Fears that planning committee ruling will encourage traveller incursions

Fears that planning committee ruling will encourage traveller incursions

Travellers at Whitecliff Rec

Fears that planning committee ruling will encourage traveller incursions

First published in News by

CONCERNED residents fear the ruling against two temporary traveller sites in Poole could open the floodgates for incursions across the borough’s parks and open spaces this summer.

Many people living near the areas that witnessed large, unauthorised encampments last year say Borough of Poole’s planning committee was wrong to refuse permission for the two temporary stopping places at Creekmoor and Oakdale.

Now they’re worried about a repeat of last summer, which is generally regarded as one of the worst for traveller incursions in the town.

Camps were established at Canford Heath’s Verity Park, Turlin Moor, Broadstone Recreation Ground, Whitecliff Recreation Park and Branksome Recreation Ground.

Speaking to the Echo from his home overlooking Verity Park, Canford Heath resident Brian Harwood-Butler said: “The planning committee has been hoodwinked by rent-a-mob into not giving permission.

“I’m very disappointed with the way the planning committee has voted.”

Another Canford Heath resident, who asked not to be named, said: “Everyone who voted against the temporary sites at Oakdale and Creekmoor should keep quiet this summer when travellers move onto Whitecliff or Poole Park.”

Annemarie Scott, who regularly walks her dog on Verity Park, said the area became a virtual no-go area for part of last summer. “They (travellers) caused a lot of damage here last year,” she said.

“The council does need to get a permanent site sorted as these travellers cause a lot of hassle for residents around here. I’m not looking forward to this summer. I actually avoided this area last year because I felt so intimidated by them.”

At Whitecliff Recreation Ground, where the children’s play area was shut down by Borough of Poole on health ground following an unauthorised encampment, parents of young children said they were primed for another summer of difficulties.

Phil Lanning, who regularly visits Poole, said: “In the summer I bring the kids down here twice a day, but last summer we couldn’t use this area because of the travellers.

“We were here on the day when they literally drove onto the field and parked up near the play area. We were playing football with the kids, the police turned up and that was it – we couldn’t come back here for the rest of the time we were in Poole.

“Something needs to be done about the issue; there must be a site somewhere locally where they can be moved onto. This isn’t fair for anyone.”

Comments (41)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:17am Sat 22 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?
Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it? Carolyn43
  • Score: 14

8:23am Sat 22 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?
But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?[/p][/quote]But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on. tbpoole
  • Score: -4

8:33am Sat 22 Mar 14

ADST_2008 says...

Yes this is a major problem for Poole during the summer months, as I have said on previous comments the two sites in Creekmoor and Oakdale were turned down due to a lack of consultation and proper site investigations. As I understand it Poole is the first to push for a TSP in the U.K.
The law is a little weak on allowing these incursion’s in the first place.
I would like to pass on a big vote of the thanks to the 3 Ward councillors who stood by their residents, yes I live in Creekmoor.
Yes this is a major problem for Poole during the summer months, as I have said on previous comments the two sites in Creekmoor and Oakdale were turned down due to a lack of consultation and proper site investigations. As I understand it Poole is the first to push for a TSP in the U.K. The law is a little weak on allowing these incursion’s in the first place. I would like to pass on a big vote of the thanks to the 3 Ward councillors who stood by their residents, yes I live in Creekmoor. ADST_2008
  • Score: 9

8:56am Sat 22 Mar 14

Jo__Go says...

'Many', Echo?
You quote three residents and one occasional visitor... is that it?
I notice you also forget to mention the major incursions we suffered in Creekmoor, with reported threats of violence to people and livestock. The answer is to manage these events better, not to round them all up and dump the problem in one part of the town. For sure, the Police need to stop whining about what they can't do and actually start doing what they can.

You have done reasonably well in reporting this sorry saga thus far, please don't ruin it now by filling column inches with spurious tales of non-existent moaners.
'Many', Echo? You quote three residents and one occasional visitor... is that it? I notice you also forget to mention the major incursions we suffered in Creekmoor, with reported threats of violence to people and livestock. The answer is to manage these events better, not to round them all up and dump the problem in one part of the town. For sure, the Police need to stop whining about what they can't do and actually start doing what they can. You have done reasonably well in reporting this sorry saga thus far, please don't ruin it now by filling column inches with spurious tales of non-existent moaners. Jo__Go
  • Score: 9

9:01am Sat 22 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

tbpoole wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?
But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.
Not if both sites were full - there would be nowhere to move them on to. That's even assuming that the travellers used the sites, which I doubt because of contamination and safety aspects. They would just move on to private land.
.......
And, although I do not live in Creekmoor, I think Brian Harwood-Butler's comment about "rent-a-mob" is unacceptable. He obviously hasn't bothered to read why the planning committee turned down the applications.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?[/p][/quote]But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.[/p][/quote]Not if both sites were full - there would be nowhere to move them on to. That's even assuming that the travellers used the sites, which I doubt because of contamination and safety aspects. They would just move on to private land. ....... And, although I do not live in Creekmoor, I think Brian Harwood-Butler's comment about "rent-a-mob" is unacceptable. He obviously hasn't bothered to read why the planning committee turned down the applications. Carolyn43
  • Score: 12

9:08am Sat 22 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

And I doubt that the planning committee's ruling would have any effect on whether there were incursions or not - it's people giving them work that brings them here. Perhaps some of the money that would have been wasted on the sites could be spent on publicising to all residents of Poole, using various methods, asking them in the strongest terms, not to give travellers work.
And I doubt that the planning committee's ruling would have any effect on whether there were incursions or not - it's people giving them work that brings them here. Perhaps some of the money that would have been wasted on the sites could be spent on publicising to all residents of Poole, using various methods, asking them in the strongest terms, not to give travellers work. Carolyn43
  • Score: 5

9:13am Sat 22 Mar 14

kalebmoledirt says...

