Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Travellers site appeal could hit taxpayers’ pocket
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 8 2013, 02:20 PM
Well, if councillors act in accordance to their constituents opinions, then so what? If government policy is to encourage home ownership then I would imagine that they will find home owners object to such initiatives. Democracy costs, that is a fact. and I believe we should stand-up to developer bullying.
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/travellers-site-appeal-could-hit-taxpayers-pocket
Posted by: Strafin Sep 8 2013, 02:58 PM
The council are absolutely right to go up against the travellers, who are the scourge of the earth, and I wholeheartedly agree with their decision. Worse than the travellers themselves is this group GPS and their Mr Hugh Jackson, trying to force this through. People power hopefully will win through in the end.
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 9 2013, 08:21 AM
Oh oh!
Here we go again..................the traveller / anti traveller argument!
Cue Blue Moon Phoenix or whatever her name is!!!
Posted by: motormad Sep 9 2013, 08:49 AM
I'm pretty sure MoonPheonix will be along soon like Biker1 says.
Perhaps she is enjoying her 400gig of internet and working at Vodafone.
I'm going back to see my Auntie in Kazakhstan and watch the dog do a backflip.
Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Sep 9 2013, 09:28 AM
This country has always claimed that it is a tolerant one, and one that respects the cultures and traditions of others.
Gypsy/Roma and other Travellers have been part of this society for more than a millennium in one form or another, have contributed to the economic prosperity of tis country, but alas still they suffer the indignity of blatant discrimination, and this case exemplifies this.
I read the original report relating to this case and the 'Officers' were unable to find any reason why the applicant who only wishes permission for himself. The members objected on grounds of flooding (yet through one of the wettest winters, it did not flood), the dangers of crossing the road, and even that it was an area of outstanding beauty (the plot is between an industrial estate and a quarry I believe).
If developers are allowed to build huge estates without consideration for schools, GP surgeries and other facilities what on earth is wrong with one person building a hard stand for his home on land that he already owns, and which will cause no genuine inconvenience to anyone?
As for "government policy is to encourage home ownership", well Mr Boysie Biddle is doing exactly this by laying down a permanent stand. A home is not only built from bricks is it? By doing this he is demonstrating his member of the local community, albeit many of them have not exactly put out a hand of friendship.
As for "People power", well those elected into public office cannot merely support those with the loudest voices, for what is the right thing to do is not always popular.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 9 2013, 10:47 AM
Regardless of the ethics of it, your house will devalue if it is next to a traveller's site. That is what I mean by house promotion: people don't like anything that reduces the value of their home.
Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Sep 9 2013, 11:37 AM
This particular site is only near one domestic dwelling, and as I highlighted next to things that would devalue properties anyway.
How on earth can an elected representative ever agree with "Regardless of ethics..."? Do we not rightly criticise elected members for this, I know that I certainly do.
Out of interest those that truly believe the statement "the travellers, who are the scourge of the earth...". What exactly would you do with Gypsy/Roma and other Traveller communities and individuals?
Posted by: Strafin Sep 9 2013, 11:45 AM
If it were up to me, I would have them all locked up for life as soon as they commited their third crime - (three strikes and your're out, could be used for everyone). This would stop the breeding and over time rid us of the problem. It's difficult because whilst I think they are all detrimental to our way of life and society, I don't believe they are born with that intention. The sad reality is, that the way we are all raised is generally what we consider normal, so it's hard to change, not impossible though. As for the comments about councillors not standing up for their constituents, or listening to the loudest group, I think this is exactly what they are there for, and why I think you are entirely the wrong man for the job. Day to day use your judgement but big issues with a lot of community involvement should mean the majority have the support of their councillor.
Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Sep 9 2013, 12:04 PM
Srafin,
Thank you for the frankness of your comments albeit they are totally intolerant and not something that I would ever agree with, as they are reflective of a bygone period in the history of humanity that saw 'ethnic cleansing' and 'genocide' as a means to rid society of groups that they deemed as unworthy.
As for the role of a Councillor or any other elected member their job is to represent the views of their constituents, not necessarily agree with them, and if I am informed by the Ward residents that they have an issue, I naturally take serious note and do what I can to resolve the problems, but I will not act in an illiberal and inhuman manner in order to gain the electorates support.
As a member of the public you have a right to your opinion, and I equally have a right to mine, so we will have to just disagree on my suitability. You simply do not have to vote for me in the future, but if you are a Victoria Ward member or for that matter a resident of Newbury, I will still be more than willing to represent you if needed.
Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Victoria Ward - Councillor
Posted by: JeffG Sep 9 2013, 12:58 PM
To me nomads brings to mind deserts and camels. They have to move from place to place in search of food etc. I don't see much evidence of such a need in the UK.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 9 2013, 12:58 PM
I don't know what you mean. My point is simply that people invest in their homes and anything that threatens the value of it is bound to cause a conflict. Whether it is travellers, industry, waste disposal, or whatever.
My OP was not about anti-traveller, mine was simply about sometimes it is good to see councillors stand up for their constituents, even if there is threat that means we all have to pay. They shouldn't automatically stand down because of a threat of a legal bill as such. I also think the representatives for the applicant chose antagonistic language which was regrettable.
Posted by: motormad Sep 9 2013, 01:05 PM
Gypsy/Roma and other Travellers have been part of this society for more than a millennium in one form or another, have contributed to the economic prosperity of tis country, but alas still they suffer the indignity of blatant discrimination, and this case exemplifies this.
Most do not pay taxes, they steal petrol and break into peoples gardens.
One tried to steal my motorcycle and was seen off with a pretty large knife.
Ultimately I do not see why we should protect or give any sort of rights to people who do not, by and large, pay taxes, work, whos children are jumped school to school, at the expense of school places for permanent residents in the local area, etc etc.
Posted by: dannyboy Sep 9 2013, 04:00 PM
Whislt we are at it, I think we should do something about the homeless folk living on the canal side between the Hambridge Road bridge & Greenham Lock.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 9 2013, 04:27 PM
OK, I'll go first: what do you suggest?
Posted by: dannyboy Sep 9 2013, 04:29 PM
Using some of the empty office space as accomodation.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 9 2013, 05:48 PM
Won't that need planning permission and don't the homeless have a refuge already?
Posted by: Strafin Sep 9 2013, 06:29 PM
Ruwan, just to be clear, whatever I think of you/your party/the council etc, I do believe your intentions are good.
Posted by: dannyboy Sep 9 2013, 07:01 PM
Probably & I have no idea.
Still, better than doing nothing & letting folk **** in the woods & create a health hazard.
Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 9 2013, 07:59 PM
Still, better than doing nothing & letting folk **** in the woods & create a health hazard.
Sorry, who are we talking about here? Travellers or NTC?
Posted by: dannyboy Sep 9 2013, 09:29 PM
neither
Posted by: motormad Sep 10 2013, 08:14 AM
I'll wee in a bush if I had to?
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 10 2013, 08:30 AM
As long as they are legal and are not detrimental to our way of life.
There is a limit to tolerance.
Unless you want a cheap job on your drive!! (and not a word to the tax man!)They have only themselves to blame.
Take the blinkers off Ruwan!!
Posted by: motormad Sep 10 2013, 01:43 PM
^ agree me old motorcycling chum.
Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 10 2013, 04:18 PM
The groups in the UK are supported by fervent human rights activists,although Vanessa Redgrave didn't stay long at Dale Farm.
The UK seems to have got plagued with folk who were kicked out of Eire under threat of having their caravans crushed.
The idea of loose bands of hoodlums freely moving around society is not good.
So I agree that they are not beneficial as a group to the society from which they demand much.
A group that acts in the same way on the lines of education and marriage as the Taliban.
I looked up NTCs website for planning information. I turned to Complaints first and oh boy
apart from vexatious litigants, the page spells complaints without an L. Now call me picky,
but shouldn't that be grounds for compaint?
ce
Posted by: Exhausted Sep 10 2013, 05:35 PM
I would be interested to know how this contribution has been made. Could you offer a couple of instances. Believable ones though, not including the amount of recycling they do in terms of scrap metal.
You are obviously unaware of the S106 payments that developers have to make when planning permission for a development is granted. As a NTC councillor, ask one of your councilors that serve in a dual role with WBC if you are unsure. Your post on the subject does seem to be a bit lacy just so that you can push the old chestnut about integration. My view on the multicultural society is that within that society, we have a proportion of individuals who are taking far more from society than they give and generally, the travellers fit that description.
Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 10 2013, 05:53 PM
Perish the thought that this is the same Boysie Biddle mentioned in the NWN article
posted by Andy Capp. (OP)
http://www.lccsa.org.uk/news.asp?ItemID=5984&pcid=2&cid=15&archive=yes
Time for a singalong... "We're all familyeee" and we all pay tax on our non earnings.
ce
Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 10 2013, 06:17 PM
posted by Andy Capp. (OP)
http://www.lccsa.org.uk/news.asp?ItemID=5984&pcid=2&cid=15&archive=yes
Time for a singalong... "We're all familyeee" and we all pay tax on our non earnings.
ce
Very judgemental. After all, it is a common name......
