Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Hi there reader
Do you find this message annoying?
Why not register and make a post to get rid of it?

[Secularian]

Unsurprisingly they already are and hence where I got the information from. They are very good but unfortunately don't have any real teeth when it comes to the hard graft of expunging the problem. The only way of dealing with it is make it a politically motivated or pitch forks and burning hay bales, you decide.

[Rocket_fan]

Right enough of all this blah, lets get to the facts of this serious liberty and complete disregard of the laws we have to abide by!

It seems from a source that, the lady who owned the land (where stables once stood) had flattened the area to rebuild some new stables. She then found it hard to comply with the councils permissions and policies in relation to stables etc. She therefore sold the land for £80,000 to whoever.

The buyer has added fencing and gate, gravel, toilet facilities and his own letter box and name plaque of "thunder farm".

They have also applied for permanent standing for two caravans through the council. Now this is the serious bit that really gets me.....

If you've been down there to have a look, you will see quite clearly that the land has been prepared for far more caravans than is being claimed for. The three caravans are dwarfed by the shear size of the prepared area that they sit on. The council with there tortoise paced processes have started their pen pushing and have noted the distress of the local people.

The process will now be thus:

1. travellers will apply for permission to have hard standing for caravans (two has been quoted), this can take as long as they like with a advisable deadline.

2. Council take 5 weeks to decide of which they are likely to say no.

3. Travellers appeal which could take up to 2 years to sort out.

4. Appeal process likely to say no

5. Travellers appeal to European Courts of human rights, which can take up to 3 years to sort out

6. ECHR likely to allow them to stay as they are very pro travellers

Basically, they are not going anywhere!!!

I'm afraid unless something is done in the short term, they are here for good and I can tell you, its not going to remain at two caravans for long.

House prices will fall, people will struggle to sell, Brookmans Park and surrounding areas will also be affected.

Somebody do something (Grant) this is a huge issue for people and the majority of those affected do not even know of this site. Its time to start a campaign.

Grant, this may seriously help your voting potential if you sort this out.

The politician who comes knocking on my door and tells me that they will sort this out, gets my vote! Its literally come down to that.

A very unhappy and distressed resident of Welham Green.

This has all happened before - the big site just off the North Orbital Bone Roundabout with Junction of Colney Heath Lane was never proposed and there has been a long running battle with the encampment but as we all know they are here to stay

[Secularian]

UPDATE

Rumour has it that the currently dilapidated stables and horse fields directly opposite the Traveller site 'Thunder Bridge Yard (TBY) on Bulls Lane is to be flattened and hard standing laid like the TBY site ready for more Travellers. Now this new site is almost five times the size of the current problem and can accommodate potentially 20+ caravans with plenty of leg room to spare.

Now if people think that the problem of Travellers in Welham Green is a flash in the pan, you are seriously ill advised and ignorant of a familiar and growing problem and let me just remind those who live in Brookmans Park who may think that the Travelling problem will not affect them, think again.

I recently noticed that the TBY site has a nice handful of children of primary school age and low and behold they are within the catchment area for Brookmans Park Primary School. Now, I wonder what parents of Brookmans Park would think when a hoard of Travelling kids are ordered by the council to attend their closest school (of which they would get automatic placement).

Secondly, like most other criminals, travelling folk (if inclined towards criminal behaviour) do not commit close to their own dwellings, but in the same vane will not go too far as to get caught travelling between crime scene and dwelling. You may not be surprised then to realise that a nice sleepy area which is ripe in rich pickings is Brookmans Park (no, really?).

Brookmans Park beware, you will almost undoubtedly suffer the most from this issue.

[Rocket_fan]

UPDATE



Secondly, like most other criminals, travelling folk (if inclined towards criminal behaviour) do not commit close to their own dwellings, but in the same vane will not go too far as to get caught travelling between crime scene and dwelling. You may not be surprised then to realise that a nice sleepy area which is ripe in rich pickings is Brookmans Park (no, really?).

Brookmans Park beware, you will almost undoubtedly suffer the most from this issue.

Plenty of Criminals already reside in Brookmans Park

[nossa]

I spoke with the Council planning enforcement officer. The work already completed in TBY had no planning permission (this includes the gates erected). They will apply for planning retrospectively so I have been told to keep a check on the WELHAT planning site and make objections in writing when planning is applied for (retrospectively). I would say this is pretty futile as by that time another field will have been tarmaced and inhabited and no doubt planning will be applied for retrospectively and so on. I can't believe that we are so powerless to stop this happening. I'm planning a conservatory - will try the retrospective application myself and see how far I get.

[Anne]

nossa... I have opened up a new thread about Retrospective Planning:
http://www.shapps.com/forum/index.php/topic,6877.0.html

[Secularian]

I have found a document from the House of Commons that may help highlight this issue.

Its called Gypsies and Travellers: unauthorised development

Go to: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsc-03248.pdf

In a commons debate John Baron MP quotes and describes the type of case that arises:

A lesser known but growing danger is posed by unauthorised development, especially by the travelling community, which buys and quickly develops land without planning permission. There was a good recent example at Sadler's Farm roundabout... It involved a large field next to a roundabout in the green belt that was bought by the travelling community. There is nothing wrong with that. It is still within the law, but one Friday a 6 ft earth mound was created around the perimeter. On the Saturday, hardcore was laid, and on the Sunday, caravans and vehicles, including heavy vehicles, moved in. By the time the council reacted with stop and enforcement notices on the Monday, it was too late. Consequently, we have entered a lengthy planning and appeals process. Meanwhile, the illegal development continues to this day. Similar situations have occurred in Hovefields in Wickford and Oak road in Crays Hill. All three areas are in my constituency.

We are in trouble!!

[Secularian]

I want to know what our political parties are going to do about this problem. Below is a section taken from the document posted above referring to a tory plan to deal with this issue. Will Grant support this proposal if he were to be re-elected?

The Conservative Party plan, March 2005

On 21 March 2005, Caroline Spelman announced a new policy for dealing with illegal Traveller camps:

Last November we began consulting on the best way to deal with illegal traveller camps. Today we can announce a seven point plan to deal with both illegal and unauthorised development, to give stronger rights to local residents and to ensure planning controls are fairly enforced for all.

First…we are reviewing the so-called Human Rights Act - if it cannot be improved, we will scrap the Act.
Second, Conservatives will give councils the power to refuse applications for retrospective planning permission. This will stop the cynical manipulation of the planning system by travellers or rogue developers who wilfully ignore the rules.

Third, we will make traveller trespass a criminal offence as they have done in the Republic of Ireland. This will stop local residents having to pay up to evict travellers from their land and give the police a fast track system to evict illegal occupiers.

Fourth Conservatives will give councils new powers to ensure the rapid removal of caravans from illegal sites, and allow the courts to levy larger fines to stop travellers from profiting illegal developments.

Fifth we will extend councils powers of compulsory purchase, where the land is the subject of a continuing breach of a Stop Notice. This will protect local residents.

Regina (Wychavon District Council) v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others, Times Law Report, 1 July 2008
being forced to purchase land from speculators, at vastly inflated sums, just to avoid the threat of illegal encampments.

Sixth, we will provide clearer, more effective guidance for the police. Mr Blair's Government's new guidance is a trespassers' charter, restricting the ability of the police and councils to take action. We will issue revised guidance, undoing John Prescott's changes, and encouraging police to tackle criminal or anti-social behaviour on traveller sites.

Finally, Conservatives will give local people a greater say on where sites go. We oppose the imposition of arbitrary quotas on councils to provide traveller camps. We will abolish the unelected regional assemblies and regional housing boards which now threaten to silence the voice of local communities.

[bbtzs]

Secularian, Sounds like a strong policy to me and supports local people against the shameful way they suffer at the hands of Travellers. I am in favour. Is there a better group of policies elsewhere?

[nossa]

Thanks to the WH Times we now know that a retrospective planning application has been put to the council (ref S6/2010/0960/FP). I want to object to this application expressing the following ;
 
Given that this application is partly in retrospect - and the site is going to be increased I object on several counts
1 As a normal tax paying citizen (ie. not of the travelling communittee) I would not be granted the luxury of retrospective planning permission and neither would I expect it
2 This is a small village and could not sustain the necessary resources (schooling, policing, traffic management etc.) in order to look after a constant stream of families coming and going.
3 It is far too evident that by granting an increase in the number of sites only leads to far greater increases in the long run - I go back to retrospective planning applications and the councils seemingly powerlessness in opposing anything the travelling communittee chooses to do
 
The law of this land needs to prove itself powerful in these cases before any citizen can believe that the law is the law.
 
However I find myself hovering over the submit button as I have to provide my address along with email and name information. I am reluctant to do so as this information is made available to the planning applicant and I fear reprisals. Can we get together and submit an almighty objection to the council collectively as an area. I really do not feel I am being overly sensitive with my fear. Grant do you have any suggestions?

[jonmorris]

No, you are probably right to fear reprisals if your name and address is published.

I would like to hear what Grant has to say and what he may, or may not, be able to do to stop this nonsense. If the council gave retrospective planning permission, when they'd never do it for you or me, then it is probably time to say goodbye and move - to another country!

[Anne]

I thought that the government were advocating local decisions to be made by the local people... because they know what is best for their area...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10806200

QUOTE
But Mr Pickles said councils could have to refund taxpayers in what he will call a "radical extension of direct democracy".

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We think it's important, as part of the 'big society', for decisions to be taken locally."

Mr Pickles added that he was "in favour of local people making local decisions".
UNQUOTE

[Rocket_fan]

What's wrong with them setting up in Bulls Lane ??

Council wouldn't help me when i came home to find my fence removed and a huge hole dug for next doors extension even when it came up to and under my footings - Council told me I had to take them to court and they were unwilling to help