No doubt word as got back to the travelling community who are wiser and far better organised than the council.so stand bye for them to arrive and challenge the council's authority ,my money is on the travellers
No doubt word as got back to the travelling community who are wiser and far better organised than the council.so stand bye for them to arrive and challenge the council's authority ,my money is on the travellers kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 9

9:19am Sat 22 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

Another consideration for Brian Harwood-Butler is that the travellers probably set up camp near where they get work, so it's likely that it's your neighbours who are encouraging them. I can't see them setting up camp in say Whitecliff if the work is in Broadstone. Blame them before insulting the residents of Creekmoor and Oakdale.
Another consideration for Brian Harwood-Butler is that the travellers probably set up camp near where they get work, so it's likely that it's your neighbours who are encouraging them. I can't see them setting up camp in say Whitecliff if the work is in Broadstone. Blame them before insulting the residents of Creekmoor and Oakdale. Carolyn43
  • Score: 3

9:21am Sat 22 Mar 14

littlechuffer says...

So Brian Harwood-Butler who overlooks the Canford Heath field doesn't want them near him, nor do the residents of Whitecliff. Funny that. Why should the residents of Creekmoor and people who work there be subjected to the travelers 5 months of the year?

Did either of the residents quoted actually view the proposals for Creekmoor? If so they are both happy to have a prison camp on the gateway into Poole with the women and children onsite with nowhere to go. I suspect they didn't look at the proposals or show much interest as it was not on their back door. If they were to carve a bit of the heath off and then build a traveller site on it I am sure Mr Harwood-Butler would be opposed to the site for sure.

The solution is simple.... The government need to grow a set of balls and change legislation so that the councils of Dorset can all pool together and build a huge temporary / permanent site in the middle of nowhere. Instead of trying to push through proposals that would give the travelers a sea view over Holes Bay.
So Brian Harwood-Butler who overlooks the Canford Heath field doesn't want them near him, nor do the residents of Whitecliff. Funny that. Why should the residents of Creekmoor and people who work there be subjected to the travelers 5 months of the year? Did either of the residents quoted actually view the proposals for Creekmoor? If so they are both happy to have a prison camp on the gateway into Poole with the women and children onsite with nowhere to go. I suspect they didn't look at the proposals or show much interest as it was not on their back door. If they were to carve a bit of the heath off and then build a traveller site on it I am sure Mr Harwood-Butler would be opposed to the site for sure. The solution is simple.... The government need to grow a set of balls and change legislation so that the councils of Dorset can all pool together and build a huge temporary / permanent site in the middle of nowhere. Instead of trying to push through proposals that would give the travelers a sea view over Holes Bay. littlechuffer
  • Score: 3

9:28am Sat 22 Mar 14

Townee says...

NIMBY's we don't want them so the planners were wrong. THE ANSWER IS NO ONE WANTS THEM AND ITS ABOUT TIME THIS GOVERNMENT GAVE US LAWS TO STOP THEM.
NIMBY's we don't want them so the planners were wrong. THE ANSWER IS NO ONE WANTS THEM AND ITS ABOUT TIME THIS GOVERNMENT GAVE US LAWS TO STOP THEM. Townee
  • Score: 14

9:32am Sat 22 Mar 14

ADST_2008 says...

Which wards are Councillors Mike White and Elaine Atkinson in, remind me again?
Which wards are Councillors Mike White and Elaine Atkinson in, remind me again? ADST_2008
  • Score: 5

9:37am Sat 22 Mar 14

falco5 says...

Question to Mr. Brian Harwood-Butler, resident of Canford Heath, what would you and your fellow residents have done if you had the chance to vote against a permanent site? I know I would rather live in a house near a site where there might be an incursion rather than a house where there definitely would be one. The answer is not to move these travellers away from one group of residents and dump them on another, it is to move them to an out of town site that does not affect law abiding, tax paying, peaceful,ordinary members of the public, and we don't want any half baked schemes along the way. As for your comments about rent a mob, this is a joke right? This was just a group of residents and councillors exercising there rites in a democratic system. It is a shame that all of the people of Poole do not come together to try and get the council to come up with a sensible suggestion on how to tackle the problem that will not affect residents, the good name of Poole and this beautiful town we live in.
Question to Mr. Brian Harwood-Butler, resident of Canford Heath, what would you and your fellow residents have done if you had the chance to vote against a permanent site? I know I would rather live in a house near a site where there might be an incursion rather than a house where there definitely would be one. The answer is not to move these travellers away from one group of residents and dump them on another, it is to move them to an out of town site that does not affect law abiding, tax paying, peaceful,ordinary members of the public, and we don't want any half baked schemes along the way. As for your comments about rent a mob, this is a joke right? This was just a group of residents and councillors exercising there rites in a democratic system. It is a shame that all of the people of Poole do not come together to try and get the council to come up with a sensible suggestion on how to tackle the problem that will not affect residents, the good name of Poole and this beautiful town we live in. falco5
  • Score: 2

9:49am Sat 22 Mar 14

scrumpyjack says...

tbpoole wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?
But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.
And that is the key point that everyone seems to be missing.

If there is a designated site their powers are greatly increased and they can move them on from car parks and the like immediately rather than applying for a court order as they have to do now.

Also, the gipsy's themselves rejected the location saying it was unsafe - so it could have existed as a legal site giving the police and council extra powers but it would have not been used anyway.

Sometimes people are too blinkered to see the bigger picture.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?[/p][/quote]But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.[/p][/quote]And that is the key point that everyone seems to be missing. If there is a designated site their powers are greatly increased and they can move them on from car parks and the like immediately rather than applying for a court order as they have to do now. Also, the gipsy's themselves rejected the location saying it was unsafe - so it could have existed as a legal site giving the police and council extra powers but it would have not been used anyway. Sometimes people are too blinkered to see the bigger picture. scrumpyjack
  • Score: -1

9:54am Sat 22 Mar 14

ADST_2008 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote: Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?
But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.
And that is the key point that everyone seems to be missing. If there is a designated site their powers are greatly increased and they can move them on from car parks and the like immediately rather than applying for a court order as they have to do now. Also, the gipsy's themselves rejected the location saying it was unsafe - so it could have existed as a legal site giving the police and council extra powers but it would have not been used anyway. Sometimes people are too blinkered to see the bigger picture.
I bet you don’t live in Creekmoor or Oakdale?
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?[/p][/quote]But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.[/p][/quote]And that is the key point that everyone seems to be missing. If there is a designated site their powers are greatly increased and they can move them on from car parks and the like immediately rather than applying for a court order as they have to do now. Also, the gipsy's themselves rejected the location saying it was unsafe - so it could have existed as a legal site giving the police and council extra powers but it would have not been used anyway. Sometimes people are too blinkered to see the bigger picture.[/p][/quote]I bet you don’t live in Creekmoor or Oakdale? ADST_2008
  • Score: -3

10:07am Sat 22 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?
But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.
And that is the key point that everyone seems to be missing.

