Poole traveller camps ordered to leave after council obtains eviction notices

Travellers at Hatchards Field on Monday

Travellers at Hatchards Field on Monday

First published in News by

CIVIC officials have obtained a court order to evict travellers from two unauthorised encampments in Poole.

Travellers first moved onto Hatchards Field, Rossmore, and a car park at Baiter Park on Sunday evening.

Direction notices requiring them to vacate the sites were served on both encampments on Thursday.

However, later that evening, an additional three caravans pulled onto the Hatchards Field site.

Seven caravans and other vehicles remained at Hatchards Field, close to the children’s play area.

Meanwhile, six caravans and one motorhome also remained at Baiter. The court order means the travellers that initially moved onto the sites on Sunday must leave over the weekend.

Borough of Poole’s Jeff Morley said: “This afternoon the magistrates court confirmed eviction orders on travellers at Baiter car park and Hatchards Field, requiring them to leave over the weekend.

“The three caravans that arrived at Hatchards on Thursday evening cannot legally be included in this order. We have started legal action to evict this group.”

Earlier this week, following his visit to the Rossmore site, Alderney ward councillor Tony Trent said it was apparent the travellers had gained access because of a rotten ‘dragon’s teeth’ stump at the park’s entrance.

He added: “This was pure and simply a lack of maintenance. This is a case where minimal measures would have prevented access.”

Borough of Poole recently agreed to improve protection at six of the town’s ‘priority’ public spaces.

Borough project manager Michael Webber said: “These sites are located at Whitecliff, Baiter, Verity Crescent, Broadstone Recreation Ground, Branksome Recreation Ground and Haskells Recreation Ground.”

Contentious plans to establish two temporary stopping places for gypsies and travellers in Poole were abandoned earlier this year.

Members of Poole council’s planning committee rejected the applications for Marshes End, Creekmoor, and land off Broadstone Way.

Comments have been opened on this story but please note: any reference to gypsies or any racially offensive term will cause them to be closed and you may find your account suspended. Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are legally recognised as ethnic groups, and protected by the Race Relations Act. Please keep your comments to this particular incident and do not generalise. Thanks for your co-operation.

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:09pm Fri 16 May 14

alasdair1967 says...

Here we go again the annual pre steam fair game of cat and mouse,eviction order from one site only to repeat the process a few days down the line ,time for the councils here in Poole and Bournemouth to get tough and throw the book at these people whom thing they have the god given right to pitch up where they like when they like
Here we go again the annual pre steam fair game of cat and mouse,eviction order from one site only to repeat the process a few days down the line ,time for the councils here in Poole and Bournemouth to get tough and throw the book at these people whom thing they have the god given right to pitch up where they like when they like alasdair1967
  • Score: 25

6:29pm Fri 16 May 14

Yankee1 says...

They have the next site scoped and ready for occupation.

Did it ever occur to the Council to have someone monitor them and their movements? Or would that infringe their rights?

I do hope the vehicles were checked for tax discs and insurance. That they CAN do.
They have the next site scoped and ready for occupation. Did it ever occur to the Council to have someone monitor them and their movements? Or would that infringe their rights? I do hope the vehicles were checked for tax discs and insurance. That they CAN do. Yankee1
  • Score: 32

6:30pm Fri 16 May 14

Lucky Rich says...

May be Dorset needs a loop hole expert lawyer on their side .
May be Dorset needs a loop hole expert lawyer on their side . Lucky Rich
  • Score: 21

8:08pm Fri 16 May 14

N Smith says...

Maybe the government need to change the laws to protect the local abiding citizens rather than sticking up for these parasites .
Maybe the government need to change the laws to protect the local abiding citizens rather than sticking up for these parasites . N Smith
  • Score: 28

8:18pm Fri 16 May 14

Minty Fresh says...

