Emergency meeting to be held over proposed travellers' site, Poole

Bournemouth Echo: Emergency meeting to be held over travellers' site, Poole Emergency meeting to be held over travellers' site, Poole

AN emergency full council meeting is to be held after Poole’s cabinet tonight voted to defer a crucial decision on a summer transit site for travellers.

Cabinet members felt the decision was of such public importance that all 42 members of Borough of Poole should make it and have requested that the Mayor, Cllr Phil Eades, convenes an extraordinary full council meeting within two weeks.

Cllr Mike White, deputy leader and cabinet portfolio holder for planning, said: “Given the widespread public interest in this proposal, cabinet felt it was appropriate that the final decision regarding which sites to progress was referred to full council.”

Around 20 residents attended cabinet where two possible sites at Marshes End, Creekmoor and Broadstone Way were under the spotlight and frustrations were raised that they were not allowed to address the meeting.

Creekmoor resident Shaun Connolly vowed to ensure residents were aware of the proposals and ward councillor Judy Butt said they hoped to hold a residents' meeting in the area.

Comments (30)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:20pm Tue 14 Jan 14

apm1954 says...

cllr eades has a bias against creekmoor that is not fair, on the people of creekmoor .
cllr eades has a bias against creekmoor that is not fair, on the people of creekmoor . apm1954
  • Score: 3

9:39pm Tue 14 Jan 14

apm1954 says...

apm1954 wrote:
cllr eades has a bias against creekmoor that is not fair, on the people of creekmoor .
when is the next elections.
[quote][p][bold]apm1954[/bold] wrote: cllr eades has a bias against creekmoor that is not fair, on the people of creekmoor .[/p][/quote]when is the next elections. apm1954
  • Score: 3

9:44pm Tue 14 Jan 14

pete woodley says...

Careful what you say against Eades,he has friends,so they say.
Careful what you say against Eades,he has friends,so they say. pete woodley
  • Score: 0

11:01pm Tue 14 Jan 14

muscliffman says...

So "cabinet felt it was appropriate that the final decision regarding which sites to progress was referred to full council.” - not good enough.

With little doubt most of the electorate in Poole do NOT want any 'traveller' site to be progressed in the Borough at their expense and probably nor do they want 'travellers' in the town - ever again. Councillors and others should stop hiding behind the badly flawed EU/UK 'traveller' legislation and start to challenge it on behalf of the majority of their voters. Instead they seem to endlessly debate suitable locations for something the law abiding taxpaying public, whom they all rely on for votes, simply do not want.

When will UK politicians finally 'grow some' on this subject - as their Irish counterparts already have!
So "cabinet felt it was appropriate that the final decision regarding which sites to progress was referred to full council.” - not good enough. With little doubt most of the electorate in Poole do NOT want any 'traveller' site to be progressed in the Borough at their expense and probably nor do they want 'travellers' in the town - ever again. Councillors and others should stop hiding behind the badly flawed EU/UK 'traveller' legislation and start to challenge it on behalf of the majority of their voters. Instead they seem to endlessly debate suitable locations for something the law abiding taxpaying public, whom they all rely on for votes, simply do not want. When will UK politicians finally 'grow some' on this subject - as their Irish counterparts already have! muscliffman
  • Score: 8

11:10pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Gonetothebeach says...

Definitely right that such a sensitive issue should be decided by full council and that some time - however little - is being taken for those residents most affected to have a say, however urgently the decision needs to be made in order to avoid last year's scenario and to comply with the legal requirement whatever we individually might think of that requirement.
Definitely right that such a sensitive issue should be decided by full council and that some time - however little - is being taken for those residents most affected to have a say, however urgently the decision needs to be made in order to avoid last year's scenario and to comply with the legal requirement whatever we individually might think of that requirement. Gonetothebeach
  • Score: 1

11:42pm Tue 14 Jan 14

muscliffman says...

Gonetothebeach wrote:
Definitely right that such a sensitive issue should be decided by full council and that some time - however little - is being taken for those residents most affected to have a say, however urgently the decision needs to be made in order to avoid last year's scenario and to comply with the legal requirement whatever we individually might think of that requirement.
I believe when a majority (and on this subject there appears to be ample evidence) of the public 'individually' disagree with any legal requirement it is the legislation that needs to be urgently reviewed - rather than be blindly followed - by our representatives.
[quote][p][bold]Gonetothebeach[/bold] wrote: Definitely right that such a sensitive issue should be decided by full council and that some time - however little - is being taken for those residents most affected to have a say, however urgently the decision needs to be made in order to avoid last year's scenario and to comply with the legal requirement whatever we individually might think of that requirement.[/p][/quote]I believe when a majority (and on this subject there appears to be ample evidence) of the public 'individually' disagree with any legal requirement it is the legislation that needs to be urgently reviewed - rather than be blindly followed - by our representatives. muscliffman
  • Score: 0

11:52pm Tue 14 Jan 14

MarcPoole says...

Creekmoor residents are furious that they were not allowed to have any say at this meeting. Anyone who wanted to voice concerns was ordered to be quiet. The opinions of hard-working, law-abiding council tax-payers is clearly irrelevant to Poole Council’s diversity-obsessed cabinet. The council has chosen to overlook the fact it has NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to provide a transit site for Travellers.

