UPDATE: Poole traveller transit sites: see how the councillors voted at last night's meeting

Poole traveller transit sites: see how the councillors voted at last night's meeting

Poole traveller transit sites: see how the councillors voted at last night's meeting

First published in News
Last updated
by

THE motion to support options for the two temporary stopping places for travellers and gypsies in Poole was passed, with more than half the councillors present backing the scheme.

Proposals for the two sites at Creekmoor and Oakdale were carried with 24 members voting in favour, 11 against and two abstentions. Five members of the council were absent from the meeting.

Councillors who voted in favour were: Elaine Atkinson (C), Mike Brooke (LD), David Brown (LD), Brian Clements (LD), Jo Clements (LD), Sandra Cox (LD), Xena Dion (C), Phil Eades (LD), Phil Goodall (LD), Roy Godfrey (LD), Jennie Hodges (LD), Marion Le Poidevin (LD), Chris Matthews (LD), Charles Meachin (LD), Sandra Moore (LD), Ron Parker (C), Vikki Slade (LD), Neil Sorton (C), Ann Stribley (C), Tony Trent (LD), Mike White (C), Lindsay Wilson (LD), Graham Wilson (LD), Tony Woodcock (C).

Those voting against were: Peter Adams (C), Les Burden (C), Judy Butt (C), Sally Carpenter (PP), May Haines (C), Mark Howell (PP), Charmaine Parkinson (PP), Ian Potter (C), John Rampton (C), Janet Walton (C), Chris Wilson (PP).

Cllrs Carol Evans (C) and Karen Rampton (C) abstained.

Meanwhile, an amendment tabled at the meeting – by Cllr John Rampton - failed to get the necessary backing it needed to be implemented.

This amendment called for the main proposal to be deferred and the “status quo of Gypsy and traveller provision in Poole to be maintained.”

It also called for “meaningful” consultation with Poole residents and businesses; a full social impact assessment of the social/environmental/economic impact of the Creekmoor site, and that a delegation from Poole should be appointed to press ahead with negotiations to deliver the required law change to ascertain a shared Dorset-wide transit site.

Councillors voting against this amendment: Elaine Atkinson (C), Mike Brooke (LD), David Brown (LD), Brian Clements (LD), Jo Clements (LD), Sandra Cox (LD), Xena Dion (C), Phil Eades (LD), Phil Goodall (LD), Roy Godfrey (LD), Jennie Hodges (LD), Marion Le Poidevin (LD), Chris Matthews (LD), Charles Meachin (LD), Sandra Moore (LD), Ron Parker (C), Vikki Slade (LD), Neil Sorton (C), Ann Stribley (C), Tony Trent (LD), Mike White (C), Lindsay Wilson (LD), Graham Wilson (LD), Tony Woodcock (C).

Those voting in favour were: Peter Adams (C), Les Burden (C), Judy Butt (C), Sally Carpenter (PP), May Haines (C), Mark Howell (PP), Charmaine Parkinson (PP), Ian Potter (C), John Rampton (C), Chris Wilson (PP).

Cllrs Carol Evans (C), Karen Rampton (C) and Janet Walton (C) abstained.

Comments (48)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:22pm Tue 28 Jan 14

we-shall-see says...

Why were councillors allowed to abstain from such an important vote? Have they not got the spine to back up their residents considerations? In which case they should not be in the position of representing their electorate!

So the council will plonk the travellers on a highly toxic wasteland - previously deemed unsuitable for housing for that very reason. What next then? Travellers claiming compensation for health problems arising from staying on a toxic wasteland?

Those who voted in favour should resign with immediate effect - they are elected to represent local people, not to pander to minority groups with OUR TAX MONEY without so much as a full public consultation on the matter. What a damned cheek!!!!
Why were councillors allowed to abstain from such an important vote? Have they not got the spine to back up their residents considerations? In which case they should not be in the position of representing their electorate! So the council will plonk the travellers on a highly toxic wasteland - previously deemed unsuitable for housing for that very reason. What next then? Travellers claiming compensation for health problems arising from staying on a toxic wasteland? Those who voted in favour should resign with immediate effect - they are elected to represent local people, not to pander to minority groups with OUR TAX MONEY without so much as a full public consultation on the matter. What a damned cheek!!!! we-shall-see
  • Score: 38

12:25pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

All those voting in favour are an aboslute disgrace. You are not there to vote on what YOU think is best, but on what the people YOU REPRESENT want.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves for forgetting why you were elected.
All those voting in favour are an aboslute disgrace. You are not there to vote on what YOU think is best, but on what the people YOU REPRESENT want. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for forgetting why you were elected. Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 33

12:37pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Merleyman says...

So it seems that is was mainly the Lib Dems who voted in favour. Not one voted against.

Remember that at the next election.
So it seems that is was mainly the Lib Dems who voted in favour. Not one voted against. Remember that at the next election. Merleyman
  • Score: 40

12:38pm Tue 28 Jan 14

DiggerRuss says...

well there go the lib dem votes at the next election!
well there go the lib dem votes at the next election! DiggerRuss
  • Score: 37

12:45pm Tue 28 Jan 14

GaryC67 says...

Personally I'm pleased that they voted in favour, although I think they should be using the park & ride site rather than spending large sums of money on the nearby wasteland. We can then see if this deters the travellers from camping out in Poole. I live less than a mile from both of the sites & have seen first hand the mess that they leave behind on an annual basis. If having a transit site deters them from coming to Poole then great, if not, they camp out on the site by B&Q anyway, plus I've seen them by the exit to the park & ride site.
A change in the law is the ideal scenario but I can't see that happening anytime soon.
Personally I'm pleased that they voted in favour, although I think they should be using the park & ride site rather than spending large sums of money on the nearby wasteland. We can then see if this deters the travellers from camping out in Poole. I live less than a mile from both of the sites & have seen first hand the mess that they leave behind on an annual basis. If having a transit site deters them from coming to Poole then great, if not, they camp out on the site by B&Q anyway, plus I've seen them by the exit to the park & ride site. A change in the law is the ideal scenario but I can't see that happening anytime soon. GaryC67
  • Score: 15

1:02pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Townee says...

Remember Poole residents when the next council elections are held that you have the power to get these useless councillors out if you use your vote.
Councillors remember this day when you went against the will of the people who voted you into a well paid job and they will be the ones who vote out onto the dole for being useless.
BOURNEMOUTH COUNCILLORS TAKE NOTE YOUR TIME WILL COME.
Remember Poole residents when the next council elections are held that you have the power to get these useless councillors out if you use your vote. Councillors remember this day when you went against the will of the people who voted you into a well paid job and they will be the ones who vote out onto the dole for being useless. BOURNEMOUTH COUNCILLORS TAKE NOTE YOUR TIME WILL COME. Townee
  • Score: 27

1:25pm Tue 28 Jan 14

harrythered says...

that's what you get when you vote Lib Dem, its exactly the same with the ones in East Dorset and the proposed travellers sites there. Just remember it at the next election.
that's what you get when you vote Lib Dem, its exactly the same with the ones in East Dorset and the proposed travellers sites there. Just remember it at the next election. harrythered
  • Score: 17

1:32pm Tue 28 Jan 14

we-shall-see says...

