Jump to content

Travellers on Victoria Park (and elsewhere again)


Dizzy
 Share

Recommended Posts

do people really think that by appeasing these "travellers" and giving them a site that this will stop their illegal camps and activities? I would argue to the contrary.... before you know it the "legal" camp would be full and the next lot will just camp on Victoria Park as they do now.

 

Just move them on and make their lives as difficult as possible when they do pitch up here... eventually they will get the message and just keep on travelling

and keep on causing problems! Not really a great solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is not that a few travellers stop off on Vicky park for a few days it is the damage and crap they leave behind.


 


It is time the law started treating this ethnic group equally. If these travellers leave damage then maybe they should be a legal camp some place where they can stop while their posh cars get seized and the damage paid for.


 


IS IT NOT TIME THESE PEOPLE START EDUCATING THEIR CHILDREN (sorry not shouting) especially their girls and planning laws should also apply equally to travellers.


 


camaron promised before the 2010 election to sort out the travellers laws,


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your own fault for sticking up for them and saying they need a permanent transit site with facilities in the area... you are encouraging them now :lol:   :P 

I recon they are all coming every week or just moving about round here to annoying everyone and cause as much unrest as possible so that the council have no alternative other than to find them a site and pretty quickly too...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Gary is actually right in saying the answer to the problem is to create a specific traveller site. It is WBC'S continued failure to do this which causes all the present problems.

 

Whether you agree or not each council has an obligation to provide stop-over facilities for travellers.The fact that WBC has not allocated a specific site for this purpose is the reason the travellers park where they want - and why WBC and the local police are slow to act to remove them (any court proceedings would take into account the lack of specified provision).

 

The link posted earlier re the town that banned them does not in fact refer to a total blanket ban in that area as there are already specified sites. It is the illegal camping on roadsides etc which has been successfully banned. Had this area not already made adequate provision for stop-overs it would have been unlikely they would have been granted the ban.

 

I think the reason the Warrington area seems such a magnet for travellers is precisely that there is no specified stop over site because this means they have a good excuse to park up wherever they like, such as in visually attractive greenfield areas or pretty parks.

In other towns the specified sites allocated may not necessarily be in very attractive areas.

 

So why doesn't WBC allocate a stop-over site?

Is it because they want to hang on to all their land assets for possible future development which could generate money for them to spend on one of their grandiose projects?

Leaving the situation as it is the cost of cleaning up after the travellers is paid for by unlucky private landowners or out of the pot for public services - so not much for WBC to concern themselves with.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill...from what I've heard the police have moved the ones of Bruche Park so it may have been those that you saw going.   There are apparently some on Birchwood fire station land too, no idea if they are new, were already there or are this lot again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK folks seeing as the council has no designated sites then maybe we could be of help by sugesting arteas where one could be set up out of the way with (fairly) easy access.Must be plenty of "suitable areas within the boundaries of warrington. How about alongside some of the motorway network in the area. easy access fom the motior way and land that will never be used for building of housing.

 

some choice land near thelwall viaduct and i am sure that the fracking in that area will not be affected or affect the travellers too much. just  athought mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you mean Sid, that area already looks like a bit of a dump with all the fracking protesters that have been camped there for the last few months.

But I'm sure that site was suggested years back and the two hotels out that way both said they would up sticks and move if the gypsy camp was allowed.

Bottom line is that nobody wants them anywhere near so the council will come in for some stick wherever and whenever they decide.

 

Bill :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't get how they would get them to only use a designated site or what they would do if it was full.  The amount who are still in Warrington now probably wouldn't fit and from what I've read online tonight the police have been stopping more at J21 who are also trying to get here too.  Someone said they are all here/coming for a wedding.  I Don't know how factual all that is though.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the perfect place for their site....IRELAND. 

 

Why should they have public land allocated to them free of charge when anyone else with a bloody caravan has to pay £30 a night to park up anywhere??

 

We should stop pandering to these people and let the rule of law deal with them. Instead of moving them on, get a hit squad from the HMRC to turn up with the police and ask questions as to how they afford to pay for all these grandiose caravans and £50,000 Range Rovers...ask to see their tax returns and where they have legally earned the money from. Only if we subject them to the same laws as everyone else instead of ter

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

often wonder how many have car insrance. Always thought that you had to provide an address to get car insurance**, something that a "traveller" by definition does not have as such. "somewhere in great britain" would seem a bit vague on an insurance form. So if not insured then surely then it is not taxed or presunably mote'd either.

 

** unsure about that but somebody will probably let us know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You specifically have requested 

(a) What procedures are in place to check the legal ownership and valid taxation of vehicles owned by gypsies and travellers
(B) What action is taken on untaxed vehicles owned or driven by members of the travelling community? Is there a policy or procedure in place? If so, what is it?
© Are there instances where a car can be registered or taxed where the owner has no fixed abode? If so, what circumstances allow this?
(d) How many vehicles, owned by members of the gypsy and travelling community were seized for invalid tax or incorrect/illegal registration documents and what was the percentage of this as a total of the number of vehicles seized in the last year?

I can confirm that the register maintained by DVLA is based on vehicles and their keepers - the ‘registered keepers’ of vehicles. DVLA’s register is not a register of legal title to vehicles.

The register held at DVLA is essentially maintained to assist in revenue collection, road safety and law enforcement generally. It is clearly essential for all these purposes that the register shows the people in possession of vehicles and responsible for their day to day use.

