Travellers site appeal could hit taxpayers’ pocket Options

[Ruwan Uduwerage-...]

But did you read his family history? Would you want him living near you?

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.

[Ruwan Uduwerage-...]

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?

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.

[motormad]

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.

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.

[Andy Capp]

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 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?

[Nothing Much]

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.

[dannyboy]

I was under the impression that such pitches stopped travellers moving on ( or being moved on ) every few days.

[Nothing Much]

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

[dannyboy]

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

It is a case of tit for tat. Travellers are moved on against their wishes, so they leave a mess.

[Ron]

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.

Sounds like a typical politician answer!!

[Strafin]

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.

[Biker1]

I was under the impression that such pitches stopped travellers moving on ( or being moved on ) every few days.

If they have a permanent pitch and do not move on then not really "travellers"are they?

[dannyboy]

If they have a permanent pitch and do not move on then not really "travellers"are they?

I guess it depends if you think someone born in Wales but who does not live there is Welsh or not.

[Ruwan Uduwerage-...]

Would a permanent pitch stop the criminal activity

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.

[motormad]

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.

This man is so right.

[Andy Capp]

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.

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?

[Strafin]

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.

[Exhausted]

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.

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.....

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?

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.

[dannyboy]

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.

[Andy Capp]

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.

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?

[Simon Kirby]

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.