Lib Dems = spineless do-gooders who wouldn't have a clue as individuals - the party Whip told them how to vote in this case as they always do and the sheep that they are will follow along blindly ……… lemmings over a cliff springs to mind :o//
Lib Dems = spineless do-gooders who wouldn't have a clue as individuals - the party Whip told them how to vote in this case as they always do and the sheep that they are will follow along blindly ……… lemmings over a cliff springs to mind :o// we-shall-see
  • Score: 21

1:42pm Tue 28 Jan 14

joeinpoole says...

GaryC67 wrote:
Personally I'm pleased that they voted in favour, although I think they should be using the park & ride site rather than spending large sums of money on the nearby wasteland. We can then see if this deters the travellers from camping out in Poole. I live less than a mile from both of the sites & have seen first hand the mess that they leave behind on an annual basis. If having a transit site deters them from coming to Poole then great, if not, they camp out on the site by B&Q anyway, plus I've seen them by the exit to the park & ride site.
A change in the law is the ideal scenario but I can't see that happening anytime soon.
Exactly. At least the police will now be able to take action to move them from all the illegal camps they set up. Having the police's hands tied due to the lack of a transit site was a ridiculous situation.

Which would you rather prefer if you were one of the travellers? A fixed transit site from which you could be monitored ... or carte blanche to camp where you like, safe in the knowledge that you can't quickly be moved on?
[quote][p][bold]GaryC67[/bold] wrote: Personally I'm pleased that they voted in favour, although I think they should be using the park & ride site rather than spending large sums of money on the nearby wasteland. We can then see if this deters the travellers from camping out in Poole. I live less than a mile from both of the sites & have seen first hand the mess that they leave behind on an annual basis. If having a transit site deters them from coming to Poole then great, if not, they camp out on the site by B&Q anyway, plus I've seen them by the exit to the park & ride site. A change in the law is the ideal scenario but I can't see that happening anytime soon.[/p][/quote]Exactly. At least the police will now be able to take action to move them from all the illegal camps they set up. Having the police's hands tied due to the lack of a transit site was a ridiculous situation. Which would you rather prefer if you were one of the travellers? A fixed transit site from which you could be monitored ... or carte blanche to camp where you like, safe in the knowledge that you can't quickly be moved on? joeinpoole
  • Score: 7

1:49pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Branksome Boy says...

What happened to Graham Wilson? He doesn't appear to have bothered to turn up? Typical lazy Lib Dem!
What happened to Graham Wilson? He doesn't appear to have bothered to turn up? Typical lazy Lib Dem! Branksome Boy
  • Score: 16

1:53pm Tue 28 Jan 14

MMM444 says...

Build whatever you want, they wont use it, there travellers, they like to travel, there not interested in camping next to a noisey dangerous by-pass, more tax payers money down the drain,now thats what councillors are good at, clueless clowns
Build whatever you want, they wont use it, there travellers, they like to travel, there not interested in camping next to a noisey dangerous by-pass, more tax payers money down the drain,now thats what councillors are good at, clueless clowns MMM444
  • Score: 13

2:40pm Tue 28 Jan 14

poolebob says...

I agree that Councillors should represent their electorate when they vote. To assume that those who voted in favour did not represent their electorate is wrong. How do you know? I am sure there are many Poole residents who either have no strong feeling one way or the other or see the proposals as the best of a bad job and at least that it would give them a chance to move the travellers on.

Whilst I have every sympathy with those living in the areas around the proposed site, I have no problem with the decision.

By the way one of my Ward Councillors abstained and the other wasn't even there so where does this leave me at the next election.
I agree that Councillors should represent their electorate when they vote. To assume that those who voted in favour did not represent their electorate is wrong. How do you know? I am sure there are many Poole residents who either have no strong feeling one way or the other or see the proposals as the best of a bad job and at least that it would give them a chance to move the travellers on. Whilst I have every sympathy with those living in the areas around the proposed site, I have no problem with the decision. By the way one of my Ward Councillors abstained and the other wasn't even there so where does this leave me at the next election. poolebob
  • Score: -11

2:41pm Tue 28 Jan 14

MattGillett says...

With the exception of May Haines (C Canford Cliffs) the only Tories who voted against represent the wards where the sites are going to be. Poole people are the only party who are de facto opposing this.
When last year a travellers site was going to be located in Canford Heath or Branksome Triangle the local Lib Dem and Tory councillors got it pushed into the long grass. If the Tory Oakdale and Creekmoor councillors had wanted to do the same it would have been relatively straight forward for them.
I hope the sites works as a way of moving the travellers on from our public spaces as the police have suggested.
With the exception of May Haines (C Canford Cliffs) the only Tories who voted against represent the wards where the sites are going to be. Poole people are the only party who are de facto opposing this. When last year a travellers site was going to be located in Canford Heath or Branksome Triangle the local Lib Dem and Tory councillors got it pushed into the long grass. If the Tory Oakdale and Creekmoor councillors had wanted to do the same it would have been relatively straight forward for them. I hope the sites works as a way of moving the travellers on from our public spaces as the police have suggested. MattGillett
  • Score: 1

3:32pm Tue 28 Jan 14

muscliffman says...

Merleyman wrote:
So it seems that is was mainly the Lib Dems who voted in favour. Not one voted against.

Remember that at the next election.
People don't popularly call them the Lib-Dums without very good reason!

This hapless Party had been the third main UK political force for decades but already it has been reduced to a very poorly performing fourth in every reputable political opinion poll - after this disgrace it is not particularly difficult to work out why! Just WHO were they representing?

An awful lot of 'dead Councillors walking' in Poole after last night.
[quote][p][bold]Merleyman[/bold] wrote: So it seems that is was mainly the Lib Dems who voted in favour. Not one voted against. Remember that at the next election.[/p][/quote]People don't popularly call them the Lib-Dums without very good reason! This hapless Party had been the third main UK political force for decades but already it has been reduced to a very poorly performing fourth in every reputable political opinion poll - after this disgrace it is not particularly difficult to work out why! Just WHO were they representing? An awful lot of 'dead Councillors walking' in Poole after last night. muscliffman
  • Score: 14

3:34pm Tue 28 Jan 14

BIGTONE says...

It brings a whole new perspective when you know who voted for what.
Well done Echo.
It brings a whole new perspective when you know who voted for what. Well done Echo. BIGTONE
  • Score: 24

3:49pm Tue 28 Jan 14

susi.m says...

Merleyman wrote:
So it seems that is was mainly the Lib Dems who voted in favour. Not one voted against.

Remember that at the next election.
Remember it MORE in the local council elections in May.
Lib Dems generally are a wishy washy bunch who don't really seem to live in the real world.
[quote][p][bold]Merleyman[/bold] wrote: So it seems that is was mainly the Lib Dems who voted in favour. Not one voted against. Remember that at the next election.[/p][/quote]Remember it MORE in the local council elections in May. Lib Dems generally are a wishy washy bunch who don't really seem to live in the real world. susi.m
  • Score: 16

4:35pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Wackerone says...