Posted by: HJD Sep 10 2013, 06:29 PM
Of course it is & also don't forget the following :-
Green Planning Solutions will argue, among other things, that Mr Biddle’s human rights have been breached.
Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 10 2013, 07:30 PM
I wonder if he is http://content7.flixster.com/question/57/03/96/5703965_std.jpg
Posted by: JeffG Sep 10 2013, 07:40 PM
Thanks for that interesting link, ce. Sort of puts a different light on things, doesn't it?
Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 10 2013, 07:49 PM
I wonder if he is related?
Is that a Widdle Woddewick?
ce.
It has to be scary being so totally vilified JeffG,
knowing that the only folk who like you are your cousins/and or wife...
Posted by: motormad Sep 10 2013, 08:35 PM
posted by Andy Capp. (OP)
http://www.lccsa.org.uk/news.asp?ItemID=5984&pcid=2&cid=15&archive=yes
Time for a singalong... "We're all familyeee" and we all pay tax on our non earnings.
ce
Very interesting...
I'm going to live in a Caravan and save £8200 a year on my tax bill!
Posted by: JeffG Sep 11 2013, 08:17 AM
Did I actually say anything against travellers?
Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Sep 11 2013, 08:28 AM
This is a private individual wishing to accommodate merely his own family, nothing more.
Posted by: motormad Sep 11 2013, 10:02 AM
A family consisting of a few hundred?
Posted by: JeffG Sep 11 2013, 11:17 AM
But did you read his family history? Would you want him living near you?
Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 11 2013, 11:48 AM
No JeffG, my own embellishment. Apologies.
And another thing..... dawn raids yesterday on addresses across the country and N.I. have led to 19 arrests
for organised thefts from museums over a few months last year. 8 have already been convicted and imprisoned.
Sure, judgementalism comes into my reading of the news item.
There is even a VW chat forum based in Market Harborough where the Biddles originated.
I am not encouraging motormad but it is quite funny 
ce.
Posted by: MontyPython Sep 11 2013, 04:25 PM
As for the role of a Councillor or any other elected member their job is to represent the views of their constituents, not necessarily agree with them, and if I am informed by the Ward residents that they have an issue, I naturally take serious note and do what I can to resolve the problems, but I will not act in an illiberal and inhuman manner in order to gain the electorates support.
...
Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Victoria Ward - Councillor
So are you saying if the Victoria Ward electorate were against this pitch you would vote against it (were it in NTC's power) or that you would vote for what you thought was right?
Posted by: Exhausted Sep 11 2013, 04:41 PM
I wasn't commenting on the rights or wrongs of this person's application.
You said
If developers are allowed to build huge estates without consideration for schools, GP surgeries and other facilities ......
My point to you was that you are suggesting that because developers don't consider schools etc then the guy should be allowed to do what he wants and I am saying to you that is a false premise and therefore as a councillor you should not be drawing that incorrect comparison. Developers contribute big time to WBC's S106 requirement.
As a 'for instance', there is a proposal and planning application from David Wilson Homes to develop the old Travis Perkins site in Mill Lane.
The application covers 37 homes and some commercial units. Not very big but this is what WBC and others are asking for in S106 payments from the developer..
Affordable Housing—11 units out of 37 proposed
Highways –s278 works £1,500
Public open space--£13,261.
Adult Social Care--£22,437
Libraries --£7,080
Education--£68,070.
Waste—£1648
Public rights of way--£5,000
Thames Valley Police—£5850
Fire and Rescue--£619
Does that clarify the position for you.
And by the way, this isn't an individual trying to accommodate his family and nothing else. He is looking to set up a caravan pitch. Perhaps he has an extended family but this I doubt.
Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 11 2013, 06:37 PM
The history of planning grief is well populated with examples of apparently innocuous applications that turn out/develop into something totally different to the initial proposals......
Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Sep 12 2013, 09:32 AM
This brings up an interesting concept for localism. Perhaps people should not be able to move into any property until they have been interviewed and approved by the local residents and CRB checks have been undertaken and passed?
I am sure that some within less than liberal political party's would like this, but this is not what I would wish.
On the S106 issues, the "caravan pitch" that you mentioned is for Mr Biddle and his family, not for a large development. It is akin to someone building a house with perhaps an annex etc.
Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Sep 12 2013, 09:47 AM
I am hardly going to answer a hypothetical question with a definitive answer am I?
Each case has to be looked at separately taking into account all factors, so sorry this is an answer I cannot really answer. I do believe that being an elected member is not about merely acquiescing to those that shout the loudest.
Posted by: motormad Sep 12 2013, 11:03 AM
I am sure that some within less than liberal political party's would like this, but this is not what I would wish.
On the S106 issues, the "caravan pitch" that you mentioned is for Mr Biddle and his family, not for a large development. It is akin to someone building a house with perhaps an annex etc.
Isn't that all hypothetical, yet you answer that with a definitive answer...
The simple fact you are in a position to buy a house generally means you are going to be more respectful than if you could up and leave, conveniently forgetting to take all of your rubbish and un-wanted items with you, every 5-6 days.
To compare living in a house as a member of a community and gypsies living in their caravans on private land... completely ruddy different.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 12 2013, 11:40 AM
I have to go back to my original comment. Were are 'encouraged' to buy our own property. While this is the case and the value of the property is effected by the condition that the house is situated, neighbours will object to anything that will adversely effect their house price.
I suppose the argument here is that people are entitled, within reason, to have a family life, so the council have little grounds for objection, unless they can prove the application breaches current rules and regulations, so the inference is that the councillors are being dishonest with their objection. In other words, perhaps people might believe that the councillors and locals are being racist?
Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 12 2013, 12:37 PM
Potential neighbours have a right to a family life free from predation..(Latin, marauding,plundering.)
Although travel can be involved in hunter gathering, sh+++ing on your now permanent doorstep might not be wise.
So that could be a plus point for the applicant 
ce.
Posted by: dannyboy Sep 12 2013, 03:50 PM
I was under the impression that such pitches stopped travellers moving on ( or being moved on ) every few days.
Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 12 2013, 04:49 PM
I think I was agreeing that theoretically the caravan home was permanently moored.
With the normal use of a vehicle to move around.
That does sound like a more responsible designation of the pitch as home ground.
And perhaps gas canisters will be properly disposed of along with nappies,mattresses,fridges when they are no longer needed.
Still,would anyone buy a used grannie from Boysie Biddle?
ce
Posted by: dannyboy Sep 12 2013, 05:25 PM
With the normal use of a vehicle to move around.
That does sound like a more responsible designation of the pitch as home ground.
And perhaps gas canisters will be properly disposed of along with nappies,mattresses,fridges when they are no longer needed.
Still,would anyone buy a used grannie from Boysie Biddle?
ce
It is a case of tit for tat. Travellers are moved on against their wishes, so they leave a mess.
Posted by: Ron Sep 12 2013, 06:58 PM
Each case has to be looked at separately taking into account all factors, so sorry this is an answer I cannot really answer. I do believe that being an elected member is not about merely acquiescing to those that shout the loudest.
Sounds like a typical politician answer!!
Posted by: Strafin Sep 12 2013, 09:32 PM
Would a permanent pitch stop the criminal activity, and lead to an honest lifestyle where taxes are paid? No. Why do we have councillors? To act on our behalf and in our interests over matters such as these, so the council have every right to object. Which they have. I see nothing wrong so far in the decision process.
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 12 2013, 09:51 PM
If they have a permanent pitch and do not move on then not really "travellers"are they?
Posted by: dannyboy Sep 13 2013, 01:06 AM
I guess it depends if you think someone born in Wales but who does not live there is Welsh or not.
Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Sep 13 2013, 08:56 AM
This is a bit of an assumption is it not that allowing a Traveller to establish a fixed home is going to result in raised levels of crime?
The Councillors objections did not include their belief that crime would rise as a result of supporting the planning application.
Posted by: motormad Sep 13 2013, 10:47 AM
This man is so right.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 13 2013, 12:30 PM
The argument goes that planning permission is inevitable with regards to the objections, so one has to decide whether the councillor's objections are likely to put the applicant off; if not, then the constituent's best interest is to save the cost to the taxpayer (e.g. constituent) of losing an appeal by endorsing the application, is it not?
Posted by: Strafin Sep 13 2013, 03:21 PM
I guess its a bit "catch 22" in that respect, for me personally I would want then to fight this particular case, but we know the details so its easy to say that. However I do believe that they waste so much anyway, the saving made by not fighting is negligible by comparison.
Posted by: Exhausted Sep 13 2013, 04:54 PM
It was you who brought developers into the thread and suggested that developers didn't contribute anything therefore it was OK for this person to be allowed planning permission as he was applying for a family home. This is far from the truth and you know it. If he just wanted planning permission for a normal dwelling and it ticked the appropriate boxes then it would have been granted without any adverse publicity.
Let me remind you again what you said.....
I suspect that there is an amount of travellerphobia involved which may or may not be justified but I suspect that the councillors at the planning meeting had justification for the refusal even going against the advice of the planning officers. Problem is that there are lots of legal eagles desperate to get their hands on some lovely legal fees which will be out of all proportion to the work they do.
Posted by: dannyboy Sep 13 2013, 05:47 PM
I read it to mean the RUP was having a dig at the planners - not the developers.
Planners agree to large developmets without provision for GP surgeries and other facilities. Developers pay in to the S106 pot, but that does not mean that facilities are actually built.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 13 2013, 06:01 PM
That was the gist of my OP. Now I have had time to absorb more information I'm not quite so sure. These days, one is not allowed to discriminate against travellers. I would imagine the objections are trumped up and the real concern is the effect it might have on neighbours who fear 'mission creep', notwithstanding the possible issue with the image of a caravan stuck in a field somewhere.
I know the gossip in the area is that this application might be a 'bridgehead' for more, and perhaps the councillors are only using what objections they can in an attempt to block the development, that are legal.
Confidentially, isn't there, or wasn't there a mobile home site in the Chieveley area?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 15 2013, 04:16 PM
As far as I can see the council's decision was discriminatory and that shouldn't be tolerated.
Planning permission should be applicant-neutral - it's the development that the council is deciding upon, not the lifestyle, ethnicity or personal habits of the applicant, and it's appalling that an applicant for planning permission should be publicly vilified in these terms.
I've said so before, and this just reinforces the view: planning applications shouldn't be decided by unqualified elected councillors, planning permission should be decided exclusively by professional town planners with reference to local and national planning policy. If the proposed development is sustainable and complies with the development plan then it gets approved, and refusals should be for objective failures to meet the requirements of the development plan and have nothing to do with the personal credentials of the applicant.
There is still a role for localism in that process because councils can put together the development plan, though I suspect there would still be a need for central government to moderate the plans so that the broader public interest was served and not just the personal interests of the vocal locals.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 15 2013, 05:30 PM
I'm not sure they are any more credible or democratic than what we have now. For example, the council and the planners endorsed the abortion that is Parkway and the vandalism that has caused.
Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 15 2013, 05:44 PM
Planning permission should be applicant-neutral - it's the development that the council is deciding upon, not the lifestyle, ethnicity or personal habits of the applicant, and it's appalling that an applicant for planning permission should be publicly vilified in these terms.
I've said so before, and this just reinforces the view: planning applications shouldn't be decided by unqualified elected councillors, planning permission should be decided exclusively by professional town planners with reference to local and national planning policy. If the proposed development is sustainable and complies with the development plan then it gets approved, and refusals should be for objective failures to meet the requirements of the development plan and have nothing to do with the personal credentials of the applicant.
There is still a role for localism in that process because councils can put together the development plan, though I suspect there would still be a need for central government to moderate the plans so that the broader public interest was served and not just the personal interests of the vocal locals.
Not legally possible. The Officers advise, the Councillors decide.
Be wary what you wish for
Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 15 2013, 06:00 PM
Town Planners are trained professionals and I'd trust the profession to decide planning applications against objective standards and guidance.
The more challenging aspect is deciding on the standards, and here I think we'd do well to leave it mostly to town planners and architects to sketch out the guidance with our elected representatives contributing relatively little - and in general they have little to add. Where the local council might possibly have a role is in engaging at the parish level to understand the needs and aspirations of the local community - so a bit of direct democracy really.
But once we've decided democratically on the policy it seems anomalous to me to let unqualified politicians actually decide the applications.
As it happens I actually quite like Parkway - it's clean and safe and very much better than what was there before - but I suspect that's for another thread.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 15 2013, 06:10 PM
Be wary what you wish for
Perfectly possible. A council is empowered by the Local Government Act 1972 to delegate any of its functions to its officers.
But I have in mind to take the town planning function away from local government altogether and put it in a national agency. I'd do the same with social services, public housing, public health, trading standards, education, waste, transport - pretty much everything that WBC does, just leaving it leisure really, and that could probably be done better at the parish level. I just don't see that local government is delivering the efficiency and local accountability that it should because most of the functions of local government would be done better by professionals without any local politics involvement. Where the national agencies need local policy then the parishes can provide that by engaging at the most local level.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 15 2013, 07:06 PM
Like I said, being professional doesn't stop eye-soars like cinema, Kennet Shopping, or Greenham getting approval for mega-depots.
And then ignored, for the sake of district or national aspirations.
So long as councillors act as the voice of their constituents, I don't see it as anomalous .
That may or may not be true, but at what a price for desperately needed flats to remain empty, and a park that has been damaged.
Posted by: user23 Sep 15 2013, 07:28 PM
Be wary what you wish for
Posted by: MontyPython Sep 15 2013, 08:37 PM
But hopefully not the incompetents in Market Street!
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)