If there is a designated site their powers are greatly increased and they can move them on from car parks and the like immediately rather than applying for a court order as they have to do now.

Also, the gipsy's themselves rejected the location saying it was unsafe - so it could have existed as a legal site giving the police and council extra powers but it would have not been used anyway.

Sometimes people are too blinkered to see the bigger picture.
Well your blinkers don't seem to have been completely removed. Assuming the site was used, which is doubtful, where do you suggest they be moved to when more than 16 turn up?
.......
If the site is empty and they were moved on, were they going to be escorted like a prison convoy to make sure they didn't escape on the way? What would that cost?
.......
If they did escape on the way and pitched up elsewhere, would the police have the same powers if it was private land?
......
Assuming they weren't escorted, how much would it cost if they were moved on immediately, pitched up elsewhere, were moved on, pitched up elsewhere, moved on ...... ?
.......
The only solution is for them not to get work.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?[/p][/quote]But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.[/p][/quote]And that is the key point that everyone seems to be missing. If there is a designated site their powers are greatly increased and they can move them on from car parks and the like immediately rather than applying for a court order as they have to do now. Also, the gipsy's themselves rejected the location saying it was unsafe - so it could have existed as a legal site giving the police and council extra powers but it would have not been used anyway. Sometimes people are too blinkered to see the bigger picture.[/p][/quote]Well your blinkers don't seem to have been completely removed. Assuming the site was used, which is doubtful, where do you suggest they be moved to when more than 16 turn up? ....... If the site is empty and they were moved on, were they going to be escorted like a prison convoy to make sure they didn't escape on the way? What would that cost? ....... If they did escape on the way and pitched up elsewhere, would the police have the same powers if it was private land? ...... Assuming they weren't escorted, how much would it cost if they were moved on immediately, pitched up elsewhere, were moved on, pitched up elsewhere, moved on ...... ? ....... The only solution is for them not to get work. Carolyn43
  • Score: 7

10:25am Sat 22 Mar 14

muscliffman says...

We simply must stop wasting valuable time and energy arguing about where the deck chairs are going to be put on this 'Titanic' traveller subject.

To be realistic these 'travellers' were never going to take the slightest bit of notice of any official sites provided for them in Poole. As in previous years they would have rolled up and pitched illegally anywhere they wanted in the town confident that our timid Poole and Dorset Authorities would still have been paralysed by their institutional PC liberalism.

We have to find political leaders and public officials locally and nationally with the courage to bring some common sense to this subject and once and for all end the UK's legal recognition of these 'travellers' as an ethnic minority. Time to stop tinkering and bickering with the tiny local detail on the issue and grab this bull by the horns.
We simply must stop wasting valuable time and energy arguing about where the deck chairs are going to be put on this 'Titanic' traveller subject. To be realistic these 'travellers' were never going to take the slightest bit of notice of any official sites provided for them in Poole. As in previous years they would have rolled up and pitched illegally anywhere they wanted in the town confident that our timid Poole and Dorset Authorities would still have been paralysed by their institutional PC liberalism. We have to find political leaders and public officials locally and nationally with the courage to bring some common sense to this subject and once and for all end the UK's legal recognition of these 'travellers' as an ethnic minority. Time to stop tinkering and bickering with the tiny local detail on the issue and grab this bull by the horns. muscliffman
  • Score: 16

10:42am Sat 22 Mar 14

falco5 says...

Muscliffman, couldn't have put it better myself! !!!!!
Muscliffman, couldn't have put it better myself! !!!!! falco5
  • Score: 6

10:44am Sat 22 Mar 14

muscliffman says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?
But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.
And that is the key point that everyone seems to be missing.

If there is a designated site their powers are greatly increased and they can move them on from car parks and the like immediately rather than applying for a court order as they have to do now.

Also, the gipsy's themselves rejected the location saying it was unsafe - so it could have existed as a legal site giving the police and council extra powers but it would have not been used anyway.

Sometimes people are too blinkered to see the bigger picture.
Well your blinkers don't seem to have been completely removed. Assuming the site was used, which is doubtful, where do you suggest they be moved to when more than 16 turn up?
.......
If the site is empty and they were moved on, were they going to be escorted like a prison convoy to make sure they didn't escape on the way? What would that cost?
.......
If they did escape on the way and pitched up elsewhere, would the police have the same powers if it was private land?
......
Assuming they weren't escorted, how much would it cost if they were moved on immediately, pitched up elsewhere, were moved on, pitched up elsewhere, moved on ...... ?
.......
The only solution is for them not to get work.
I broadly agree, but your 'not to get work' solution suggests that you have very limited direct experience of these 'travellers', because con, rip-off, intimidate, steal and defraud most certainly, but to undertake any requested 'work' - never!
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?[/p][/quote]But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.[/p][/quote]And that is the key point that everyone seems to be missing. If there is a designated site their powers are greatly increased and they can move them on from car parks and the like immediately rather than applying for a court order as they have to do now. Also, the gipsy's themselves rejected the location saying it was unsafe - so it could have existed as a legal site giving the police and council extra powers but it would have not been used anyway. Sometimes people are too blinkered to see the bigger picture.[/p][/quote]Well your blinkers don't seem to have been completely removed. Assuming the site was used, which is doubtful, where do you suggest they be moved to when more than 16 turn up? ....... If the site is empty and they were moved on, were they going to be escorted like a prison convoy to make sure they didn't escape on the way? What would that cost? ....... If they did escape on the way and pitched up elsewhere, would the police have the same powers if it was private land? ...... Assuming they weren't escorted, how much would it cost if they were moved on immediately, pitched up elsewhere, were moved on, pitched up elsewhere, moved on ...... ? ....... The only solution is for them not to get work.[/p][/quote]I broadly agree, but your 'not to get work' solution suggests that you have very limited direct experience of these 'travellers', because con, rip-off, intimidate, steal and defraud most certainly, but to undertake any requested 'work' - never! muscliffman
  • Score: 10

