IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Councillors reject ‘travellers’ site’ plans despite warnings
Andy Capp
post Nov 8 2012, 10:04 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



A difficult one this and gives an illustration of a difficult situation for councillors. Planners recommended approval for the site and the applicant agent stated they have a 90% success appeals record.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/council...espite-warnings
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 8 2012, 10:37 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



I think we should all support our Councillors who are acting with the wholehearted support of their electorate against such parties uttering threats. Essentially blackmail - one for Richard Benyon?


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 8 2012, 10:42 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 8 2012, 10:37 PM) *
I think we should all support our Councillors who are acting with the wholehearted support of their electorate against such parties uttering threats. Essentially blackmail - one for Richard Benyon?

It wasn't a threat; more a warning. At the end of the day, the council officers claim that there isn't a flood risk, but the councillors are acting on behalf of their constituents. However, it looks like that they will have a difficult job defending the objections which will mean the tax payer footing the bill.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Nov 8 2012, 11:00 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,833
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE
Nevertheless members unanimously voted to refuse the application on the ground of flood risk, the argument that alternative pitches exist and the negative impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and immediate neighbours and the fact it was not socially, environmentally or economically sustainable.

This would be the AONB with the Waste Recycling Centre within a stone's throw and the industrial units and warehouses on the other side of the fence.

For an AONB it's a bit of an eyesore.... Can't keep trotting out that as an excuse for everything Councillors don't agree with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Nov 9 2012, 07:23 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



The Officers have interpreted Planning Guidelines and established WBC policy/precedent. Based on that the recommendation was to approve. Totally proper that Officers advise Members.
The Members have taken the decision, apparently based on feedback from residents and their own interpretation of matters. Even if there are other grotty developments in the vicinity they are entitled to say 'enough'.
Now an Inspector will look at the matter and make a decision.

If the Councillors stand up for residents they are wasting public money, if they roll over they are puppies of the developers.......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 9 2012, 08:05 AM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



Of course, democracy costs money. However, we apparently employ a legal team don't we? So arguably it won't be as much for us as for them. They'll also have to wait and are inconvenienced because the their steamroller has been stopped.

What they have said means hold our process in contempt. In other words, to them there was no point in having to go before the committee in the first place. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the application itself - this contempt should be dealt with and dealt with hard.

As to the committee's apparent lack of power, that must be wasting the valuable time and effort of our elected representatives, the Councillors. Therefore, if I had been elected, ideally with the support of my fellow members (vis my party) I would refuse to serve / resign. That would be the honourable way forward.

This lack of power has been a source of vociferous complaint by Councillors over the past few years. Then they should do something about it!

Rolling over is not the answer; no matter the cost.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 9 2012, 11:06 AM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 9 2012, 08:05 AM) *
Rolling over is not the answer; no matter the cost.

That fine if you eventually win. Going to court can also mean losing powers to negotiate, so you end up losing the case and having a worse development than you might have had.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 9 2012, 12:56 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 9 2012, 11:06 AM) *
That fine if you eventually win. Going to court can also mean losing powers to negotiate, so you end up losing the case and having a worse development than you might have had.


On a case by case basis, but we need to put the whole thing right. There is nothing wrong with an appeals procedure, we live in a democracy, however, cost considerations shouldn't hinder principle.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 9 2012, 01:09 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 9 2012, 12:56 PM) *
On a case by case basis, but we need to put the whole thing right. There is nothing wrong with an appeals procedure, we live in a democracy, however, cost considerations shouldn't hinder principle.

Philosophically I agree; however, from a practical point of view, one has to evaluate whether the objection can produce the best outcome. Councillors will also have to consider whether they are speaking for a vocal minority, or the electorate at large. You also have to consider whether you can afford to lose.

The 'travellers' issue is a real problem for many, on both sides of the fence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Adrian Hollister
post Nov 9 2012, 01:46 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 299
Joined: 6-January 10
Member No.: 613



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 9 2012, 01:09 PM) *
Philosophically I agree; however, from a practical point of view, one has to evaluate whether the objection can produce the best outcome. Councillors will also have to consider whether they are speaking for a vocal minority, or the electorate at large. You also have to consider whether you can afford to lose.

The 'travellers' issue is a real problem for many, on both sides of the fence.