Three councillors from Creekmoor put forward a robust argument opposing this transit site but their words fell on deaf ears. Live in Creekmoor and are worried about rising crime? You’re irrelevant. Live in Creekmoor and are concerned about the effect of a transit site on property prices and how difficult it will become to sell your home? The council’s not interested. Been threatened by Travellers in recent years or suffered theft or damage to your home? The council doesn’t want to know.

And every council tax payer in Poole will be forced to cough up towards the huge cost of making this site – on contaminated land – fit for human habitation: vegetation clearance, access roads, secure fencing, toilets and washing facilities, waste disposal facilities, power supplies and hard-standing pitches. And then there’s the cost to the council in lost business rates when nearby firms overlooking the site move out.

Poole Council’s leaders should hang their heads in shame for refusing to talk to the very people who pay their wages. When the leader and deputy leader of the council stand up and walk out of a meeting as soon as worried residents start to voice their concerns, it is a massive slap in the face for local democracy.
Creekmoor residents are furious that they were not allowed to have any say at this meeting. Anyone who wanted to voice concerns was ordered to be quiet. The opinions of hard-working, law-abiding council tax-payers is clearly irrelevant to Poole Council’s diversity-obsessed cabinet. The council has chosen to overlook the fact it has NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to provide a transit site for Travellers. Three councillors from Creekmoor put forward a robust argument opposing this transit site but their words fell on deaf ears. Live in Creekmoor and are worried about rising crime? You’re irrelevant. Live in Creekmoor and are concerned about the effect of a transit site on property prices and how difficult it will become to sell your home? The council’s not interested. Been threatened by Travellers in recent years or suffered theft or damage to your home? The council doesn’t want to know. And every council tax payer in Poole will be forced to cough up towards the huge cost of making this site – on contaminated land – fit for human habitation: vegetation clearance, access roads, secure fencing, toilets and washing facilities, waste disposal facilities, power supplies and hard-standing pitches. And then there’s the cost to the council in lost business rates when nearby firms overlooking the site move out. Poole Council’s leaders should hang their heads in shame for refusing to talk to the very people who pay their wages. When the leader and deputy leader of the council stand up and walk out of a meeting as soon as worried residents start to voice their concerns, it is a massive slap in the face for local democracy. MarcPoole
  • Score: 15

7:18am Wed 15 Jan 14

Baysider says...

muscliffman wrote:
So "cabinet felt it was appropriate that the final decision regarding which sites to progress was referred to full council.” - not good enough.

With little doubt most of the electorate in Poole do NOT want any 'traveller' site to be progressed in the Borough at their expense and probably nor do they want 'travellers' in the town - ever again. Councillors and others should stop hiding behind the badly flawed EU/UK 'traveller' legislation and start to challenge it on behalf of the majority of their voters. Instead they seem to endlessly debate suitable locations for something the law abiding taxpaying public, whom they all rely on for votes, simply do not want.

When will UK politicians finally 'grow some' on this subject - as their Irish counterparts already have!
What a load of old twaddle. A very nice piece of political rhetoric designed to gather support for your beloved UKIP but without one single, practical suggestion. What do local authorities do NOW to deal with a traveller site? The courts won't provide them with eviction orders unless they've complied with the law and the police can't direct them to a transit site because we don't have one and our politicians don't seem to want to grasp the nettle and provide one.

It is neither appropriate or financially sensible for small local authorities to attempt to amend or repeal the law. That's your MP's job not those LA staff left trying to deal with the situation on the ground. Or would you be happy to see £1,000,000's spent of council tax payrrs money on lengthy court cases, because that's what it would take?
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: So "cabinet felt it was appropriate that the final decision regarding which sites to progress was referred to full council.” - not good enough. With little doubt most of the electorate in Poole do NOT want any 'traveller' site to be progressed in the Borough at their expense and probably nor do they want 'travellers' in the town - ever again. Councillors and others should stop hiding behind the badly flawed EU/UK 'traveller' legislation and start to challenge it on behalf of the majority of their voters. Instead they seem to endlessly debate suitable locations for something the law abiding taxpaying public, whom they all rely on for votes, simply do not want. When will UK politicians finally 'grow some' on this subject - as their Irish counterparts already have![/p][/quote]What a load of old twaddle. A very nice piece of political rhetoric designed to gather support for your beloved UKIP but without one single, practical suggestion. What do local authorities do NOW to deal with a traveller site? The courts won't provide them with eviction orders unless they've complied with the law and the police can't direct them to a transit site because we don't have one and our politicians don't seem to want to grasp the nettle and provide one. It is neither appropriate or financially sensible for small local authorities to attempt to amend or repeal the law. That's your MP's job not those LA staff left trying to deal with the situation on the ground. Or would you be happy to see £1,000,000's spent of council tax payrrs money on lengthy court cases, because that's what it would take? Baysider
  • Score: 0

7:21am Wed 15 Jan 14

kalebmoledirt says...

pete woodley wrote:
Careful what you say against Eades,he has friends,so they say.
Hasn't got enough mates to play patients with
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Careful what you say against Eades,he has friends,so they say.[/p][/quote]Hasn't got enough mates to play patients with kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 2

7:32am Wed 15 Jan 14

Baysider says...

MarcPoole wrote:
Creekmoor residents are furious that they were not allowed to have any say at this meeting. Anyone who wanted to voice concerns was ordered to be quiet. The opinions of hard-working, law-abiding council tax-payers is clearly irrelevant to Poole Council’s diversity-obsessed cabinet. The council has chosen to overlook the fact it has NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to provide a transit site for Travellers.

Three councillors from Creekmoor put forward a robust argument opposing this transit site but their words fell on deaf ears. Live in Creekmoor and are worried about rising crime? You’re irrelevant. Live in Creekmoor and are concerned about the effect of a transit site on property prices and how difficult it will become to sell your home? The council’s not interested. Been threatened by Travellers in recent years or suffered theft or damage to your home? The council doesn’t want to know.

And every council tax payer in Poole will be forced to cough up towards the huge cost of making this site – on contaminated land – fit for human habitation: vegetation clearance, access roads, secure fencing, toilets and washing facilities, waste disposal facilities, power supplies and hard-standing pitches. And then there’s the cost to the council in lost business rates when nearby firms overlooking the site move out.

Poole Council’s leaders should hang their heads in shame for refusing to talk to the very people who pay their wages. When the leader and deputy leader of the council stand up and walk out of a meeting as soon as worried residents start to voice their concerns, it is a massive slap in the face for local democracy.
...apart from that earlier public meeting that wad held to discuss the issue that is.
[quote][p][bold]MarcPoole[/bold] wrote: Creekmoor residents are furious that they were not allowed to have any say at this meeting. Anyone who wanted to voice concerns was ordered to be quiet. The opinions of hard-working, law-abiding council tax-payers is clearly irrelevant to Poole Council’s diversity-obsessed cabinet. The council has chosen to overlook the fact it has NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to provide a transit site for Travellers. Three councillors from Creekmoor put forward a robust argument opposing this transit site but their words fell on deaf ears. Live in Creekmoor and are worried about rising crime? You’re irrelevant. Live in Creekmoor and are concerned about the effect of a transit site on property prices and how difficult it will become to sell your home? The council’s not interested. Been threatened by Travellers in recent years or suffered theft or damage to your home? The council doesn’t want to know. And every council tax payer in Poole will be forced to cough up towards the huge cost of making this site – on contaminated land – fit for human habitation: vegetation clearance, access roads, secure fencing, toilets and washing facilities, waste disposal facilities, power supplies and hard-standing pitches. And then there’s the cost to the council in lost business rates when nearby firms overlooking the site move out. Poole Council’s leaders should hang their heads in shame for refusing to talk to the very people who pay their wages. When the leader and deputy leader of the council stand up and walk out of a meeting as soon as worried residents start to voice their concerns, it is a massive slap in the face for local democracy.[/p][/quote]...apart from that earlier public meeting that wad held to discuss the issue that is. Baysider
  • Score: -1

8:30am Wed 15 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

Whatever residents of Poole think, and particularly those of Creekmoor think, won't make a bit of difference. Those with the biggest voices will barge it through. No councillor truly represents those who elected him/her.
.....
The peoples' voices didn't stop the so-called Park and Ride, when, apart from the objections about decimating a green field site, it was clearly demonstrated that it wouldn't be used; it didn't with the ICONIC pretty bridge when the stupidity and shortcomings of the design was pointed out.
.........
The only time I remember a proposed project being scuppered was the really stupid idea of a giant pyramid on Baiter, when the outcry was so great they had no choice but to back down.
.......
This time they're proposing to use land considered too contaminated for even a car park, for people (whatever you think of them) to live on. Nothing has been done to decontaminate it, so presumably it still is.
.....
Obviously the huge objections to having travellers stopping anywhere within Poole last year wasn't great enough. Some of those on the council obviously feel so safe in their seats that they think they can foist a site on the people of Poole. Time they realised that isn't necessarily so - even worms can turn.
Whatever residents of Poole think, and particularly those of Creekmoor think, won't make a bit of difference. Those with the biggest voices will barge it through. No councillor truly represents those who elected him/her. ..... The peoples' voices didn't stop the so-called Park and Ride, when, apart from the objections about decimating a green field site, it was clearly demonstrated that it wouldn't be used; it didn't with the ICONIC pretty bridge when the stupidity and shortcomings of the design was pointed out. ......... The only time I remember a proposed project being scuppered was the really stupid idea of a giant pyramid on Baiter, when the outcry was so great they had no choice but to back down. ....... This time they're proposing to use land considered too contaminated for even a car park, for people (whatever you think of them) to live on. Nothing has been done to decontaminate it, so presumably it still is. ..... Obviously the huge objections to having travellers stopping anywhere within Poole last year wasn't great enough. Some of those on the council obviously feel so safe in their seats that they think they can foist a site on the people of Poole. Time they realised that isn't necessarily so - even worms can turn. Carolyn43
  • Score: 3

8:49am Wed 15 Jan 14

Jo__Go says...

Gonetothebeach wrote:
Definitely right that such a sensitive issue should be decided by full council and that some time - however little - is being taken for those residents most affected to have a say, however urgently the decision needs to be made in order to avoid last year's scenario and to comply with the legal requirement whatever we individually might think of that requirement.
If you were there last night you'd know that there is NO legal requirement to provide such a site. BoP is simply looking to avoid the bad publicity of dealing with incursions by making it easier to move these people on. Sadly, they have yet again rushed at a complex issue and done a botch job.
[quote][p][bold]Gonetothebeach[/bold] wrote: Definitely right that such a sensitive issue should be decided by full council and that some time - however little - is being taken for those residents most affected to have a say, however urgently the decision needs to be made in order to avoid last year's scenario and to comply with the legal requirement whatever we individually might think of that requirement.[/p][/quote]If you were there last night you'd know that there is NO legal requirement to provide such a site. BoP is simply looking to avoid the bad publicity of dealing with incursions by making it easier to move these people on. Sadly, they have yet again rushed at a complex issue and done a botch job. Jo__Go
  • Score: -1

8:52am Wed 15 Jan 14

Baysider says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
Whatever residents of Poole think, and particularly those of Creekmoor think, won't make a bit of difference. Those with the biggest voices will barge it through. No councillor truly represents those who elected him/her.
.....
The peoples' voices didn't stop the so-called Park and Ride, when, apart from the objections about decimating a green field site, it was clearly demonstrated that it wouldn't be used; it didn't with the ICONIC pretty bridge when the stupidity and shortcomings of the design was pointed out.
.........
The only time I remember a proposed project being scuppered was the really stupid idea of a giant pyramid on Baiter, when the outcry was so great they had no choice but to back down.
.......
This time they're proposing to use land considered too contaminated for even a car park, for people (whatever you think of them) to live on. Nothing has been done to decontaminate it, so presumably it still is.
.....
Obviously the huge objections to having travellers stopping anywhere within Poole last year wasn't great enough. Some of those on the council obviously feel so safe in their seats that they think they can foist a site on the people of Poole. Time they realised that isn't necessarily so - even worms can turn.
...and what happens in a few months when they start turning up again? Do you want our money spent chasing them all around Poole and Bournemouth all summer or do you want at least a temporary solution?
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Whatever residents of Poole think, and particularly those of Creekmoor think, won't make a bit of difference. Those with the biggest voices will barge it through. No councillor truly represents those who elected him/her. ..... The peoples' voices didn't stop the so-called Park and Ride, when, apart from the objections about decimating a green field site, it was clearly demonstrated that it wouldn't be used; it didn't with the ICONIC pretty bridge when the stupidity and shortcomings of the design was pointed out. ......... The only time I remember a proposed project being scuppered was the really stupid idea of a giant pyramid on Baiter, when the outcry was so great they had no choice but to back down. ....... This time they're proposing to use land considered too contaminated for even a car park, for people (whatever you think of them) to live on. Nothing has been done to decontaminate it, so presumably it still is. ..... Obviously the huge objections to having travellers stopping anywhere within Poole last year wasn't great enough. Some of those on the council obviously feel so safe in their seats that they think they can foist a site on the people of Poole. Time they realised that isn't necessarily so - even worms can turn.[/p][/quote]...and what happens in a few months when they start turning up again? Do you want our money spent chasing them all around Poole and Bournemouth all summer or do you want at least a temporary solution? Baysider
  • Score: 2

8:57am Wed 15 Jan 14

static kill says...

I believe a site is needed in Poole and that Creekmore is the best (least worse) place for it. I know a lot of people share this view, but as always it's those who are against it that are the most vocal.
I believe a site is needed in Poole and that Creekmore is the best (least worse) place for it. I know a lot of people share this view, but as always it's those who are against it that are the most vocal. static kill
  • Score: 3

9:10am Wed 15 Jan 14

60plus says...

They come here for the steam fair so why not put them in a field out by Blandford their are plenty of them.
They come here for the steam fair so why not put them in a field out by Blandford their are plenty of them. 60plus
  • Score: 2

9:20am Wed 15 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

Baysider, I don’t want ANY money spent on them. I don’t live near the proposed site, so have no vested interest, other than not wanting a traveller site anywhere in Poole or indeed in the country. There’s one rule for travellers and another for residents. If you’re happy to have a site near where you live, as you obviously are, let the council know. I’m sure they’ll be delighted.
........
Do you really think they’ll pay to use a site? Of course, not. They contribute nothing now and won’t in the future. They’ll park illegally, get move on quickly and pitch up illegally on the next open space, for it all to happen again. The only difference will be that it will be quicker to move them and they won’t have to get an eviction order. They won’t pay to use a site.
......
How much is it going to cost to get a site up and running? We’re going to have to foot the bill, while they contribute nothing even towards it, which means that OUR services will have to be cut because there isn’t a bottomless money pit.
........
It won’t be used because it won’t be free. If a site does get up and running, I look forward to saying to the council “Told you so!” when it remains empty, just as we did with the Park and Ride. Just remember what happened to the previous traveller site that was provided.
Baysider, I don’t want ANY money spent on them. I don’t live near the proposed site, so have no vested interest, other than not wanting a traveller site anywhere in Poole or indeed in the country. There’s one rule for travellers and another for residents. If you’re happy to have a site near where you live, as you obviously are, let the council know. I’m sure they’ll be delighted. ........ Do you really think they’ll pay to use a site? Of course, not. They contribute nothing now and won’t in the future. They’ll park illegally, get move on quickly and pitch up illegally on the next open space, for it all to happen again. The only difference will be that it will be quicker to move them and they won’t have to get an eviction order. They won’t pay to use a site. ...... How much is it going to cost to get a site up and running? We’re going to have to foot the bill, while they contribute nothing even towards it, which means that OUR services will have to be cut because there isn’t a bottomless money pit. ........ It won’t be used because it won’t be free. If a site does get up and running, I look forward to saying to the council “Told you so!” when it remains empty, just as we did with the Park and Ride. Just remember what happened to the previous traveller site that was provided. Carolyn43
  • Score: 0

9:26am Wed 15 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

static kill wrote:
I believe a site is needed in Poole and that Creekmore is the best (least worse) place for it. I know a lot of people share this view, but as always it's those who are against it that are the most vocal.
Who says it's the best place for it? Although Creekmore would be a good place, but CreekMOOR wouldn't.
[quote][p][bold]static kill[/bold] wrote: I believe a site is needed in Poole and that Creekmore is the best (least worse) place for it. I know a lot of people share this view, but as always it's those who are against it that are the most vocal.[/p][/quote]Who says it's the best place for it? Although Creekmore would be a good place, but CreekMOOR wouldn't. Carolyn43
  • Score: -1

9:34am Wed 15 Jan 14

Baysider says...

60plus wrote:
They come here for the steam fair so why not put them in a field out by Blandford their are plenty of them.
No, they come here to work. They turn up months and months before the Steam Fair. If we tackled the reason they come here in the first place then everything else largely becomes academic doesn't it?
[quote][p][bold]60plus[/bold] wrote: They come here for the steam fair so why not put them in a field out by Blandford their are plenty of them.[/p][/quote]No, they come here to work. They turn up months and months before the Steam Fair. If we tackled the reason they come here in the first place then everything else largely becomes academic doesn't it? Baysider
  • Score: 2

9:47am Wed 15 Jan 14

Jo__Go says...

An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre!

The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability??
Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away?

This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor.
An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre! The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability?? Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away? This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor. Jo__Go
  • Score: 3

10:47am Wed 15 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

Jo__Go wrote:
An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre!

The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability??
Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away?

This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor.
"The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their resident."
......
I'm sure those who live in Cllr Atkinsons's Penn Hill ward are happy to know that she doesn't consider the needs of her residents. Obviously she's forgotten what democracy is.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: An interesting meeting yesterday evening. Cllr Atkinson made it very plain on several occasions that the Mayor is the one pushing this agenda, and pushing it hard; it's very obvious that the Leader of the Council has mislaid the reins of power, and a Conservative council is being driven by a Liberal Democrat. Bizarre! The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their residents. This demonstrates comprehensively her inability or unwillingness to open her ears. Much of the commentary was about the lack of due process by the council and its officers with no consultation on this proposal. Forget Baysider's glib comment on the earlier public meeting; that was about setting an agenda, not agreeing a solution. All Creekmoor councillors pointed out the eye-poppingly ludicrous nature of the solution, a site that is on a contaminated bog, next to a dangerous culvert and a busy dual carriageway, with no obvious means of safe access. The proposal suits no-one, not Creekmoor, not Poole, not travellers. How on earth did the officers manage to score this site with a green light for suitability?? Equally ridiculous is the notion that the costs of the proposal will not be investigated until the site is selected!! Is cost not to be a factor in the decision process? The council has money to throw away? This proposal is a botch job, and will cost the Borough dear, in real money, public reputation, lost jobs, and credibility, all for a solution that is patently unworkable and will deliver nothing to address the issue, with only the legacy of yet another white elephant in Creekmoor.[/p][/quote]"The Leader at the end of the meeting launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Creekmoor councillors, saying they have to consider the needs of the Borough over those of their resident." ...... I'm sure those who live in Cllr Atkinsons's Penn Hill ward are happy to know that she doesn't consider the needs of her residents. Obviously she's forgotten what democracy is. Carolyn43
  • Score: 1

10:57am Wed 15 Jan 14

Tony Trent says...

What a waste of money this extra meeting will be. Cabinet members get paid twice the allowance that ordinairy members are paid because they are supposed to take crucial decisions, and be held to account for them. This decision fell within their remit, but they want full Council to get them off the hook. The decision was only difficult because there was some blatant scaremongering put round by their colleagues. Both the proposed sites were about as far from people's homes as you can get in Poole, will only be used, IF AT ALL, for short periods of the year, and are almost certainly further away than any of the regular places the travellers camp out. The advice was that the very existance of these sites helps reduce the problem of illegal encampments, and that travellers would rather go to another town than be herded to a nominated place.
Before the predictable attack, in our part of town (Newtown & Alderney) we host a permanent traveller site, and have areas with large traveller communities. It has not become an un-inhabitable area as a result, and some of our house prices are high too. We also have sites that are regularly visited by travellers in Summer, some more controversial than others. The question is, do we want a partial solution to the problems heightened over the last couple of years, or not?
What a waste of money this extra meeting will be. Cabinet members get paid twice the allowance that ordinairy members are paid because they are supposed to take crucial decisions, and be held to account for them. This decision fell within their remit, but they want full Council to get them off the hook. The decision was only difficult because there was some blatant scaremongering put round by their colleagues. Both the proposed sites were about as far from people's homes as you can get in Poole, will only be used, IF AT ALL, for short periods of the year, and are almost certainly further away than any of the regular places the travellers camp out. The advice was that the very existance of these sites helps reduce the problem of illegal encampments, and that travellers would rather go to another town than be herded to a nominated place. Before the predictable attack, in our part of town (Newtown & Alderney) we host a permanent traveller site, and have areas with large traveller communities. It has not become an un-inhabitable area as a result, and some of our house prices are high too. We also have sites that are regularly visited by travellers in Summer, some more controversial than others. The question is, do we want a partial solution to the problems heightened over the last couple of years, or not? Tony Trent
  • Score: 1

11:07am Wed 15 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

If they're permanent, they're not travellers - look up the meaning of the word in the dictionary.
If they're permanent, they're not travellers - look up the meaning of the word in the dictionary. Carolyn43
  • Score: 1

11:10am Wed 15 Jan 14

Tony Trent says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
Baysider, I don’t want ANY money spent on them. I don’t live near the proposed site, so have no vested interest, other than not wanting a traveller site anywhere in Poole or indeed in the country. There’s one rule for travellers and another for residents. If you’re happy to have a site near where you live, as you obviously are, let the council know. I’m sure they’ll be delighted.
........
Do you really think they’ll pay to use a site? Of course, not. They contribute nothing now and won’t in the future. They’ll park illegally, get move on quickly and pitch up illegally on the next open space, for it all to happen again. The only difference will be that it will be quicker to move them and they won’t have to get an eviction order. They won’t pay to use a site.
......
How much is it going to cost to get a site up and running? We’re going to have to foot the bill, while they contribute nothing even towards it, which means that OUR services will have to be cut because there isn’t a bottomless money pit.
........
It won’t be used because it won’t be free. If a site does get up and running, I look forward to saying to the council “Told you so!” when it remains empty, just as we did with the Park and Ride. Just remember what happened to the previous traveller site that was provided.
The last paragraph rightly points out that the site is not likely to be used much, if at all. Those who attended the meeting last autumn would have been presented with that information. Importantly, the advice was that the mere existance of the site will dramatically reduce encampments elsewhere within Poole, and a "temporary stopping place" is not a fully kitted out transit site. The strongest objection to the proposal last night was the humanitarian one - what an irony bearing in mind the usual comments. The question is, do we want something in the armoury or not? The alternative will be more of the same.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Baysider, I don’t want ANY money spent on them. I don’t live near the proposed site, so have no vested interest, other than not wanting a traveller site anywhere in Poole or indeed in the country. There’s one rule for travellers and another for residents. If you’re happy to have a site near where you live, as you obviously are, let the council know. I’m sure they’ll be delighted. ........ Do you really think they’ll pay to use a site? Of course, not. They contribute nothing now and won’t in the future. They’ll park illegally, get move on quickly and pitch up illegally on the next open space, for it all to happen again. The only difference will be that it will be quicker to move them and they won’t have to get an eviction order. They won’t pay to use a site. ...... How much is it going to cost to get a site up and running? We’re going to have to foot the bill, while they contribute nothing even towards it, which means that OUR services will have to be cut because there isn’t a bottomless money pit. ........ It won’t be used because it won’t be free. If a site does get up and running, I look forward to saying to the council “Told you so!” when it remains empty, just as we did with the Park and Ride. Just remember what happened to the previous traveller site that was provided.[/p][/quote]The last paragraph rightly points out that the site is not likely to be used much, if at all. Those who attended the meeting last autumn would have been presented with that information. Importantly, the advice was that the mere existance of the site will dramatically reduce encampments elsewhere within Poole, and a "temporary stopping place" is not a fully kitted out transit site. The strongest objection to the proposal last night was the humanitarian one - what an irony bearing in mind the usual comments. The question is, do we want something in the armoury or not? The alternative will be more of the same. Tony Trent
  • Score: 0

11:21am Wed 15 Jan 14

Tony Trent says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
If they're permanent, they're not travellers - look up the meaning of the word in the dictionary.
They are permanent residents but travel for part of the year (not a logical definition but a fact of life). Even settled travellers still share part of the culture of their travelling compartriates, which makes some of them a challenge to the settled community. The thing is that some communities already share these challenges more than others, and a minority feel victimised. Creekmoor is not being victimised. It just happens to be one of the least developed areas of Poole where a site can be proposed that is not on someone's doorstep, or a protected nature reserve.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: If they're permanent, they're not travellers - look up the meaning of the word in the dictionary.[/p][/quote]They are permanent residents but travel for part of the year (not a logical definition but a fact of life). Even settled travellers still share part of the culture of their travelling compartriates, which makes some of them a challenge to the settled community. The thing is that some communities already share these challenges more than others, and a minority feel victimised. Creekmoor is not being victimised. It just happens to be one of the least developed areas of Poole where a site can be proposed that is not on someone's doorstep, or a protected nature reserve. Tony Trent
  • Score: 3

11:23am Wed 15 Jan 14

Jo__Go says...

For once I'm in agreement with Councillor Trent; Cabinet should have rejected this proposal themselves last night. I suspect the cost of the Cabinet and Council meetings will though pale into insignificance against the cost to date of a laughable report by the Head of Planning and Regeneration. How much did officers spend reducing a list of 90 sites to a short list of seven, of which no fewer than FIVE are simply not even available? Of the two remaining, the larger one passed the suitability test, despite being a contaminated parcel of land, prone to flooding, in dangerous proximity to a deep and fast-flowing culvert as well as a busy and noisy dual carriageway. The only access, by the way, would be through the entrance to the Fire Station, on to one of the busiest and fastest roundabouts in the Borough.
As a former senior manager in a financial services firm, if one of my staff had brought me this report they would be on a warning for sloppy, incompetent work.

Oh, and lets not forget the significant cost (I'm taking an educated guess, because the report parks any costing until AFTER a decision) of preparing the site, that as Cllr Trent states is unlikely to be used.
For once I'm in agreement with Councillor Trent; Cabinet should have rejected this proposal themselves last night. I suspect the cost of the Cabinet and Council meetings will though pale into insignificance against the cost to date of a laughable report by the Head of Planning and Regeneration. How much did officers spend reducing a list of 90 sites to a short list of seven, of which no fewer than FIVE are simply not even available? Of the two remaining, the larger one passed the suitability test, despite being a contaminated parcel of land, prone to flooding, in dangerous proximity to a deep and fast-flowing culvert as well as a busy and noisy dual carriageway. The only access, by the way, would be through the entrance to the Fire Station, on to one of the busiest and fastest roundabouts in the Borough. As a former senior manager in a financial services firm, if one of my staff had brought me this report they would be on a warning for sloppy, incompetent work. Oh, and lets not forget the significant cost (I'm taking an educated guess, because the report parks any costing until AFTER a decision) of preparing the site, that as Cllr Trent states is unlikely to be used. Jo__Go
  • Score: -2

2:05pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Ebb Tide says...

Tony Trent wrote:
What a waste of money this extra meeting will be. Cabinet members get paid twice the allowance that ordinairy members are paid because they are supposed to take crucial decisions, and be held to account for them. This decision fell within their remit, but they want full Council to get them off the hook. The decision was only difficult because there was some blatant scaremongering put round by their colleagues. Both the proposed sites were about as far from people's homes as you can get in Poole, will only be used, IF AT ALL, for short periods of the year, and are almost certainly further away than any of the regular places the travellers camp out. The advice was that the very existance of these sites helps reduce the problem of illegal encampments, and that travellers would rather go to another town than be herded to a nominated place.
Before the predictable attack, in our part of town (Newtown & Alderney) we host a permanent traveller site, and have areas with large traveller communities. It has not become an un-inhabitable area as a result, and some of our house prices are high too. We also have sites that are regularly visited by travellers in Summer, some more controversial than others. The question is, do we want a partial solution to the problems heightened over the last couple of years, or not?
We do want to avoid public unrest arising from any more dithering. Perhaps the solution could be on a temporary basis (say such and such a location for 2014 and another place in 2015) whilst our MPs get a change in the law or, since we live in a densely populated tourist area, some sort of local dispensation. How much more time do our MPs require, would seem to be a reasonable question to ask of them - together with what sort of assistance do they need from the mere mortals that live and pay their taxes here !!
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: What a waste of money this extra meeting will be. Cabinet members get paid twice the allowance that ordinairy members are paid because they are supposed to take crucial decisions, and be held to account for them. This decision fell within their remit, but they want full Council to get them off the hook. The decision was only difficult because there was some blatant scaremongering put round by their colleagues. Both the proposed sites were about as far from people's homes as you can get in Poole, will only be used, IF AT ALL, for short periods of the year, and are almost certainly further away than any of the regular places the travellers camp out. The advice was that the very existance of these sites helps reduce the problem of illegal encampments, and that travellers would rather go to another town than be herded to a nominated place. Before the predictable attack, in our part of town (Newtown & Alderney) we host a permanent traveller site, and have areas with large traveller communities. It has not become an un-inhabitable area as a result, and some of our house prices are high too. We also have sites that are regularly visited by travellers in Summer, some more controversial than others. The question is, do we want a partial solution to the problems heightened over the last couple of years, or not?[/p][/quote]We do want to avoid public unrest arising from any more dithering. Perhaps the solution could be on a temporary basis (say such and such a location for 2014 and another place in 2015) whilst our MPs get a change in the law or, since we live in a densely populated tourist area, some sort of local dispensation. How much more time do our MPs require, would seem to be a reasonable question to ask of them - together with what sort of assistance do they need from the mere mortals that live and pay their taxes here !! Ebb Tide
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Ebb Tide says...

Baysider wrote:
60plus wrote:
They come here for the steam fair so why not put them in a field out by Blandford their are plenty of them.
No, they come here to work. They turn up months and months before the Steam Fair. If we tackled the reason they come here in the first place then everything else largely becomes academic doesn't it?
If they come to work, who employs them ? It should be known !!
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]60plus[/bold] wrote: They come here for the steam fair so why not put them in a field out by Blandford their are plenty of them.[/p][/quote]No, they come here to work. They turn up months and months before the Steam Fair. If we tackled the reason they come here in the first place then everything else largely becomes academic doesn't it?[/p][/quote]If they come to work, who employs them ? It should be known !! Ebb Tide
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Ebb Tide says...

muscliffman wrote:
Gonetothebeach wrote:
Definitely right that such a sensitive issue should be decided by full council and that some time - however little - is being taken for those residents most affected to have a say, however urgently the decision needs to be made in order to avoid last year's scenario and to comply with the legal requirement whatever we individually might think of that requirement.
I believe when a majority (and on this subject there appears to be ample evidence) of the public 'individually' disagree with any legal requirement it is the legislation that needs to be urgently reviewed - rather than be blindly followed - by our representatives.
Agreed. What about an exemption for tourist areas that are densely populated with no suitable land that can be considered available for use by travellers ? When a hotel is full : " no vacancies". is not an unusual sign to encounter on ones travels !

Also, would we be able to contest any action against a local ban on any unauthorized overnight camping within the boundaries of our Borough. In this connection, who would bring any such action to Court to contest the legitimacy of any such local ban. I wouldn't !!
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gonetothebeach[/bold] wrote: Definitely right that such a sensitive issue should be decided by full council and that some time - however little - is being taken for those residents most affected to have a say, however urgently the decision needs to be made in order to avoid last year's scenario and to comply with the legal requirement whatever we individually might think of that requirement.[/p][/quote]I believe when a majority (and on this subject there appears to be ample evidence) of the public 'individually' disagree with any legal requirement it is the legislation that needs to be urgently reviewed - rather than be blindly followed - by our representatives.[/p][/quote]Agreed. What about an exemption for tourist areas that are densely populated with no suitable land that can be considered available for use by travellers ? When a hotel is full : " no vacancies". is not an unusual sign to encounter on ones travels ! Also, would we be able to contest any action against a local ban on any unauthorized overnight camping within the boundaries of our Borough. In this connection, who would bring any such action to Court to contest the legitimacy of any such local ban. I wouldn't !! Ebb Tide
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Baysider says...

Ebb Tide wrote:
Baysider wrote:
60plus wrote:
They come here for the steam fair so why not put them in a field out by Blandford their are plenty of them.
No, they come here to work. They turn up months and months before the Steam Fair. If we tackled the reason they come here in the first place then everything else largely becomes academic doesn't it?
If they come to work, who employs them ? It should be known !!
Lots of people I imagine otherwise they wouldn't bother coming in the first place and then hanging around whilst the police and local authorities chase around after them.

There may be an element of a working holiday in the run up to the Steam Fair maybe but there's no doubt in my mind they come firstly because they can earn money out of the residents. They aren't on some Victorian style Grand Tour after all...
[quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]60plus[/bold] wrote: They come here for the steam fair so why not put them in a field out by Blandford their are plenty of them.[/p][/quote]No, they come here to work. They turn up months and months before the Steam Fair. If we tackled the reason they come here in the first place then everything else largely becomes academic doesn't it?[/p][/quote]If they come to work, who employs them ? It should be known !![/p][/quote]Lots of people I imagine otherwise they wouldn't bother coming in the first place and then hanging around whilst the police and local authorities chase around after them. There may be an element of a working holiday in the run up to the Steam Fair maybe but there's no doubt in my mind they come firstly because they can earn money out of the residents. They aren't on some Victorian style Grand Tour after all... Baysider
  • Score: 1

3:37pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Ebb Tide says...

Baysider wrote:
Ebb Tide wrote:
Baysider wrote:
60plus wrote:
They come here for the steam fair so why not put them in a field out by Blandford their are plenty of them.
No, they come here to work. They turn up months and months before the Steam Fair. If we tackled the reason they come here in the first place then everything else largely becomes academic doesn't it?
If they come to work, who employs them ? It should be known !!
Lots of people I imagine otherwise they wouldn't bother coming in the first place and then hanging around whilst the police and local authorities chase around after them.

There may be an element of a working holiday in the run up to the Steam Fair maybe but there's no doubt in my mind they come firstly because they can earn money out of the residents. They aren't on some Victorian style Grand Tour after all...
Does the expression "lots of people" include anyone who could possibly be educated as to the need to avoid employing non-locals ?
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]60plus[/bold] wrote: They come here for the steam fair so why not put them in a field out by Blandford their are plenty of them.[/p][/quote]No, they come here to work. They turn up months and months before the Steam Fair. If we tackled the reason they come here in the first place then everything else largely becomes academic doesn't it?[/p][/quote]If they come to work, who employs them ? It should be known !![/p][/quote]Lots of people I imagine otherwise they wouldn't bother coming in the first place and then hanging around whilst the police and local authorities chase around after them. There may be an element of a working holiday in the run up to the Steam Fair maybe but there's no doubt in my mind they come firstly because they can earn money out of the residents. They aren't on some Victorian style Grand Tour after all...[/p][/quote]Does the expression "lots of people" include anyone who could possibly be educated as to the need to avoid employing non-locals ? Ebb Tide
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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