One important fact should be remembered here. There are thousands of people in the Poole borough who don't want these people on their doorstep, especially in Canford Heath, and Branksome including me. Therefore my cllr's and others have done a great job and I will continue to vote for them next time. Two sides to every coin, sorry for the people in Creekmoor but there are winners and losers in this world and that is what democracy is all about. This is why I voted for my cllr's at the last election unlike a lot of people on this feed who probably didn't but might do now.
One important fact should be remembered here. There are thousands of people in the Poole borough who don't want these people on their doorstep, especially in Canford Heath, and Branksome including me. Therefore my cllr's and others have done a great job and I will continue to vote for them next time. Two sides to every coin, sorry for the people in Creekmoor but there are winners and losers in this world and that is what democracy is all about. This is why I voted for my cllr's at the last election unlike a lot of people on this feed who probably didn't but might do now. Wackerone
  • Score: -9

4:41pm Tue 28 Jan 14

i have heard it all now says...

Vikky Slade,Mike Brookes has just lost your chance of becoming an MP.
Vikky Slade,Mike Brookes has just lost your chance of becoming an MP. i have heard it all now
  • Score: 16

4:45pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Wackerone says...

i have heard it all now wrote:
Vikky Slade,Mike Brookes has just lost your chance of becoming an MP.
She lost that many moons ago as have most lib dems in in the commons!
[quote][p][bold]i have heard it all now[/bold] wrote: Vikky Slade,Mike Brookes has just lost your chance of becoming an MP.[/p][/quote]She lost that many moons ago as have most lib dems in in the commons! Wackerone
  • Score: 11

4:45pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Wackerone says...

i have heard it all now wrote:
Vikky Slade,Mike Brookes has just lost your chance of becoming an MP.
She lost that many moons ago as have most lib dems in in the commons!
[quote][p][bold]i have heard it all now[/bold] wrote: Vikky Slade,Mike Brookes has just lost your chance of becoming an MP.[/p][/quote]She lost that many moons ago as have most lib dems in in the commons! Wackerone
  • Score: 7

5:24pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Jo__Go says...

Can't wait for the yelps when the I'm-all-right-Jack Nimby crew on here that welcome the decision wake up and see the truth. They just sleep-walked into spending £¼M+ on a site that is not going to make the slightest difference to the summer madness.

Our friends the 'travellers' will simply rock up in numbers too large to be accommodated, or refuse to camp alongside other clans. Whitecliffe, Baiter, and Branksome Rec will get their holiday campers this year, exactly the same as last.

And then we will be treated to Phase 2 of the TSP, with a bigger, more expensive, more 'suitable' site in another part of Poole. I look forward to that...
Can't wait for the yelps when the I'm-all-right-Jack Nimby crew on here that welcome the decision wake up and see the truth. They just sleep-walked into spending £¼M+ on a site that is not going to make the slightest difference to the summer madness. Our friends the 'travellers' will simply rock up in numbers too large to be accommodated, or refuse to camp alongside other clans. Whitecliffe, Baiter, and Branksome Rec will get their holiday campers this year, exactly the same as last. And then we will be treated to Phase 2 of the TSP, with a bigger, more expensive, more 'suitable' site in another part of Poole. I look forward to that... Jo__Go
  • Score: 8

5:43pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Desperado says...

Jo__Go wrote:
Can't wait for the yelps when the I'm-all-right-Jack Nimby crew on here that welcome the decision wake up and see the truth. They just sleep-walked into spending £¼M+ on a site that is not going to make the slightest difference to the summer madness.

Our friends the 'travellers' will simply rock up in numbers too large to be accommodated, or refuse to camp alongside other clans. Whitecliffe, Baiter, and Branksome Rec will get their holiday campers this year, exactly the same as last.

And then we will be treated to Phase 2 of the TSP, with a bigger, more expensive, more 'suitable' site in another part of Poole. I look forward to that...
Spot on.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Can't wait for the yelps when the I'm-all-right-Jack Nimby crew on here that welcome the decision wake up and see the truth. They just sleep-walked into spending £¼M+ on a site that is not going to make the slightest difference to the summer madness. Our friends the 'travellers' will simply rock up in numbers too large to be accommodated, or refuse to camp alongside other clans. Whitecliffe, Baiter, and Branksome Rec will get their holiday campers this year, exactly the same as last. And then we will be treated to Phase 2 of the TSP, with a bigger, more expensive, more 'suitable' site in another part of Poole. I look forward to that...[/p][/quote]Spot on. Desperado
  • Score: 7

5:44pm Tue 28 Jan 14

GaryC67 says...

Jo__Go wrote:
Can't wait for the yelps when the I'm-all-right-Jack Nimby crew on here that welcome the decision wake up and see the truth. They just sleep-walked into spending £¼M+ on a site that is not going to make the slightest difference to the summer madness.

Our friends the 'travellers' will simply rock up in numbers too large to be accommodated, or refuse to camp alongside other clans. Whitecliffe, Baiter, and Branksome Rec will get their holiday campers this year, exactly the same as last.

And then we will be treated to Phase 2 of the TSP, with a bigger, more expensive, more 'suitable' site in another part of Poole. I look forward to that...
Only time will tell... lets hope you're wrong, otherwise we'll have more than ever in camping around Poole
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Can't wait for the yelps when the I'm-all-right-Jack Nimby crew on here that welcome the decision wake up and see the truth. They just sleep-walked into spending £¼M+ on a site that is not going to make the slightest difference to the summer madness. Our friends the 'travellers' will simply rock up in numbers too large to be accommodated, or refuse to camp alongside other clans. Whitecliffe, Baiter, and Branksome Rec will get their holiday campers this year, exactly the same as last. And then we will be treated to Phase 2 of the TSP, with a bigger, more expensive, more 'suitable' site in another part of Poole. I look forward to that...[/p][/quote]Only time will tell... lets hope you're wrong, otherwise we'll have more than ever in camping around Poole GaryC67
  • Score: 6

6:13pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Jo__Go says...

DiggerRuss wrote:
well there go the lib dem votes at the next election!
You may be right, but equally, there go the Tory votes too.
Punch and Judy who are supposed to be leading the Council showed about as much leadership as Mr Blobby on a bad hangover day. They allowed the Lib Dems to walk all over them. The Mayor could barely contain his glee.

Unless Councillors Atkinson and White show significantly improved leadership, and start listening to the people that put them where they are, they will surely find themselves 'looking for a new challenge' after the elections next year, along with a goodly number of their fellow Tories.

Maybe the Creekmoor and Oakdale councillors that stood up for their residents should think about dropping the party whip, that would change the balance of power!
[quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: well there go the lib dem votes at the next election![/p][/quote]You may be right, but equally, there go the Tory votes too. Punch and Judy who are supposed to be leading the Council showed about as much leadership as Mr Blobby on a bad hangover day. They allowed the Lib Dems to walk all over them. The Mayor could barely contain his glee. Unless Councillors Atkinson and White show significantly improved leadership, and start listening to the people that put them where they are, they will surely find themselves 'looking for a new challenge' after the elections next year, along with a goodly number of their fellow Tories. Maybe the Creekmoor and Oakdale councillors that stood up for their residents should think about dropping the party whip, that would change the balance of power! Jo__Go
  • Score: 7

6:16pm Tue 28 Jan 14

MMM444 says...

Desperado wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Can't wait for the yelps when the I'm-all-right-Jack Nimby crew on here that welcome the decision wake up and see the truth. They just sleep-walked into spending £¼M+ on a site that is not going to make the slightest difference to the summer madness.