10:45am Sat 22 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

There is another scenario. In the documents on the planning application, the council admits that the road is dangerous, that the site is contaminated and there is pollution from traffic, light and noise. You can bet the travellers know their rights and could have gone to court over their human rights because the site broke the conditions laid down by the Government on the suitability of sites for travellers. That would have cost council tax payers a lot more than just the cost of the site. I suspect that could have been another of the reasons the planning committee rejected the proposals even though it wasn't listed as one.
.......
Besides not giving them work, the only solution in a change in the law.
There is another scenario. In the documents on the planning application, the council admits that the road is dangerous, that the site is contaminated and there is pollution from traffic, light and noise. You can bet the travellers know their rights and could have gone to court over their human rights because the site broke the conditions laid down by the Government on the suitability of sites for travellers. That would have cost council tax payers a lot more than just the cost of the site. I suspect that could have been another of the reasons the planning committee rejected the proposals even though it wasn't listed as one. ....... Besides not giving them work, the only solution in a change in the law. Carolyn43
  • Score: 5

11:01am Sat 22 Mar 14

scrumpyjack says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?
But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.
And that is the key point that everyone seems to be missing.

If there is a designated site their powers are greatly increased and they can move them on from car parks and the like immediately rather than applying for a court order as they have to do now.

Also, the gipsy's themselves rejected the location saying it was unsafe - so it could have existed as a legal site giving the police and council extra powers but it would have not been used anyway.

Sometimes people are too blinkered to see the bigger picture.
Well your blinkers don't seem to have been completely removed. Assuming the site was used, which is doubtful, where do you suggest they be moved to when more than 16 turn up?
.......
If the site is empty and they were moved on, were they going to be escorted like a prison convoy to make sure they didn't escape on the way? What would that cost?
.......
If they did escape on the way and pitched up elsewhere, would the police have the same powers if it was private land?
......
Assuming they weren't escorted, how much would it cost if they were moved on immediately, pitched up elsewhere, were moved on, pitched up elsewhere, moved on ...... ?
.......
The only solution is for them not to get work.
Work?
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?[/p][/quote]But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.[/p][/quote]And that is the key point that everyone seems to be missing. If there is a designated site their powers are greatly increased and they can move them on from car parks and the like immediately rather than applying for a court order as they have to do now. Also, the gipsy's themselves rejected the location saying it was unsafe - so it could have existed as a legal site giving the police and council extra powers but it would have not been used anyway. Sometimes people are too blinkered to see the bigger picture.[/p][/quote]Well your blinkers don't seem to have been completely removed. Assuming the site was used, which is doubtful, where do you suggest they be moved to when more than 16 turn up? ....... If the site is empty and they were moved on, were they going to be escorted like a prison convoy to make sure they didn't escape on the way? What would that cost? ....... If they did escape on the way and pitched up elsewhere, would the police have the same powers if it was private land? ...... Assuming they weren't escorted, how much would it cost if they were moved on immediately, pitched up elsewhere, were moved on, pitched up elsewhere, moved on ...... ? ....... The only solution is for them not to get work.[/p][/quote]Work? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 6

12:19pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

The simple fact of the matter is the Safety Drive site was unsuitable for many reasons but the most important of all has to be the £400,000 offer by Forelle's to buy that land to build a business that would create 200 new jobs in the area. That £400k would more than cover the cost of a transit site built elsewhere at an estimated cost of £250,000. It would leave £150,000 which could be spent on securing places like baiter and Branksome Rec to stop traveler intrusion and the revenue created from the business rates from the new building at Safety Drive would more than cover the running costs of any transit site. Basically the rejection by the Planning has in fact certainly saved the taxpayer in excess of over £1 million over the next 10 years and that has to be a good thing for everyone.
The simple fact of the matter is the Safety Drive site was unsuitable for many reasons but the most important of all has to be the £400,000 offer by Forelle's to buy that land to build a business that would create 200 new jobs in the area. That £400k would more than cover the cost of a transit site built elsewhere at an estimated cost of £250,000. It would leave £150,000 which could be spent on securing places like baiter and Branksome Rec to stop traveler intrusion and the revenue created from the business rates from the new building at Safety Drive would more than cover the running costs of any transit site. Basically the rejection by the Planning has in fact certainly saved the taxpayer in excess of over £1 million over the next 10 years and that has to be a good thing for everyone. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 3

12:28pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Turtlebay says...

It will happen this year, next year, every year until the local councils stop playing silly buggers and make some areas available for them!
It will happen this year, next year, every year until the local councils stop playing silly buggers and make some areas available for them! Turtlebay
  • Score: -6

12:34pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Turtlebay says...

There is tons of space they can go to and isn't used at all in the New Forest, like the existing old ww2 aerodromes for starters. Then there is tons of unused space around the Western side of Poole Harbour, enough to house thousands of traveller caravans.

We have the space but unfortunately the councillors have had their brains surgically removed on coming to office!
There is tons of space they can go to and isn't used at all in the New Forest, like the existing old ww2 aerodromes for starters. Then there is tons of unused space around the Western side of Poole Harbour, enough to house thousands of traveller caravans. We have the space but unfortunately the councillors have had their brains surgically removed on coming to office! Turtlebay
  • Score: 0

12:55pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Mad Karew says...

Turtlebay wrote:
There is tons of space they can go to and isn't used at all in the New Forest, like the existing old ww2 aerodromes for starters. Then there is tons of unused space around the Western side of Poole Harbour, enough to house thousands of traveller caravans.

We have the space but unfortunately the councillors have had their brains surgically removed on coming to office!
This shows a complete lack of understanding. The council has to have a site which is available ie empty to move them to, and it has to be within the borough boundaries. Not easy with the sea on two sides, all green belt to the north and Bournemouth on the fourth!!

One thing which hasn't come out yet is that green belt and open space can only be used as transit sites in 'exceptional circumstances' and that's why it was all automatically excluded from the selection process. However, as all of the available green space is in one of those designations, that satisfies the exceptional circumstances and the council should be looking at those areas as well.

