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/travell...axpayers-pocket

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.

Oh oh!
Here we go again..................the traveller / anti traveller argument!
Cue Blue Moon Phoenix or whatever her name is!!!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

OK, I'll go first: what do you suggest?

Using some of the empty office space as accomodation.

Won't that need planning permission and don't the homeless have a refuge already?

Ruwan, just to be clear, whatever I think of you/your party/the council etc, I do believe your intentions are good.

Probably & I have no idea.

Still, better than doing nothing & letting folk **** in the woods & create a health hazard.

Sorry, who are we talking about here? Travellers or NTC?

neither

I'll wee in a bush if I had to?

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!!

^ agree me old motorcycling chum.

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

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.

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=59...amp;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......

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.

I wonder if he is related?

Thanks for that interesting link, ce. Sort of puts a different light on things, doesn't it?

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...

Very interesting...

I'm going to live in a Caravan and save £8200 a year on my tax bill!

Did I actually say anything against travellers?

This is a private individual wishing to accommodate merely his own family, nothing more.

A family consisting of a few hundred?

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

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.

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 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.

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......

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

Sounds like a typical politician answer!!

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.