Jump to content

New Travellers Pitch in the South of Warrington


Geoff Settle

Recommended Posts

Wondered where you were re this one McBain

 

Point 1 ?. I knew that, but thanks for correcting me, it?s all the same really though :wink:

 

Point 2 ?.Did you mean ?beats me why the ?couldn?t afford a brownfield site? rather than could ? :wink:

 

Point 4?. The applicants (or Pikeys as you call them) will also know where all the objectors live as they have access to all the objection letters (which someone will read to them ) ? so that?s no excuse for the committee or officers to be whimps :roll:

 

Point 5?. Agree with the lot apart from (d) views at election time may count but then they still **** on you anyway :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 340
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hiya Dis, yep - I spotted my error in (2) just a bit too late to correct it. I was reading the news page of this electronic paper this morning and I must confess that I was somewhat bemused by the apparent flexibility the planning department is now displaying with regards to its interpretation and application of planning policy. The lead item is the "travellers welcome" fiasco which is still unfolding; naturally people are concerned at the seemingly contrary attitude of the planning officers.

 

Having had a brief look at the main policy document on this subject (Circular 01/06 Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites just in case anyone is interested) it seems as though the onus is on the LPA to identify appropriate sites in the first instance through the LDF process (paragraphs 35 - 38).

 

Paragraph 49 might also be of interest and so I've reproduced it below:

 

There is a general presumption against inappropriate development within Green Belts. New gypsy and traveller sites in the Green Belt are normally inappropriate development, as defined in Planning Policy Guidance 2: ?Green Belts? (PPG2). National planning policy on Green Belts applies equally to applications for planning permission from gypsies and travellers, and the settled population. Alternatives should be explored before Green Belt locations are considered. Pressure for development of sites on Green Belt land can usually be avoided if the local planning authority allocates sufficient sites elsewhere in its area, in its LDF, to meet identified need. Criteria-based policies in DPDs for the location of gypsy and traveller sites (see paragraphs 31 and 32 above) should not depart from national planning policy as set out in PPG2.
If I understand matters correctly, what is actually happening is that alternative sites have already been ruled out just because the tax-dodging pikeys have already bought their slice of Green Belt land.

 

And then further down the news frontpage I find that the planning department is recommending that a farmer who has followed Government advice about diversification is being pilloried for trying to maintain a business that will result in the continued stewardship of his land :roll: Perhaps he should be talking to the pikeys about selling up instead - the officer's would be only too keen to back him then :redmad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note that one of the issues the planners are taking into account is that the wife has become ill because she can't adapt to living in a house!

 

I think I will apply for planning consent for a house in the grounds of Buckingham Palace on the grounds that I am becoming ill because I do not live in a area appropriate to my status!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by McBain:

And then further down the news frontpage I find that the planning department is recommending that a farmer who has followed Government advice about diversification is being pilloried for trying to maintain a business that will result in the continued stewardship of his land :roll: Perhaps he should be talking to the pikeys about selling up instead - the officer's would be only too keen to back him then :redmad:

I noticed that as well McB, seems that some of the food that he will be selling is not "local".....never seems to have stopped Tesco et al from getting planning.

 

PS The rest of your original post is most helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather unkind on the planners there, McBain.

 

I am not one to support them normally, but in fact the planners were OPPOSED to the Tesco/stadium plan. A lengthy report was prepared by the chief planner at the time in which he made clear his opposition, not so much to the stadium, but to the Tesco store.

This report was subsequently hushed up by the POLITICIANS who wanted the stadium come what may but knew they would not get it without the store.

 

There is little doubt that from a planning perspective, the Tesco store should have been refused and you only have to see the traffic around there sometimes to see why.

 

By the same token, the Morrison's store in Wilderspooil Causeway should also have been refused. In fact, that is an even better example of bad planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Egbert, the debate here is not so much about the old idiocies, but the new ones that are being committed. The Tesco/Stadium report was a master piece in walking the fence, deliberately couched in terms that would not fetter the Council's ability to defend an appeal had the committee of the day had the balls to uphold planning policy instead of caving in to voters... and right there is the problem, committee members are elected politicians and so this will always happen. Appoint a skilled, non-elected committee for which there was a minimum qualification level and you'd remove this bias at a stroke :D It'll never happen though :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Egbert:

I note that one of the issues the planners are taking into account is that the wife has become ill because she can't adapt to living in a house!

 

Alas no account has been taken of the upset and stress that this matter is causing the residents in the Cartridge Lane area. Wonder if they can put in a "compo claim" against WBC.

 

I'm impressed that local planning officers have psychiatry as one of their skills when giving consideration to Mrs Smith's claim. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the report for Cartridge Lane, plus the other 3 being considered at the same committee meeting.

 

Interesting to note the reason why Kenyon Hall Farm has been rejected:

 

"INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT HARMFUL TO THE GREEN BELT"....and the Cartridge Lane site :wink:

 

http://212.248.237.112/CmisWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=8281

 

[ 25.01.2008, 20:41: Message edited by: Paul Kennedy ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BACKGROUND:

 

LPA became aware that a hardsurfaced area had been created on the site on/around 12th November 2007. On/around 18th November, 4 travellers caravans moved onto the site and on 21st November 2007 a retrospective planning application was submitted by the applicant. The LPA subsequently served a Temporary Stop Notice on the owner of the site to prevent any further caravans being brought onto the site. The Notice prevented any further caravans being brought onto the site and ran for a temporary period up until 21st December 2007. No further caravans have subsequently been brought to the site following the expiry of the temporary Notice.

 

 

THE RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION:

 

Retrospective planning permission is being sought for the following:

? The retention of the 4 caravans, (2 caravans per pitch)

? The caravans are occupied by one travellers family: Mrs Tom Smith, his wife and 4 children and Mr Dido Smith (Tom Smiths? sisters? son) and his 2 children.

? The occupiers are Irish travellers who have lived in/around the Warrington area for many years and are unrelated to the other Smith Family, (travellers who currently occupy the Two Acre caravan site at Walton).

? The retention of the existing hardsurfaced area of approximately 2000 metres2.

? The retention of 2 utility buildings, providing a toilet/sink/washing machine, (2.5 metres x 1.8 metres x 2 metres high). The existing portable building on the site would eventually be removed.

? The retention of a cess pit and post and rail/panel fencing

? Vehicular access is gained via an existing access point onto Cartridge Lane.

APPLICANTS SUPPORTING STATEMENT:

 

? The family are seeking a permanent consent, but would accept a temporary planning permission of between 3 and 5 years.

? The applicants? children have all had very little education and a settled home would secure a decent education.

? The applicants have been forced to live on a large number of unauthorised encampments including the following locations in the past year:

o Westbrook cinema

o ASDA store in Westbrook

o Pochin way, Middlewich

o an unauthorised site at Middlewich

o 3-4 months in Scotland on unauthorised sites

o Throughout England during Summer 2007, on unauthorised sites

o The applicant had to move from an existing site in Middlewich as the use of the site was changed.

o The applicant bought a house in Middlewich, however his wife became ill due to her inability to adjust to living within a brick dwelling. The family slept/lived in caravans within the cartilage of the house, using the house for bathroom/kitchen facilities. Mrs Smith became depressed and required medication. The family subsequently moved onto a travellers site in Warmingahm Lane, Sanbach, but were forced to leave as the number of caravans specified on the site was exceeded.

o The applicant felt that he had no option but to move onto the Cartridge Lane site.

? If planning permission is removed the family will be homeless and would be forced back onto the road/unauthorised encampments.

? The applicant has cleared the site of its former derelict/unkempt state and improved its appearance, and is willing to plant additional trees/landscaping especially to the northern boundary.

? No business is proposed from the application site.

? The site is connected to mains electricity and water

? Current government advice states that:

o where there are no alternative sites, temporary consents should be provided until such time as LPAs? have allocated sufficient sites through development plans

o LPA?s should take a more positive approach to site provision and in the determination of planning applications

o Landscaping/planting can allow sites? to blend in with their surroundings.

? Although not within walking distance of shops/services, the LPA should be realistic about alternatives to the car in more rural areas. Planning permission has been approved for nearby conversion of barns to residential properties without such concerns. The site is short drive from schools/shops in Grappenhall/Appleton Thorn/Lymm Service Station. Relatively few traveller sites are found within settlement boundaries due to local resentment. The site strikes a balance between the need too access essential services yet retain some distance from the settled community. Site is a far more sustainable option than a roadside existence, in that the fairly often have to drive miles for water/food, they rely on noisy/expensive generators, they are unable to register with GPs, unable to educate their children. Sustainability is not simply traffic journeys/modes of transport.

? Site has excellent access to strategic road network and will not cause congestion/safety problems. Visibility splays have been improved so that to the west a distance a splay of 2 metres by 30 metres is possible, whilst to the east a splay of 2 metres by 60 metres is possible. Cartridge Lane is lightly used and traffic from the site would not be significant. The existing entrance gate is set back 10 metres so that vehicles towing caravans can pull in clear of the highway before the gates are opened.

? The site is connected to the mains water/electricity with a cess pit used for disposal of sewage.

? The site is well screened via existing buildings, walls and natural landscaping. For much of the year, little of the site would be seen

? Very special circumstances outweigh harm to the Green Belt. In view of lack of provision of allocated travellers sites, not surprising that applications are made in the open countryside. The site is classed as previously developed land, the use does not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt and its scale/appearance is not such that it would significantly encroach into the countryside.

? The applicant has identified the following very special circumstances which he considers outweighs the inappropriateness of the site in the Green Belt:

? The family are gypsies/travellers and travelled/stopped in the Warrington/Eccles/Cheshire area for as long as they can remember

? The 6 young children on the site need access to health and education facilities, which is impossible to do so on the road/unauthorised encampments. Gypsies/travellers experience the worst health/education statutes of any disadvantaged group in England.

? Mrs Smith became ill trying to adjust to living in a house and the return to living in a caravan/her traditional way of life has assisted her to recover.

? Mr Smith trade in horses and the site allows that traditional activity to continue. The family are unable to keep horses whilst living on he road. A settled base would be beneficial to the employment needs of the family.

? There are no alternative sites available. The LPA have been unable to identify any alternative sites. The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) undertaken states that there is a need for between 2 and 5 more sites in Warrington.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres quite a bit more twaddle than listed above in the case officer report to the committee....

 

Not forgetting the officers final closing paragraph...

 

 

Reason for Recommendation

 

Due to the very special circumstances in this particular case, which, on balance are considered to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Such very special circumstances include;

 

the lack of alternative/existing (perhaps more sustainable) sites locally,

 

the applicants personal circumstances (ie; the inevitable return to unauthorised roadside encampments should planning permission be refused),

 

the educational advantages to the children,

 

the easier access to medical services.

 

Overall, it is considered that the negative impacts are outweighed by those matters in favour of the development and very special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm to Green Belt policy

Refuse it and let them keep travelling is what I say... I hear some parts of Ireland are beautiful :wink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ha ha ha... don't be silly Peter.

 

Anyway, no doubt they will soon be hooked up to an unsecured wireless broadband connection and with the power from tapping into the local streetlights they will be able to log on here and explain why they deserve such special status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem like the council of this town would prefer to upset the few hundred law abiding, high poll tax payers of Appleton Thorn. Than one family of itenerate Irish tinkers who move in illegally and decide they are taking over a village.

Are they going to pay full poll tax for each dwelling? Four caravans I belive. Maybe that will be down to the DHSS.

I bet the local councillors are linned up waiting to have a cup of tea with these people just to show them how good they are to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by BazJ:

ha ha ha... don't be silly Peter.

 

Anyway, no doubt they will soon be hooked up to an unsecured wireless broadband connection and with the power from tapping into the local streetlights they will be able to log on here and explain why they deserve such special status.

It would make interesting reading. I have carefully read their applcation....many times, and have read nothing that would qualify as special stutus, but rather a large number of inconsistencies, some examples are; homeless - but they sold a house in Middlewich, horse trader - but they have covered the site in hardcore and there is no grazing, site is for residential use - but it was bought with a commercial mortgage, Irish - Mrs Smith was born in Manchester and the children in England, Mr Smith made no contact with the Council to enquire about sites in Warrington, and then having purchased the land did not contact the Council regarding planning application....and the list could go on & on & on.

 

This whole matter is one great big conspiracy, that has failed the residents of Grappenhall and Warrington in general....and the so called "travelling community" themselves. Anyway the Planning Committee of Dirir, Earl, Haddow, Hoyle, Long, Roberts, Warburton, Wheeler, Whelan & S Wilson (Mike Biggins is excluded because of his involvement) have the opportunity to uphold the integrity of our planning rules, Wednesday evening will see which of them is up to the challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by little fella:

It would seem like the council of this town would prefer to upset the few hundred law abiding, high poll tax payers of Grappenhall Ridge/Appleton Thorn.

Correct....who after this is all over will still remain high tax paying and law abiding residents, albeit somewhat more "enlightened" by the "ways of the world"......or should that be the inadequacies of their Council.

 

The upside is that they know more of each other and have created a community group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by mike_b:

and with the power from tapping into the local streetlights they will be able to log on here
No need to tap into anything,the site has always had electric & water on it.They have just taken it over. :roll:
and upgraded it. Guess it would be handy if they could find a mains sewerage pipe near by. They have even got oil if they dig deep enough, a shell pipeline goes underneath.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obs There is something nice developing among the normal residents of Appleton Thorn, they were always friendly enjoying the village school, village hall, village life etc. Now that they have these socially undesirables moved onto the area they are bonding even more together, and for one common cause ~ to get rid of this family. I understand that the children go to the local school and it must be difficult for the children they are so far behind and need special teaching. They are never going to be allowed to mix with the other children from the school like school outings, children?s parties , sleep over?s etc. So where do these people fit in to the life of the village? Maybe they don?t want to fit in?

Is their a brain cell operating on the planning department? Surly the points that you have raised have already been flagged by the highly paid full time officials! Is it not easier to stop this fiasco now than try and sort out all the problems later? Am I being cynical if I say that may be blinded by brown paper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...