That brings places like the old Moortown Aerodrome into the equation.
[quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: There is tons of space they can go to and isn't used at all in the New Forest, like the existing old ww2 aerodromes for starters. Then there is tons of unused space around the Western side of Poole Harbour, enough to house thousands of traveller caravans. We have the space but unfortunately the councillors have had their brains surgically removed on coming to office![/p][/quote]This shows a complete lack of understanding. The council has to have a site which is available ie empty to move them to, and it has to be within the borough boundaries. Not easy with the sea on two sides, all green belt to the north and Bournemouth on the fourth!! One thing which hasn't come out yet is that green belt and open space can only be used as transit sites in 'exceptional circumstances' and that's why it was all automatically excluded from the selection process. However, as all of the available green space is in one of those designations, that satisfies the exceptional circumstances and the council should be looking at those areas as well. That brings places like the old Moortown Aerodrome into the equation. Mad Karew
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Sat 22 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?
But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.
And that is the key point that everyone seems to be missing.

If there is a designated site their powers are greatly increased and they can move them on from car parks and the like immediately rather than applying for a court order as they have to do now.

Also, the gipsy's themselves rejected the location saying it was unsafe - so it could have existed as a legal site giving the police and council extra powers but it would have not been used anyway.

Sometimes people are too blinkered to see the bigger picture.
Right this time scrumpy.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?[/p][/quote]But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.[/p][/quote]And that is the key point that everyone seems to be missing. If there is a designated site their powers are greatly increased and they can move them on from car parks and the like immediately rather than applying for a court order as they have to do now. Also, the gipsy's themselves rejected the location saying it was unsafe - so it could have existed as a legal site giving the police and council extra powers but it would have not been used anyway. Sometimes people are too blinkered to see the bigger picture.[/p][/quote]Right this time scrumpy. pete woodley
  • Score: 2

1:15pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Mad Karew says...

pete woodley wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?
But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.
And that is the key point that everyone seems to be missing.

If there is a designated site their powers are greatly increased and they can move them on from car parks and the like immediately rather than applying for a court order as they have to do now.

Also, the gipsy's themselves rejected the location saying it was unsafe - so it could have existed as a legal site giving the police and council extra powers but it would have not been used anyway.

Sometimes people are too blinkered to see the bigger picture.
Right this time scrumpy.
Nearly - as I said, the police can them move on at once provided there is somewhere to move them to. If you get an incursion of 20+ caravans - and most of the trouble-makers are large groups - one site of 12 pitches won't cut it.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Well 16 spaces wasn't going to solve the problem of "large incursions" was it?[/p][/quote]But at least Police would have had more powers to move them on.[/p][/quote]And that is the key point that everyone seems to be missing. If there is a designated site their powers are greatly increased and they can move them on from car parks and the like immediately rather than applying for a court order as they have to do now. Also, the gipsy's themselves rejected the location saying it was unsafe - so it could have existed as a legal site giving the police and council extra powers but it would have not been used anyway. Sometimes people are too blinkered to see the bigger picture.[/p][/quote]Right this time scrumpy.[/p][/quote]Nearly - as I said, the police can them move on at once provided there is somewhere to move them to. If you get an incursion of 20+ caravans - and most of the trouble-makers are large groups - one site of 12 pitches won't cut it. Mad Karew
  • Score: 2

1:21pm Sat 22 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

No it would have to be a lot larger,they do indeed come in large groups.Is there any way the public from all the area could HELP the police and authorities.
No it would have to be a lot larger,they do indeed come in large groups.Is there any way the public from all the area could HELP the police and authorities. pete woodley
  • Score: 3

1:36pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Mad Karew says...

Maybe. The guy from the Gypsy Council had this idea about getting together with the Council and residents to try and find a mutually acceptable solution. This would involve providing an adequate number of authorised transit sites, in exchange he would get them to agree to a contract regarding any unacceptable behaviour. So they would be free to look for legitimate work in the area, but not the scams or ASB. Would be good if it works, and we could be first to roll it out across the country.

It needs someone a lot more pro-active and willing to communicate to lead it, and Judy Butt would be ideal.
Maybe. The guy from the Gypsy Council had this idea about getting together with the Council and residents to try and find a mutually acceptable solution. This would involve providing an adequate number of authorised transit sites, in exchange he would get them to agree to a contract regarding any unacceptable behaviour. So they would be free to look for legitimate work in the area, but not the scams or ASB. Would be good if it works, and we could be first to roll it out across the country. It needs someone a lot more pro-active and willing to communicate to lead it, and Judy Butt would be ideal. Mad Karew
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Sat 22 Mar 14

ADST_2008 says...

Mad Karew wrote:
Maybe. The guy from the Gypsy Council had this idea about getting together with the Council and residents to try and find a mutually acceptable solution. This would involve providing an adequate number of authorised transit sites, in exchange he would get them to agree to a contract regarding any unacceptable behaviour. So they would be free to look for legitimate work in the area, but not the scams or ASB. Would be good if it works, and we could be first to roll it out across the country. It needs someone a lot more pro-active and willing to communicate to lead it, and Judy Butt would be ideal.
Very difficult that one, you would need someone with great leadership skills and is well known in the community to pull it off, unfortunately you won’t get that with the current Leader who will be I fear difficult to dislodge..
[quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: Maybe. The guy from the Gypsy Council had this idea about getting together with the Council and residents to try and find a mutually acceptable solution. This would involve providing an adequate number of authorised transit sites, in exchange he would get them to agree to a contract regarding any unacceptable behaviour. So they would be free to look for legitimate work in the area, but not the scams or ASB. Would be good if it works, and we could be first to roll it out across the country. It needs someone a lot more pro-active and willing to communicate to lead it, and Judy Butt would be ideal.[/p][/quote]Very difficult that one, you would need someone with great leadership skills and is well known in the community to pull it off, unfortunately you won’t get that with the current Leader who will be I fear difficult to dislodge.. ADST_2008
  • Score: 5

1:44pm Sat 22 Mar 14

ADST_2008 says...

Very difficult that one, you would need someone with great leadership skills and is well known in the community to pull it off, unfortunately you won’t get that with the current Leader who will be I fear be difficult to dislodge..
Very difficult that one, you would need someone with great leadership skills and is well known in the community to pull it off, unfortunately you won’t get that with the current Leader who will be I fear be difficult to dislodge.. ADST_2008
  • Score: 5

3:10pm Sat 22 Mar 14

TheDistrict says...

