Waltonian Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 Ten years ago this site was given temporary planning permission but had to be cleared and restored to agricultural land by December 2014. They were required to limit the number of families and the size of their permitted 'additional' van and to conform with the site plan. They have now applied for permanent permission with seven more families, no restriction on the size of the additional van and with no site plan. For full information see planning application 2014/24509 on the WBC website Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latchford Locks Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Maybe they could erect a Wall of Tyres to help their application along Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 It's not a very informative planning application and I'd have thought the council would have rejected it and asked for more detailed information as Clr Paul Kennedy quite rightly says in his response submission.Tricky one though and I suppose as the council have boxes to tick with regards to supplying permanent sites for travelers (or gypsies as it says on there) so they could perhaps just approve this one on the basis that they have already been there for 18 years and are pretty much accepted by most people as living there now and most of them are very pleasant as they go in our local shop. Better to have a group you know on a permanent site that a new lot who are unknown I suppose (does that sound bad.. sorry if it does)Having only ever been temporary permission though maybe that's why the site has been run so well by the site owner and the family people who currently live there and I've never heard of any trouble caused by them (apart from one incident years ago involving two dogs we found and it turned out they were from there ....I wont go into that again but the shocking state they were both in still angers me !!!).In my opinion it's surely better only allow rolling temporary permission on sites so that they continue to be run well etc and if not then they they have to leave at the end of their approved period with no renewal.I wonder if any residents will have the guts to formally object to it becoming permanent though, after all all objections are open to see in the planning office and also on line and they show your name, address and why you object too. I don't think I'd want my name and address known to them EEK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 well if it's not in Westbrook or Callands; I'm all for it! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latchford Locks Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 well if it's not in Westbrook or Callands; I'm all for it! ...or Victoria Park then "Rock on Tommy" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Permanent sites for travellers? Is that not a contradiction in terms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Not really a contradiction if they just use the site for a while and move on. it is only a contradiction if they settle there permanantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 it is only a contradiction if they settle there permanantly. That's exactly what this particular group have done - for the past 18 years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 In which they are not travellers anymore but residents and should be treated as such. my late inlaws moved about more than that notching up at least fifteen changes of house in their time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 But this mob define themselves as an "ethnic group" and therefore are exempt from the rules and responsibilities the rest of us have to live by. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Mob? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Mob? Yes. Ever had to work at a traveller wedding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 You can't compare the ones at Walton to the awful groups (or mobs) of travellers who often descend on Warrington illegally parking up and who leave a trail mess and sometimes trouble behind them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 But still, if they've built homes on the site and now want to make their temporary planning permission permanent they can hardly claim to be travellers - can they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Do they still call themselves travellers though as most of the younger ones have grown up there and gone to the local school too so maybe they think of themselves as just 'residents' who live in caravans. I've no idea but the ones the same age as my son who go in the corner shop are really nice and always polite but they have grown up around here .... not like the some of the objectionable grots who go in who live in the new houses over the swing bridge where Naylors wood yard used to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 They might think of themselves as ordinary residents who happen to live in caravans, but you can bet their going to be more than willing to call themselves travellers if it enables them to use policy on the provision of traveller sites to get what they're after - namely permanent change of green belt land to residential use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 True.Having just looked at the planning application docs again the application and the applicant correspondence both refer to it as a 'Gypsy Site'. Is that the same or different to a traveler site ?I wish I could get permission to put our caravan on a lovely little spot of green belt land right next to a canal and a pub. Bliss 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.