The DVLA register is not based on keeper’s nationality, ethnic belief or religion and therefore we do not discriminate keepers on this basis. With this in mind, DVLA do not hold the information you have requested relating specifically to travellers, therefore Information is not held to answer questions a, b and d. 
Turning now to question c, in which you ask if there is an instance where a car/vehicle can be registered and taxed where the keeper/owner has no fixed residence. I can confirm when registering a vehicle, the law requires the keeper of the vehicle to provide an address at which he can be reached. This enables the police and other enforcement agencies to contact the keeper or his/her dependants in the event of a road traffic accident or in conjunction with a criminal offence. It also enables DVLA to ensure that vehicle excise duty is paid.

In recognition of the difficulties involved for some keepers, (for example, travellers) in providing a permanent address, DVLA will accept a care of address. This address may be a friend, doctor, hotel, hostel or similar providing the resident gives permission for the keeper of the vehicle to use the address. PO Box addresses are not accepted for individuals.

Kind regards,

Vehicle Policy Group
DVLA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting Bill. 

I read somewhere recently that a lot of travellers vechicles are registered and put in the name of a traveller (usually family) who does have a house/permanent address somewhere.  Maybe they are classed as company vehicles too and the drivers are down as employees or something to cover insurance but hen I guess the company would have to be registered...I've no idea really though.

There was a programme on TV that said many travellers do actually own normal homes although often over in ireland or the other country they come from.

I'm sure their vehicles must be legal (ie insured, mot'd, taxed) though or surely the police/dvla would have to remove them from the road or just clamp them wherever they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to say that the other local rag has said today that WBC have set aside £2 million of council money for a transit site here in Warrington and that a possible LOCATION for it was agreed in December.  The location is hush hush though but residents will find out when they [the council] decide to have a consultation and submit planning application.

I wonder where it will be and if it will be near any existing residential areas of further away.  Hope it's the latter but £2 million seems a heck of a cost just for somewhere to park a some caravans

I guess theres more to a transit site than just a bit of hard standing, maybe a water supply (but do they really need that) a few skips and maybe and a cess pit to empty toilet drum waste down.

We've been away in our caravan for two weeks on a camping club fields or rallys in the past and they were the only facilities we had and it was fine.  (Yes we did wash and have showers as caravans have hot water heaters powered by gas or elec from generators just incase any of you were saying.... 'yeuch thats gross' :lol: )

Can't see that travellers would need any more than that.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have commented on the news article.... If what the 'rebel councilor' says is true WBC best brace themselves as there will be outrage.

Saying that nobody will be happy if it is near them but for goodness sake any site, if they really do have to supply one, should be WELL AWAY from any existing residential areas !!!!

I still stand by my earlier comment and question why all these descending on  Warrington now aren't using Halton's existing transit site up the road or is it full and they can't be accommodated ?

Naah they know by coming here and causing unrest and associated costs that WBC will have to jump too an supply them another legal holiday place pretty damn quick.

Well I'm considering head off to Victoria Park or Bruche Park for a sunny weekend with my van soon....anyone else with one care to join me and see what happens to us when we do it ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

£2 million does seem like a lot of money - but perhaps that includes purchasing land from a private owner?

WBC may be reluctant to allocate council owned land as that would mean less to sell to developers. (Selling to developers generates funds that they can spend or lend to whatever airy fairy project they choose!)

But if land is purchased from private owners for the traveller site the money to pay for it would probably be squeezed out of public services funds.

 

I don't know what facilities other towns provide on their traveller sites but I would imagine water/ gas/ electricity supplies and possibly toilet and shower blocks, also refuse collection and depending on the site chosen there could be access / highways costs etc. etc. etc.

The actual site costs would probably be around the same as setting up a holiday caravan park but for a traveller site there are other issues which would need to be met such as access to Doctor's surgeries, school places etc. etc. etc. 

HOWEVER, once it is done there would be no excuse for the travellers to park illegally around the town.

 

In answer to Diz's "why don't they go to Halton or elsewhere?"  Simply because they have to stay on the site allocated and can't choose to park on any picturesque little green they want.

Each borough has to provide a site (like it or not) but once you have one fulfilling the statutory requirements if it is full any additional travellers have to go to the next available. These are stop over sites and not meant for long term or permanent residency. 

 

The sooner a site is chosen the better - but obviously not for the unlucky people on whose doorstep it will be!

 

Personally I think Warrington has provided well for the travelling communities by way of the permanent sites already here- (in lovely areas too!) and I think it would be a bit unfair to give up more pretty greenfield sites to non residents. 

When it comes to building social housing for Warrington people it seems any old plot of contaminated land will do, a pretty greenfield site wouldn't even be considered.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have hoped for better from Cllr Kennedy to be honest, although I'm sure the site chosen won't be in Stretton.... and this from a council who denied they operate behind closed doors.... what a bunch of prevaricators they are

 

£2million is a lot of money, but what do the council care? it isn't like they are short of a bob or two with money to fill every other public sector begging bowl that gets thrust in front of them.... no different to the Kids Company charity that reckoned they needed £24 million a year to fund a few projects in London, Bristol and Liverpool and who managed to spend £3 million they were handed over from the government last week and still went bust

 

In fairness though, there does seem to be a shortage of money for the council and the government to spend; but only when it comes to spending it on the people who have actually contributed in the first place... there seems to be an endless pot when it is for transit camps, housing associations, colleges and other such organisations.... if you want your bins emptied or your roads maintaining, better forget it because the council have to consider the obviously more deserving cases....

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...