If any one thinks that 16 sites would stop incursions elsewhere, then you very much need to get wise to the problems travellers. Think back to the 70s and Mannings Heath, the whole place was ripped apart, and all but the ground was sold on within their small businesses. Even today, Mannings Heath is not used to its potential, instead those travellers visiting park on Tesco's Car Park. No one will get them to settle into a small stopover site such as was proposed at Creekmoor and Oakdale. What is needed is the MPs for the area to get their heads together with the Unity Councils and County Councils, and look towards one big purpose built site, resourcing all monies given for this, in somewhere like Matchams, or any other part of the green belt land north of the county.
No one wants sites that are located within areas where people have paid a life time of rents, mortgages, council tax etc, to be given up to travellers who do not pay the same as those who live in those areas. When national government and local government get that into their thick heads, then things might progress for both sides.
If any one thinks that 16 sites would stop incursions elsewhere, then you very much need to get wise to the problems travellers. Think back to the 70s and Mannings Heath, the whole place was ripped apart, and all but the ground was sold on within their small businesses. Even today, Mannings Heath is not used to its potential, instead those travellers visiting park on Tesco's Car Park. No one will get them to settle into a small stopover site such as was proposed at Creekmoor and Oakdale. What is needed is the MPs for the area to get their heads together with the Unity Councils and County Councils, and look towards one big purpose built site, resourcing all monies given for this, in somewhere like Matchams, or any other part of the green belt land north of the county. No one wants sites that are located within areas where people have paid a life time of rents, mortgages, council tax etc, to be given up to travellers who do not pay the same as those who live in those areas. When national government and local government get that into their thick heads, then things might progress for both sides. TheDistrict
  • Score: -1

3:54pm Sat 22 Mar 14

cunone says...

Funny how folk are worried about Travellers now it's not being pushed on to Creekmoor. Double standards here or what.
In reality why have any of us got to put up with the hell these people bring. Simple we have laws not fit for purpose and a police force that even when there are breaches of the law will do nothing about it. Last year there were camps all over the town including Creekmoor. There was trespass and damage antisocial behaviour need I go on and how many arrests and prosecutions made. Perhaps if the law was applied to this group the rest of us would have less of a problem. Time for a new police commissioner maybe
Funny how folk are worried about Travellers now it's not being pushed on to Creekmoor. Double standards here or what. In reality why have any of us got to put up with the hell these people bring. Simple we have laws not fit for purpose and a police force that even when there are breaches of the law will do nothing about it. Last year there were camps all over the town including Creekmoor. There was trespass and damage antisocial behaviour need I go on and how many arrests and prosecutions made. Perhaps if the law was applied to this group the rest of us would have less of a problem. Time for a new police commissioner maybe cunone
  • Score: 6

4:10pm Sat 22 Mar 14

muscliffman says...

TheDistrict wrote:
If any one thinks that 16 sites would stop incursions elsewhere, then you very much need to get wise to the problems travellers. Think back to the 70s and Mannings Heath, the whole place was ripped apart, and all but the ground was sold on within their small businesses. Even today, Mannings Heath is not used to its potential, instead those travellers visiting park on Tesco's Car Park. No one will get them to settle into a small stopover site such as was proposed at Creekmoor and Oakdale. What is needed is the MPs for the area to get their heads together with the Unity Councils and County Councils, and look towards one big purpose built site, resourcing all monies given for this, in somewhere like Matchams, or any other part of the green belt land north of the county.
No one wants sites that are located within areas where people have paid a life time of rents, mortgages, council tax etc, to be given up to travellers who do not pay the same as those who live in those areas. When national government and local government get that into their thick heads, then things might progress for both sides.
Absolutely not!

Why on earth should taxpayers provide these sort of lawless people with a large FREE caravan park at Matchams, or anywhere in the UK for that matter. After all thousands of law abiding tourists pay honestly earned good money for the same sort of holidaying facilities - particularly at Matchams.

Outlawing this totally unacceptable modern 'traveller' lifestyle is the ONLY long term solution to this problem in the UK, not small local sites or large expensive sites which they simply would not use - and are naturally always situated in 'someone else's' back yard!
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: If any one thinks that 16 sites would stop incursions elsewhere, then you very much need to get wise to the problems travellers. Think back to the 70s and Mannings Heath, the whole place was ripped apart, and all but the ground was sold on within their small businesses. Even today, Mannings Heath is not used to its potential, instead those travellers visiting park on Tesco's Car Park. No one will get them to settle into a small stopover site such as was proposed at Creekmoor and Oakdale. What is needed is the MPs for the area to get their heads together with the Unity Councils and County Councils, and look towards one big purpose built site, resourcing all monies given for this, in somewhere like Matchams, or any other part of the green belt land north of the county. No one wants sites that are located within areas where people have paid a life time of rents, mortgages, council tax etc, to be given up to travellers who do not pay the same as those who live in those areas. When national government and local government get that into their thick heads, then things might progress for both sides.[/p][/quote]Absolutely not! Why on earth should taxpayers provide these sort of lawless people with a large FREE caravan park at Matchams, or anywhere in the UK for that matter. After all thousands of law abiding tourists pay honestly earned good money for the same sort of holidaying facilities - particularly at Matchams. Outlawing this totally unacceptable modern 'traveller' lifestyle is the ONLY long term solution to this problem in the UK, not small local sites or large expensive sites which they simply would not use - and are naturally always situated in 'someone else's' back yard! muscliffman
  • Score: 6

5:56pm Sat 22 Mar 14

kalebmoledirt says...