This situation is pathetic.
When is this publication actually going to start a campaign to change the law so that these nomadic freeloaders can't get away with flouting the laws of the land? The laws us law abiding tax paying citizens have no choice but to adhere to because we can't play the race card.
Come on Toby Whatsyourname, make a name for yourself instead of remaining in the shadows in Weymouth. Dorset needs you and the Echo to make a stand!
This situation is pathetic. When is this publication actually going to start a campaign to change the law so that these nomadic freeloaders can't get away with flouting the laws of the land? The laws us law abiding tax paying citizens have no choice but to adhere to because we can't play the race card. Come on Toby Whatsyourname, make a name for yourself instead of remaining in the shadows in Weymouth. Dorset needs you and the Echo to make a stand! Minty Fresh
  • Score: 21

8:28pm Fri 16 May 14

Bob49 says...

It needs the council to tell us what measures they have taken to confirm that these folk are genuine travellers.

And some public spirited person to camp on a public space to see what questions the council asks them to see if they are a traveller.

Because this is the real weak spot in the council's handwringing attitude, a peaceful challenge to the classification as to who is a traveller and who should therefore receive this preferential treatment.
It needs the council to tell us what measures they have taken to confirm that these folk are genuine travellers. And some public spirited person to camp on a public space to see what questions the council asks them to see if they are a traveller. Because this is the real weak spot in the council's handwringing attitude, a peaceful challenge to the classification as to who is a traveller and who should therefore receive this preferential treatment. Bob49
  • Score: 9

8:52pm Fri 16 May 14

fireflier says...

As I have said before ...ALL areas of land that give concern to Councils should be made the subject of a detailed bye-law that prohibits ANY encampment of mobile residences of any kind along with tow-vehicles used to move them.

Why has this not been done years ago by Council legal eagles? Such bye-laws could specify any infringement will result in INSTANT removal
As I have said before ...ALL areas of land that give concern to Councils should be made the subject of a detailed bye-law that prohibits ANY encampment of mobile residences of any kind along with tow-vehicles used to move them. Why has this not been done years ago by Council legal eagles? Such bye-laws could specify any infringement will result in INSTANT removal fireflier
  • Score: 14

8:56pm Fri 16 May 14

cromwell9 says...

Same old Same old
Same old Same old cromwell9
  • Score: 3

10:07pm Fri 16 May 14

RM says...

So the travellers will be moving over the weekend? Any police/Council staff on duty to monitor their actions & to be ready to prevent them from invading other Poole green spaces? Any official statement from our PCC on the situation?
So the travellers will be moving over the weekend? Any police/Council staff on duty to monitor their actions & to be ready to prevent them from invading other Poole green spaces? Any official statement from our PCC on the situation? RM
  • Score: 11

10:44pm Fri 16 May 14

muscliffman says...

RM wrote:
So the travellers will be moving over the weekend? Any police/Council staff on duty to monitor their actions & to be ready to prevent them from invading other Poole green spaces? Any official statement from our PCC on the situation?
What do you think, especially at Council after a Friday - and even if a few of them were on duty, would they use any wit, courage or initiative to uphold the laws that do exist to protect the tax paying majority who employ them?
[quote][p][bold]RM[/bold] wrote: So the travellers will be moving over the weekend? Any police/Council staff on duty to monitor their actions & to be ready to prevent them from invading other Poole green spaces? Any official statement from our PCC on the situation?[/p][/quote]What do you think, especially at Council after a Friday - and even if a few of them were on duty, would they use any wit, courage or initiative to uphold the laws that do exist to protect the tax paying majority who employ them? muscliffman
  • Score: 14

11:13pm Fri 16 May 14

Red Leader 1 says...

Baiter is always targetted because it is the softest of options, not requiring any form of criminal damage to gain access. Will the Council have contractors ready with materials and welding kit to install height restricting barriers the moment the last "visitor" departs - something they lamentably failed to do in more timely fashion? If not maybe a suitable sign offering free seasonal camping accomodation should be considered.
Baiter is always targetted because it is the softest of options, not requiring any form of criminal damage to gain access. Will the Council have contractors ready with materials and welding kit to install height restricting barriers the moment the last "visitor" departs - something they lamentably failed to do in more timely fashion? If not maybe a suitable sign offering free seasonal camping accomodation should be considered. Red Leader 1
  • Score: 2

1:26am Sat 17 May 14

Bob49 says...