Our friends the 'travellers' will simply rock up in numbers too large to be accommodated, or refuse to camp alongside other clans. Whitecliffe, Baiter, and Branksome Rec will get their holiday campers this year, exactly the same as last.

And then we will be treated to Phase 2 of the TSP, with a bigger, more expensive, more 'suitable' site in another part of Poole. I look forward to that...
Spot on.
Spot on 2
[quote][p][bold]Desperado[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Can't wait for the yelps when the I'm-all-right-Jack Nimby crew on here that welcome the decision wake up and see the truth. They just sleep-walked into spending £¼M+ on a site that is not going to make the slightest difference to the summer madness. Our friends the 'travellers' will simply rock up in numbers too large to be accommodated, or refuse to camp alongside other clans. Whitecliffe, Baiter, and Branksome Rec will get their holiday campers this year, exactly the same as last. And then we will be treated to Phase 2 of the TSP, with a bigger, more expensive, more 'suitable' site in another part of Poole. I look forward to that...[/p][/quote]Spot on.[/p][/quote]Spot on 2 MMM444
  • Score: 5

6:43pm Tue 28 Jan 14

steveatbournemouth says...

I think you have all missed the point here. YOUR Councillors did well and voted FOR POOLE. The sites were well thought out and not even have any impact on residents. I think both Lib/Dems & Conservatives have done well to solve a Boroughwide issue.
I think you have all missed the point here. YOUR Councillors did well and voted FOR POOLE. The sites were well thought out and not even have any impact on residents. I think both Lib/Dems & Conservatives have done well to solve a Boroughwide issue. steveatbournemouth
  • Score: -5

6:47pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Wackerone says...

MMM444 wrote:
Desperado wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Can't wait for the yelps when the I'm-all-right-Jack Nimby crew on here that welcome the decision wake up and see the truth. They just sleep-walked into spending £¼M+ on a site that is not going to make the slightest difference to the summer madness.

Our friends the 'travellers' will simply rock up in numbers too large to be accommodated, or refuse to camp alongside other clans. Whitecliffe, Baiter, and Branksome Rec will get their holiday campers this year, exactly the same as last.

And then we will be treated to Phase 2 of the TSP, with a bigger, more expensive, more 'suitable' site in another part of Poole. I look forward to that...
Spot on.
Spot on 2
I think you'll find that once there is a designated site in the town, then the authorities can ship the undesirables on their way very quickly even if that site is full. The council only have to supply so many pitches to be within the law, otherwise, where do stop. A site every couple of miles!!!
Questions; How long can they stop on the site for their holidays? Will others wish to move into all the filth and rubbish that their predecessors leave behind? What will happen once all the builders rubble and garden rubbish has filled the site to such an extent that is no room left for caravans?
[quote][p][bold]MMM444[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Desperado[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Can't wait for the yelps when the I'm-all-right-Jack Nimby crew on here that welcome the decision wake up and see the truth. They just sleep-walked into spending £¼M+ on a site that is not going to make the slightest difference to the summer madness. Our friends the 'travellers' will simply rock up in numbers too large to be accommodated, or refuse to camp alongside other clans. Whitecliffe, Baiter, and Branksome Rec will get their holiday campers this year, exactly the same as last. And then we will be treated to Phase 2 of the TSP, with a bigger, more expensive, more 'suitable' site in another part of Poole. I look forward to that...[/p][/quote]Spot on.[/p][/quote]Spot on 2[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that once there is a designated site in the town, then the authorities can ship the undesirables on their way very quickly even if that site is full. The council only have to supply so many pitches to be within the law, otherwise, where do stop. A site every couple of miles!!! Questions; How long can they stop on the site for their holidays? Will others wish to move into all the filth and rubbish that their predecessors leave behind? What will happen once all the builders rubble and garden rubbish has filled the site to such an extent that is no room left for caravans? Wackerone
  • Score: 7

7:37pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

Wackerone wrote:
MMM444 wrote:
Desperado wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Can't wait for the yelps when the I'm-all-right-Jack Nimby crew on here that welcome the decision wake up and see the truth. They just sleep-walked into spending £¼M+ on a site that is not going to make the slightest difference to the summer madness.

Our friends the 'travellers' will simply rock up in numbers too large to be accommodated, or refuse to camp alongside other clans. Whitecliffe, Baiter, and Branksome Rec will get their holiday campers this year, exactly the same as last.

And then we will be treated to Phase 2 of the TSP, with a bigger, more expensive, more 'suitable' site in another part of Poole. I look forward to that...
Spot on.
Spot on 2
I think you'll find that once there is a designated site in the town, then the authorities can ship the undesirables on their way very quickly even if that site is full. The council only have to supply so many pitches to be within the law, otherwise, where do stop. A site every couple of miles!!!
Questions; How long can they stop on the site for their holidays? Will others wish to move into all the filth and rubbish that their predecessors leave behind? What will happen once all the builders rubble and garden rubbish has filled the site to such an extent that is no room left for caravans?
I think you'll find that if there's nowhere to move them to, i.e. the designated spaces are all occupied, the council will still have to go through the same processes as last year to move on any who've set up camp elsewhere.
........
Anyone who thinks the council have solved the problem is deluded.
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MMM444[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Desperado[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Can't wait for the yelps when the I'm-all-right-Jack Nimby crew on here that welcome the decision wake up and see the truth. They just sleep-walked into spending £¼M+ on a site that is not going to make the slightest difference to the summer madness. Our friends the 'travellers' will simply rock up in numbers too large to be accommodated, or refuse to camp alongside other clans. Whitecliffe, Baiter, and Branksome Rec will get their holiday campers this year, exactly the same as last. And then we will be treated to Phase 2 of the TSP, with a bigger, more expensive, more 'suitable' site in another part of Poole. I look forward to that...[/p][/quote]Spot on.[/p][/quote]Spot on 2[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that once there is a designated site in the town, then the authorities can ship the undesirables on their way very quickly even if that site is full. The council only have to supply so many pitches to be within the law, otherwise, where do stop. A site every couple of miles!!! Questions; How long can they stop on the site for their holidays? Will others wish to move into all the filth and rubbish that their predecessors leave behind? What will happen once all the builders rubble and garden rubbish has filled the site to such an extent that is no room left for caravans?[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that if there's nowhere to move them to, i.e. the designated spaces are all occupied, the council will still have to go through the same processes as last year to move on any who've set up camp elsewhere. ........ Anyone who thinks the council have solved the problem is deluded. Carolyn43
  • Score: 7

7:48pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Wackerone says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
MMM444 wrote:
Desperado wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Can't wait for the yelps when the I'm-all-right-Jack Nimby crew on here that welcome the decision wake up and see the truth. They just sleep-walked into spending £¼M+ on a site that is not going to make the slightest difference to the summer madness.

Our friends the 'travellers' will simply rock up in numbers too large to be accommodated, or refuse to camp alongside other clans. Whitecliffe, Baiter, and Branksome Rec will get their holiday campers this year, exactly the same as last.

And then we will be treated to Phase 2 of the TSP, with a bigger, more expensive, more 'suitable' site in another part of Poole. I look forward to that...
Spot on.
Spot on 2
I think you'll find that once there is a designated site in the town, then the authorities can ship the undesirables on their way very quickly even if that site is full. The council only have to supply so many pitches to be within the law, otherwise, where do stop. A site every couple of miles!!!
Questions; How long can they stop on the site for their holidays? Will others wish to move into all the filth and rubbish that their predecessors leave behind? What will happen once all the builders rubble and garden rubbish has filled the site to such an extent that is no room left for caravans?
I think you'll find that if there's nowhere to move them to, i.e. the designated spaces are all occupied, the council will still have to go through the same processes as last year to move on any who've set up camp elsewhere.
........
Anyone who thinks the council have solved the problem is deluded.
If that was the case, there would be no point of even having a site in the first place and you might as well maintain the status quo.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MMM444[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Desperado[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Can't wait for the yelps when the I'm-all-right-Jack Nimby crew on here that welcome the decision wake up and see the truth. They just sleep-walked into spending £¼M+ on a site that is not going to make the slightest difference to the summer madness. Our friends the 'travellers' will simply rock up in numbers too large to be accommodated, or refuse to camp alongside other clans. Whitecliffe, Baiter, and Branksome Rec will get their holiday campers this year, exactly the same as last. And then we will be treated to Phase 2 of the TSP, with a bigger, more expensive, more 'suitable' site in another part of Poole. I look forward to that...[/p][/quote]Spot on.[/p][/quote]Spot on 2[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that once there is a designated site in the town, then the authorities can ship the undesirables on their way very quickly even if that site is full. The council only have to supply so many pitches to be within the law, otherwise, where do stop. A site every couple of miles!!! Questions; How long can they stop on the site for their holidays? Will others wish to move into all the filth and rubbish that their predecessors leave behind? What will happen once all the builders rubble and garden rubbish has filled the site to such an extent that is no room left for caravans?[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that if there's nowhere to move them to, i.e. the designated spaces are all occupied, the council will still have to go through the same processes as last year to move on any who've set up camp elsewhere. ........ Anyone who thinks the council have solved the problem is deluded.[/p][/quote]If that was the case, there would be no point of even having a site in the first place and you might as well maintain the status quo. Wackerone
  • Score: 7

9:31pm Tue 28 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

Letcommonsenseprevai
l
wrote:
All those voting in favour are an aboslute disgrace. You are not there to vote on what YOU think is best, but on what the people YOU REPRESENT want.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves for forgetting why you were elected.
How sadly misguided you are about how local politics works.
[quote][p][bold]Letcommonsenseprevai l[/bold] wrote: All those voting in favour are an aboslute disgrace. You are not there to vote on what YOU think is best, but on what the people YOU REPRESENT want. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for forgetting why you were elected.[/p][/quote]How sadly misguided you are about how local politics works. tbpoole
  • Score: 8

9:44pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Carolyn43 says...

Wackerone wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
MMM444 wrote:
Desperado wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Can't wait for the yelps when the I'm-all-right-Jack Nimby crew on here that welcome the decision wake up and see the truth. They just sleep-walked into spending £¼M+ on a site that is not going to make the slightest difference to the summer madness.

Our friends the 'travellers' will simply rock up in numbers too large to be accommodated, or refuse to camp alongside other clans. Whitecliffe, Baiter, and Branksome Rec will get their holiday campers this year, exactly the same as last.

And then we will be treated to Phase 2 of the TSP, with a bigger, more expensive, more 'suitable' site in another part of Poole. I look forward to that...
Spot on.
Spot on 2
I think you'll find that once there is a designated site in the town, then the authorities can ship the undesirables on their way very quickly even if that site is full. The council only have to supply so many pitches to be within the law, otherwise, where do stop. A site every couple of miles!!!
Questions; How long can they stop on the site for their holidays? Will others wish to move into all the filth and rubbish that their predecessors leave behind? What will happen once all the builders rubble and garden rubbish has filled the site to such an extent that is no room left for caravans?
I think you'll find that if there's nowhere to move them to, i.e. the designated spaces are all occupied, the council will still have to go through the same processes as last year to move on any who've set up camp elsewhere.
........
Anyone who thinks the council have solved the problem is deluded.
If that was the case, there would be no point of even having a site in the first place and you might as well maintain the status quo.
Exactly.
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MMM444[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Desperado[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Can't wait for the yelps when the I'm-all-right-Jack Nimby crew on here that welcome the decision wake up and see the truth. They just sleep-walked into spending £¼M+ on a site that is not going to make the slightest difference to the summer madness. Our friends the 'travellers' will simply rock up in numbers too large to be accommodated, or refuse to camp alongside other clans. Whitecliffe, Baiter, and Branksome Rec will get their holiday campers this year, exactly the same as last. And then we will be treated to Phase 2 of the TSP, with a bigger, more expensive, more 'suitable' site in another part of Poole. I look forward to that...[/p][/quote]Spot on.[/p][/quote]Spot on 2[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that once there is a designated site in the town, then the authorities can ship the undesirables on their way very quickly even if that site is full. The council only have to supply so many pitches to be within the law, otherwise, where do stop. A site every couple of miles!!! Questions; How long can they stop on the site for their holidays? Will others wish to move into all the filth and rubbish that their predecessors leave behind? What will happen once all the builders rubble and garden rubbish has filled the site to such an extent that is no room left for caravans?[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that if there's nowhere to move them to, i.e. the designated spaces are all occupied, the council will still have to go through the same processes as last year to move on any who've set up camp elsewhere. ........ Anyone who thinks the council have solved the problem is deluded.[/p][/quote]If that was the case, there would be no point of even having a site in the first place and you might as well maintain the status quo.[/p][/quote]Exactly. Carolyn43
  • Score: 3

10:53pm Tue 28 Jan 14

jay555 says...

There is no problem with travellers that do not leave a mess or create violations against the residences in the area. However most traveller camps I have seen, legal or otherwise are just so utterly messy, the camps are untidy and disgusting to look at and the crime in the area increases. This is not fair on anyone. These travellers should be forced to live in areas that do not offend law abiding citizens.

I am sorry but they chose their life style. Why should I have to look at them daily on the way out of my front door. Why should anyone have to. I sincerely hope they reject the noisy bypass site, in favour of Baiter park or Sandbanks road.
There is no problem with travellers that do not leave a mess or create violations against the residences in the area. However most traveller camps I have seen, legal or otherwise are just so utterly messy, the camps are untidy and disgusting to look at and the crime in the area increases. This is not fair on anyone. These travellers should be forced to live in areas that do not offend law abiding citizens. I am sorry but they chose their life style. Why should I have to look at them daily on the way out of my front door. Why should anyone have to. I sincerely hope they reject the noisy bypass site, in favour of Baiter park or Sandbanks road. jay555
  • Score: 2

9:28am Wed 29 Jan 14

richardcompton3 says...

Well, my councillors will not be getting my vote next time for voting for the ida!. I suspect we will have a virtual new council at the next election. Lib Dems, you are an absolute disgrace to the town!
Well, my councillors will not be getting my vote next time for voting for the ida!. I suspect we will have a virtual new council at the next election. Lib Dems, you are an absolute disgrace to the town! richardcompton3
  • Score: 1

10:17am Wed 29 Jan 14

Tony Trent says...

What part of making a firm decision in the interest of ALL of Poole, based on the best available advice, is wishy washy or a resigning issue? Councillors are normally accused of doing nothing about a problem. When you read the vitriol on these pages you can understand why. If the whipping up and stirring was put to one side for a moment and the site looked at logically, it's about as far away from peoples homes as you can get in Poole. I'm sure if the traveller site on the edge of the ward I represent was a new proposal we would be being told that it would be the end of the world as we know it for residents and bussinesses in the area. It actually exists virtually unoticed. The only time it failed big time was when someone decided it would be a good idea to mix the resident travellers with visitors - but the effect of that misjudgement was on the camp and not nearby residents. If people on this forum want to change things properly then it is Governments (all parties) that need to be persuaded to change the law. When I have raised it in the past there is a lot of opposition to change from other parts of the UK. Funny how it needs to be a headline in the Daily Mail or similar before it becomes a problem for Govt.
What part of making a firm decision in the interest of ALL of Poole, based on the best available advice, is wishy washy or a resigning issue? Councillors are normally accused of doing nothing about a problem. When you read the vitriol on these pages you can understand why. If the whipping up and stirring was put to one side for a moment and the site looked at logically, it's about as far away from peoples homes as you can get in Poole. I'm sure if the traveller site on the edge of the ward I represent was a new proposal we would be being told that it would be the end of the world as we know it for residents and bussinesses in the area. It actually exists virtually unoticed. The only time it failed big time was when someone decided it would be a good idea to mix the resident travellers with visitors - but the effect of that misjudgement was on the camp and not nearby residents. If people on this forum want to change things properly then it is Governments (all parties) that need to be persuaded to change the law. When I have raised it in the past there is a lot of opposition to change from other parts of the UK. Funny how it needs to be a headline in the Daily Mail or similar before it becomes a problem for Govt. Tony Trent
  • Score: 4

10:55am Wed 29 Jan 14

Tony Trent says...

richardcompton3 wrote:
Well, my councillors will not be getting my vote next time for voting for the ida!. I suspect we will have a virtual new council at the next election. Lib Dems, you are an absolute disgrace to the town!
Why? Is making a firm decision in the best interest of ALL Poole a disgrace?
[quote][p][bold]richardcompton3[/bold] wrote: Well, my councillors will not be getting my vote next time for voting for the ida!. I suspect we will have a virtual new council at the next election. Lib Dems, you are an absolute disgrace to the town![/p][/quote]Why? Is making a firm decision in the best interest of ALL Poole a disgrace? Tony Trent
  • Score: 1

8:23pm Wed 29 Jan 14

ashleycross says...

we-shall-see wrote:
Why were councillors allowed to abstain from such an important vote? Have they not got the spine to back up their residents considerations? In which case they should not be in the position of representing their electorate!

So the council will plonk the travellers on a highly toxic wasteland - previously deemed unsuitable for housing for that very reason. What next then? Travellers claiming compensation for health problems arising from staying on a toxic wasteland?

Those who voted in favour should resign with immediate effect - they are elected to represent local people, not to pander to minority groups with OUR TAX MONEY without so much as a full public consultation on the matter. What a damned cheek!!!!
The fact that we can't evict camps that set up in the summer from poole's open spaces is likely to turn this into a majority group if Poole's reputation for not being able to get eviction orders because of the lack of sites spreads much further. I think you'll find more residents want the site because we miss the play areas and recreation grounds in the summer rather than the minority who don't want a site built because they can't understand the legal problems from not having them.
[quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: Why were councillors allowed to abstain from such an important vote? Have they not got the spine to back up their residents considerations? In which case they should not be in the position of representing their electorate! So the council will plonk the travellers on a highly toxic wasteland - previously deemed unsuitable for housing for that very reason. What next then? Travellers claiming compensation for health problems arising from staying on a toxic wasteland? Those who voted in favour should resign with immediate effect - they are elected to represent local people, not to pander to minority groups with OUR TAX MONEY without so much as a full public consultation on the matter. What a damned cheek!!!![/p][/quote]The fact that we can't evict camps that set up in the summer from poole's open spaces is likely to turn this into a majority group if Poole's reputation for not being able to get eviction orders because of the lack of sites spreads much further. I think you'll find more residents want the site because we miss the play areas and recreation grounds in the summer rather than the minority who don't want a site built because they can't understand the legal problems from not having them. ashleycross
  • Score: 1

8:29pm Wed 29 Jan 14

ashleycross says...

Interesting that so many people posting here don't have dogs or children that need Poole's open spaces for exercise, We are sick of the council being unable to evict camps from those places in the summer. There are far more dog lovers and parents who will be pleased to vote for councillors who backed proper sites for the travellers and get our open spaces back than they noisy few who seem to think, very misguidedly, that they are in the majority.
Interesting that so many people posting here don't have dogs or children that need Poole's open spaces for exercise, We are sick of the council being unable to evict camps from those places in the summer. There are far more dog lovers and parents who will be pleased to vote for councillors who backed proper sites for the travellers and get our open spaces back than they noisy few who seem to think, very misguidedly, that they are in the majority. ashleycross
  • Score: 1

10:07pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Jo__Go says...

ashleycross wrote:
Interesting that so many people posting here don't have dogs or children that need Poole's open spaces for exercise, We are sick of the council being unable to evict camps from those places in the summer. There are far more dog lovers and parents who will be pleased to vote for councillors who backed proper sites for the travellers and get our open spaces back than they noisy few who seem to think, very misguidedly, that they are in the majority.
Good to know that nimbys rule...
[quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: Interesting that so many people posting here don't have dogs or children that need Poole's open spaces for exercise, We are sick of the council being unable to evict camps from those places in the summer. There are far more dog lovers and parents who will be pleased to vote for councillors who backed proper sites for the travellers and get our open spaces back than they noisy few who seem to think, very misguidedly, that they are in the majority.[/p][/quote]Good to know that nimbys rule... Jo__Go
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

ashleycross wrote:
we-shall-see wrote:
Why were councillors allowed to abstain from such an important vote? Have they not got the spine to back up their residents considerations? In which case they should not be in the position of representing their electorate!

So the council will plonk the travellers on a highly toxic wasteland - previously deemed unsuitable for housing for that very reason. What next then? Travellers claiming compensation for health problems arising from staying on a toxic wasteland?

Those who voted in favour should resign with immediate effect - they are elected to represent local people, not to pander to minority groups with OUR TAX MONEY without so much as a full public consultation on the matter. What a damned cheek!!!!
The fact that we can't evict camps that set up in the summer from poole's open spaces is likely to turn this into a majority group if Poole's reputation for not being able to get eviction orders because of the lack of sites spreads much further. I think you'll find more residents want the site because we miss the play areas and recreation grounds in the summer rather than the minority who don't want a site built because they can't understand the legal problems from not having them.
So why could they not revamp the mannings heath traveler site which is already in situ and that would have saved thousands. Legal problem solved and your worry about not have having somewhere to walk a dog would be over!
[quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: Why were councillors allowed to abstain from such an important vote? Have they not got the spine to back up their residents considerations? In which case they should not be in the position of representing their electorate! So the council will plonk the travellers on a highly toxic wasteland - previously deemed unsuitable for housing for that very reason. What next then? Travellers claiming compensation for health problems arising from staying on a toxic wasteland? Those who voted in favour should resign with immediate effect - they are elected to represent local people, not to pander to minority groups with OUR TAX MONEY without so much as a full public consultation on the matter. What a damned cheek!!!![/p][/quote]The fact that we can't evict camps that set up in the summer from poole's open spaces is likely to turn this into a majority group if Poole's reputation for not being able to get eviction orders because of the lack of sites spreads much further. I think you'll find more residents want the site because we miss the play areas and recreation grounds in the summer rather than the minority who don't want a site built because they can't understand the legal problems from not having them.[/p][/quote]So why could they not revamp the mannings heath traveler site which is already in situ and that would have saved thousands. Legal problem solved and your worry about not have having somewhere to walk a dog would be over! Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -1

12:51pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Tony Trent says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
ashleycross wrote:
we-shall-see wrote:
Why were councillors allowed to abstain from such an important vote? Have they not got the spine to back up their residents considerations? In which case they should not be in the position of representing their electorate!

So the council will plonk the travellers on a highly toxic wasteland - previously deemed unsuitable for housing for that very reason. What next then? Travellers claiming compensation for health problems arising from staying on a toxic wasteland?

Those who voted in favour should resign with immediate effect - they are elected to represent local people, not to pander to minority groups with OUR TAX MONEY without so much as a full public consultation on the matter. What a damned cheek!!!!
The fact that we can't evict camps that set up in the summer from poole's open spaces is likely to turn this into a majority group if Poole's reputation for not being able to get eviction orders because of the lack of sites spreads much further. I think you'll find more residents want the site because we miss the play areas and recreation grounds in the summer rather than the minority who don't want a site built because they can't understand the legal problems from not having them.
So why could they not revamp the mannings heath traveler site which is already in situ and that would have saved thousands. Legal problem solved and your worry about not have having somewhere to walk a dog would be over!
"So why could they not revamp the mannings heath traveler site which is already in situ and that would have saved thousands. Legal problem solved and your worry about not have having somewhere to walk a dog would be over!"

The Mannings Heath site was refurbished many years ago to take visiting as well as resident travellers (who by the way pay rent). The mix didn't work and a lot a damage was caused. It has since been further refurbished for the "resident" travellers only, and is working well and is much appreciated. The whole issue is not an easy one to deal with and lessons have been learnt (and sometimes forgotten) over many years. If there were a simple popular solution don't you think they would have been tried? These are complex issues that even Governments, with all their resources, have failed to address. All the populist ideas that are being quoted above have been looked at and reported back. It is a pity that for some reason the Creekmoor Councillors didn't bring along a concerned local to the seminar held last autumn. We in Alderney took up the offer and nominated a concerned resident (based on who was contacting us most on the issue). What is being argued about now was one of six reccommendations that came out of that seminar.
I would also urge a sese of proportion about what is actually being proposed, and what the REAL impact will be if it gets the go ahead. The debate so far is all heat and not a lot of light!
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: Why were councillors allowed to abstain from such an important vote? Have they not got the spine to back up their residents considerations? In which case they should not be in the position of representing their electorate! So the council will plonk the travellers on a highly toxic wasteland - previously deemed unsuitable for housing for that very reason. What next then? Travellers claiming compensation for health problems arising from staying on a toxic wasteland? Those who voted in favour should resign with immediate effect - they are elected to represent local people, not to pander to minority groups with OUR TAX MONEY without so much as a full public consultation on the matter. What a damned cheek!!!![/p][/quote]The fact that we can't evict camps that set up in the summer from poole's open spaces is likely to turn this into a majority group if Poole's reputation for not being able to get eviction orders because of the lack of sites spreads much further. I think you'll find more residents want the site because we miss the play areas and recreation grounds in the summer rather than the minority who don't want a site built because they can't understand the legal problems from not having them.[/p][/quote]So why could they not revamp the mannings heath traveler site which is already in situ and that would have saved thousands. Legal problem solved and your worry about not have having somewhere to walk a dog would be over![/p][/quote]"So why could they not revamp the mannings heath traveler site which is already in situ and that would have saved thousands. Legal problem solved and your worry about not have having somewhere to walk a dog would be over!" The Mannings Heath site was refurbished many years ago to take visiting as well as resident travellers (who by the way pay rent). The mix didn't work and a lot a damage was caused. It has since been further refurbished for the "resident" travellers only, and is working well and is much appreciated. The whole issue is not an easy one to deal with and lessons have been learnt (and sometimes forgotten) over many years. If there were a simple popular solution don't you think they would have been tried? These are complex issues that even Governments, with all their resources, have failed to address. All the populist ideas that are being quoted above have been looked at and reported back. It is a pity that for some reason the Creekmoor Councillors didn't bring along a concerned local to the seminar held last autumn. We in Alderney took up the offer and nominated a concerned resident (based on who was contacting us most on the issue). What is being argued about now was one of six reccommendations that came out of that seminar. I would also urge a sese of proportion about what is actually being proposed, and what the REAL impact will be if it gets the go ahead. The debate so far is all heat and not a lot of light! Tony Trent
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Tony Trent says "I would also urge a sense of proportion about what is actually being proposed, and what the REAL impact will be if it gets the go ahead. The debate so far is all heat and not a lot of light!"

Not only did this plan get push through but also a block on meaningful consultation, it is that second motion that seriously concerns me Tony, do Poole Councilors feel they do not have to consult with residents who actually elected them? As for the 'IF' it gets a go ahead am I right in saying most of those who voted in favour are actually on the planning committee?

I have created a petition to insist on that meaningful consultation and full investigation into the proposed plans because I do feel that not enough research has gone into this. The petition can be signed by copy & pasting this link into your address bar.

http://www.thepetiti
onsite.com/910/393/6
24/demand-an-investi
gation-and-consultat
ion-in-regards-to-po
ole-travelers-sites/
?cid=headerClick#sig
n
Tony Trent says "I would also urge a sense of proportion about what is actually being proposed, and what the REAL impact will be if it gets the go ahead. The debate so far is all heat and not a lot of light!" Not only did this plan get push through but also a block on meaningful consultation, it is that second motion that seriously concerns me Tony, do Poole Councilors feel they do not have to consult with residents who actually elected them? As for the 'IF' it gets a go ahead am I right in saying most of those who voted in favour are actually on the planning committee? I have created a petition to insist on that meaningful consultation and full investigation into the proposed plans because I do feel that not enough research has gone into this. The petition can be signed by copy & pasting this link into your address bar. http://www.thepetiti onsite.com/910/393/6 24/demand-an-investi gation-and-consultat ion-in-regards-to-po ole-travelers-sites/ ?cid=headerClick#sig n Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -1

3:31pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Jo__Go says...

There is now a Facebook group available at www.facebook.com/gro
ups/1439775626256115
/
which is intended as a source of information and a place to comment (reasonably!) about the fiasco.
There is now a Facebook group available at www.facebook.com/gro ups/1439775626256115 / which is intended as a source of information and a place to comment (reasonably!) about the fiasco. Jo__Go
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Wed 12 Feb 14

cromwell9 says...

joeinpoole wrote:
GaryC67 wrote:
Personally I'm pleased that they voted in favour, although I think they should be using the park & ride site rather than spending large sums of money on the nearby wasteland. We can then see if this deters the travellers from camping out in Poole. I live less than a mile from both of the sites & have seen first hand the mess that they leave behind on an annual basis. If having a transit site deters them from coming to Poole then great, if not, they camp out on the site by B&Q anyway, plus I've seen them by the exit to the park & ride site.
A change in the law is the ideal scenario but I can't see that happening anytime soon.
Exactly. At least the police will now be able to take action to move them from all the illegal camps they set up. Having the police's hands tied due to the lack of a transit site was a ridiculous situation.

Which would you rather prefer if you were one of the travellers? A fixed transit site from which you could be monitored ... or carte blanche to camp where you like, safe in the knowledge that you can't quickly be moved on?
YOU WONT BE SAYING THAT WHEN THEY PARK UP ON YOUR FRONT LAWN.
[quote][p][bold]joeinpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GaryC67[/bold] wrote: Personally I'm pleased that they voted in favour, although I think they should be using the park & ride site rather than spending large sums of money on the nearby wasteland. We can then see if this deters the travellers from camping out in Poole. I live less than a mile from both of the sites & have seen first hand the mess that they leave behind on an annual basis. If having a transit site deters them from coming to Poole then great, if not, they camp out on the site by B&Q anyway, plus I've seen them by the exit to the park & ride site. A change in the law is the ideal scenario but I can't see that happening anytime soon.[/p][/quote]Exactly. At least the police will now be able to take action to move them from all the illegal camps they set up. Having the police's hands tied due to the lack of a transit site was a ridiculous situation. Which would you rather prefer if you were one of the travellers? A fixed transit site from which you could be monitored ... or carte blanche to camp where you like, safe in the knowledge that you can't quickly be moved on?[/p][/quote]YOU WONT BE SAYING THAT WHEN THEY PARK UP ON YOUR FRONT LAWN. cromwell9
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Wed 12 Feb 14

cromwell9 says...

Wackerone wrote:
One important fact should be remembered here. There are thousands of people in the Poole borough who don't want these people on their doorstep, especially in Canford Heath, and Branksome including me. Therefore my cllr's and others have done a great job and I will continue to vote for them next time. Two sides to every coin, sorry for the people in Creekmoor but there are winners and losers in this world and that is what democracy is all about. This is why I voted for my cllr's at the last election unlike a lot of people on this feed who probably didn't but might do now.
You wont be so smug ,if they decide to build a biomas burner on Canford heath.
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: One important fact should be remembered here. There are thousands of people in the Poole borough who don't want these people on their doorstep, especially in Canford Heath, and Branksome including me. Therefore my cllr's and others have done a great job and I will continue to vote for them next time. Two sides to every coin, sorry for the people in Creekmoor but there are winners and losers in this world and that is what democracy is all about. This is why I voted for my cllr's at the last election unlike a lot of people on this feed who probably didn't but might do now.[/p][/quote]You wont be so smug ,if they decide to build a biomas burner on Canford heath. cromwell9
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Wed 12 Feb 14

cromwell9 says...

Wackerone wrote:
One important fact should be remembered here. There are thousands of people in the Poole borough who don't want these people on their doorstep, especially in Canford Heath, and Branksome including me. Therefore my cllr's and others have done a great job and I will continue to vote for them next time. Two sides to every coin, sorry for the people in Creekmoor but there are winners and losers in this world and that is what democracy is all about. This is why I voted for my cllr's at the last election unlike a lot of people on this feed who probably didn't but might do now.
You wont be so smug ,if they decide to build a biomas burner on Canford heath.
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: One important fact should be remembered here. There are thousands of people in the Poole borough who don't want these people on their doorstep, especially in Canford Heath, and Branksome including me. Therefore my cllr's and others have done a great job and I will continue to vote for them next time. Two sides to every coin, sorry for the people in Creekmoor but there are winners and losers in this world and that is what democracy is all about. This is why I voted for my cllr's at the last election unlike a lot of people on this feed who probably didn't but might do now.[/p][/quote]You wont be so smug ,if they decide to build a biomas burner on Canford heath. cromwell9
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Wed 12 Feb 14

cromwell9 says...

joeinpoole wrote:
GaryC67 wrote:
Personally I'm pleased that they voted in favour, although I think they should be using the park & ride site rather than spending large sums of money on the nearby wasteland. We can then see if this deters the travellers from camping out in Poole. I live less than a mile from both of the sites & have seen first hand the mess that they leave behind on an annual basis. If having a transit site deters them from coming to Poole then great, if not, they camp out on the site by B&Q anyway, plus I've seen them by the exit to the park & ride site.
A change in the law is the ideal scenario but I can't see that happening anytime soon.
Exactly. At least the police will now be able to take action to move them from all the illegal camps they set up. Having the police's hands tied due to the lack of a transit site was a ridiculous situation.

Which would you rather prefer if you were one of the travellers? A fixed transit site from which you could be monitored ... or carte blanche to camp where you like, safe in the knowledge that you can't quickly be moved on?
You wont be so smug ,if they decide to build a biomas burner on Canford heath.
[quote][p][bold]joeinpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GaryC67[/bold] wrote: Personally I'm pleased that they voted in favour, although I think they should be using the park & ride site rather than spending large sums of money on the nearby wasteland. We can then see if this deters the travellers from camping out in Poole. I live less than a mile from both of the sites & have seen first hand the mess that they leave behind on an annual basis. If having a transit site deters them from coming to Poole then great, if not, they camp out on the site by B&Q anyway, plus I've seen them by the exit to the park & ride site. A change in the law is the ideal scenario but I can't see that happening anytime soon.[/p][/quote]Exactly. At least the police will now be able to take action to move them from all the illegal camps they set up. Having the police's hands tied due to the lack of a transit site was a ridiculous situation. Which would you rather prefer if you were one of the travellers? A fixed transit site from which you could be monitored ... or carte blanche to camp where you like, safe in the knowledge that you can't quickly be moved on?[/p][/quote]You wont be so smug ,if they decide to build a biomas burner on Canford heath. cromwell9
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Wed 12 Feb 14

cromwell9 says...

steveatbournemouth wrote:
I think you have all missed the point here. YOUR Councillors did well and voted FOR POOLE. The sites were well thought out and not even have any impact on residents. I think both Lib/Dems & Conservatives have done well to solve a Boroughwide issue.
You won be saying that when Bmth Council, approve a traveller site near your home,
[quote][p][bold]steveatbournemouth[/bold] wrote: I think you have all missed the point here. YOUR Councillors did well and voted FOR POOLE. The sites were well thought out and not even have any impact on residents. I think both Lib/Dems & Conservatives have done well to solve a Boroughwide issue.[/p][/quote]You won be saying that when Bmth Council, approve a traveller site near your home, cromwell9
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Wed 12 Feb 14

cromwell9 says...

steveatbournemouth wrote:
I think you have all missed the point here. YOUR Councillors did well and voted FOR POOLE. The sites were well thought out and not even have any impact on residents. I think both Lib/Dems & Conservatives have done well to solve a Boroughwide issue.
You won be saying that when Bmth Council, approve a traveller site near your home,
[quote][p][bold]steveatbournemouth[/bold] wrote: I think you have all missed the point here. YOUR Councillors did well and voted FOR POOLE. The sites were well thought out and not even have any impact on residents. I think both Lib/Dems & Conservatives have done well to solve a Boroughwide issue.[/p][/quote]You won be saying that when Bmth Council, approve a traveller site near your home, cromwell9
  • Score: 0

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