ADST_2008 wrote:
Mad Karew wrote:
Maybe. The guy from the Gypsy Council had this idea about getting together with the Council and residents to try and find a mutually acceptable solution. This would involve providing an adequate number of authorised transit sites, in exchange he would get them to agree to a contract regarding any unacceptable behaviour. So they would be free to look for legitimate work in the area, but not the scams or ASB. Would be good if it works, and we could be first to roll it out across the country. It needs someone a lot more pro-active and willing to communicate to lead it, and Judy Butt would be ideal.
Very difficult that one, you would need someone with great leadership skills and is well known in the community to pull it off, unfortunately you won’t get that with the current Leader who will be I fear difficult to dislodge..
This is,where the debate belongs not with where to dump the traveller .but what do the electorate want and the Gypsy community will accept,perhaps the business plan that the much over subscribed Noddy train as been asked to submit
Can I suggest that the council set up an agency that will take enquiries that request work from the non tax paying labourers . At the same time giving the traveller feed back on his need to be in county that he feels owes free accommodation
The Traveller as no need to be involved as it is a minority issue so you are exempt from any responsibility
[quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: Maybe. The guy from the Gypsy Council had this idea about getting together with the Council and residents to try and find a mutually acceptable solution. This would involve providing an adequate number of authorised transit sites, in exchange he would get them to agree to a contract regarding any unacceptable behaviour. So they would be free to look for legitimate work in the area, but not the scams or ASB. Would be good if it works, and we could be first to roll it out across the country. It needs someone a lot more pro-active and willing to communicate to lead it, and Judy Butt would be ideal.[/p][/quote]Very difficult that one, you would need someone with great leadership skills and is well known in the community to pull it off, unfortunately you won’t get that with the current Leader who will be I fear difficult to dislodge..[/p][/quote]This is,where the debate belongs not with where to dump the traveller .but what do the electorate want and the Gypsy community will accept,perhaps the business plan that the much over subscribed Noddy train as been asked to submit Can I suggest that the council set up an agency that will take enquiries that request work from the non tax paying labourers . At the same time giving the traveller feed back on his need to be in county that he feels owes free accommodation The Traveller as no need to be involved as it is a minority issue so you are exempt from any responsibility kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 2

6:16pm Sat 22 Mar 14

sea poole says...

ADSD- The current leader who would be difficult to dislodge? Makes her sound like Humpty Dumpty!
ADSD- The current leader who would be difficult to dislodge? Makes her sound like Humpty Dumpty! sea poole
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Sat 22 Mar 14

mimi55 says...

cunone wrote:
Funny how folk are worried about Travellers now it's not being pushed on to Creekmoor. Double standards here or what.
In reality why have any of us got to put up with the hell these people bring. Simple we have laws not fit for purpose and a police force that even when there are breaches of the law will do nothing about it. Last year there were camps all over the town including Creekmoor. There was trespass and damage antisocial behaviour need I go on and how many arrests and prosecutions made. Perhaps if the law was applied to this group the rest of us would have less of a problem. Time for a new police commissioner maybe
Hear hear!
[quote][p][bold]cunone[/bold] wrote: Funny how folk are worried about Travellers now it's not being pushed on to Creekmoor. Double standards here or what. In reality why have any of us got to put up with the hell these people bring. Simple we have laws not fit for purpose and a police force that even when there are breaches of the law will do nothing about it. Last year there were camps all over the town including Creekmoor. There was trespass and damage antisocial behaviour need I go on and how many arrests and prosecutions made. Perhaps if the law was applied to this group the rest of us would have less of a problem. Time for a new police commissioner maybe[/p][/quote]Hear hear! mimi55
  • Score: 3

7:26pm Sat 22 Mar 14

ZStanworthUKIP says...

I live in Candford Heath, and this issue existed long before the permission was denied by the council, if we want to stop illegal sites all that needs to be done is give the police more authority in removing them, instead of making them wait days for a court order. In which time they've moved to another illegal site and again the police have to wait.

Illegal sites pop up in Candford Heath every summer regardless of the already established site in Tower park.
I live in Candford Heath, and this issue existed long before the permission was denied by the council, if we want to stop illegal sites all that needs to be done is give the police more authority in removing them, instead of making them wait days for a court order. In which time they've moved to another illegal site and again the police have to wait. Illegal sites pop up in Candford Heath every summer regardless of the already established site in Tower park. ZStanworthUKIP
  • Score: 8

10:54pm Sat 22 Mar 14

scrumpyjack says...

Mad Karew wrote:
Maybe. The guy from the Gypsy Council had this idea about getting together with the Council and residents to try and find a mutually acceptable solution. This would involve providing an adequate number of authorised transit sites, in exchange he would get them to agree to a contract regarding any unacceptable behaviour. So they would be free to look for legitimate work in the area, but not the scams or ASB. Would be good if it works, and we could be first to roll it out across the country.

It needs someone a lot more pro-active and willing to communicate to lead it, and Judy Butt would be ideal.
I need to be careful as the truth of a statement seems not to matter when speaking of certain communities (give a group the title of 'community' and they are set for life under the human rights act).

But I will simply re-quote one sentence for this echo community:

'in exchange he would get them to agree to a contract regarding any unacceptable behaviour. So they would be free to look for legitimate work in the area, but not the scams or ASB. '

Great. Now lets ignore hundreds of years and cross them fingers and stick our heads up our backsides.

By the way Mad Karew how did you and your chums enjoy the film Lock Stock and....oh hang on I mean Snatch......?

Or the Channel 5 programme this week which showed the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and many other counties that had major issues with people from Ireland who liked to travel ripping off (mainly through threats and intimidation) their vulnerable OAPs?
:
In these counties such people were driven out or jailed for many years, What do we do? Argue about providing sites.

Makes you proud eh?
[quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: Maybe. The guy from the Gypsy Council had this idea about getting together with the Council and residents to try and find a mutually acceptable solution. This would involve providing an adequate number of authorised transit sites, in exchange he would get them to agree to a contract regarding any unacceptable behaviour. So they would be free to look for legitimate work in the area, but not the scams or ASB. Would be good if it works, and we could be first to roll it out across the country. It needs someone a lot more pro-active and willing to communicate to lead it, and Judy Butt would be ideal.[/p][/quote]I need to be careful as the truth of a statement seems not to matter when speaking of certain communities (give a group the title of 'community' and they are set for life under the human rights act). But I will simply re-quote one sentence for this echo community: 'in exchange he would get them to agree to a contract regarding any unacceptable behaviour. So they would be free to look for legitimate work in the area, but not the scams or ASB. ' Great. Now lets ignore hundreds of years and cross them fingers and stick our heads up our backsides. By the way Mad Karew how did you and your chums enjoy the film Lock Stock and....oh hang on I mean Snatch......? Or the Channel 5 programme this week which showed the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and many other counties that had major issues with people from Ireland who liked to travel ripping off (mainly through threats and intimidation) their vulnerable OAPs? : In these counties such people were driven out or jailed for many years, What do we do? Argue about providing sites. Makes you proud eh? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 6