I can't helping thinking that Councillors are just grabbing headlines and not doing what is best for the community as a whole. I'm sure these will be the same councillors complaining when travellers illegally park up somewhere cos the facilities aren't available.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penelope
post Nov 9 2012, 02:34 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 865
Joined: 8-December 11
From: Not Here anymore!
Member No.: 8,392



I've never understood why 'travelers' need a permanent pitch.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Nov 9 2012, 05:04 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Penelope @ Nov 9 2012, 02:34 PM) *
I've never understood why 'travelers' need a permanent pitch.


If I had a caravan/mobile home, which I don't, and wanted to go on holiday would I expect the local authority to supply me with a place to park it for the duration? Would I have to purchase a site to park it on? Or would I join the caravan club and use and pay for one of their sites or other private sites dotted around the countryfor the duration? Thoughts?


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Nov 9 2012, 05:52 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Adrian Hollister @ Nov 9 2012, 01:46 PM) *
I can't helping thinking that Councillors are just grabbing headlines and not doing what is best for the community as a whole. I'm sure these will be the same councillors complaining when travellers illegally park up somewhere cos the facilities aren't available.



I suspect the Councillors are doing what is best for the community as a whole. The whole West Berks community. Travellers, by definition, are only transient and distance themselves (too often) form participating in community activity.

Maybe there could be a place for them in the Chieveley/Beedon locality?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penelope
post Nov 9 2012, 07:03 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 865
Joined: 8-December 11
From: Not Here anymore!
Member No.: 8,392



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Nov 9 2012, 05:52 PM) *
I suspect the Councillors are doing what is best for the community as a whole. The whole West Berks community. Travellers, by definition, are only transient and distance themselves (too often) form participating in community activity.

Maybe there could be a place for them in the Chieveley/Beedon locality?


Brightwaltons nice this time of year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Nov 9 2012, 07:56 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,833
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



There's that place they were thinking of building that incinerator plant.. That's not being used, now that the campaigners have won..... oh where is it now....

A nice travellers encampment would fit in nicely. No big ugly chimneys belching out tonnes of toxics. No massive warehouse buildings destroying the skyline. Just a few low level transient properties. All fairly innocuous stuff..

SAY 'YES' TO THE CHIEVELEY FARM TRAVELLER'S REST!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penelope
post Nov 9 2012, 08:08 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 865
Joined: 8-December 11
From: Not Here anymore!
Member No.: 8,392



And think of the boost to the local economy, gypsy granny whittling clothes pegs from the hedgerow, and growing their own Lucky heather to sell door to door.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Adrian Hollister
post Nov 10 2012, 09:38 AM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 299
Joined: 6-January 10
Member No.: 613



QUOTE (Penelope @ Nov 9 2012, 08:08 PM) *
And think of the boost to the local economy, gypsy granny whittling clothes pegs from the hedgerow, and growing their own Lucky heather to sell door to door.

And 'Penelopes' solution to how to help the travelling community is?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Nov 10 2012, 10:30 AM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Penelope @ Nov 9 2012, 02:34 PM) *
I've never understood why 'travelers' need a permanent pitch.

I'd guess there are two reasons:

1. Travelling folk are transient but not moving every day - they go from place to place following work/business opportunities (ok a bit optimisitic but that's the idea). So they need somewhere to be while they pick the fruit, sell the heather, trawl for scrap, tarmac drives, (add your stereotype here), etc. So permanent temporary pitches are needed now we have privatised all the common areas they used to have the right to use.

2. Modern society has problems with travellers so it would be nice if they would stop this inconvenient wandering and settle down. To encourage them to do this why not provide them with permanent pitches where the caravan can be parked, their children can go to school so in a decade or two the children will be looking for houses rather than caravans.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 10 2012, 11:05 AM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Adrian Hollister @ Nov 10 2012, 09:38 AM) *
And 'Penelopes' solution to how to help the travelling community is?

I don't think there is an immediate solution. You have two mutually exclusive societies. I do think though that both groups need to raise their game. The criticism of travellers is not without foundation, although I do appreciate they are in a rather no-win situation and their 'life-style' doesn't easily fit in modern Britain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penelope
post Nov 10 2012, 12:07 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 865
Joined: 8-December 11
From: Not Here anymore!
Member No.: 8,392



One solution would be to pass legislation that forced all those who promote the concept that the travelers are a special group with separate ethnicity deserving of being luvvied up must give over part of their own property to provide a fixed pitch. Simple, those that defend their "rights" can put their property where their mouth is, never happen though, due to "weaselism".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th November 2021 - 01:52 AM