Red Leader 1 wrote:
Baiter is always targetted because it is the softest of options, not requiring any form of criminal damage to gain access. Will the Council have contractors ready with materials and welding kit to install height restricting barriers the moment the last "visitor" departs - something they lamentably failed to do in more timely fashion? If not maybe a suitable sign offering free seasonal camping accomodation should be considered.
Backward thinking, as it accepts that these people will illegally camp and all we can do is try to stop them

a mindset that has failed year in year out

until locals get out of this mental ghetto and put the council on notice to explain how they decide who is a traveller, nothing will change

let's see how the council copes with a few hundred locals following the same pattern and parking/camping illegally on local land, not paying parking tickets etc
[quote][p][bold]Red Leader 1[/bold] wrote: Baiter is always targetted because it is the softest of options, not requiring any form of criminal damage to gain access. Will the Council have contractors ready with materials and welding kit to install height restricting barriers the moment the last "visitor" departs - something they lamentably failed to do in more timely fashion? If not maybe a suitable sign offering free seasonal camping accomodation should be considered.[/p][/quote]Backward thinking, as it accepts that these people will illegally camp and all we can do is try to stop them a mindset that has failed year in year out until locals get out of this mental ghetto and put the council on notice to explain how they decide who is a traveller, nothing will change let's see how the council copes with a few hundred locals following the same pattern and parking/camping illegally on local land, not paying parking tickets etc Bob49
  • Score: 1

7:52am Sat 17 May 14

blakieboy7 says...

SSDY
SSDY blakieboy7
  • Score: -1

7:55am Sat 17 May 14

ctrewyou says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
Here we go again the annual pre steam fair game of cat and mouse,eviction order from one site only to repeat the process a few days down the line ,time for the councils here in Poole and Bournemouth to get tough and throw the book at these people whom thing they have the god given right to pitch up where they like when they like
With a transit site, they could be moved on immediately. But we agreed recently we dont want a transit site, so we cant now moan that "something must be done" when this happens and it takes weeks to move them on. What do you mean by "throwing the book at these people"? The law is the law and it is used as much as it can be. With a transit site, it would protect Baiter and other similar places, but we dont want a transit site in the borough.
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: Here we go again the annual pre steam fair game of cat and mouse,eviction order from one site only to repeat the process a few days down the line ,time for the councils here in Poole and Bournemouth to get tough and throw the book at these people whom thing they have the god given right to pitch up where they like when they like[/p][/quote]With a transit site, they could be moved on immediately. But we agreed recently we dont want a transit site, so we cant now moan that "something must be done" when this happens and it takes weeks to move them on. What do you mean by "throwing the book at these people"? The law is the law and it is used as much as it can be. With a transit site, it would protect Baiter and other similar places, but we dont want a transit site in the borough. ctrewyou
  • Score: 7

8:31am Sat 17 May 14

Carolyn43 says...

ctrewyou wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
Here we go again the annual pre steam fair game of cat and mouse,eviction order from one site only to repeat the process a few days down the line ,time for the councils here in Poole and Bournemouth to get tough and throw the book at these people whom thing they have the god given right to pitch up where they like when they like
With a transit site, they could be moved on immediately. But we agreed recently we dont want a transit site, so we cant now moan that "something must be done" when this happens and it takes weeks to move them on. What do you mean by "throwing the book at these people"? The law is the law and it is used as much as it can be. With a transit site, it would protect Baiter and other similar places, but we dont want a transit site in the borough.
No-one has said they don't want a transit site. There just isn't anywhere suitable for one within the Boroughs of Poole and Bournemouth.
......
The only two sites Poole council could find that might even remotely be suitable for temporary stopping places (which don't need the same facilities as transit sites) were rejected by the Planning Committee because they weren't actually suitable. i.e. they did not meet the requirements laid down by central government for such a site.
.....
The requirements for travellers' temporary stopping places, transit sites and permanent sites are, in some cases, better than those for permanent houses for the indigenous population.
.....
Until the law is changed, the problem will persist. It would also be helpful if the council knew the laws which protect its residents as well as the travellers do about their rights.
[quote][p][bold]ctrewyou[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: Here we go again the annual pre steam fair game of cat and mouse,eviction order from one site only to repeat the process a few days down the line ,time for the councils here in Poole and Bournemouth to get tough and throw the book at these people whom thing they have the god given right to pitch up where they like when they like[/p][/quote]With a transit site, they could be moved on immediately. But we agreed recently we dont want a transit site, so we cant now moan that "something must be done" when this happens and it takes weeks to move them on. What do you mean by "throwing the book at these people"? The law is the law and it is used as much as it can be. With a transit site, it would protect Baiter and other similar places, but we dont want a transit site in the borough.[/p][/quote]No-one has said they don't want a transit site. There just isn't anywhere suitable for one within the Boroughs of Poole and Bournemouth. ...... The only two sites Poole council could find that might even remotely be suitable for temporary stopping places (which don't need the same facilities as transit sites) were rejected by the Planning Committee because they weren't actually suitable. i.e. they did not meet the requirements laid down by central government for such a site. ..... The requirements for travellers' temporary stopping places, transit sites and permanent sites are, in some cases, better than those for permanent houses for the indigenous population. ..... Until the law is changed, the problem will persist. It would also be helpful if the council knew the laws which protect its residents as well as the travellers do about their rights. Carolyn43
  • Score: 1

9:33am Sat 17 May 14

summerchild says...

Just wondering how many of people posting on here have signed the petition to remove ethnic status from these "travellers" ?

http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/61822
Just wondering how many of people posting on here have signed the petition to remove ethnic status from these "travellers" ? http://epetitions.di rect.gov.uk/petition s/61822 summerchild
  • Score: 4

12:09pm Sat 17 May 14

muscliffman says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
ctrewyou wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
Here we go again the annual pre steam fair game of cat and mouse,eviction order from one site only to repeat the process a few days down the line ,time for the councils here in Poole and Bournemouth to get tough and throw the book at these people whom thing they have the god given right to pitch up where they like when they like
With a transit site, they could be moved on immediately. But we agreed recently we dont want a transit site, so we cant now moan that "something must be done" when this happens and it takes weeks to move them on. What do you mean by "throwing the book at these people"? The law is the law and it is used as much as it can be. With a transit site, it would protect Baiter and other similar places, but we dont want a transit site in the borough.
No-one has said they don't want a transit site. There just isn't anywhere suitable for one within the Boroughs of Poole and Bournemouth.
......
The only two sites Poole council could find that might even remotely be suitable for temporary stopping places (which don't need the same facilities as transit sites) were rejected by the Planning Committee because they weren't actually suitable. i.e. they did not meet the requirements laid down by central government for such a site.
.....
The requirements for travellers' temporary stopping places, transit sites and permanent sites are, in some cases, better than those for permanent houses for the indigenous population.
.....
Until the law is changed, the problem will persist. It would also be helpful if the council knew the laws which protect its residents as well as the travellers do about their rights.
Please don't make things up even if it is your own view; "No-one has said they don't want a transit site." because a large number of local people, particularly those with grave concerns about the whole ethnic issue, have expressed the 'non-NIMBY' view that there should be no 'ethnic traveller' transit camps anywhere in Poole - or indeed the whole of the UK!
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ctrewyou[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: Here we go again the annual pre steam fair game of cat and mouse,eviction order from one site only to repeat the process a few days down the line ,time for the councils here in Poole and Bournemouth to get tough and throw the book at these people whom thing they have the god given right to pitch up where they like when they like[/p][/quote]With a transit site, they could be moved on immediately. But we agreed recently we dont want a transit site, so we cant now moan that "something must be done" when this happens and it takes weeks to move them on. What do you mean by "throwing the book at these people"? The law is the law and it is used as much as it can be. With a transit site, it would protect Baiter and other similar places, but we dont want a transit site in the borough.[/p][/quote]No-one has said they don't want a transit site. There just isn't anywhere suitable for one within the Boroughs of Poole and Bournemouth. ...... The only two sites Poole council could find that might even remotely be suitable for temporary stopping places (which don't need the same facilities as transit sites) were rejected by the Planning Committee because they weren't actually suitable. i.e. they did not meet the requirements laid down by central government for such a site. ..... The requirements for travellers' temporary stopping places, transit sites and permanent sites are, in some cases, better than those for permanent houses for the indigenous population. ..... Until the law is changed, the problem will persist. It would also be helpful if the council knew the laws which protect its residents as well as the travellers do about their rights.[/p][/quote]Please don't make things up even if it is your own view; "No-one has said they don't want a transit site." because a large number of local people, particularly those with grave concerns about the whole ethnic issue, have expressed the 'non-NIMBY' view that there should be no 'ethnic traveller' transit camps anywhere in Poole - or indeed the whole of the UK! muscliffman
  • Score: 5