11:02pm Sat 22 Mar 14

scrumpyjack says...

muscliffman wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
If any one thinks that 16 sites would stop incursions elsewhere, then you very much need to get wise to the problems travellers. Think back to the 70s and Mannings Heath, the whole place was ripped apart, and all but the ground was sold on within their small businesses. Even today, Mannings Heath is not used to its potential, instead those travellers visiting park on Tesco's Car Park. No one will get them to settle into a small stopover site such as was proposed at Creekmoor and Oakdale. What is needed is the MPs for the area to get their heads together with the Unity Councils and County Councils, and look towards one big purpose built site, resourcing all monies given for this, in somewhere like Matchams, or any other part of the green belt land north of the county.
No one wants sites that are located within areas where people have paid a life time of rents, mortgages, council tax etc, to be given up to travellers who do not pay the same as those who live in those areas. When national government and local government get that into their thick heads, then things might progress for both sides.
Absolutely not!

Why on earth should taxpayers provide these sort of lawless people with a large FREE caravan park at Matchams, or anywhere in the UK for that matter. After all thousands of law abiding tourists pay honestly earned good money for the same sort of holidaying facilities - particularly at Matchams.

Outlawing this totally unacceptable modern 'traveller' lifestyle is the ONLY long term solution to this problem in the UK, not small local sites or large expensive sites which they simply would not use - and are naturally always situated in 'someone else's' back yard!
I don't do high fives but will offer a metaphorical fist bump of agreement.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: If any one thinks that 16 sites would stop incursions elsewhere, then you very much need to get wise to the problems travellers. Think back to the 70s and Mannings Heath, the whole place was ripped apart, and all but the ground was sold on within their small businesses. Even today, Mannings Heath is not used to its potential, instead those travellers visiting park on Tesco's Car Park. No one will get them to settle into a small stopover site such as was proposed at Creekmoor and Oakdale. What is needed is the MPs for the area to get their heads together with the Unity Councils and County Councils, and look towards one big purpose built site, resourcing all monies given for this, in somewhere like Matchams, or any other part of the green belt land north of the county. No one wants sites that are located within areas where people have paid a life time of rents, mortgages, council tax etc, to be given up to travellers who do not pay the same as those who live in those areas. When national government and local government get that into their thick heads, then things might progress for both sides.[/p][/quote]Absolutely not! Why on earth should taxpayers provide these sort of lawless people with a large FREE caravan park at Matchams, or anywhere in the UK for that matter. After all thousands of law abiding tourists pay honestly earned good money for the same sort of holidaying facilities - particularly at Matchams. Outlawing this totally unacceptable modern 'traveller' lifestyle is the ONLY long term solution to this problem in the UK, not small local sites or large expensive sites which they simply would not use - and are naturally always situated in 'someone else's' back yard![/p][/quote]I don't do high fives but will offer a metaphorical fist bump of agreement. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 6

9:12am Sun 23 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

I agree with points raised by both of you, but while you've got people like who ignorantly slags off one group of residents while not look at the facts of the planning application and the reasons for the objections and refusal, you won't get agreement on where a site should go or even if their lifestyle should be allowed in the first place.
......
Given that the council decided they would have a couple of sites, how many contacted the council in support of the application with valid planning reasons why the sites should be on Marshes End and Broadstone Way? Did Brian Harwood-Butler? Plenty of people did so with valid planning reasons why they were unsuitable sites, but I think there were only a couple of the opposite view - I read them all, but with 200 documents I can't remember that detail.
......
All you'll get is the NIMBY attitude - a site can go anywhere and I don't care what the site is like and who is inconvenienced so long as it isn't near me, or preferably just get rid of them all together.
......
They don't stop to think of what laws exist within which we currently have to work and which ones need changing, and what they should be changed too. They probably also won't get involved in any serious discussion or suggest a viable and reasoned solution. They probably wouldn't even bother to contact their MP if a concerted campaign was instigated. It's "I won't do anything except moan and blame, but just get them away from me." They'll leave it up to everyone else so they can carry on moaning.
I agree with points raised by both of you, but while you've got people like who ignorantly slags off one group of residents while not look at the facts of the planning application and the reasons for the objections and refusal, you won't get agreement on where a site should go or even if their lifestyle should be allowed in the first place. ...... Given that the council decided they would have a couple of sites, how many contacted the council in support of the application with valid planning reasons why the sites should be on Marshes End and Broadstone Way? Did Brian Harwood-Butler? Plenty of people did so with valid planning reasons why they were unsuitable sites, but I think there were only a couple of the opposite view - I read them all, but with 200 documents I can't remember that detail. ...... All you'll get is the NIMBY attitude - a site can go anywhere and I don't care what the site is like and who is inconvenienced so long as it isn't near me, or preferably just get rid of them all together. ...... They don't stop to think of what laws exist within which we currently have to work and which ones need changing, and what they should be changed too. They probably also won't get involved in any serious discussion or suggest a viable and reasoned solution. They probably wouldn't even bother to contact their MP if a concerted campaign was instigated. It's "I won't do anything except moan and blame, but just get them away from me." They'll leave it up to everyone else so they can carry on moaning. Carolyn43
  • Score: 4

2:38pm Mon 24 Mar 14

UKIP4U says...

Some of you people on here just haven't a clue,the law has to be changed to ..travellers or anyone who is trespassing can be removed IMMEDIATELY.At present they can be removed only after a court order has been granted. The present law is in line with rules set by the EU
I only agree with the temporary sites as a short term solution.
Under the present Lib lab Con who all want more Europe this won't change
Some of you people on here just haven't a clue,the law has to be changed to ..travellers or anyone who is trespassing can be removed IMMEDIATELY.At present they can be removed only after a court order has been granted. The present law is in line with rules set by the EU I only agree with the temporary sites as a short term solution. Under the present Lib lab Con who all want more Europe this won't change UKIP4U
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree