last night.
Title: Re: Local traveller and gypsy sites
Post by: Editor on October 09, 2014, 10:15:13 am
I have taken the information regarding local provision for gypsy and traveller sites from the latest release of Welwyn Hatfield Council's Local Plan (http://www.welhat.gov.uk/localplan) and put it together in a short report for ease of access (https://medium.com/@bpnewsletter/local-sites-for-gypsies-and-travellers-9bd08adfc94e).

Local sites for gypsies and travellers