6:54pm Sat 17 May 14

Carolyn43 says...

What I should have said was "No-one has said they don't want a transit site PROVIDED IT'S IN CREEKMOOR AND NOT NEAR THEM." That's extremely unfair on the people of Creekmoor. Just because they were lumbered with the white elephant that is the park and ride doesn't mean they should bear what the rest of the Borough doesn't want.
....
I agree that most of us don't want anywhere for travellers to pitch up. I don't particularly want one. But, until the law is changed, which is very unlikely, there is a requirement for such sites and they must conform to the requirements the government has laid down. The fact that there's nowhere suitable means that they will make camp on any open space because that is their right, so they will continue to take over public places until the law is changed - which is likely to be never.
What I should have said was "No-one has said they don't want a transit site PROVIDED IT'S IN CREEKMOOR AND NOT NEAR THEM." That's extremely unfair on the people of Creekmoor. Just because they were lumbered with the white elephant that is the park and ride doesn't mean they should bear what the rest of the Borough doesn't want. .... I agree that most of us don't want anywhere for travellers to pitch up. I don't particularly want one. But, until the law is changed, which is very unlikely, there is a requirement for such sites and they must conform to the requirements the government has laid down. The fact that there's nowhere suitable means that they will make camp on any open space because that is their right, so they will continue to take over public places until the law is changed - which is likely to be never. Carolyn43
  • Score: 0

9:25pm Thu 22 May 14

mimi55 says...

Bob49 wrote:
Red Leader 1 wrote:
Baiter is always targetted because it is the softest of options, not requiring any form of criminal damage to gain access. Will the Council have contractors ready with materials and welding kit to install height restricting barriers the moment the last "visitor" departs - something they lamentably failed to do in more timely fashion? If not maybe a suitable sign offering free seasonal camping accomodation should be considered.
Backward thinking, as it accepts that these people will illegally camp and all we can do is try to stop them

a mindset that has failed year in year out

until locals get out of this mental ghetto and put the council on notice to explain how they decide who is a traveller, nothing will change

let's see how the council copes with a few hundred locals following the same pattern and parking/camping illegally on local land, not paying parking tickets etc
The police and council are not afraid of locals - they would have you arrested at once
[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Red Leader 1[/bold] wrote: Baiter is always targetted because it is the softest of options, not requiring any form of criminal damage to gain access. Will the Council have contractors ready with materials and welding kit to install height restricting barriers the moment the last "visitor" departs - something they lamentably failed to do in more timely fashion? If not maybe a suitable sign offering free seasonal camping accomodation should be considered.[/p][/quote]Backward thinking, as it accepts that these people will illegally camp and all we can do is try to stop them a mindset that has failed year in year out until locals get out of this mental ghetto and put the council on notice to explain how they decide who is a traveller, nothing will change let's see how the council copes with a few hundred locals following the same pattern and parking/camping illegally on local land, not paying parking tickets etc[/p][/quote]The police and council are not afraid of locals - they would have you arrested at once mimi55
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Sat 24 May 14

Alpha 1 Legal says...

Common law is the way forward.
Common law is the way forward. Alpha 1 Legal
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree