Bazj Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Typical bloody pikeys.... and these people want to be part of a well adjusted community? They all need to be put on a boat to the most remote of remote islands...caravans and all. God this makes me seethe! I have been talking to a builder about having a bit of an extension on the front of my house to make a proper entrance hall and he has advised me to get plans drawn up and get searches done and check with the residents and god knows what else for a building the size of a small garden shed and yet pikey Joe and his band of remedials can just ride rough-shod all over the whole council planning department? WHERE ARE THE COUNCILLORS NOW TO EXPLAIN HOW THEY GET AWAY WITH ALL THIS AND WHY NO ONE IS BIG ENOUGH TO STAND UP TO THEM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 You might recall Baz that 3 Councillors voted to approve the site...Fairfield & Howley, Orford & Whittle Hall...1 Labour, 1 Liberal Democrat and 1 Independent ( ex Labour).....6 voted to reject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 A felled tree is a felled tree, it is not as if they just pollarded them, some I guess were maybe 70 years old. As one of the residents said to me, "I understand that Mr and Mrs Smith have always stated that they wish to be accepted into local village life and cause as little disturbance as possible. I have to say that their actions today will have just the opposite effect." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Originally posted by Paul Kennedy: You might recall Baz that 3 Councillors voted to approve the site...Fairfield & Howley, Orford & Whittle Hall...1 Labour, 1 Liberal Democrat and 1 Independent ( ex Labour).....6 voted to reject. All very well and good pointing out who voted which way, which constituency they cover and for which party.....SO WHAT ? ) and the issue should now be about how to stop it getting APPROVED when it DOES get resubmitted For goodness sake keep petty local politics and point scoring of it and look at the real issue :redmad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Originally posted by Paul Kennedy: A felled tree is a felled tree, it is not as if they just pollarded them, some I guess were maybe 70 years old. Indeed Paul but a 'felled tree' is one that has been removed and it cannot simply be put back. And a 'felled tree' which was once cited as part of a planning refusal no longer 'stands' as a reason for objection Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little fella Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Surly the local councillor is to blame for a lot of this. Knowing that these really nice trees were in imminent danger subject to a planning order why did they not slap an immediate TPO on them. Then discuss if they can or should be removed. This is incompetence of the highest order and someone should be taken to task about it. Surely the council care more about the residents/ratepayers of Appleton Thorn and the countryside green belt of the town than some two bit Irish iterant family who wants to set up a squat. A lot of this council are not fit to clean toilets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Stop sitting on the fence LF and tell us what you really feel!! Remember this is the bunch of incompetants that couldn't save the 17th Villa, the Bay Horse Pub and the historic Boteler Grammar School.... what chance have a couple of trees got? These councillors are all pretty quick to take the allowances and expenses but always seem to fall on the side which most annoys their constituents.... is that what happens when you gain some political power? I'd love to know because every one of them that I read about or come across always seem to be at odds with the folk who vote them in!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Originally posted by Dismayed: Originally posted by Paul Kennedy: A felled tree is a felled tree, it is not as if they just pollarded them, some I guess were maybe 70 years old. Indeed Paul but a 'felled tree' is one that has been removed and it cannot simply be put back. And a 'felled tree' which was once cited as part of a planning refusal no longer 'stands' as a reason for objection Exactly...disgraceful state of affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Originally posted by Dismayed: Originally posted by Paul Kennedy: You might recall Baz that 3 Councillors voted to approve the site...Fairfield & Howley, Orford & Whittle Hall...1 Labour, 1 Liberal Democrat and 1 Independent ( ex Labour).....6 voted to reject. All very well and good pointing out who voted which way, which constituency they cover and for which party.....SO WHAT ? ) and the issue should now be about how to stop it getting APPROVED when it DOES get resubmitted For goodness sake keep petty local politics and point scoring of it and look at the real issue :redmad: Actually I think it is an entirely valid point, would for example that Whittle Hall Councillor approve an application if it was in Whittle Hall. And it is certainly not petty as it relates to national government policies that obligate local government to do things that by and large it can't or it won't and the law abiding local residents in a corner of the Borough end up being dumped upon, don't think that they think it is petty. Interestingly if I really wanted to point score, I really could, but actually I'm not that bothered... My post merely pointed out that the Committee's decision to reject was not unanimous, and maybe those who voted to approve should be given the opportunity to explain their reason(s)they could be entirely reasonable and valid. [ 07.02.2008, 13:54: Message edited by: Paul Kennedy ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 I hate to say that "I told you so" but the minute I heard about the trees being the sole impediment to a satisfactory visibility splay being achieved it was ruddy obvious that the pikey's were going to chop them down. An emergency TPO could easily have been served the very minute that the highways officers reached their conclusions and it would have given the Council a bit of redress. Still, it is asking a bit much expecting the Planning staff to know about The Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999 - I mean they've only been around for 9 years Still, what's done is done. Is it hoping for too much to expect the officers to re-assess the claim of "special circumstances" that the pikey's originally incorporated in their application and come to the (rather obvious) conclsuion that they are not 'special' after all? I know that planning staff at Warrington rarely read Government guidance, but here's a little nugget from paragraph 3 of Circular 1/94 that might be of some assistance to them: Gypsy sites are not regarded as being among those uses of land which are normally appropriate in Green Belts. Green Belt land should not therefore be allocated for gypsy sites in development plans.Seems fairly clear cut to me, but then what do I know :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Maybe the applicants have been "allowed" to fell the trees as part of the Council's plan to ensure that the Appeal fails. No idea what the plan is...but I'm sure/hope that one is being worked on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 The Appeal could have succeeded if the reasons for refusal had been more carefully drafted and the officers hadn't ignored advice about how personal circumstances are very seldom sufficient to constitute special circumstances sufficient to justify a departure from national planning guidance... ...but this is Warrington we are on about, a Four-Star F*** Up Authority :redmad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 OK so I have just delete my own post !! It was the first of 4 indepth and rather to the point postings to certain replies that I had pre-written and was starting to upload. Paul As you say it is easy to point score and I was falling into the same trap and although I have some good point scoring amunition I am now refraining from being drawn in. However if anyone wants it my lemsip is now wearing off. Government policies... political party...who voted what... etc etc IS STILL A LOAD OF TRIPE ! Government policy for example can easily be over-ruled locally when it needs to be [ 07.02.2008, 21:07: Message edited by: Dismayed ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Thanks for making that point Dismayed, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Perhaps this episode will convince the Warrington policy section to look harder to identify a proper site somewhere in the borough as part of the LDF process? If so, then this at least would give the Council a better chance at refusing repeat applications on patently unsuitable sites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Originally posted by Paul Kennedy: Thanks for making that point Dismayed, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 You (as an applicant) have an automatic right to resubmit for planning permission without incurring a further charge. This is set out in The Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1989, Regulation 8 (1)(. It must be made within 12 months of the decision on the original application, the applicant and the site must be the same. Doubtless the pikey's are better versed in planning legislation than the Council officers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 The other local Traveller Site at Walton is actually on Green Belt land which is owned by the travellers, that site is also adjacent to the conservation area, and as it sits right on the banks of the bridgewater canal there is definately some loss of visual amenity there. Its been there for about 10 years now after having 2 temporary As for site access and highways issues.... their entrance is on a bend just before a humped back bridge and they have large works vans and trailers going in and out all day :confused: [ 08.02.2008, 14:42: Message edited by: Dismayed ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Wonder if the DVLA conduct any checks on the vehicles coming and going from the site. :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Why not phone them and ask them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little fella Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 The one at Walton is very safe in the morning when they all want to leave to do their honest days work. The first wagon pulls out across the road an blocks it all the others can then pull out about 30 of them the first wagon then waves 'thanks' and drives off. All the other traffic can the continue inhindered. :confused: :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Not strictly on topic, but. An advert for a suppport team manager and support workers for gypsies and travellers in Birmingham, London, Luton and Bedford (26,800pa) lists as a requirement 'the ability to speak Romanian ' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 and probably the ability to milk the system and teach theiving and bad language to children as well no doubt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Originally posted by Paul Kennedy: Wonder if the DVLA conduct any checks on the vehicles coming and going from the site. gypsy site with vehicles that didn't have the required insurance, mot and tax. They seem to abide by the rules which I would imagine has something to do with the fact that they still only have temporary planning consent even though they have been there for 12 years.. and the have now got it until the year 2014 (18 years in total ) [ 09.02.2008, 14:30: Message edited by: Dismayed ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little fella Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 ANPR is there regularly, they are street legal but many other moptorist arnt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.