LiveTemporary traveller sites for Marshes End and Broadstone Way refused planning permission at crunch meeting

First published in News
Last updated
by

This live event has finished

Summary

  • The planning meeting taking place this morning at Poole’s Lighthouse Theatre has been lodged by the council’s own environmental and consumer protection services.
  • Committee members will be debating and voting on plans for two temporary stopping sites for travellers and gypsies.
  • These two separate proposals are for 12 pitches at Marshes End, Creekmoor, and four pitches at land north of the B&Q car park, Broadstone Way.
  • Officials have argued that by having designated temporary stopping places within the borough, they hope to avoid a repeat of last summer that saw a number of unauthorised encampments encroach on the town’s parks and open spaces.
  • However, full council decide in eight days time whether to take the latest £400,000 offer for Marshes End site in Creekmoor.

12:34pm

Our reporter Jim has experienced problems with his laptop unfortunately but we've heard the site at Broadstone Way has also been refused.

We'll have a full story on the site for you a little later today. 

12:15pm

Cllr Brown believes there is very little to worry about with regards of highways safety concerns.

12:04pm

Planning committee members are now questioning officers on the planning application for this smaller site off Broadstone Way.

12:02pm

He also says there are serious traffic issues. The smaller crowd is making itself heard, with ripples of applause for the councillor. Cllr Potter says the site on its own is "completely pointless" now that the larger Creekmoor site has been refused.

12:00pm

Cllr Ian Potter, speaking against this smaller site, has criticised its proximity to the children's skate park.

11:59am

It remains unclear how workable a temporary stopping place would be at Broadstone Way, following the dramatic refusal of the larger Creekmoor site earlier this morning.

11:57am

The overwhelming number of residents have already left the theatre. There is only about 30 people, presumably local residents living near this smaller site, left. 

11:55am

He says B&Q do not wish to discriminate, but the application would have "severe" affects to business.

11:54am

A spokesman for B&Q is telling the committee he has fears travellers will "spill over" into the store's car park, which neighbours the proposed traveller temporary stopping place.

11:50am

Borough of Poole officers are going through the application details now. They have recommended planning committee members grant permission.

11:48am

This application will go through the same processes as the earlier Creekmoor site deliberations.

11:48am

The planning committee will now hear about the second temporary stopping site, proposed for land off Braodstone Way, Poole. This is for up to four traveller/gypsy caravans and associated cars.

11:20am

Its official: planning permission has been refused for the Marshes End temporary stopping place. Now a break before the smaller temporary site at Broadstone Way is considered.

11:17am

Only one councillor voted in favour. The Creekmoor site will not be granted planning permission. Huge cheers in the audience.

11:16am

The vote is taking place.

11:16am

Looks like a vote is imminent

11:15am

Cllr Pawlowski says the site is a gateway site for Poole. He also believes the noise at the site, for travellers, would be intolerable. He also says he still has concerns about contamination at what is an old landfill site. He says "for a raft of planning policy reasons I cannot support this application."

11:12am

Huge cheers as committee vice chairman says he wil not support the proposals. Looks like this proposal is not going to be passed.

11:11am

Cllr Pratt, on the committee, says she will not support the proposals.

11:11am

Cllr Le Poidevin, on the planing committee, says she is concerned about the length of stay. She is proposing to reword one of the conditions regarding the 28 day stay regulation, in a bid to stop travellers staying for 28 days, leaving for a day, then returning for another 28 days. This motion has been seconded.

11:08am

These eight members will each vote on the issue at the end of the debate.

11:07am

Just to remind you, there are eight members of this Borough of Poole planning committee.

11:04am

Cllr David Brown, on the planing committee, has criticised the level of consultation surrounding the application. However, he does not think businesses nearby will have any problems. He says he is still in two minds about the issue.

11:01am

No councillor on the planning committee has so far said they will support the application.

11:01am

Cllr Jo Clements, on the committee, says she thinks this site will be difficult to maintain. She thinks the loss of the site for commercial use is unacceptable. She says she will not support the proposals.

10:59am

Cllr Chris Wilson, on the planning committe, says her overriding concern is for the safety  of young children on the site. She says they will have to negotiate the busy A35. She says she cannot support it at all.

10:57am

Cllr Ron Parker, on the committee, says its clear the residents, businesses, and gypsy council have the "gravest" concerns. He says this makes it very difficult to give permission for the site.

10:55am

The committee has asked if there is a statutory obligation to have a temporary stopping site. Answer: no there is not.

10:54am

The audience is getting a little more restless as the meeting draws closer to its conclusion.

10:53am

Officers admit they have not visited local businesses to see how the site will look from their perspective. Boos from the audience.

10:52am

She is also concerned about people at the traveller site will access local amenities. 

10:51am

Cllr Jane Pratt, on the committee, is asking the officers if they have visited the businesses currently at the site?

10:50am

The issue of drainage is being discussed

10:49am

They say it is for the committee to make a determination on planning grounds whether this application is acceptable or not. Moans from the crowd.

10:48am

Officers say this is not a revelant matter for the committee.

10:48am

The planning committee wants to know if the cost of insurance premiums for businesses at the site needs to be taken into account?

10:46am

The officers say there are no European protected species on the site.

10:46am

Cllr Ron Parker, on the committee, is asking about the wildlife at the site. He's asked for clarification on any future surveys of the site.

10:44am

The meeting has now moved onto a more technical phase, with members of the committee asking questions of the officers.

10:44am

All three ward councillors for Creekmoor, Cllr John Rampton, Cllr Les Burden and Cllr Judy Butt, have spoken against the proposals. They were met with loud applause by the residents gathered it theatre.

10:42am

We have had some technical difficulties here, so apologies. Hopefully we are back up and running. 

10:17am

10:11am

10:11am

10:11am

John Howlett, of Deverill Ltd, says he is speaking against the travellers site proposals on behalf of the three businesses at Marshes End.  He believes his insurance premiums would rise "significantly" if the site went ahead.

10:11am

John Howlett, of Deverill Ltd, says he is speaking against the travellers site proposals on behalf of the three businesses at Marshes End.  He believes his insurance premiums would rise "significantly" if the site went ahead.

10:11am

John Howlett, of Deverill Ltd, says he is speaking against the travellers site proposals on behalf of the three businesses at Marshes End.  He believes his insurance premiums would rise "significantly" if the site went ahead.

10:05am

He says the site would attract businesses if there was office accommodation there. He says the traveller site proposals would have " significant economic impact."

10:04am

Jonathon Sibbet, of Sibbet Gregory chartered surveyors, is also speaking against the site. He says it is vital Poole should remain is strong economic position. He says new office space is needed.

10:01am

Forelle Estates have made a offer of £400,000 for the site, which will be debated at a separate council meeting at the end of this month.

10:00am

10:00am

Will Cobley, speaking on behalf of client Forelle Estates, who own the neighbouring site, says there are fundamental failings in the submission. The site is unsuitable, he says.

10:00am

Will Cobley, speaking on behalf of client Forelle Estates, who own the neighbouring site, says there are fundamental failings in the submission. The site is unsuitable, he says.

10:00am

Will Cobley, speaking on behalf of client Forelle Estates, who own the neighbouring site, says there are fundamental failings in the submission. The site is unsuitable, he says.

10:00am

Will Cobley, speaking on behalf of client Forelle Estates, who own the neighbouring site, says there are fundamental failings in the submission. The site is unsuitable, he says.

10:00am

Will Cobley, speaking on behalf of client Forelle Estates, who own the neighbouring site, says there are fundamental failings in the submission. The site is unsuitable, he says.

10:00am

Will Cobley, speaking on behalf of client Forelle Estates, who own the neighbouring site, says there are fundamental failings in the submission. The site is unsuitable, he says.

10:00am

Will Cobley, speaking on behalf of client Forelle Estates, who own the neighbouring site, says there are fundamental failings in the submission. The site is unsuitable, he says.

10:00am

Will Cobley, speaking on behalf of client Forelle Estates, who own the neighbouring site, says there are fundamental failings in the submission. The site is unsuitable, he says.

9:59am

Head of planning & regeneration Stephen Thorne speaking at the meeting a little earlier on

Bournemouth Echo:

9:57am

Joe Jones, from the Gypsy Council, says the site is dangerous. He believes there is methane gas under the site and it is on a dangerous road. He says he cannot support the application. Loud applause.

9:54am

Ripples of boos through the theatre

9:53am

The council officers are recommending committee members should agree to planning permission.

9:49am

Big laugh from the audience when an officer presenting said "there will only be noise issues when the the land is in use."

9:48am

According to the council officers, the site condition is acceptable for the usage proposed. 

9:47am

Further samples have been carried out on the contaminated land issue, says the officer. 

9:46am

The site is within a flood zone three area so the land will be raised. The Environment Agency has raised no objections to this proposal, says the officer

9:43am

Images of the fencing planned to surround the Creekmoor site have been projected onto a screen. It is green and about five foot tall. Audible groan from the audience.

9:42am

Members are being reminded the current travellers site at Mannings Heath has had no impact on employment issues, and officers suggest the Creekmoor proposals will not impact employment either.

9:39am

The committee is being told the site is outside the green belt. 

9:38am

Planning committee members visited the site yesterday.

9:37am

Land at this site will be raised to address flooding issues, says the officer.

9:37am

The case officer will now introduce the proposals for Safety Drive, Creekmoor. It is for 12 pitches.

9:33am

Head of planning & regeneration Stephen Thorne is explaining the history of the issue - how we got to this meeting. 

9:31am

Cllr Parker, who is on the committee, says the decision should be made today. The motion to extend the consultation period has not been supported by the committee. The committee will decide on granting permission today.

9:28am

The negative affect on businesses near the site will be "frightening". She has urged the planning committe to "listen to the people who pay your wages" and reject the application.

9:26am

She also says there is no justice in covering the costs of the site. The money could be better spent on a range of services, she says.

9:25am

Resident Carol Snelling is speaking to the committee against the site at Creekmoor. She says the land is contaminated and the site is on a dangerous main road.

9:23am

Mr Martin is telling the planning committee that the council cannot bind members of the committee- there decision shoukd be based on the planning framework

9:19am

He is telling the committee that if they feel further public consultation is needed, this meeting can be adjourned.

9:18am

Tom Martin, head of legal democratic services is speaking. He is outlining the issue.

9:17am

The committee is going through standard business before the main topic on the agenda

9:15am

The meeting has started. 

9:13am

To recap, this meeting is to decide whether or not to give planning permission for the two temporary stopping places for travellers.

9:11am

Only a few minutes to go before the meeting is scheduled to start.

9:11am

There seem to be no issues over available room for members of the public to sit, unlike the previous Civic Centre meeting.

9:10am

Here's a picture from our photographer Corin of members of the public waiting for the meeting to start.

Bournemouth Echo:

9:09am

More residents are arriving. The mood is quite relaxed at the moment. I'd say around 200 people in attendance. 

9:08am

Today's meeting of the planning committee will be chaired by councillor Peter Pawlowski.

9:01am

There is plenty of media interest, with a couple of camera crews in attendance.

9:00am

Good morning, the concert hall at Poole's Lighthouse Theatre is starting to fill up. The meeting is another 15 minutes away.

8:51am

Good morning, our reporter Jim Durkin will be covering the important traveller site meeting at Borough of Poole live this morning.

Comments (108)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:24am Thu 20 Mar 14

Dibbles2 says...

Funny how this meeting was arranged to coincide with school runs and people working. I can see from the picture that the meeting is represented by the older generation and this does not give a true picture of what people want.
Funny how this meeting was arranged to coincide with school runs and people working. I can see from the picture that the meeting is represented by the older generation and this does not give a true picture of what people want. Dibbles2
  • Score: 9

9:29am Thu 20 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

Dibbles2 wrote:
Funny how this meeting was arranged to coincide with school runs and people working. I can see from the picture that the meeting is represented by the older generation and this does not give a true picture of what people want.
Exactly. The local councillors did their best to get it moved to the evening for just those reasons, but the council dug it's heels in. Obviously they were scared of a big turnout and wanted to keep the number who could attend to a minimum. The pensioners have either driven there or have paid to use the bus.
[quote][p][bold]Dibbles2[/bold] wrote: Funny how this meeting was arranged to coincide with school runs and people working. I can see from the picture that the meeting is represented by the older generation and this does not give a true picture of what people want.[/p][/quote]Exactly. The local councillors did their best to get it moved to the evening for just those reasons, but the council dug it's heels in. Obviously they were scared of a big turnout and wanted to keep the number who could attend to a minimum. The pensioners have either driven there or have paid to use the bus. Carolyn43
  • Score: 8

9:46am Thu 20 Mar 14

ashleycross says...

It is mainly people with children who suffer because we don't have a site at present so the children's play areas and recreation grounds are used as sites.
It is mainly people with children who suffer because we don't have a site at present so the children's play areas and recreation grounds are used as sites. ashleycross
  • Score: 1

10:05am Thu 20 Mar 14

justme20092009 says...

in other words its a room full of idiots talking rubbish,,thats poole council for you
in other words its a room full of idiots talking rubbish,,thats poole council for you justme20092009
  • Score: -1

11:17am Thu 20 Mar 14

ashleycross says...

Lack of consultation-tell me about it. I don't remember being consulted as someone whose local play areas and recreation grounds are currently being used as temporary sites. This site would have been built years ago if the needs of children and people who exercise had been taken into account.
The regular closure of children's play areas in Poole because we don't have any travellers' sites breaches children's rights under EU law to play areas in built up areas like Poole.
Lack of consultation-tell me about it. I don't remember being consulted as someone whose local play areas and recreation grounds are currently being used as temporary sites. This site would have been built years ago if the needs of children and people who exercise had been taken into account. The regular closure of children's play areas in Poole because we don't have any travellers' sites breaches children's rights under EU law to play areas in built up areas like Poole. ashleycross
  • Score: 3

11:24am Thu 20 Mar 14

speedy231278 says...

So, now the first one has been rejected, do we assume the councillors will now be sacked?
So, now the first one has been rejected, do we assume the councillors will now be sacked? speedy231278
  • Score: 10

11:29am Thu 20 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

Atkinson and Eades will be apoplectic!
.......
Still, Atkinson won't have to worry about the police not guaranteeing her safety in Creekmoor as she was. She might have to worry about a vote of no confidence in her leadership though.
Atkinson and Eades will be apoplectic! ....... Still, Atkinson won't have to worry about the police not guaranteeing her safety in Creekmoor as she was. She might have to worry about a vote of no confidence in her leadership though. Carolyn43
  • Score: 8

11:30am Thu 20 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

When it comes to losing their council seats and expenses,most councillors will turn.Who can trust them,"say one thing,do another".
When it comes to losing their council seats and expenses,most councillors will turn.Who can trust them,"say one thing,do another". pete woodley
  • Score: 7

11:37am Thu 20 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

speedy231278 wrote:
So, now the first one has been rejected, do we assume the councillors will now be sacked?
They can't be sacked as councillors - that can only happen at the ballot box. They can be expelled or suspended from their political party for serious misdeeds. They can be sacked from the cabinet or a committee if the leader thinks they have gone against the cabinet or their party policy.
.......
We might be looking at a whole new planning committee.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: So, now the first one has been rejected, do we assume the councillors will now be sacked?[/p][/quote]They can't be sacked as councillors - that can only happen at the ballot box. They can be expelled or suspended from their political party for serious misdeeds. They can be sacked from the cabinet or a committee if the leader thinks they have gone against the cabinet or their party policy. ....... We might be looking at a whole new planning committee. Carolyn43
  • Score: 4

11:42am Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

Elaine Atkinson has shown great leadership in this, at least it can now be said that the vote was open and fair, before with Cllr Butt there was a clear conflict of interests.
This is now democratic, it may not be what everyone wants but it is democratic.
Elaine Atkinson has shown great leadership in this, at least it can now be said that the vote was open and fair, before with Cllr Butt there was a clear conflict of interests. This is now democratic, it may not be what everyone wants but it is democratic. PooleFirst
  • Score: -16

11:42am Thu 20 Mar 14

nickynoodah says...

justme20092009 wrote:
in other words its a room full of idiots talking rubbish,,thats poole council for you
Do you mean like knobdirt George.
[quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: in other words its a room full of idiots talking rubbish,,thats poole council for you[/p][/quote]Do you mean like knobdirt George. nickynoodah
  • Score: -6

11:42am Thu 20 Mar 14

Tony Trent says...

