Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Geoff Settle

New Travellers Pitch in the South of Warrington

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by BazJ:

It is only here in bloody soft Britain that we put up with it

Not so, just speak to the residents in and around Cartridge Lane, they have formed a group and are really working hard to stop WBC from granting planning permission.

 

The Planning Committee meets 6.30 30 Jan, Town Hall, it is a public meeting, all are welcome to attend and show support for the residents....but no personal outbursts please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't dream of it Paul.

 

What I actually meant was that it always seems that only in Britain would the notion of all these rights actually be acknowledged

 

I admire your your commitment to getting this issue resolved but if you start reading some of the points in the human rights act about the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of associate with others and the right to a stable home and the right to and the right to this that and the other... you are up against it.

 

From what I can see though, the killer is the article which states that "It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which in incompatible with a Convention right"

 

I hope I'm wrong but seeing as the Human Rights Act only seems to be of any good to vagabonds and n'eer-do-wells I reckon you'll have a fight on

 

Good luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, and do you really think that the three minutes allowed to objectors is going to be sufficient to let the residents make a good, defensible case? Once again, one's ability to put forward cogent arguments is diminished by the Council's pandering to the lowest common denominator (i.e. those that ramble on with irrelevant arguments) :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes each actually :D

 

And if you play your cards right and a lot of people pre-register to speak :D

 

... but they and the original speakers should also have their own short versions at hand too just incase the council play silly buggers on the night and change the rules:rolleyes:

 

Good idea to also print copies of your speech objections off (providing they are to the point and factual) and hand it to each of the committee members as you get up to speak.. you are allowed to do that and they to tend to read, remember and discuss your points better later in the deliberations :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BazJ.

 

Even though in my opinion there are no special circumstances at all for planning permission to be granted, and it will be a disgrace if it is. Even if WBC reject the application, as they should, the applicants have a right of appeal...whereas if WBC/Members do approve the application, the residents have no right of appeal.

 

I'm really impressed with the efforts and committment of the residents, just shows that apathy hasn't totally taken over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

 

I know that my opinions have been somewhat lambasted on here regarding the "travellers" however can I ask for what reason are the residents objecting?

 

Retrospective planning permission and planning permission even has been granted all over the country with regards to building on green belt land. Even my own sister who lives somewhere called Kidderminster!! had cause to object to her neighbour building a garage for 5 cars on green belt land that he owns alongside my sisters house (They both have fields at the back of about 2 acres each - my sister is a real green campaigner and objected to him building this garage)

 

He won and the garage is still there and it is still greenbelt land. I told my sister to get planning permission to build an estate on her land and sell the bloody lot to a developer for a few million and clear off but unfortunately she is too concerned about the wildlife in the fields like foxes and things!

 

Oh well, nice to know it doesn't run in the family!!

 

Is the residents case about nimbism and who has bought it or is it really about where the land is and the fact it is green belt?

 

Baz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by observer:

Think you may find, that the Councillors get their reports/agendas at least a week before the cttee meeting. :D

 

but then again if those who are arguing against the application on the night HAVE A FEW NEW BITS UP THEIR SLEEVES which have not been put forward in any of the objections it could sway the balance a bit... especially if the issues raised are a bit more meaty :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul K

I just PM'd you... if you don't get it let me know and I'll PM it again as not sure if it worked or not :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WBC Planning Department have approved the application. Words, or ones that can be posted here, fail me....well just for the moment. It now goes to the Planning Committee on the 30th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely not !!!!!

 

What were/are their reasons for approval?

 

Bet it was travellers rights, human rights and not wanting to appear to be prejudice (or is it racist) against their needs... oh and the fact that councils do have to appear to be providing sites for travellers in their area... well this will tick a box and wont cost WBC a penny as is it's private land already bought and paid for by the traveller's themselves :roll:

 

Well they might as well open the floodgates and put a blummin big sign on the entrances to Warrington saying 'Fields for sale.. only travellers planning applications welcome ' :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, put a blummin big sign on the entrances to Warrington saying 'Fields for sale.. travellers should move on, breach all and every planning regulation, then apply for retrospective planning permission,.....but not an accurate one, claim to be be a special case as WBC are a soft touch, they shaft their own residents, your planning application will be approved.....you can then do whatever you want whenever you want.' and PS, if you need any local council services we will fall over bckwards to make sure you get them and you will always be at the front of the queue! The WBC policy is that law abiding residents who do the right thing can just F off!...but must keep paying their Council Tax.

 

Always amuses me to watch bureaucrats, officials and some politicians wring their hands at the declining respect paid to laws, rules and regulations....they are the cause of it!

 

Anyway it's up to the Planning Committee now, lets see what they are made of! Remember next Wednesday 6.30 Town Hall main entrance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A massive lack of consistency. Travellers and Developers can do what they want.

Yet a business near me put a metal fence up that exceeded the height that was on the plans.

Whilst this was wrong, the fence did have the added affect of giving security to other buildings adjacent to that property and some Residents had been pleased about this. However, someone saw an opportunity to make capital out of this situation and after appeal it has been lowered, thus making the area insecure and unsafe.

My point is that the above named seem to be able to do what they want, yet something like a fence being the wrong height is a "massive" crime and warrants the big stick treatment.

At least, let's have some consistency. :x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read all the Planning Depts reasons for recommending approval. :o I wont go on about all the reasons as they are there for all to see...

 

I did notice that there seems to be no mention of the fact that the applicants have BOUGHT and OWN THE LAND !!

 

It states that the applicant would be happy with a temporary planning approval for 3 - 5 years.... and this may happen.. which the report says will give the traveller family a base while the council (or whoever) do an assessment of 'brown-field' land to hopeully find an alternative site for them not on green belt land.. (wonder if they would get that for free ??)

 

Have the officers who are recomending approval considered WHAT HAPPENS AFTER 3 - 5 years...

 

Just incase they haven't I'll tell them :DTHE TRAVELLERS WILL STILL OWN THE PIECE OF GREEN BELT LAND Durh !!! :roll:

 

Mr S's 6 young kiddies will get their education and health care which seems to be being used as a major reason for approval (travellers kids only attend primary school anyway)

 

The Mr S and family may get itchy feet and be ready to move on....

 

Mr S who is STILL the land owner may then sell it on to the next traveller family who need a base for a while.... who will subsequently apply for similar planning permission on the site. As it's already been approved once they should have no trouble in getting approval.... :roll:

 

and round and round it may go.. Permenant 'Traveller' Site for many years to come :roll:

 

Small rant over.... :o

 

[ 23.01.2008, 14:56: Message edited by: Dismayed ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Paul Kennedy:

Originally posted by Dismayed:

Wouldn't you need planning permission to put the signs up Paul :D

Could just do it anyway then apply for planning permission... at least they would be up for a couple of months while the planning twits went through the 'process' :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am now thinking of putting 10 caravans in my quite large rear garden.I would rent them out for say ?100 a week each.Mmmmmm,beats working for a living!Surely no one would object? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming a bit late to this debate, but a few observations:

 

1. You don't need planning permission to put up signs, you need Advertising Consent under the 1991 Control of Advertisment Regulations.

 

2. Since the travellers have enough cash to purchase a green field site, it beats me why they could afford a brownfield site in the first place.

 

3. At the end of the 3-5 year occupation period WBC will fail to require the removal of the caravans, the caravans themselves will all be situated on hard-standings and be fully serviced, which will in effect render the site brownfield, thereby clearing the way for a much more lucrative housing scheme on the site.

 

4. The committee will probably go along with the officers just to avoid getting grief from the pikeys, who will know where they live. Grief from tax payers is easier to handle apparently because they generally obey the law.

 

5. Public opinion matters nowt in these matters, remember the golden rules of planning: (a) minority voices are those that are most listened to; (B) Councillors can be relied upon to do the wrong thing but dress it up in righteous clothing; © planning officers have no imagination and won't expend energy looking for alternatives; (d) your views only count around local election time :bounce:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×