I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.
I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob. Tony Trent
  • Score: -33

11:44am Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

and, The planning committee is made up of all parties, as it should be, no one can influence it from above. you would have to have all the political parties agreeing on the same thing, and I dont think that has ever happened
and, The planning committee is made up of all parties, as it should be, no one can influence it from above. you would have to have all the political parties agreeing on the same thing, and I dont think that has ever happened PooleFirst
  • Score: 7

11:45am Thu 20 Mar 14

Dr Strangelove says...

They better not sell off the land, more asset stripping by the tories!
They better not sell off the land, more asset stripping by the tories! Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 0

11:47am Thu 20 Mar 14

mimi55 says...

Am still waiting for a reply from relevant Gov Dept (since 18th Feb) as to
WHY they allow Travellers to be above the laws the rest of us have to obey.
If not, there would not be an issue with them parking on playgrounds etc, as
the police could kick them off immediately.
Am still waiting for a reply from relevant Gov Dept (since 18th Feb) as to WHY they allow Travellers to be above the laws the rest of us have to obey. If not, there would not be an issue with them parking on playgrounds etc, as the police could kick them off immediately. mimi55
  • Score: 14

11:47am Thu 20 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

Congratulations to Creekmoor ward councillors, residents and those on the planning committee who voted for common sense. Let's hope that this is the end of this proposal and look forward to some resignations for miss- management and waste of tax payers money.
Congratulations to Creekmoor ward councillors, residents and those on the planning committee who voted for common sense. Let's hope that this is the end of this proposal and look forward to some resignations for miss- management and waste of tax payers money. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 12

11:50am Thu 20 Mar 14

moleman says...

Tony Trent wrote:
I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.
If you had been to the meeting this morning and heard from the people representing businesses and residents in the area, then you would be in full command of the facts and understand the details of the planning application and why it was impossible to vote for the TSP in Marshes End.
Please try and make a factual point rather than blather on.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.[/p][/quote]If you had been to the meeting this morning and heard from the people representing businesses and residents in the area, then you would be in full command of the facts and understand the details of the planning application and why it was impossible to vote for the TSP in Marshes End. Please try and make a factual point rather than blather on. moleman
  • Score: 23

11:52am Thu 20 Mar 14

Dr Strangelove says...

Tony Trent wrote:
I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.
Yes but the sites show contempt for the people of those wards! Its OK for the wealthy people to have "not in my back yard" and force it on the rest of us. Whats wrong with luscombe valley as a site massive amount of land there???
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.[/p][/quote]Yes but the sites show contempt for the people of those wards! Its OK for the wealthy people to have "not in my back yard" and force it on the rest of us. Whats wrong with luscombe valley as a site massive amount of land there??? Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 7

11:53am Thu 20 Mar 14

speedy231278 says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
So, now the first one has been rejected, do we assume the councillors will now be sacked?
They can't be sacked as councillors - that can only happen at the ballot box. They can be expelled or suspended from their political party for serious misdeeds. They can be sacked from the cabinet or a committee if the leader thinks they have gone against the cabinet or their party policy.
.......
We might be looking at a whole new planning committee.
So, if they're not in the cabinet, can their decision actually be binding, or can the council just ignore them, like the 20K people who have objected to the so called 'Noddy Train' removal?
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: So, now the first one has been rejected, do we assume the councillors will now be sacked?[/p][/quote]They can't be sacked as councillors - that can only happen at the ballot box. They can be expelled or suspended from their political party for serious misdeeds. They can be sacked from the cabinet or a committee if the leader thinks they have gone against the cabinet or their party policy. ....... We might be looking at a whole new planning committee.[/p][/quote]So, if they're not in the cabinet, can their decision actually be binding, or can the council just ignore them, like the 20K people who have objected to the so called 'Noddy Train' removal? speedy231278
  • Score: 2

11:53am Thu 20 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

Tony Trent wrote:
I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.
Not sure which meeting you attended. I thought the 'mob' was quite well behaved considering the emotive issue concerned. Not their fault the planning department wasn't convincing with their evidence, or the process by which this application ended up here was flawed from the start.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.[/p][/quote]Not sure which meeting you attended. I thought the 'mob' was quite well behaved considering the emotive issue concerned. Not their fault the planning department wasn't convincing with their evidence, or the process by which this application ended up here was flawed from the start. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 18

11:54am Thu 20 Mar 14

Tony Trent says...

speedy231278 wrote:
So, now the first one has been rejected, do we assume the councillors will now be sacked?
Why?
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: So, now the first one has been rejected, do we assume the councillors will now be sacked?[/p][/quote]Why? Tony Trent
  • Score: -4

11:54am Thu 20 Mar 14

john wimborne says...

I do not see the need to have any temperary stopping places .
It is not the law !
All that need to be done is to have a change in the law so public or private land owners can get a eviction order the same day
I do not see the need to have any temperary stopping places . It is not the law ! All that need to be done is to have a change in the law so public or private land owners can get a eviction order the same day john wimborne
  • Score: 15

11:55am Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

it is very unfortunate that we have a situation where the only way to move travellers on from one site quickly ie whitecliff, Baiter etc. is for us to build another site for them, this is wrong in my eyes but this is a central government issue/europe human rights issue, but as always it ends up being the problem of the locals and the local council, I fully understand what the council were trying to do here and it was the right course of action with the law as it is,,, but surely its the law that is wrong, if people put as much effort into changing that at a national level, as they did over this local issue, then perhaps we wouldnt be looking to have yet another travellers site
it is very unfortunate that we have a situation where the only way to move travellers on from one site quickly ie whitecliff, Baiter etc. is for us to build another site for them, this is wrong in my eyes but this is a central government issue/europe human rights issue, but as always it ends up being the problem of the locals and the local council, I fully understand what the council were trying to do here and it was the right course of action with the law as it is,,, but surely its the law that is wrong, if people put as much effort into changing that at a national level, as they did over this local issue, then perhaps we wouldnt be looking to have yet another travellers site PooleFirst
  • Score: 13

11:59am Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

john wimborne wrote:
I do not see the need to have any temperary stopping places .
It is not the law !
All that need to be done is to have a change in the law so public or private land owners can get a eviction order the same day
yes !!!! your right,, but thats a national issue, the local council have to work within the existing laws,,, they have no power to change them.
If we have a local site, then when traverlers turn up on Baiter Whitecliff or where ever, then the police have the power to move them on within 24 hours, if they dont move, then can be arrested, BUT, if we dont have a local site to move them to, then we have to go down the injunction route which takes weeks, and then they just move onto the next park along the road and the whole process has to start again,, its madness,, but thats the law
[quote][p][bold]john wimborne[/bold] wrote: I do not see the need to have any temperary stopping places . It is not the law ! All that need to be done is to have a change in the law so public or private land owners can get a eviction order the same day[/p][/quote]yes !!!! your right,, but thats a national issue, the local council have to work within the existing laws,,, they have no power to change them. If we have a local site, then when traverlers turn up on Baiter Whitecliff or where ever, then the police have the power to move them on within 24 hours, if they dont move, then can be arrested, BUT, if we dont have a local site to move them to, then we have to go down the injunction route which takes weeks, and then they just move onto the next park along the road and the whole process has to start again,, its madness,, but thats the law PooleFirst
  • Score: 9

12:03pm Thu 20 Mar 14

mimi55 says...

Tony Trent wrote:
I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.
Where do you live. Perhaps you can suggest a suitable site nearby. As you
say it would go un-noticed, wouldn't be a problem or you, would it??
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.[/p][/quote]Where do you live. Perhaps you can suggest a suitable site nearby. As you say it would go un-noticed, wouldn't be a problem or you, would it?? mimi55
  • Score: 11

12:04pm Thu 20 Mar 14

suzigirl says...

Tony Trent wrote:
I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.
and where do you live Mr Trent?
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.[/p][/quote]and where do you live Mr Trent? suzigirl
  • Score: 11

12:11pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

lets be honest,,, no one wants a site anywhere in the town,, perhaps a national campaign to change the laws on moving trespassers on should be look into. The problem we have is no politician would touch it for fear of being labelled a raciest, its a funny old world we have morphed into..
lets be honest,,, no one wants a site anywhere in the town,, perhaps a national campaign to change the laws on moving trespassers on should be look into. The problem we have is no politician would touch it for fear of being labelled a raciest, its a funny old world we have morphed into.. PooleFirst
  • Score: 13

12:11pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Tony Trent says...

PooleFirst wrote:
it is very unfortunate that we have a situation where the only way to move travellers on from one site quickly ie whitecliff, Baiter etc. is for us to build another site for them, this is wrong in my eyes but this is a central government issue/europe human rights issue, but as always it ends up being the problem of the locals and the local council, I fully understand what the council were trying to do here and it was the right course of action with the law as it is,,, but surely its the law that is wrong, if people put as much effort into changing that at a national level, as they did over this local issue, then perhaps we wouldnt be looking to have yet another travellers site
A sensible comment that sums things up well. The problem is that few people care until it threatens, or is speculated that it would threaten, their own situation. There are plenty of people that claim to have an easy solution, but the solution is usually wrong or creates other problems. We only supported the proposal after a lot of thought. There is work going on in the background to manage parts of the problem in other ways, but the Marshes End proposal was deliverable this year (providing it had not then moved on to a call in by the Planning Inspectorate or court). The current situation means that in less than a month the whole cycle will start again, and no doubt be urged to "do something"!
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: it is very unfortunate that we have a situation where the only way to move travellers on from one site quickly ie whitecliff, Baiter etc. is for us to build another site for them, this is wrong in my eyes but this is a central government issue/europe human rights issue, but as always it ends up being the problem of the locals and the local council, I fully understand what the council were trying to do here and it was the right course of action with the law as it is,,, but surely its the law that is wrong, if people put as much effort into changing that at a national level, as they did over this local issue, then perhaps we wouldnt be looking to have yet another travellers site[/p][/quote]A sensible comment that sums things up well. The problem is that few people care until it threatens, or is speculated that it would threaten, their own situation. There are plenty of people that claim to have an easy solution, but the solution is usually wrong or creates other problems. We only supported the proposal after a lot of thought. There is work going on in the background to manage parts of the problem in other ways, but the Marshes End proposal was deliverable this year (providing it had not then moved on to a call in by the Planning Inspectorate or court). The current situation means that in less than a month the whole cycle will start again, and no doubt be urged to "do something"! Tony Trent
  • Score: -5

12:14pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Dr Strangelove says...

The more you look at this the more it seems the offer to buy the land is very convenient! If it is sold off wonder which councillors approve it?
The more you look at this the more it seems the offer to buy the land is very convenient! If it is sold off wonder which councillors approve it? Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 4

12:14pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

mimi55 wrote:
Am still waiting for a reply from relevant Gov Dept (since 18th Feb) as to
WHY they allow Travellers to be above the laws the rest of us have to obey.
If not, there would not be an issue with them parking on playgrounds etc, as
the police could kick them off immediately.
I contacted Robert Symes a while ago, and he said that we subscribe to the European Act on Human Rights that says ethnic minorities can continue with the lifestyle associated with it, and we also have laws on equality in this country. That's why we recognise them as a separate ethnic minority and why Ireland does not - Ireland does not subscribe to the Human Rights Act. In fact travellers are campaigning to get recognised in Ireland.
.....
Now perhaps the council will select another site which is more suitable in terms of contamination, flooding and safety - such as the site on the opposite south side of the A350 and which doesn't appear to interfere with anyone, and was rejected from the original 90 without reasons given.
[quote][p][bold]mimi55[/bold] wrote: Am still waiting for a reply from relevant Gov Dept (since 18th Feb) as to WHY they allow Travellers to be above the laws the rest of us have to obey. If not, there would not be an issue with them parking on playgrounds etc, as the police could kick them off immediately.[/p][/quote]I contacted Robert Symes a while ago, and he said that we subscribe to the European Act on Human Rights that says ethnic minorities can continue with the lifestyle associated with it, and we also have laws on equality in this country. That's why we recognise them as a separate ethnic minority and why Ireland does not - Ireland does not subscribe to the Human Rights Act. In fact travellers are campaigning to get recognised in Ireland. ..... Now perhaps the council will select another site which is more suitable in terms of contamination, flooding and safety - such as the site on the opposite south side of the A350 and which doesn't appear to interfere with anyone, and was rejected from the original 90 without reasons given. Carolyn43
  • Score: 2

12:21pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Tony Trent says...

mimi55 wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.
Where do you live. Perhaps you can suggest a suitable site nearby. As you
say it would go un-noticed, wouldn't be a problem or you, would it??
We don't have a large out of sight site like Marshes End, but we already accomodate a traveller camp nearby. Experience shows you can't mix the different groups on one site, and the site we have is working well. We also have a sizeable settled traveller community (at least two families in the road I live in) so I think we "do our bit". When the heat of the whole debate evaporates you will realise how you've been manipulated by propaganda. This TSP would have operated virtually unoticed. Now we have to spend even more of your money finding another way to deal with the problem under the limitations of the law. A bad day for common sense!
[quote][p][bold]mimi55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.[/p][/quote]Where do you live. Perhaps you can suggest a suitable site nearby. As you say it would go un-noticed, wouldn't be a problem or you, would it??[/p][/quote]We don't have a large out of sight site like Marshes End, but we already accomodate a traveller camp nearby. Experience shows you can't mix the different groups on one site, and the site we have is working well. We also have a sizeable settled traveller community (at least two families in the road I live in) so I think we "do our bit". When the heat of the whole debate evaporates you will realise how you've been manipulated by propaganda. This TSP would have operated virtually unoticed. Now we have to spend even more of your money finding another way to deal with the problem under the limitations of the law. A bad day for common sense! Tony Trent
  • Score: -8

12:23pm Thu 20 Mar 14

speedy231278 says...

As an aside, is a primary school child writing the updates on this?

"There is only about 30 people"
"Its official"
As an aside, is a primary school child writing the updates on this? "There is only about 30 people" "Its official" speedy231278
  • Score: 1

12:23pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

Dr Strangelove wrote:
The more you look at this the more it seems the offer to buy the land is very convenient! If it is sold off wonder which councillors approve it?
it will be all the councillors, at a special FULL council meeting on the 28th on this month, one member one vote, to decide,, democratic as it should be, and with Poole, having no one political party in a majority, it really will be democratic....
But I am sure some people will find a reason to moan about the outcome whatever it is.

And, I bet you this offer to buy the land disappears now that the planning has been turned down, or at least the offer will be reduced a lot,, property developers are more skilled and have no rules to follow like to council, so they can, and will play dirty.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Strangelove[/bold] wrote: The more you look at this the more it seems the offer to buy the land is very convenient! If it is sold off wonder which councillors approve it?[/p][/quote]it will be all the councillors, at a special FULL council meeting on the 28th on this month, one member one vote, to decide,, democratic as it should be, and with Poole, having no one political party in a majority, it really will be democratic.... But I am sure some people will find a reason to moan about the outcome whatever it is. And, I bet you this offer to buy the land disappears now that the planning has been turned down, or at least the offer will be reduced a lot,, property developers are more skilled and have no rules to follow like to council, so they can, and will play dirty. PooleFirst
  • Score: 6

12:26pm Thu 20 Mar 14

apm1954 says...

Tony Trent wrote:
mimi55 wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.
Where do you live. Perhaps you can suggest a suitable site nearby. As you
say it would go un-noticed, wouldn't be a problem or you, would it??
We don't have a large out of sight site like Marshes End, but we already accomodate a traveller camp nearby. Experience shows you can't mix the different groups on one site, and the site we have is working well. We also have a sizeable settled traveller community (at least two families in the road I live in) so I think we "do our bit". When the heat of the whole debate evaporates you will realise how you've been manipulated by propaganda. This TSP would have operated virtually unoticed. Now we have to spend even more of your money finding another way to deal with the problem under the limitations of the law. A bad day for common sense!
cllr trent
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimi55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.[/p][/quote]Where do you live. Perhaps you can suggest a suitable site nearby. As you say it would go un-noticed, wouldn't be a problem or you, would it??[/p][/quote]We don't have a large out of sight site like Marshes End, but we already accomodate a traveller camp nearby. Experience shows you can't mix the different groups on one site, and the site we have is working well. We also have a sizeable settled traveller community (at least two families in the road I live in) so I think we "do our bit". When the heat of the whole debate evaporates you will realise how you've been manipulated by propaganda. This TSP would have operated virtually unoticed. Now we have to spend even more of your money finding another way to deal with the problem under the limitations of the law. A bad day for common sense![/p][/quote]cllr trent apm1954
  • Score: 2

12:27pm Thu 20 Mar 14

apm1954 says...

mimi55 wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.
Where do you live. Perhaps you can suggest a suitable site nearby. As you
say it would go un-noticed, wouldn't be a problem or you, would it??
cllr trent
[quote][p][bold]mimi55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.[/p][/quote]Where do you live. Perhaps you can suggest a suitable site nearby. As you say it would go un-noticed, wouldn't be a problem or you, would it??[/p][/quote]cllr trent apm1954
  • Score: 1

12:42pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Teddy 1 says...

Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly.

As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked!
Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly. As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked! Teddy 1
  • Score: 5

12:46pm Thu 20 Mar 14

ADST_2008 says...

apm1954 wrote:
mimi55 wrote:
Tony Trent wrote: I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.
Where do you live. Perhaps you can suggest a suitable site nearby. As you say it would go un-noticed, wouldn't be a problem or you, would it??
cllr trent
Are you calling the concerned residents of Creekmoor a Mob? I take that as a personal insult!
[quote][p][bold]apm1954[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimi55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.[/p][/quote]Where do you live. Perhaps you can suggest a suitable site nearby. As you say it would go un-noticed, wouldn't be a problem or you, would it??[/p][/quote]cllr trent[/p][/quote]Are you calling the concerned residents of Creekmoor a Mob? I take that as a personal insult! ADST_2008
  • Score: 6

12:49pm Thu 20 Mar 14

ADST_2008 says...

It’s probably a good time for the leader to go before we lose more councillors!
It’s probably a good time for the leader to go before we lose more councillors! ADST_2008
  • Score: 3

12:58pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

ADST_2008 wrote:
It’s probably a good time for the leader to go before we lose more councillors!
whats it got to do with the leader ???

The leader lead, had no vote on the matter and let the relevant committee vote how it wanted to,, thats what a leader is supposed to do...
[quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote: It’s probably a good time for the leader to go before we lose more councillors![/p][/quote]whats it got to do with the leader ??? The leader lead, had no vote on the matter and let the relevant committee vote how it wanted to,, thats what a leader is supposed to do... PooleFirst
  • Score: -3

1:00pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

Teddy 1 wrote:
Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly.

As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked!
Only part of the land is owned by Poole - the rest is owned by Dorset County Council who said that Poole could use it.
.......
I don't live in Creekmoor or Broadstone, but did read everything on the planning applications. In addition Judy Butt did ask Joe Jones and a settled traveller residing in Creekmoor for their opinion on Marshes End. Both rejected them for suitability due to contamination and safety.
.......
Perhaps the council will now discuss sites regarding suitability with the intended users before charging in on another application. We might not want travellers in Poole, but if they're going to come, it would be as well to make sure they'll use a designated site rather than pitching up on private land, which will be no better than on council land.
[quote][p][bold]Teddy 1[/bold] wrote: Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly. As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked![/p][/quote]Only part of the land is owned by Poole - the rest is owned by Dorset County Council who said that Poole could use it. ....... I don't live in Creekmoor or Broadstone, but did read everything on the planning applications. In addition Judy Butt did ask Joe Jones and a settled traveller residing in Creekmoor for their opinion on Marshes End. Both rejected them for suitability due to contamination and safety. ....... Perhaps the council will now discuss sites regarding suitability with the intended users before charging in on another application. We might not want travellers in Poole, but if they're going to come, it would be as well to make sure they'll use a designated site rather than pitching up on private land, which will be no better than on council land. Carolyn43
  • Score: 5

1:22pm Thu 20 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

apm1954 wrote:
mimi55 wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.
Where do you live. Perhaps you can suggest a suitable site nearby. As you
say it would go un-noticed, wouldn't be a problem or you, would it??
cllr trent
Look Councillor Trent up on BoP web site.
[quote][p][bold]apm1954[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimi55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.[/p][/quote]Where do you live. Perhaps you can suggest a suitable site nearby. As you say it would go un-noticed, wouldn't be a problem or you, would it??[/p][/quote]cllr trent[/p][/quote]Look Councillor Trent up on BoP web site. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 5

1:27pm Thu 20 Mar 14

The Liberal says...

So they've finally realised that it isn't a suitable site and would satisfy neither local residents nor travellers. Why on earth did it take so long?
So they've finally realised that it isn't a suitable site and would satisfy neither local residents nor travellers. Why on earth did it take so long? The Liberal
  • Score: 9

1:29pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Lightsabre says...

Massive thanks and congratulations are due to Judy Butt and her team of leaflet droppers and campaigners. I'm pretty sure that without them these sites would have been approved.

Judy was treated despicably by Elaine Atkinson when she was sacked from the cabinet for standing up for local residents. She should be applauded for her actions. Everyone living in Creekmoor is fortunate to have her (and no, I'm not her husband!).
Massive thanks and congratulations are due to Judy Butt and her team of leaflet droppers and campaigners. I'm pretty sure that without them these sites would have been approved. Judy was treated despicably by Elaine Atkinson when she was sacked from the cabinet for standing up for local residents. She should be applauded for her actions. Everyone living in Creekmoor is fortunate to have her (and no, I'm not her husband!). Lightsabre
  • Score: 9

1:31pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Isosceles says...

Can anyone connected with the 'travellers' say why they are not prepared to use one of the many, many caravan sites that already exist in this and other counties in the UK?
Please, other commenters should not reply - I just want to see IF there is any response from the 'travellers' who apparently don't want to travel.
Can anyone connected with the 'travellers' say why they are not prepared to use one of the many, many caravan sites that already exist in this and other counties in the UK? Please, other commenters should not reply - I just want to see IF there is any response from the 'travellers' who apparently don't want to travel. Isosceles
  • Score: 4

1:36pm Thu 20 Mar 14

N Smith says...

Fantastic news
Fantastic news N Smith
  • Score: 4

1:39pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Tony Trent says...

Teddy 1 wrote:
Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly.

As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked!
Unlike others I am not an anonymous contributor and don't hide my address from public record (which I think several councillors do), but for the purposes of this forum it's Wallisdown. All our open spaces are SSSI or immediately behind homes (or both). Marshes End by contrast was almost hidden from view except from the adjacent bussinesses. It was probably the best site for a TSP, though the list of 90 sites has never been shared with us mortals so there may be a surprise. If the site had gone ahead then in a short while people would have been asking what all the fuss was about. I think I will leave that there as I now have to get a Plan B looked at to minimise the problems, and eventually present it to the decision makers.
[quote][p][bold]Teddy 1[/bold] wrote: Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly. As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked![/p][/quote]Unlike others I am not an anonymous contributor and don't hide my address from public record (which I think several councillors do), but for the purposes of this forum it's Wallisdown. All our open spaces are SSSI or immediately behind homes (or both). Marshes End by contrast was almost hidden from view except from the adjacent bussinesses. It was probably the best site for a TSP, though the list of 90 sites has never been shared with us mortals so there may be a surprise. If the site had gone ahead then in a short while people would have been asking what all the fuss was about. I think I will leave that there as I now have to get a Plan B looked at to minimise the problems, and eventually present it to the decision makers. Tony Trent
  • Score: -5

1:42pm Thu 20 Mar 14

mimi55 says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
mimi55 wrote:
Am still waiting for a reply from relevant Gov Dept (since 18th Feb) as to
WHY they allow Travellers to be above the laws the rest of us have to obey.
If not, there would not be an issue with them parking on playgrounds etc, as
the police could kick them off immediately.
I contacted Robert Symes a while ago, and he said that we subscribe to the European Act on Human Rights that says ethnic minorities can continue with the lifestyle associated with it, and we also have laws on equality in this country. That's why we recognise them as a separate ethnic minority and why Ireland does not - Ireland does not subscribe to the Human Rights Act. In fact travellers are campaigning to get recognised in Ireland.
.....
Now perhaps the council will select another site which is more suitable in terms of contamination, flooding and safety - such as the site on the opposite south side of the A350 and which doesn't appear to interfere with anyone, and was rejected from the original 90 without reasons given.
Still cannot understand why they are considered above the law. Have been
reading recently about legal child marraiges in some countries(of girls to older men), some girls as young as eight. Could these men move to this
Country and claim it their human right to be married to children? A very
extreme example, I know, but I cannot understand why the Gov interprets
'human rights' in this case as a reason to disobey the laws. Wish I had the cash to launch a legal challenge against this whole issue
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimi55[/bold] wrote: Am still waiting for a reply from relevant Gov Dept (since 18th Feb) as to WHY they allow Travellers to be above the laws the rest of us have to obey. If not, there would not be an issue with them parking on playgrounds etc, as the police could kick them off immediately.[/p][/quote]I contacted Robert Symes a while ago, and he said that we subscribe to the European Act on Human Rights that says ethnic minorities can continue with the lifestyle associated with it, and we also have laws on equality in this country. That's why we recognise them as a separate ethnic minority and why Ireland does not - Ireland does not subscribe to the Human Rights Act. In fact travellers are campaigning to get recognised in Ireland. ..... Now perhaps the council will select another site which is more suitable in terms of contamination, flooding and safety - such as the site on the opposite south side of the A350 and which doesn't appear to interfere with anyone, and was rejected from the original 90 without reasons given.[/p][/quote]Still cannot understand why they are considered above the law. Have been reading recently about legal child marraiges in some countries(of girls to older men), some girls as young as eight. Could these men move to this Country and claim it their human right to be married to children? A very extreme example, I know, but I cannot understand why the Gov interprets 'human rights' in this case as a reason to disobey the laws. Wish I had the cash to launch a legal challenge against this whole issue mimi55
  • Score: 5

1:58pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Charlie Farnsbarns says...

speedy231278 wrote:
As an aside, is a primary school child writing the updates on this? "There is only about 30 people" "Its official"
Is this "revelant"?
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: As an aside, is a primary school child writing the updates on this? "There is only about 30 people" "Its official"[/p][/quote]Is this "revelant"? Charlie Farnsbarns
  • Score: 3

2:13pm Thu 20 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Teddy 1 wrote:
Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly.

As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked!
Unlike others I am not an anonymous contributor and don't hide my address from public record (which I think several councillors do), but for the purposes of this forum it's Wallisdown. All our open spaces are SSSI or immediately behind homes (or both). Marshes End by contrast was almost hidden from view except from the adjacent bussinesses. It was probably the best site for a TSP, though the list of 90 sites has never been shared with us mortals so there may be a surprise. If the site had gone ahead then in a short while people would have been asking what all the fuss was about. I think I will leave that there as I now have to get a Plan B looked at to minimise the problems, and eventually present it to the decision makers.
Tony,you are quite right to point out that you do not hide behind a user name,that is to be admired,as on this site too many have a lot to say anonymously, or should we say cowardly way.The residents of creekmoor have nothing to be proud of,and have acted as bullies.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Teddy 1[/bold] wrote: Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly. As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked![/p][/quote]Unlike others I am not an anonymous contributor and don't hide my address from public record (which I think several councillors do), but for the purposes of this forum it's Wallisdown. All our open spaces are SSSI or immediately behind homes (or both). Marshes End by contrast was almost hidden from view except from the adjacent bussinesses. It was probably the best site for a TSP, though the list of 90 sites has never been shared with us mortals so there may be a surprise. If the site had gone ahead then in a short while people would have been asking what all the fuss was about. I think I will leave that there as I now have to get a Plan B looked at to minimise the problems, and eventually present it to the decision makers.[/p][/quote]Tony,you are quite right to point out that you do not hide behind a user name,that is to be admired,as on this site too many have a lot to say anonymously, or should we say cowardly way.The residents of creekmoor have nothing to be proud of,and have acted as bullies. pete woodley
  • Score: -21

2:14pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Lightsabre says...

Charlie Farnsbarns wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
As an aside, is a primary school child writing the updates on this? "There is only about 30 people" "Its official"
Is this "revelant"?
Yes it is.
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Farnsbarns[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: As an aside, is a primary school child writing the updates on this? "There is only about 30 people" "Its official"[/p][/quote]Is this "revelant"?[/p][/quote]Yes it is. Lightsabre
  • Score: 4

2:15pm Thu 20 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Teddy 1 wrote:
Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly.

As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked!
Unlike others I am not an anonymous contributor and don't hide my address from public record (which I think several councillors do), but for the purposes of this forum it's Wallisdown. All our open spaces are SSSI or immediately behind homes (or both). Marshes End by contrast was almost hidden from view except from the adjacent bussinesses. It was probably the best site for a TSP, though the list of 90 sites has never been shared with us mortals so there may be a surprise. If the site had gone ahead then in a short while people would have been asking what all the fuss was about. I think I will leave that there as I now have to get a Plan B looked at to minimise the problems, and eventually present it to the decision makers.
Not only do you sound autocratic in tone but clearly you're out of touch with residents in general. You should be supporting an example of due democratic process and not complaining of the outcome just because it didn't suit your needs.

As for being unaware of the other ninety site o0ptions, it begs the question what are we paying you for? All you have to do is type in 'travellers consultants' on your own web page and up will come the reports, they have been there for months.

You have some very nice spare land just a little way up the road from Talbot Village, it would make an ideal TTS.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Teddy 1[/bold] wrote: Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly. As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked![/p][/quote]Unlike others I am not an anonymous contributor and don't hide my address from public record (which I think several councillors do), but for the purposes of this forum it's Wallisdown. All our open spaces are SSSI or immediately behind homes (or both). Marshes End by contrast was almost hidden from view except from the adjacent bussinesses. It was probably the best site for a TSP, though the list of 90 sites has never been shared with us mortals so there may be a surprise. If the site had gone ahead then in a short while people would have been asking what all the fuss was about. I think I will leave that there as I now have to get a Plan B looked at to minimise the problems, and eventually present it to the decision makers.[/p][/quote]Not only do you sound autocratic in tone but clearly you're out of touch with residents in general. You should be supporting an example of due democratic process and not complaining of the outcome just because it didn't suit your needs. As for being unaware of the other ninety site o0ptions, it begs the question what are we paying you for? All you have to do is type in 'travellers consultants' on your own web page and up will come the reports, they have been there for months. You have some very nice spare land just a little way up the road from Talbot Village, it would make an ideal TTS. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 19

2:22pm Thu 20 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

Who is the pompous "dorset ferret"
Who is the pompous "dorset ferret" pete woodley
  • Score: -14

2:33pm Thu 20 Mar 14

N Smith says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Teddy 1 wrote:
Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly.

As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked!
Unlike others I am not an anonymous contributor and don't hide my address from public record (which I think several councillors do), but for the purposes of this forum it's Wallisdown. All our open spaces are SSSI or immediately behind homes (or both). Marshes End by contrast was almost hidden from view except from the adjacent bussinesses. It was probably the best site for a TSP, though the list of 90 sites has never been shared with us mortals so there may be a surprise. If the site had gone ahead then in a short while people would have been asking what all the fuss was about. I think I will leave that there as I now have to get a Plan B looked at to minimise the problems, and eventually present it to the decision makers.
You obviously don't get it, it's not only about the visual aspect of these sites.Its about the crime and the nature of these people who have NO respect for the law.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Teddy 1[/bold] wrote: Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly. As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked![/p][/quote]Unlike others I am not an anonymous contributor and don't hide my address from public record (which I think several councillors do), but for the purposes of this forum it's Wallisdown. All our open spaces are SSSI or immediately behind homes (or both). Marshes End by contrast was almost hidden from view except from the adjacent bussinesses. It was probably the best site for a TSP, though the list of 90 sites has never been shared with us mortals so there may be a surprise. If the site had gone ahead then in a short while people would have been asking what all the fuss was about. I think I will leave that there as I now have to get a Plan B looked at to minimise the problems, and eventually present it to the decision makers.[/p][/quote]You obviously don't get it, it's not only about the visual aspect of these sites.Its about the crime and the nature of these people who have NO respect for the law. N Smith
  • Score: 11

2:36pm Thu 20 Mar 14

N Smith says...

pete woodley wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
Teddy 1 wrote:
Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly.

As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked!
Unlike others I am not an anonymous contributor and don't hide my address from public record (which I think several councillors do), but for the purposes of this forum it's Wallisdown. All our open spaces are SSSI or immediately behind homes (or both). Marshes End by contrast was almost hidden from view except from the adjacent bussinesses. It was probably the best site for a TSP, though the list of 90 sites has never been shared with us mortals so there may be a surprise. If the site had gone ahead then in a short while people would have been asking what all the fuss was about. I think I will leave that there as I now have to get a Plan B looked at to minimise the problems, and eventually present it to the decision makers.
Tony,you are quite right to point out that you do not hide behind a user name,that is to be admired,as on this site too many have a lot to say anonymously, or should we say cowardly way.The residents of creekmoor have nothing to be proud of,and have acted as bullies.
I take it Pete you would welcome one of these sites by your house then ?
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Teddy 1[/bold] wrote: Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly. As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked![/p][/quote]Unlike others I am not an anonymous contributor and don't hide my address from public record (which I think several councillors do), but for the purposes of this forum it's Wallisdown. All our open spaces are SSSI or immediately behind homes (or both). Marshes End by contrast was almost hidden from view except from the adjacent bussinesses. It was probably the best site for a TSP, though the list of 90 sites has never been shared with us mortals so there may be a surprise. If the site had gone ahead then in a short while people would have been asking what all the fuss was about. I think I will leave that there as I now have to get a Plan B looked at to minimise the problems, and eventually present it to the decision makers.[/p][/quote]Tony,you are quite right to point out that you do not hide behind a user name,that is to be admired,as on this site too many have a lot to say anonymously, or should we say cowardly way.The residents of creekmoor have nothing to be proud of,and have acted as bullies.[/p][/quote]I take it Pete you would welcome one of these sites by your house then ? N Smith
  • Score: 12

2:42pm Thu 20 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

If they want to put one on west howe they are welcome.
If they want to put one on west howe they are welcome. pete woodley
  • Score: -3

2:50pm Thu 20 Mar 14

N Smith says...

pete woodley wrote:
If they want to put one on west howe they are welcome.
and how do you think the rest of the population on West Howe would react to that?
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: If they want to put one on west howe they are welcome.[/p][/quote]and how do you think the rest of the population on West Howe would react to that? N Smith
  • Score: 10

2:55pm Thu 20 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

N smith, why are you asking so many questions who do you think you are.Are you somebody important,or do you just think you are.
N smith, why are you asking so many questions who do you think you are.Are you somebody important,or do you just think you are. pete woodley
  • Score: -13

3:05pm Thu 20 Mar 14

ADST_2008 says...

Tony Trent wrote:
I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.
This decision was thrown out today due to reasoned arguments and the councillors seeing sense, calling the residents of Creek moor a mob is inappropriate, an apology is required or you perhaps you should resign?
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.[/p][/quote]This decision was thrown out today due to reasoned arguments and the councillors seeing sense, calling the residents of Creek moor a mob is inappropriate, an apology is required or you perhaps you should resign? ADST_2008
  • Score: 13

3:09pm Thu 20 Mar 14

N Smith says...

pete woodley wrote:
N smith, why are you asking so many questions who do you think you are.Are you somebody important,or do you just think you are.
You seem to have a lot to say about the people of Creekmoor being bullies and how by going through a democratic process they shouldn't be proud of themselves by getting the planning permission refused. Your words not mine.I believe those residents should be proud of themselves today and I congratulate them .By the way I don't live in Creekmoor .
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: N smith, why are you asking so many questions who do you think you are.Are you somebody important,or do you just think you are.[/p][/quote]You seem to have a lot to say about the people of Creekmoor being bullies and how by going through a democratic process they shouldn't be proud of themselves by getting the planning permission refused. Your words not mine.I believe those residents should be proud of themselves today and I congratulate them .By the way I don't live in Creekmoor . N Smith
  • Score: 20

3:13pm Thu 20 Mar 14

ADST_2008 says...

ADST_2008 wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.
This decision was thrown out today due to reasoned arguments and the councillors seeing sense, calling the residents of Creek moor a mob is inappropriate, an apology is required or you perhaps you should resign?
Perhaps the Leader and Tony Trent should go..................
.and yes I am a Creekmoor resident and proud to be one!
[quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.[/p][/quote]This decision was thrown out today due to reasoned arguments and the councillors seeing sense, calling the residents of Creek moor a mob is inappropriate, an apology is required or you perhaps you should resign?[/p][/quote]Perhaps the Leader and Tony Trent should go.................. .and yes I am a Creekmoor resident and proud to be one! ADST_2008
  • Score: 6

3:15pm Thu 20 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

pete woodley wrote:
Who is the pompous "dorset ferret"
Someone that appreciates reasond argument and constructive debate. Not your scene?
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Who is the pompous "dorset ferret"[/p][/quote]Someone that appreciates reasond argument and constructive debate. Not your scene? DorsetFerret
  • Score: 16

3:19pm Thu 20 Mar 14

ADST_2008 says...

Where was the leader of the Council while this important decision was being made in the Borough today?
Where was the leader of the Council while this important decision was being made in the Borough today? ADST_2008
  • Score: 6

3:21pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Red Leader 1 says...

The Council website today indicates that they will continue to manage unauthorised encampments in Poole. Excuse me for not holding my breath!
The clear message to our travelling friends is come on down, and they will probably bring some more of their friends to enjoy their seaside holiday f.o.c.
The prospect of an enforced '24 hour removal' to a site they they themselves regard as unsuitable may just have proved to be a disincentive to target Poole in such numbers in the first place. We will never know.
Opposition from the closest residents in this case was understandable but the failure of our officials and Councillors to get this matter sorted for once and for all is certainly not. What has been the cost of this failure I wonder?
The Council website today indicates that they will continue to manage unauthorised encampments in Poole. Excuse me for not holding my breath! The clear message to our travelling friends is come on down, and they will probably bring some more of their friends to enjoy their seaside holiday f.o.c. The prospect of an enforced '24 hour removal' to a site they they themselves regard as unsuitable may just have proved to be a disincentive to target Poole in such numbers in the first place. We will never know. Opposition from the closest residents in this case was understandable but the failure of our officials and Councillors to get this matter sorted for once and for all is certainly not. What has been the cost of this failure I wonder? Red Leader 1
  • Score: 1

3:24pm Thu 20 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

Red Leader 1 wrote:
The Council website today indicates that they will continue to manage unauthorised encampments in Poole. Excuse me for not holding my breath!
The clear message to our travelling friends is come on down, and they will probably bring some more of their friends to enjoy their seaside holiday f.o.c.
The prospect of an enforced '24 hour removal' to a site they they themselves regard as unsuitable may just have proved to be a disincentive to target Poole in such numbers in the first place. We will never know.
Opposition from the closest residents in this case was understandable but the failure of our officials and Councillors to get this matter sorted for once and for all is certainly not. What has been the cost of this failure I wonder?
So far, between £350 and £400 K I would hazard a guess.
[quote][p][bold]Red Leader 1[/bold] wrote: The Council website today indicates that they will continue to manage unauthorised encampments in Poole. Excuse me for not holding my breath! The clear message to our travelling friends is come on down, and they will probably bring some more of their friends to enjoy their seaside holiday f.o.c. The prospect of an enforced '24 hour removal' to a site they they themselves regard as unsuitable may just have proved to be a disincentive to target Poole in such numbers in the first place. We will never know. Opposition from the closest residents in this case was understandable but the failure of our officials and Councillors to get this matter sorted for once and for all is certainly not. What has been the cost of this failure I wonder?[/p][/quote]So far, between £350 and £400 K I would hazard a guess. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 3

3:25pm Thu 20 Mar 14

nickynoodah says...

leave George alone
hes 79 you know
have you not heard of senile dementia bought on by dimi opium smoking.
leave George alone hes 79 you know have you not heard of senile dementia bought on by dimi opium smoking. nickynoodah
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Mad Karew says...

Tony Trent you are extremely close to overstepping the mark as a Councillor , Creekmoor residents are not a mob that intimidated the planning committee, perhaps you would like to suggest this to the Chair of the meeting. The audience was amazing, how dare you say they were a mob you are a disgrace..
If you don't like the decision then take it up with the planning committee who made the decision not the residents whom you blame!
PooleFirst you have obviously been on Mars for the last 6 weeks, the leader had led, yes she certainly has, that is all of us all up the garden path, wasted council tax payers money and precious officer time in so doing, and destroyed the work of a fair hard working Portfolio Holder in Cllr Butt, but had she listened to her and her Ward collaegues in early Jan when she warned Atkinson this would happen she would have saved a lot of false hope for the non TSP ward residents, pain for the TSP ward residents and the people of Poole the embarrassment of having her for a so called leader.
Resign now, anyone else feel this same?
Tony Trent you are extremely close to overstepping the mark as a Councillor , Creekmoor residents are not a mob that intimidated the planning committee, perhaps you would like to suggest this to the Chair of the meeting. The audience was amazing, how dare you say they were a mob you are a disgrace.. If you don't like the decision then take it up with the planning committee who made the decision not the residents whom you blame! PooleFirst you have obviously been on Mars for the last 6 weeks, the leader had led, yes she certainly has, that is all of us all up the garden path, wasted council tax payers money and precious officer time in so doing, and destroyed the work of a fair hard working Portfolio Holder in Cllr Butt, but had she listened to her and her Ward collaegues in early Jan when she warned Atkinson this would happen she would have saved a lot of false hope for the non TSP ward residents, pain for the TSP ward residents and the people of Poole the embarrassment of having her for a so called leader. Resign now, anyone else feel this same? Mad Karew
  • Score: 8

3:35pm Thu 20 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

nickynoodah wrote:
leave George alone
hes 79 you know
have you not heard of senile dementia bought on by dimi opium smoking.
If my so called dementia gets worse,should i go and live in creekmoor as a lot of the residents there seem to be worse than me, and i would feel at home.
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: leave George alone hes 79 you know have you not heard of senile dementia bought on by dimi opium smoking.[/p][/quote]If my so called dementia gets worse,should i go and live in creekmoor as a lot of the residents there seem to be worse than me, and i would feel at home. pete woodley
  • Score: -11

3:46pm Thu 20 Mar 14

mimi55 says...

Mad Karew wrote:
Tony Trent you are extremely close to overstepping the mark as a Councillor , Creekmoor residents are not a mob that intimidated the planning committee, perhaps you would like to suggest this to the Chair of the meeting. The audience was amazing, how dare you say they were a mob you are a disgrace..
If you don't like the decision then take it up with the planning committee who made the decision not the residents whom you blame!
PooleFirst you have obviously been on Mars for the last 6 weeks, the leader had led, yes she certainly has, that is all of us all up the garden path, wasted council tax payers money and precious officer time in so doing, and destroyed the work of a fair hard working Portfolio Holder in Cllr Butt, but had she listened to her and her Ward collaegues in early Jan when she warned Atkinson this would happen she would have saved a lot of false hope for the non TSP ward residents, pain for the TSP ward residents and the people of Poole the embarrassment of having her for a so called leader.
Resign now, anyone else feel this same?
I have noticed something rather odd - the Cllrs most determined to push
through the Creekmoor TSP, including the lady who voted in favour today,
all represent wards rather close to the (in my opinion) obvious site - Penn Hill car park - how uncanny???
[quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: Tony Trent you are extremely close to overstepping the mark as a Councillor , Creekmoor residents are not a mob that intimidated the planning committee, perhaps you would like to suggest this to the Chair of the meeting. The audience was amazing, how dare you say they were a mob you are a disgrace.. If you don't like the decision then take it up with the planning committee who made the decision not the residents whom you blame! PooleFirst you have obviously been on Mars for the last 6 weeks, the leader had led, yes she certainly has, that is all of us all up the garden path, wasted council tax payers money and precious officer time in so doing, and destroyed the work of a fair hard working Portfolio Holder in Cllr Butt, but had she listened to her and her Ward collaegues in early Jan when she warned Atkinson this would happen she would have saved a lot of false hope for the non TSP ward residents, pain for the TSP ward residents and the people of Poole the embarrassment of having her for a so called leader. Resign now, anyone else feel this same?[/p][/quote]I have noticed something rather odd - the Cllrs most determined to push through the Creekmoor TSP, including the lady who voted in favour today, all represent wards rather close to the (in my opinion) obvious site - Penn Hill car park - how uncanny??? mimi55
  • Score: 3

4:04pm Thu 20 Mar 14

calamity carney says...

ADST_2008 wrote:
It’s probably a good time for the leader to go before we lose more councillors!
Why should the leader step down? It's most of the conservative councillors who should have resigned over this!
[quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote: It’s probably a good time for the leader to go before we lose more councillors![/p][/quote]Why should the leader step down? It's most of the conservative councillors who should have resigned over this! calamity carney
  • Score: 4

4:06pm Thu 20 Mar 14

speedy231278 says...

N Smith wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
If they want to put one on west howe they are welcome.
and how do you think the rest of the population on West Howe would react to that?
Probably like neanderthals as usual.
[quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: If they want to put one on west howe they are welcome.[/p][/quote]and how do you think the rest of the population on West Howe would react to that?[/p][/quote]Probably like neanderthals as usual. speedy231278
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Thu 20 Mar 14

pacamar says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Teddy 1 wrote:
Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly.

As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked!
Unlike others I am not an anonymous contributor and don't hide my address from public record (which I think several councillors do), but for the purposes of this forum it's Wallisdown. All our open spaces are SSSI or immediately behind homes (or both). Marshes End by contrast was almost hidden from view except from the adjacent bussinesses. It was probably the best site for a TSP, though the list of 90 sites has never been shared with us mortals so there may be a surprise. If the site had gone ahead then in a short while people would have been asking what all the fuss was about. I think I will leave that there as I now have to get a Plan B looked at to minimise the problems, and eventually present it to the decision makers.
I wouldn't look forward to getting too many votes at the next council elections if I were you. People are not as stupid as you seem to believe they are, and can easily recognise someone who is capable of wasting such huge amounts of tax payers money with no concern whatsoever.
Furthermore, it is obvious from your comments that despite the Planning Committee rejecting the proposal, you still believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
Your job is to accept the decision and get on with all the other issues which you were elected to deal with, not waste time whinging and whining because a decision went against you!
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Teddy 1[/bold] wrote: Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly. As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked![/p][/quote]Unlike others I am not an anonymous contributor and don't hide my address from public record (which I think several councillors do), but for the purposes of this forum it's Wallisdown. All our open spaces are SSSI or immediately behind homes (or both). Marshes End by contrast was almost hidden from view except from the adjacent bussinesses. It was probably the best site for a TSP, though the list of 90 sites has never been shared with us mortals so there may be a surprise. If the site had gone ahead then in a short while people would have been asking what all the fuss was about. I think I will leave that there as I now have to get a Plan B looked at to minimise the problems, and eventually present it to the decision makers.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't look forward to getting too many votes at the next council elections if I were you. People are not as stupid as you seem to believe they are, and can easily recognise someone who is capable of wasting such huge amounts of tax payers money with no concern whatsoever. Furthermore, it is obvious from your comments that despite the Planning Committee rejecting the proposal, you still believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Your job is to accept the decision and get on with all the other issues which you were elected to deal with, not waste time whinging and whining because a decision went against you! pacamar
  • Score: 9

4:09pm Thu 20 Mar 14

calamity carney says...

Mad Karew wrote:
Tony Trent you are extremely close to overstepping the mark as a Councillor , Creekmoor residents are not a mob that intimidated the planning committee, perhaps you would like to suggest this to the Chair of the meeting. The audience was amazing, how dare you say they were a mob you are a disgrace..
If you don't like the decision then take it up with the planning committee who made the decision not the residents whom you blame!
PooleFirst you have obviously been on Mars for the last 6 weeks, the leader had led, yes she certainly has, that is all of us all up the garden path, wasted council tax payers money and precious officer time in so doing, and destroyed the work of a fair hard working Portfolio Holder in Cllr Butt, but had she listened to her and her Ward collaegues in early Jan when she warned Atkinson this would happen she would have saved a lot of false hope for the non TSP ward residents, pain for the TSP ward residents and the people of Poole the embarrassment of having her for a so called leader.
Resign now, anyone else feel this same?
No mr Trent has not overstepped the mark. But your "sounding" like a swivelled eyed loon!
[quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: Tony Trent you are extremely close to overstepping the mark as a Councillor , Creekmoor residents are not a mob that intimidated the planning committee, perhaps you would like to suggest this to the Chair of the meeting. The audience was amazing, how dare you say they were a mob you are a disgrace.. If you don't like the decision then take it up with the planning committee who made the decision not the residents whom you blame! PooleFirst you have obviously been on Mars for the last 6 weeks, the leader had led, yes she certainly has, that is all of us all up the garden path, wasted council tax payers money and precious officer time in so doing, and destroyed the work of a fair hard working Portfolio Holder in Cllr Butt, but had she listened to her and her Ward collaegues in early Jan when she warned Atkinson this would happen she would have saved a lot of false hope for the non TSP ward residents, pain for the TSP ward residents and the people of Poole the embarrassment of having her for a so called leader. Resign now, anyone else feel this same?[/p][/quote]No mr Trent has not overstepped the mark. But your "sounding" like a swivelled eyed loon! calamity carney
  • Score: -1

4:17pm Thu 20 Mar 14

kangaroo_joey says...

As someone posted in an earlier thread here quoted is 5 democratic questions that Tony Benn wanted to ask a powerful person-
1-What power have you got?
2-Where did you get it from?
3-In whose interests do you exercise it?
4-To whom are you accountable?
5-How can we get rid of you?

Very apt for some of these councillors to remember.
As someone posted in an earlier thread here quoted is 5 democratic questions that Tony Benn wanted to ask a powerful person- 1-What power have you got? 2-Where did you get it from? 3-In whose interests do you exercise it? 4-To whom are you accountable? 5-How can we get rid of you? Very apt for some of these councillors to remember. kangaroo_joey
  • Score: 4

4:18pm Thu 20 Mar 14

mimi55 says...

apm1954 wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
mimi55 wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.
Where do you live. Perhaps you can suggest a suitable site nearby. As you
say it would go un-noticed, wouldn't be a problem or you, would it??
We don't have a large out of sight site like Marshes End, but we already accomodate a traveller camp nearby. Experience shows you can't mix the different groups on one site, and the site we have is working well. We also have a sizeable settled traveller community (at least two families in the road I live in) so I think we "do our bit". When the heat of the whole debate evaporates you will realise how you've been manipulated by propaganda. This TSP would have operated virtually unoticed. Now we have to spend even more of your money finding another way to deal with the problem under the limitations of the law. A bad day for common sense!
cllr trent
If the planning officers had actually done a proper job, this would never
have got as far as the committee. e.g. saying the site would not be overlooked without even bothering to check?? Money would have been better
spent putting in blocking measures at places popular with Travellers. As to
propaganda, I don;t live in Creekmoor, but have spoken to those who do,
and heard their reasonably put concerns. HAVE YOU?
[quote][p][bold]apm1954[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimi55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.[/p][/quote]Where do you live. Perhaps you can suggest a suitable site nearby. As you say it would go un-noticed, wouldn't be a problem or you, would it??[/p][/quote]We don't have a large out of sight site like Marshes End, but we already accomodate a traveller camp nearby. Experience shows you can't mix the different groups on one site, and the site we have is working well. We also have a sizeable settled traveller community (at least two families in the road I live in) so I think we "do our bit". When the heat of the whole debate evaporates you will realise how you've been manipulated by propaganda. This TSP would have operated virtually unoticed. Now we have to spend even more of your money finding another way to deal with the problem under the limitations of the law. A bad day for common sense![/p][/quote]cllr trent[/p][/quote]If the planning officers had actually done a proper job, this would never have got as far as the committee. e.g. saying the site would not be overlooked without even bothering to check?? Money would have been better spent putting in blocking measures at places popular with Travellers. As to propaganda, I don;t live in Creekmoor, but have spoken to those who do, and heard their reasonably put concerns. HAVE YOU? mimi55
  • Score: 5

4:21pm Thu 20 Mar 14

susi.m says...

Tony Trent lives on the Alderney /Wallisdown border. He is a Councillor for Alderney.
All Councillors (except of Creekmore ones) were very relieved when they thought that the Irish Travellers were going to put over in Creekmore. Its now all up in the air again.
Fair play to Tony though, for being honest about his views - most Councillors would hide behind the scenes. He should be admired for being open even if one does not agree with what he is saying.
Tony Trent lives on the Alderney /Wallisdown border. He is a Councillor for Alderney. All Councillors (except of Creekmore ones) were very relieved when they thought that the Irish Travellers were going to put over in Creekmore. Its now all up in the air again. Fair play to Tony though, for being honest about his views - most Councillors would hide behind the scenes. He should be admired for being open even if one does not agree with what he is saying. susi.m
  • Score: 6

4:22pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Pete Light says...

Cllr Tony Trent: Disgusting comments on the residents of Oakdale.

I'm grateful to those who did attend today as I live less than 100m from the secondary site and have a young son and wife that regularly walk across the bay near both sites so I'm absolutely relieved this has been rejected!

Great work and thanks to Judy Butt as echoed by some other posters.
Cllr Tony Trent: Disgusting comments on the residents of Oakdale. I'm grateful to those who did attend today as I live less than 100m from the secondary site and have a young son and wife that regularly walk across the bay near both sites so I'm absolutely relieved this has been rejected! Great work and thanks to Judy Butt as echoed by some other posters. Pete Light
  • Score: 3

4:27pm Thu 20 Mar 14

mimi55 says...

calamity carney wrote:
Mad Karew wrote:
Tony Trent you are extremely close to overstepping the mark as a Councillor , Creekmoor residents are not a mob that intimidated the planning committee, perhaps you would like to suggest this to the Chair of the meeting. The audience was amazing, how dare you say they were a mob you are a disgrace..
If you don't like the decision then take it up with the planning committee who made the decision not the residents whom you blame!
PooleFirst you have obviously been on Mars for the last 6 weeks, the leader had led, yes she certainly has, that is all of us all up the garden path, wasted council tax payers money and precious officer time in so doing, and destroyed the work of a fair hard working Portfolio Holder in Cllr Butt, but had she listened to her and her Ward collaegues in early Jan when she warned Atkinson this would happen she would have saved a lot of false hope for the non TSP ward residents, pain for the TSP ward residents and the people of Poole the embarrassment of having her for a so called leader.
Resign now, anyone else feel this same?
No mr Trent has not overstepped the mark. But your "sounding" like a swivelled eyed loon!
That should be "you're" - and if what Mad Karew wrote makes him or her
sound like a swivelled eyed loon to you , then I guess that must be taken as
a compliment.
[quote][p][bold]calamity carney[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: Tony Trent you are extremely close to overstepping the mark as a Councillor , Creekmoor residents are not a mob that intimidated the planning committee, perhaps you would like to suggest this to the Chair of the meeting. The audience was amazing, how dare you say they were a mob you are a disgrace.. If you don't like the decision then take it up with the planning committee who made the decision not the residents whom you blame! PooleFirst you have obviously been on Mars for the last 6 weeks, the leader had led, yes she certainly has, that is all of us all up the garden path, wasted council tax payers money and precious officer time in so doing, and destroyed the work of a fair hard working Portfolio Holder in Cllr Butt, but had she listened to her and her Ward collaegues in early Jan when she warned Atkinson this would happen she would have saved a lot of false hope for the non TSP ward residents, pain for the TSP ward residents and the people of Poole the embarrassment of having her for a so called leader. Resign now, anyone else feel this same?[/p][/quote]No mr Trent has not overstepped the mark. But your "sounding" like a swivelled eyed loon![/p][/quote]That should be "you're" - and if what Mad Karew wrote makes him or her sound like a swivelled eyed loon to you , then I guess that must be taken as a compliment. mimi55
  • Score: -4

4:37pm Thu 20 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

speedy231278 wrote:
N Smith wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
If they want to put one on west howe they are welcome.
and how do you think the rest of the population on West Howe would react to that?
Probably like neanderthals as usual.
Now thats over the top ,i live there and my knuckles dont touch the pavement, mind you ,i have short arms.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: If they want to put one on west howe they are welcome.[/p][/quote]and how do you think the rest of the population on West Howe would react to that?[/p][/quote]Probably like neanderthals as usual.[/p][/quote]Now thats over the top ,i live there and my knuckles dont touch the pavement, mind you ,i have short arms. pete woodley
  • Score: 5

4:57pm Thu 20 Mar 14

calamity carney says...

What's all this rubbish about the leader stepping down. The creek moor and oakdale councillors should stand down.
What's all this rubbish about the leader stepping down. The creek moor and oakdale councillors should stand down. calamity carney
  • Score: -6

5:12pm Thu 20 Mar 14

calamity carney says...

What's all this rubbish about the leader stepping down. The creek moor and oakdale councillors should stand down resign. Stand again in an election see what happens. It looks like Poole people will get some more councillors!
What's all this rubbish about the leader stepping down. The creek moor and oakdale councillors should stand down resign. Stand again in an election see what happens. It looks like Poole people will get some more councillors! calamity carney
  • Score: 1

5:15pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

Mad Karew wrote:
Tony Trent you are extremely close to overstepping the mark as a Councillor , Creekmoor residents are not a mob that intimidated the planning committee, perhaps you would like to suggest this to the Chair of the meeting. The audience was amazing, how dare you say they were a mob you are a disgrace..
If you don't like the decision then take it up with the planning committee who made the decision not the residents whom you blame!
PooleFirst you have obviously been on Mars for the last 6 weeks, the leader had led, yes she certainly has, that is all of us all up the garden path, wasted council tax payers money and precious officer time in so doing, and destroyed the work of a fair hard working Portfolio Holder in Cllr Butt, but had she listened to her and her Ward collaegues in early Jan when she warned Atkinson this would happen she would have saved a lot of false hope for the non TSP ward residents, pain for the TSP ward residents and the people of Poole the embarrassment of having her for a so called leader.
Resign now, anyone else feel this same?
You clearly haven't a clue, Judy Butt was portfolio holder, therefore she had a conflict of interest as she was both leading and opposing the same item, dont forget it was HER not the leader that lead this whole program on finding a site and implementing it, she was the leader on that.
She then turned around and changed her mind after leading it for so long because she got so much stick from the residents. So if anyone should be resigning then it is defiantly Judy Butt...
It is also interesting to remember that Judy Butt never wanted to be a councillor originally, back when she was first elected the conservatives couldn't get enough candidates to stand, she said she would stand just so people had someone to vote for, as long as she didnt win, that was her condition for standing at Creekmoor, she then won due to the work of the other candidates, she didnt even know she had won as she wasn't at the count, so she didnt make any acceptance speech, I think it was a day or two before she found out she was a councillor,,, so if you are looking for someone that has mislead the public look no further,, the accidental councillor...
[quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: Tony Trent you are extremely close to overstepping the mark as a Councillor , Creekmoor residents are not a mob that intimidated the planning committee, perhaps you would like to suggest this to the Chair of the meeting. The audience was amazing, how dare you say they were a mob you are a disgrace.. If you don't like the decision then take it up with the planning committee who made the decision not the residents whom you blame! PooleFirst you have obviously been on Mars for the last 6 weeks, the leader had led, yes she certainly has, that is all of us all up the garden path, wasted council tax payers money and precious officer time in so doing, and destroyed the work of a fair hard working Portfolio Holder in Cllr Butt, but had she listened to her and her Ward collaegues in early Jan when she warned Atkinson this would happen she would have saved a lot of false hope for the non TSP ward residents, pain for the TSP ward residents and the people of Poole the embarrassment of having her for a so called leader. Resign now, anyone else feel this same?[/p][/quote]You clearly haven't a clue, Judy Butt was portfolio holder, therefore she had a conflict of interest as she was both leading and opposing the same item, dont forget it was HER not the leader that lead this whole program on finding a site and implementing it, she was the leader on that. She then turned around and changed her mind after leading it for so long because she got so much stick from the residents. So if anyone should be resigning then it is defiantly Judy Butt... It is also interesting to remember that Judy Butt never wanted to be a councillor originally, back when she was first elected the conservatives couldn't get enough candidates to stand, she said she would stand just so people had someone to vote for, as long as she didnt win, that was her condition for standing at Creekmoor, she then won due to the work of the other candidates, she didnt even know she had won as she wasn't at the count, so she didnt make any acceptance speech, I think it was a day or two before she found out she was a councillor,,, so if you are looking for someone that has mislead the public look no further,, the accidental councillor... PooleFirst
  • Score: -1

5:18pm Thu 20 Mar 14

sea poole says...

Someone asked where was Cllr Atkinson today? Apparently, she was advised by police that she shouldn't attend as her safety couldn't be guaranteed. I think it would be interesting to enquire which officer gave her that advice, his/her rank, number and follow-up such an inflammatory statement...if it was said at all...!
Someone asked where was Cllr Atkinson today? Apparently, she was advised by police that she shouldn't attend as her safety couldn't be guaranteed. I think it would be interesting to enquire which officer gave her that advice, his/her rank, number and follow-up such an inflammatory statement...if it was said at all...! sea poole
  • Score: 1

5:24pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

sea poole wrote:
Someone asked where was Cllr Atkinson today? Apparently, she was advised by police that she shouldn't attend as her safety couldn't be guaranteed. I think it would be interesting to enquire which officer gave her that advice, his/her rank, number and follow-up such an inflammatory statement...if it was said at all...!
i think you misunderstand the role of a council leader, its not to actually be there at these things and it certainly isn't to vote on them or try to influence them, its to ensure that the correct process is followed and then to let the relevant committees and councillors have a free vote on the matter, as happened here today,, that's how the democratic process is supposed to work.

Judy Butt was originally in charge of this process, until she lost her nerve, if she had stayed put and seen this through, the same outcome would have happened, and she would still have her job,,, I bet she is feeling a little silly today..
[quote][p][bold]sea poole[/bold] wrote: Someone asked where was Cllr Atkinson today? Apparently, she was advised by police that she shouldn't attend as her safety couldn't be guaranteed. I think it would be interesting to enquire which officer gave her that advice, his/her rank, number and follow-up such an inflammatory statement...if it was said at all...![/p][/quote]i think you misunderstand the role of a council leader, its not to actually be there at these things and it certainly isn't to vote on them or try to influence them, its to ensure that the correct process is followed and then to let the relevant committees and councillors have a free vote on the matter, as happened here today,, that's how the democratic process is supposed to work. Judy Butt was originally in charge of this process, until she lost her nerve, if she had stayed put and seen this through, the same outcome would have happened, and she would still have her job,,, I bet she is feeling a little silly today.. PooleFirst
  • Score: -3

5:25pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Jo__Go says...

ashleycross wrote:
It is mainly people with children who suffer because we don't have a site at present so the children's play areas and recreation grounds are used as sites.
Yawn... Same old moan from ashleycross who doesn't seem to grasp, or care, that one of the sites 'chosen' is right next to a well used skate park, and would deny the kids of Creekmoor and Oakdale use of that space from Easter to September.
[quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: It is mainly people with children who suffer because we don't have a site at present so the children's play areas and recreation grounds are used as sites.[/p][/quote]Yawn... Same old moan from ashleycross who doesn't seem to grasp, or care, that one of the sites 'chosen' is right next to a well used skate park, and would deny the kids of Creekmoor and Oakdale use of that space from Easter to September. Jo__Go
  • Score: 3

5:30pm Thu 20 Mar 14

cunone says...

I would now to Judy Butt reinstated to the cabinet as it is clear her objection to the scheme were upheld this morning.

The Council went ahead and cleared the site speculatively therefore the Council has been spending our money recklessly. The cost of the surveys and application plus hiring the Art Centre have all been paid for by the rate payer. I would guess the best part of £50k has been spent on all of this. Who authorised the expenditure. I would assume it was the Mayor and Leader of the Council. Therefore can we expect them to stand down from their positions within the Council and perhaps let Judy lead the cabinet
I would now to Judy Butt reinstated to the cabinet as it is clear her objection to the scheme were upheld this morning. The Council went ahead and cleared the site speculatively therefore the Council has been spending our money recklessly. The cost of the surveys and application plus hiring the Art Centre have all been paid for by the rate payer. I would guess the best part of £50k has been spent on all of this. Who authorised the expenditure. I would assume it was the Mayor and Leader of the Council. Therefore can we expect them to stand down from their positions within the Council and perhaps let Judy lead the cabinet cunone
  • Score: -2

5:30pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

Jo__Go wrote:
ashleycross wrote:
It is mainly people with children who suffer because we don't have a site at present so the children's play areas and recreation grounds are used as sites.
Yawn... Same old moan from ashleycross who doesn't seem to grasp, or care, that one of the sites 'chosen' is right next to a well used skate park, and would deny the kids of Creekmoor and Oakdale use of that space from Easter to September.
lets be honest,,, there isnt ANY suitable site, no body really wants a site in the town, it all feel like its being forced on us, when in reality we could do with a bit of national government spine to change the laws on all this.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: It is mainly people with children who suffer because we don't have a site at present so the children's play areas and recreation grounds are used as sites.[/p][/quote]Yawn... Same old moan from ashleycross who doesn't seem to grasp, or care, that one of the sites 'chosen' is right next to a well used skate park, and would deny the kids of Creekmoor and Oakdale use of that space from Easter to September.[/p][/quote]lets be honest,,, there isnt ANY suitable site, no body really wants a site in the town, it all feel like its being forced on us, when in reality we could do with a bit of national government spine to change the laws on all this. PooleFirst
  • Score: 10

5:32pm Thu 20 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.
PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous. pete woodley
  • Score: -7

5:33pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

cunone wrote:
I would now to Judy Butt reinstated to the cabinet as it is clear her objection to the scheme were upheld this morning.

The Council went ahead and cleared the site speculatively therefore the Council has been spending our money recklessly. The cost of the surveys and application plus hiring the Art Centre have all been paid for by the rate payer. I would guess the best part of £50k has been spent on all of this. Who authorised the expenditure. I would assume it was the Mayor and Leader of the Council. Therefore can we expect them to stand down from their positions within the Council and perhaps let Judy lead the cabinet
JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this, until a couple of weeks ago she was the one that lead all this, it was HER job,
[quote][p][bold]cunone[/bold] wrote: I would now to Judy Butt reinstated to the cabinet as it is clear her objection to the scheme were upheld this morning. The Council went ahead and cleared the site speculatively therefore the Council has been spending our money recklessly. The cost of the surveys and application plus hiring the Art Centre have all been paid for by the rate payer. I would guess the best part of £50k has been spent on all of this. Who authorised the expenditure. I would assume it was the Mayor and Leader of the Council. Therefore can we expect them to stand down from their positions within the Council and perhaps let Judy lead the cabinet[/p][/quote]JUDY BUTT was in charge of all this, until a couple of weeks ago she was the one that lead all this, it was HER job, PooleFirst
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Thu 20 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

PooleFirst wrote:
Mad Karew wrote:
Tony Trent you are extremely close to overstepping the mark as a Councillor , Creekmoor residents are not a mob that intimidated the planning committee, perhaps you would like to suggest this to the Chair of the meeting. The audience was amazing, how dare you say they were a mob you are a disgrace..
If you don't like the decision then take it up with the planning committee who made the decision not the residents whom you blame!
PooleFirst you have obviously been on Mars for the last 6 weeks, the leader had led, yes she certainly has, that is all of us all up the garden path, wasted council tax payers money and precious officer time in so doing, and destroyed the work of a fair hard working Portfolio Holder in Cllr Butt, but had she listened to her and her Ward collaegues in early Jan when she warned Atkinson this would happen she would have saved a lot of false hope for the non TSP ward residents, pain for the TSP ward residents and the people of Poole the embarrassment of having her for a so called leader.
Resign now, anyone else feel this same?
You clearly haven't a clue, Judy Butt was portfolio holder, therefore she had a conflict of interest as she was both leading and opposing the same item, dont forget it was HER not the leader that lead this whole program on finding a site and implementing it, she was the leader on that.
She then turned around and changed her mind after leading it for so long because she got so much stick from the residents. So if anyone should be resigning then it is defiantly Judy Butt...
It is also interesting to remember that Judy Butt never wanted to be a councillor originally, back when she was first elected the conservatives couldn't get enough candidates to stand, she said she would stand just so people had someone to vote for, as long as she didnt win, that was her condition for standing at Creekmoor, she then won due to the work of the other candidates, she didnt even know she had won as she wasn't at the count, so she didnt make any acceptance speech, I think it was a day or two before she found out she was a councillor,,, so if you are looking for someone that has mislead the public look no further,, the accidental councillor...
There is some truth in what you say, she was an early instigator/ enthusiast for a travellers site. However, it wasn't until Eades did a dodgy deal and put Creekmoor on the map (remember his ward was a preferred choice for a site, whereas Creekmoor had been discounted) that she came out fighting. Can't knock her for doing her job in the end. Congratulate her for her efforts. Poole could do with a few more councillors like her.
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: Tony Trent you are extremely close to overstepping the mark as a Councillor , Creekmoor residents are not a mob that intimidated the planning committee, perhaps you would like to suggest this to the Chair of the meeting. The audience was amazing, how dare you say they were a mob you are a disgrace.. If you don't like the decision then take it up with the planning committee who made the decision not the residents whom you blame! PooleFirst you have obviously been on Mars for the last 6 weeks, the leader had led, yes she certainly has, that is all of us all up the garden path, wasted council tax payers money and precious officer time in so doing, and destroyed the work of a fair hard working Portfolio Holder in Cllr Butt, but had she listened to her and her Ward collaegues in early Jan when she warned Atkinson this would happen she would have saved a lot of false hope for the non TSP ward residents, pain for the TSP ward residents and the people of Poole the embarrassment of having her for a so called leader. Resign now, anyone else feel this same?[/p][/quote]You clearly haven't a clue, Judy Butt was portfolio holder, therefore she had a conflict of interest as she was both leading and opposing the same item, dont forget it was HER not the leader that lead this whole program on finding a site and implementing it, she was the leader on that. She then turned around and changed her mind after leading it for so long because she got so much stick from the residents. So if anyone should be resigning then it is defiantly Judy Butt... It is also interesting to remember that Judy Butt never wanted to be a councillor originally, back when she was first elected the conservatives couldn't get enough candidates to stand, she said she would stand just so people had someone to vote for, as long as she didnt win, that was her condition for standing at Creekmoor, she then won due to the work of the other candidates, she didnt even know she had won as she wasn't at the count, so she didnt make any acceptance speech, I think it was a day or two before she found out she was a councillor,,, so if you are looking for someone that has mislead the public look no further,, the accidental councillor...[/p][/quote]There is some truth in what you say, she was an early instigator/ enthusiast for a travellers site. However, it wasn't until Eades did a dodgy deal and put Creekmoor on the map (remember his ward was a preferred choice for a site, whereas Creekmoor had been discounted) that she came out fighting. Can't knock her for doing her job in the end. Congratulate her for her efforts. Poole could do with a few more councillors like her. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 9

5:37pm Thu 20 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

pete woodley wrote:
PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.
Peter, no problem being anonymous as long as your not abusive. Just because you use your name doesn't mean you can be rude..
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.[/p][/quote]Peter, no problem being anonymous as long as your not abusive. Just because you use your name doesn't mean you can be rude.. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 6

5:42pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

pete woodley wrote:
PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.
I would like to think its because people just dont understand the process and just give knee jerk responses to an issue without actually understanding that issue in depth.
Lets be honest, NO ONE wants a traveller site, anywhere, but at the moment, the police cant move travellers on (without first going through the courts) if we dont have this transit site,, so when this summer we end up playing chase with the travellers as they move from Baiter to Recreation Road, to Creekmoor everyone will moan that nothing is being done,, but not understanding that this was a pre emptive move to stop all that... But the real solution would be if government changed the trespass law and gave the Police the right to move trespassers off without having to seek a court order...
I do think its mainly lack of understanding of the existing legislation thats the problem with people on here, they just want to point the finger at one person and say its your fault,, resign,,, no wonder no one wants to be a councillor... dont blame them.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.[/p][/quote]I would like to think its because people just dont understand the process and just give knee jerk responses to an issue without actually understanding that issue in depth. Lets be honest, NO ONE wants a traveller site, anywhere, but at the moment, the police cant move travellers on (without first going through the courts) if we dont have this transit site,, so when this summer we end up playing chase with the travellers as they move from Baiter to Recreation Road, to Creekmoor everyone will moan that nothing is being done,, but not understanding that this was a pre emptive move to stop all that... But the real solution would be if government changed the trespass law and gave the Police the right to move trespassers off without having to seek a court order... I do think its mainly lack of understanding of the existing legislation thats the problem with people on here, they just want to point the finger at one person and say its your fault,, resign,,, no wonder no one wants to be a councillor... dont blame them. PooleFirst
  • Score: 4

5:48pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
Mad Karew wrote:
Tony Trent you are extremely close to overstepping the mark as a Councillor , Creekmoor residents are not a mob that intimidated the planning committee, perhaps you would like to suggest this to the Chair of the meeting. The audience was amazing, how dare you say they were a mob you are a disgrace..
If you don't like the decision then take it up with the planning committee who made the decision not the residents whom you blame!
PooleFirst you have obviously been on Mars for the last 6 weeks, the leader had led, yes she certainly has, that is all of us all up the garden path, wasted council tax payers money and precious officer time in so doing, and destroyed the work of a fair hard working Portfolio Holder in Cllr Butt, but had she listened to her and her Ward collaegues in early Jan when she warned Atkinson this would happen she would have saved a lot of false hope for the non TSP ward residents, pain for the TSP ward residents and the people of Poole the embarrassment of having her for a so called leader.
Resign now, anyone else feel this same?
You clearly haven't a clue, Judy Butt was portfolio holder, therefore she had a conflict of interest as she was both leading and opposing the same item, dont forget it was HER not the leader that lead this whole program on finding a site and implementing it, she was the leader on that.
She then turned around and changed her mind after leading it for so long because she got so much stick from the residents. So if anyone should be resigning then it is defiantly Judy Butt...
It is also interesting to remember that Judy Butt never wanted to be a councillor originally, back when she was first elected the conservatives couldn't get enough candidates to stand, she said she would stand just so people had someone to vote for, as long as she didnt win, that was her condition for standing at Creekmoor, she then won due to the work of the other candidates, she didnt even know she had won as she wasn't at the count, so she didnt make any acceptance speech, I think it was a day or two before she found out she was a councillor,,, so if you are looking for someone that has mislead the public look no further,, the accidental councillor...
There is some truth in what you say, she was an early instigator/ enthusiast for a travellers site. However, it wasn't until Eades did a dodgy deal and put Creekmoor on the map (remember his ward was a preferred choice for a site, whereas Creekmoor had been discounted) that she came out fighting. Can't knock her for doing her job in the end. Congratulate her for her efforts. Poole could do with a few more councillors like her.
she is actually an appalling councillor as this whole episode has shown, she should have seen her job through, the same conclusion would have been made, so the site still wouldn't have been given permission but she would have then shown herself to be a professional rather than the fool she has made herself out to be. I suspect she will lose her seat at the next election, and a good job too, get someone in that is actually committed to the job. doesnt matter what party they are from, just as long as they are committed.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: Tony Trent you are extremely close to overstepping the mark as a Councillor , Creekmoor residents are not a mob that intimidated the planning committee, perhaps you would like to suggest this to the Chair of the meeting. The audience was amazing, how dare you say they were a mob you are a disgrace.. If you don't like the decision then take it up with the planning committee who made the decision not the residents whom you blame! PooleFirst you have obviously been on Mars for the last 6 weeks, the leader had led, yes she certainly has, that is all of us all up the garden path, wasted council tax payers money and precious officer time in so doing, and destroyed the work of a fair hard working Portfolio Holder in Cllr Butt, but had she listened to her and her Ward collaegues in early Jan when she warned Atkinson this would happen she would have saved a lot of false hope for the non TSP ward residents, pain for the TSP ward residents and the people of Poole the embarrassment of having her for a so called leader. Resign now, anyone else feel this same?[/p][/quote]You clearly haven't a clue, Judy Butt was portfolio holder, therefore she had a conflict of interest as she was both leading and opposing the same item, dont forget it was HER not the leader that lead this whole program on finding a site and implementing it, she was the leader on that. She then turned around and changed her mind after leading it for so long because she got so much stick from the residents. So if anyone should be resigning then it is defiantly Judy Butt... It is also interesting to remember that Judy Butt never wanted to be a councillor originally, back when she was first elected the conservatives couldn't get enough candidates to stand, she said she would stand just so people had someone to vote for, as long as she didnt win, that was her condition for standing at Creekmoor, she then won due to the work of the other candidates, she didnt even know she had won as she wasn't at the count, so she didnt make any acceptance speech, I think it was a day or two before she found out she was a councillor,,, so if you are looking for someone that has mislead the public look no further,, the accidental councillor...[/p][/quote]There is some truth in what you say, she was an early instigator/ enthusiast for a travellers site. However, it wasn't until Eades did a dodgy deal and put Creekmoor on the map (remember his ward was a preferred choice for a site, whereas Creekmoor had been discounted) that she came out fighting. Can't knock her for doing her job in the end. Congratulate her for her efforts. Poole could do with a few more councillors like her.[/p][/quote]she is actually an appalling councillor as this whole episode has shown, she should have seen her job through, the same conclusion would have been made, so the site still wouldn't have been given permission but she would have then shown herself to be a professional rather than the fool she has made herself out to be. I suspect she will lose her seat at the next election, and a good job too, get someone in that is actually committed to the job. doesnt matter what party they are from, just as long as they are committed. PooleFirst
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Thu 20 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

PooleFirst wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.
I would like to think its because people just dont understand the process and just give knee jerk responses to an issue without actually understanding that issue in depth.
Lets be honest, NO ONE wants a traveller site, anywhere, but at the moment, the police cant move travellers on (without first going through the courts) if we dont have this transit site,, so when this summer we end up playing chase with the travellers as they move from Baiter to Recreation Road, to Creekmoor everyone will moan that nothing is being done,, but not understanding that this was a pre emptive move to stop all that... But the real solution would be if government changed the trespass law and gave the Police the right to move trespassers off without having to seek a court order...
I do think its mainly lack of understanding of the existing legislation thats the problem with people on here, they just want to point the finger at one person and say its your fault,, resign,,, no wonder no one wants to be a councillor... dont blame them.
With all due respect I believe you are missing the point. (a) You are quite right in saying 'nobody wants a TTS in Poole but (b) This process has been miss-managed from the start. The Council leader has to accept responsibility for that. Just because someone stood up to her doesn't give her the freedom to act in a dictatorial manner, nor does it mean she is right. If the current law is a bad one, then lobby parliament to improve it or wait until they revise it next year. The police have the current powers to move travellers on, give them the freedom to do it.
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.[/p][/quote]I would like to think its because people just dont understand the process and just give knee jerk responses to an issue without actually understanding that issue in depth. Lets be honest, NO ONE wants a traveller site, anywhere, but at the moment, the police cant move travellers on (without first going through the courts) if we dont have this transit site,, so when this summer we end up playing chase with the travellers as they move from Baiter to Recreation Road, to Creekmoor everyone will moan that nothing is being done,, but not understanding that this was a pre emptive move to stop all that... But the real solution would be if government changed the trespass law and gave the Police the right to move trespassers off without having to seek a court order... I do think its mainly lack of understanding of the existing legislation thats the problem with people on here, they just want to point the finger at one person and say its your fault,, resign,,, no wonder no one wants to be a councillor... dont blame them.[/p][/quote]With all due respect I believe you are missing the point. (a) You are quite right in saying 'nobody wants a TTS in Poole but (b) This process has been miss-managed from the start. The Council leader has to accept responsibility for that. Just because someone stood up to her doesn't give her the freedom to act in a dictatorial manner, nor does it mean she is right. If the current law is a bad one, then lobby parliament to improve it or wait until they revise it next year. The police have the current powers to move travellers on, give them the freedom to do it. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 6

6:03pm Thu 20 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.
I would like to think its because people just dont understand the process and just give knee jerk responses to an issue without actually understanding that issue in depth.
Lets be honest, NO ONE wants a traveller site, anywhere, but at the moment, the police cant move travellers on (without first going through the courts) if we dont have this transit site,, so when this summer we end up playing chase with the travellers as they move from Baiter to Recreation Road, to Creekmoor everyone will moan that nothing is being done,, but not understanding that this was a pre emptive move to stop all that... But the real solution would be if government changed the trespass law and gave the Police the right to move trespassers off without having to seek a court order...
I do think its mainly lack of understanding of the existing legislation thats the problem with people on here, they just want to point the finger at one person and say its your fault,, resign,,, no wonder no one wants to be a councillor... dont blame them.
With all due respect I believe you are missing the point. (a) You are quite right in saying 'nobody wants a TTS in Poole but (b) This process has been miss-managed from the start. The Council leader has to accept responsibility for that. Just because someone stood up to her doesn't give her the freedom to act in a dictatorial manner, nor does it mean she is right. If the current law is a bad one, then lobby parliament to improve it or wait until they revise it next year. The police have the current powers to move travellers on, give them the freedom to do it.
the Police DONT have the powers, that is the point,, and do you really think government is going to listen to little council in Poole.

As for leaders, the leader appoints people to take certain jobs and be in charge of them, one person cant be expected to run absolutely everything, that person was Judy Butt, she did all the work on this, then at the last moment went against her OWN work, crazy situation.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.[/p][/quote]I would like to think its because people just dont understand the process and just give knee jerk responses to an issue without actually understanding that issue in depth. Lets be honest, NO ONE wants a traveller site, anywhere, but at the moment, the police cant move travellers on (without first going through the courts) if we dont have this transit site,, so when this summer we end up playing chase with the travellers as they move from Baiter to Recreation Road, to Creekmoor everyone will moan that nothing is being done,, but not understanding that this was a pre emptive move to stop all that... But the real solution would be if government changed the trespass law and gave the Police the right to move trespassers off without having to seek a court order... I do think its mainly lack of understanding of the existing legislation thats the problem with people on here, they just want to point the finger at one person and say its your fault,, resign,,, no wonder no one wants to be a councillor... dont blame them.[/p][/quote]With all due respect I believe you are missing the point. (a) You are quite right in saying 'nobody wants a TTS in Poole but (b) This process has been miss-managed from the start. The Council leader has to accept responsibility for that. Just because someone stood up to her doesn't give her the freedom to act in a dictatorial manner, nor does it mean she is right. If the current law is a bad one, then lobby parliament to improve it or wait until they revise it next year. The police have the current powers to move travellers on, give them the freedom to do it.[/p][/quote]the Police DONT have the powers, that is the point,, and do you really think government is going to listen to little council in Poole. As for leaders, the leader appoints people to take certain jobs and be in charge of them, one person cant be expected to run absolutely everything, that person was Judy Butt, she did all the work on this, then at the last moment went against her OWN work, crazy situation. PooleFirst
  • Score: -2

7:27pm Thu 20 Mar 14

breamoreboy says...

mimi55 wrote:
Am still waiting for a reply from relevant Gov Dept (since 18th Feb) as to
WHY they allow Travellers to be above the laws the rest of us have to obey.
If not, there would not be an issue with them parking on playgrounds etc, as
the police could kick them off immediately.
I would be inclined to give Travellers a very warm welcome. Molotov cocktails can be made very cheaply, a better option than having councils throughout the country having them thrown off of land, only to see them move a half mile up the road. Wash, rinse, repeat.
[quote][p][bold]mimi55[/bold] wrote: Am still waiting for a reply from relevant Gov Dept (since 18th Feb) as to WHY they allow Travellers to be above the laws the rest of us have to obey. If not, there would not be an issue with them parking on playgrounds etc, as the police could kick them off immediately.[/p][/quote]I would be inclined to give Travellers a very warm welcome. Molotov cocktails can be made very cheaply, a better option than having councils throughout the country having them thrown off of land, only to see them move a half mile up the road. Wash, rinse, repeat. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

8:45pm Thu 20 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

PooleFirst wrote:
DorsetFerret wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.
I would like to think its because people just dont understand the process and just give knee jerk responses to an issue without actually understanding that issue in depth.
Lets be honest, NO ONE wants a traveller site, anywhere, but at the moment, the police cant move travellers on (without first going through the courts) if we dont have this transit site,, so when this summer we end up playing chase with the travellers as they move from Baiter to Recreation Road, to Creekmoor everyone will moan that nothing is being done,, but not understanding that this was a pre emptive move to stop all that... But the real solution would be if government changed the trespass law and gave the Police the right to move trespassers off without having to seek a court order...
I do think its mainly lack of understanding of the existing legislation thats the problem with people on here, they just want to point the finger at one person and say its your fault,, resign,,, no wonder no one wants to be a councillor... dont blame them.
With all due respect I believe you are missing the point. (a) You are quite right in saying 'nobody wants a TTS in Poole but (b) This process has been miss-managed from the start. The Council leader has to accept responsibility for that. Just because someone stood up to her doesn't give her the freedom to act in a dictatorial manner, nor does it mean she is right. If the current law is a bad one, then lobby parliament to improve it or wait until they revise it next year. The police have the current powers to move travellers on, give them the freedom to do it.
the Police DONT have the powers, that is the point,, and do you really think government is going to listen to little council in Poole.

As for leaders, the leader appoints people to take certain jobs and be in charge of them, one person cant be expected to run absolutely everything, that person was Judy Butt, she did all the work on this, then at the last moment went against her OWN work, crazy situation.
Wrong again 1. When can the Police move them on?

The Police may activate their powers under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to require gypsies/travellers to leave.

The Police are able to activate these powers where they are satisfied that two or more more people are trespassing on the land, and the landowner has taken reasonable steps to make them leave (and they have failed to do so). In addition, one of the following also has to apply:

•damage has been caused to the land or property, or


•threatening / abusive / insulting behaviour has been used against the occupier, his family or agent, or


•the trespassers have six or more vehicles.


Any enforcement of section 61 requires considerable resourcing and consideration has to be given to having sufficient police officers available etc., which may in itself take some time to arrange.

It's not the police that have no powers. It' your local authority that stops them. 2. The leaders job is to lead. If they get it wrong they take the can.
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.[/p][/quote]I would like to think its because people just dont understand the process and just give knee jerk responses to an issue without actually understanding that issue in depth. Lets be honest, NO ONE wants a traveller site, anywhere, but at the moment, the police cant move travellers on (without first going through the courts) if we dont have this transit site,, so when this summer we end up playing chase with the travellers as they move from Baiter to Recreation Road, to Creekmoor everyone will moan that nothing is being done,, but not understanding that this was a pre emptive move to stop all that... But the real solution would be if government changed the trespass law and gave the Police the right to move trespassers off without having to seek a court order... I do think its mainly lack of understanding of the existing legislation thats the problem with people on here, they just want to point the finger at one person and say its your fault,, resign,,, no wonder no one wants to be a councillor... dont blame them.[/p][/quote]With all due respect I believe you are missing the point. (a) You are quite right in saying 'nobody wants a TTS in Poole but (b) This process has been miss-managed from the start. The Council leader has to accept responsibility for that. Just because someone stood up to her doesn't give her the freedom to act in a dictatorial manner, nor does it mean she is right. If the current law is a bad one, then lobby parliament to improve it or wait until they revise it next year. The police have the current powers to move travellers on, give them the freedom to do it.[/p][/quote]the Police DONT have the powers, that is the point,, and do you really think government is going to listen to little council in Poole. As for leaders, the leader appoints people to take certain jobs and be in charge of them, one person cant be expected to run absolutely everything, that person was Judy Butt, she did all the work on this, then at the last moment went against her OWN work, crazy situation.[/p][/quote]Wrong again 1. When can the Police move them on? The Police may activate their powers under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to require gypsies/travellers to leave. The Police are able to activate these powers where they are satisfied that two or more more people are trespassing on the land, and the landowner has taken reasonable steps to make them leave (and they have failed to do so). In addition, one of the following also has to apply: •damage has been caused to the land or property, or •threatening / abusive / insulting behaviour has been used against the occupier, his family or agent, or •the trespassers have six or more vehicles. Any enforcement of section 61 requires considerable resourcing and consideration has to be given to having sufficient police officers available etc., which may in itself take some time to arrange. It's not the police that have no powers. It' your local authority that stops them. 2. The leaders job is to lead. If they get it wrong they take the can. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 3

9:01pm Thu 20 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

PooleFirst wrote:
DorsetFerret wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.
I would like to think its because people just dont understand the process and just give knee jerk responses to an issue without actually understanding that issue in depth.
Lets be honest, NO ONE wants a traveller site, anywhere, but at the moment, the police cant move travellers on (without first going through the courts) if we dont have this transit site,, so when this summer we end up playing chase with the travellers as they move from Baiter to Recreation Road, to Creekmoor everyone will moan that nothing is being done,, but not understanding that this was a pre emptive move to stop all that... But the real solution would be if government changed the trespass law and gave the Police the right to move trespassers off without having to seek a court order...
I do think its mainly lack of understanding of the existing legislation thats the problem with people on here, they just want to point the finger at one person and say its your fault,, resign,,, no wonder no one wants to be a councillor... dont blame them.
With all due respect I believe you are missing the point. (a) You are quite right in saying 'nobody wants a TTS in Poole but (b) This process has been miss-managed from the start. The Council leader has to accept responsibility for that. Just because someone stood up to her doesn't give her the freedom to act in a dictatorial manner, nor does it mean she is right. If the current law is a bad one, then lobby parliament to improve it or wait until they revise it next year. The police have the current powers to move travellers on, give them the freedom to do it.
the Police DONT have the powers, that is the point,, and do you really think government is going to listen to little council in Poole.

As for leaders, the leader appoints people to take certain jobs and be in charge of them, one person cant be expected to run absolutely everything, that person was Judy Butt, she did all the work on this, then at the last moment went against her OWN work, crazy situation.
Whoops sorry, I'm forgetting current conservative policy. Re Councillor Atkinson. Don't admonish her for failure, let's give her a nice big bonus instead . There, that's put things right.
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.[/p][/quote]I would like to think its because people just dont understand the process and just give knee jerk responses to an issue without actually understanding that issue in depth. Lets be honest, NO ONE wants a traveller site, anywhere, but at the moment, the police cant move travellers on (without first going through the courts) if we dont have this transit site,, so when this summer we end up playing chase with the travellers as they move from Baiter to Recreation Road, to Creekmoor everyone will moan that nothing is being done,, but not understanding that this was a pre emptive move to stop all that... But the real solution would be if government changed the trespass law and gave the Police the right to move trespassers off without having to seek a court order... I do think its mainly lack of understanding of the existing legislation thats the problem with people on here, they just want to point the finger at one person and say its your fault,, resign,,, no wonder no one wants to be a councillor... dont blame them.[/p][/quote]With all due respect I believe you are missing the point. (a) You are quite right in saying 'nobody wants a TTS in Poole but (b) This process has been miss-managed from the start. The Council leader has to accept responsibility for that. Just because someone stood up to her doesn't give her the freedom to act in a dictatorial manner, nor does it mean she is right. If the current law is a bad one, then lobby parliament to improve it or wait until they revise it next year. The police have the current powers to move travellers on, give them the freedom to do it.[/p][/quote]the Police DONT have the powers, that is the point,, and do you really think government is going to listen to little council in Poole. As for leaders, the leader appoints people to take certain jobs and be in charge of them, one person cant be expected to run absolutely everything, that person was Judy Butt, she did all the work on this, then at the last moment went against her OWN work, crazy situation.[/p][/quote]Whoops sorry, I'm forgetting current conservative policy. Re Councillor Atkinson. Don't admonish her for failure, let's give her a nice big bonus instead . There, that's put things right. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 3

9:28pm Thu 20 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

THats what you get for voting for the LIB DEMS,The EU party,
NOT in the traditional British way of life ,
BEWARE,
THats what you get for voting for the LIB DEMS,The EU party, NOT in the traditional British way of life , BEWARE, cromwell9
  • Score: 0

10:10pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Teddy 1 says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Teddy 1 wrote:
Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly.

As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked!
Unlike others I am not an anonymous contributor and don't hide my address from public record (which I think several councillors do), but for the purposes of this forum it's Wallisdown. All our open spaces are SSSI or immediately behind homes (or both). Marshes End by contrast was almost hidden from view except from the adjacent bussinesses. It was probably the best site for a TSP, though the list of 90 sites has never been shared with us mortals so there may be a surprise. If the site had gone ahead then in a short while people would have been asking what all the fuss was about. I think I will leave that there as I now have to get a Plan B looked at to minimise the problems, and eventually present it to the decision makers.
But you can get sight of the list through a freedom of information request. The council then have 21days to pass this information to you or risk a fine from the ICO. I fail to see how the council could argue the releasing of this information was not in the public interest. Please do the echo a favour ad get this list....I fail tl understand how you can look at other siites or indeed the ones rejected today without looking at the other 90 sites. Maybe you have taken others opinions as the panacea?
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Teddy 1[/bold] wrote: Now ask b&q if they would like to buy the land near their car park. A nice little earner for the council. Thank you sincerely to the residents for attending the meeting and ensuring the locals were heard clearly. As an aside - Cllr trent...just answer the question you keep being asked![/p][/quote]Unlike others I am not an anonymous contributor and don't hide my address from public record (which I think several councillors do), but for the purposes of this forum it's Wallisdown. All our open spaces are SSSI or immediately behind homes (or both). Marshes End by contrast was almost hidden from view except from the adjacent bussinesses. It was probably the best site for a TSP, though the list of 90 sites has never been shared with us mortals so there may be a surprise. If the site had gone ahead then in a short while people would have been asking what all the fuss was about. I think I will leave that there as I now have to get a Plan B looked at to minimise the problems, and eventually present it to the decision makers.[/p][/quote]But you can get sight of the list through a freedom of information request. The council then have 21days to pass this information to you or risk a fine from the ICO. I fail to see how the council could argue the releasing of this information was not in the public interest. Please do the echo a favour ad get this list....I fail tl understand how you can look at other siites or indeed the ones rejected today without looking at the other 90 sites. Maybe you have taken others opinions as the panacea? Teddy 1
  • Score: 1

10:04am Fri 21 Mar 14

speedy231278 says...

pete woodley wrote:
PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.
How does anyone know you aren't using an assumed name? Text on a screen is just faceless conversation. For all anyone knows, you could be Councillor Beesley and I could be Dave Wells!
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.[/p][/quote]How does anyone know you aren't using an assumed name? Text on a screen is just faceless conversation. For all anyone knows, you could be Councillor Beesley and I could be Dave Wells! speedy231278
  • Score: 3

1:29pm Fri 21 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

Well I work for Poole Council that's why I use a screen name, I see so much from the inside that the press and the public dont,, after a few years of working around these people you get a feel for the good ones and the bad ones, there are both types in all parties.
Perhaps councillors should not be in a political party ? how did that come around anyway ? why cant councillors just be local residents that want to do the best for the town without towing a party line, or whats nearer the truth, just trying to point score off each other.
Well I work for Poole Council that's why I use a screen name, I see so much from the inside that the press and the public dont,, after a few years of working around these people you get a feel for the good ones and the bad ones, there are both types in all parties. Perhaps councillors should not be in a political party ? how did that come around anyway ? why cant councillors just be local residents that want to do the best for the town without towing a party line, or whats nearer the truth, just trying to point score off each other. PooleFirst
  • Score: 2

4:50pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Ebb Tide says...

PooleFirst wrote:
Well I work for Poole Council that's why I use a screen name, I see so much from the inside that the press and the public dont,, after a few years of working around these people you get a feel for the good ones and the bad ones, there are both types in all parties.
Perhaps councillors should not be in a political party ? how did that come around anyway ? why cant councillors just be local residents that want to do the best for the town without towing a party line, or whats nearer the truth, just trying to point score off each other.
It is always a puzzle to me. Must have something to do with getting pamphlets prepared and delivered to the electorate. Not an easy task.
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: Well I work for Poole Council that's why I use a screen name, I see so much from the inside that the press and the public dont,, after a few years of working around these people you get a feel for the good ones and the bad ones, there are both types in all parties. Perhaps councillors should not be in a political party ? how did that come around anyway ? why cant councillors just be local residents that want to do the best for the town without towing a party line, or whats nearer the truth, just trying to point score off each other.[/p][/quote]It is always a puzzle to me. Must have something to do with getting pamphlets prepared and delivered to the electorate. Not an easy task. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 2

4:53pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Ebb Tide says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
DorsetFerret wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.
I would like to think its because people just dont understand the process and just give knee jerk responses to an issue without actually understanding that issue in depth.
Lets be honest, NO ONE wants a traveller site, anywhere, but at the moment, the police cant move travellers on (without first going through the courts) if we dont have this transit site,, so when this summer we end up playing chase with the travellers as they move from Baiter to Recreation Road, to Creekmoor everyone will moan that nothing is being done,, but not understanding that this was a pre emptive move to stop all that... But the real solution would be if government changed the trespass law and gave the Police the right to move trespassers off without having to seek a court order...
I do think its mainly lack of understanding of the existing legislation thats the problem with people on here, they just want to point the finger at one person and say its your fault,, resign,,, no wonder no one wants to be a councillor... dont blame them.
With all due respect I believe you are missing the point. (a) You are quite right in saying 'nobody wants a TTS in Poole but (b) This process has been miss-managed from the start. The Council leader has to accept responsibility for that. Just because someone stood up to her doesn't give her the freedom to act in a dictatorial manner, nor does it mean she is right. If the current law is a bad one, then lobby parliament to improve it or wait until they revise it next year. The police have the current powers to move travellers on, give them the freedom to do it.
the Police DONT have the powers, that is the point,, and do you really think government is going to listen to little council in Poole.

As for leaders, the leader appoints people to take certain jobs and be in charge of them, one person cant be expected to run absolutely everything, that person was Judy Butt, she did all the work on this, then at the last moment went against her OWN work, crazy situation.
Whoops sorry, I'm forgetting current conservative policy. Re Councillor Atkinson. Don't admonish her for failure, let's give her a nice big bonus instead . There, that's put things right.
Bingo might appeal too !
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.[/p][/quote]I would like to think its because people just dont understand the process and just give knee jerk responses to an issue without actually understanding that issue in depth. Lets be honest, NO ONE wants a traveller site, anywhere, but at the moment, the police cant move travellers on (without first going through the courts) if we dont have this transit site,, so when this summer we end up playing chase with the travellers as they move from Baiter to Recreation Road, to Creekmoor everyone will moan that nothing is being done,, but not understanding that this was a pre emptive move to stop all that... But the real solution would be if government changed the trespass law and gave the Police the right to move trespassers off without having to seek a court order... I do think its mainly lack of understanding of the existing legislation thats the problem with people on here, they just want to point the finger at one person and say its your fault,, resign,,, no wonder no one wants to be a councillor... dont blame them.[/p][/quote]With all due respect I believe you are missing the point. (a) You are quite right in saying 'nobody wants a TTS in Poole but (b) This process has been miss-managed from the start. The Council leader has to accept responsibility for that. Just because someone stood up to her doesn't give her the freedom to act in a dictatorial manner, nor does it mean she is right. If the current law is a bad one, then lobby parliament to improve it or wait until they revise it next year. The police have the current powers to move travellers on, give them the freedom to do it.[/p][/quote]the Police DONT have the powers, that is the point,, and do you really think government is going to listen to little council in Poole. As for leaders, the leader appoints people to take certain jobs and be in charge of them, one person cant be expected to run absolutely everything, that person was Judy Butt, she did all the work on this, then at the last moment went against her OWN work, crazy situation.[/p][/quote]Whoops sorry, I'm forgetting current conservative policy. Re Councillor Atkinson. Don't admonish her for failure, let's give her a nice big bonus instead . There, that's put things right.[/p][/quote]Bingo might appeal too ! Ebb Tide
  • Score: 1

7:30pm Fri 21 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

speedy231278 wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.
How does anyone know you aren't using an assumed name? Text on a screen is just faceless conversation. For all anyone knows, you could be Councillor Beesley and I could be Dave Wells!
For a start i am more honest than Beesley,and not as tubby as Dave.come on speedy,give me a clue who you are.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: PooleFirst,careful or you will be more unpopular than me for speaking the truth.the disgusting replies i get clearly show the type of people that have been agitating on this issue,like tony trent has said they stay anonymous.[/p][/quote]How does anyone know you aren't using an assumed name? Text on a screen is just faceless conversation. For all anyone knows, you could be Councillor Beesley and I could be Dave Wells![/p][/quote]For a start i am more honest than Beesley,and not as tubby as Dave.come on speedy,give me a clue who you are. pete woodley
  • Score: 0

7:38pm Fri 21 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

Ebb Tide wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
Well I work for Poole Council that's why I use a screen name, I see so much from the inside that the press and the public dont,, after a few years of working around these people you get a feel for the good ones and the bad ones, there are both types in all parties.
Perhaps councillors should not be in a political party ? how did that come around anyway ? why cant councillors just be local residents that want to do the best for the town without towing a party line, or whats nearer the truth, just trying to point score off each other.
It is always a puzzle to me. Must have something to do with getting pamphlets prepared and delivered to the electorate. Not an easy task.
It is a hard job to pay for and get nearly 4,000 leaflets out, and still try to speak to the public,not to mention being followed around and being abused by the opposition including a councillor.but some of us do it for nowt,not to get big expenses,if we win.Thats when its great to have friends,to help.
[quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: Well I work for Poole Council that's why I use a screen name, I see so much from the inside that the press and the public dont,, after a few years of working around these people you get a feel for the good ones and the bad ones, there are both types in all parties. Perhaps councillors should not be in a political party ? how did that come around anyway ? why cant councillors just be local residents that want to do the best for the town without towing a party line, or whats nearer the truth, just trying to point score off each other.[/p][/quote]It is always a puzzle to me. Must have something to do with getting pamphlets prepared and delivered to the electorate. Not an easy task.[/p][/quote]It is a hard job to pay for and get nearly 4,000 leaflets out, and still try to speak to the public,not to mention being followed around and being abused by the opposition including a councillor.but some of us do it for nowt,not to get big expenses,if we win.Thats when its great to have friends,to help. pete woodley
  • Score: 0

8:46pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Jo__Go says...

Tony Trent wrote:
I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.
Cllr Trent, you should be, and I hope you are, ashamed of such a comment.

A significant number of residents, standing up to an attempt by certain councillors to bully others (and, I suspect, officers), and to railroad and suborn a democratic process, is not 'a mob' - it's democracy in action. If I remember my local government correctly, the bulk of it's history is enshrined in various Representation of the People Acts. The current Leader and Cabinet appear to believe instead in the Who Gives a Monkeys About the Residents Act.

Later comments suggest that you had a hand in the process of selecting Marshes End, and maybe you were hacked off that it was rejected; I suggest that when tempers cool you look again at the suitability of the site. It was simply a non-starter from day 1.

It's also impossible for Creekmoor residents to forget the appalling decision of the last Lib Dem administration that left us with a green field covered in tarmac to service a demand for park and ride that never existed, and was never financially sustainable. There is a strong suspicion that Eades pushed through these proposals on the back of his manifest dislike of Creekmoor; may be ill-founded, but nonetheless it is very much believed.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: I will now suggest that when the travellers turn up at one of our parks and valuable open spaces that residents complaints are re-directed to those who whipped up the anti. The Marshes End site would have been virtually unoticed by nearby residents (once the hype had died down), and would not have affected local bussinesses. I cannot say the same about our local parks and greens. This is a travesty and an example of bad decisions being made under pressure from what ammounts to a mob.[/p][/quote]Cllr Trent, you should be, and I hope you are, ashamed of such a comment. A significant number of residents, standing up to an attempt by certain councillors to bully others (and, I suspect, officers), and to railroad and suborn a democratic process, is not 'a mob' - it's democracy in action. If I remember my local government correctly, the bulk of it's history is enshrined in various Representation of the People Acts. The current Leader and Cabinet appear to believe instead in the Who Gives a Monkeys About the Residents Act. Later comments suggest that you had a hand in the process of selecting Marshes End, and maybe you were hacked off that it was rejected; I suggest that when tempers cool you look again at the suitability of the site. It was simply a non-starter from day 1. It's also impossible for Creekmoor residents to forget the appalling decision of the last Lib Dem administration that left us with a green field covered in tarmac to service a demand for park and ride that never existed, and was never financially sustainable. There is a strong suspicion that Eades pushed through these proposals on the back of his manifest dislike of Creekmoor; may be ill-founded, but nonetheless it is very much believed. Jo__Go
  • Score: 4

8:54pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Jo__Go says...

pete woodley wrote:
nickynoodah wrote: leave George alone hes 79 you know have you not heard of senile dementia bought on by dimi opium smoking.
If my so called dementia gets worse,should i go and live in creekmoor as a lot of the residents there seem to be worse than me, and i would feel at home.
We have a nice plot of contaminated flood zone you can pitch your caravan on - oh wait, no you can't!
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: leave George alone hes 79 you know have you not heard of senile dementia bought on by dimi opium smoking.[/p][/quote]If my so called dementia gets worse,should i go and live in creekmoor as a lot of the residents there seem to be worse than me, and i would feel at home.[/p][/quote]We have a nice plot of contaminated flood zone you can pitch your caravan on - oh wait, no you can't! Jo__Go
  • Score: 3

12:37pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Ebb Tide says...

Jo__Go wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
nickynoodah wrote: leave George alone hes 79 you know have you not heard of senile dementia bought on by dimi opium smoking.
If my so called dementia gets worse,should i go and live in creekmoor as a lot of the residents there seem to be worse than me, and i would feel at home.
We have a nice plot of contaminated flood zone you can pitch your caravan on - oh wait, no you can't!
So due process was seen to be given to the two sites selected. Now for the other 88 !

Guess the 2014 sporadic visitations will cause even more bother - unless, of course, the law is changed or interpreted differently.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: leave George alone hes 79 you know have you not heard of senile dementia bought on by dimi opium smoking.[/p][/quote]If my so called dementia gets worse,should i go and live in creekmoor as a lot of the residents there seem to be worse than me, and i would feel at home.[/p][/quote]We have a nice plot of contaminated flood zone you can pitch your caravan on - oh wait, no you can't![/p][/quote]So due process was seen to be given to the two sites selected. Now for the other 88 ! Guess the 2014 sporadic visitations will cause even more bother - unless, of course, the law is changed or interpreted differently. Ebb Tide
  • Score: -1

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