Dale Farm Cleared Tomorrow?

PermaBanned said:
But they have applied for planning permission numerous times, yes?
Click to expand...

Yup and it got treated appropriately...

Planning committees get angry when people retroactively apply for permission for rather normal houses that fit in with the local area and that no one has objected to etc...

Retroactively applying for a complete eyesore of a development that local residents strongly object to is likely to get denied...
 
Castiel said:
And it was denied, yet they decided to build anyway contrary to the law.

They should be removed.
Click to expand...

Curious, i thought conservatives generally wanted for far laxer planning permission guidelines, if not to do away with them altogether. So is it simply a case of 'which principle do i care more about, is it the "hating gypsies just because" one or is it the "i get to fill out less forms when i want my conservatory put in" one?'
 
PermaBanned said:
Curious, i thought conservatives generally wanted for far laxer planning permission guidelines, if not to do away with them altogether. So is it simply a case of 'which principle do i care more about, is it the "hating gypsies just because" one or is it the "i get to fill out less forms when i want my conservatory put in" one?'
Click to expand...

If you are curious about what the Conservatives are going to do with the planning laws I suggest you look at the Government website for information.

As for hating Gypsies, are these not Travellers rather than Gypsies? and I am quite sure the Conservative do not have a policy of hating Gypsies, or Travellers for that matter.

And AFAIK conservatories don't need planning permission as long as they are within certain specifications.
 
Castiel said:
If you are curious about what the Conservatives are going to do with the planning laws I suggest you look at the Government website for information.

As for hating Gypsies, are these not Travellers rather than Gypsies? and I am quite sure the Conservative do not have a policy of hating Gypsies, or Travellers for that matter.

And AFAIK conservatories don't need planning permission as long as they are within certain specifications.
Click to expand...

Other people's words, not mine.

I haven't seen any permanent structures, never mind any large enough to require planning permission. Are they basically trying to get them on the concrete thing?
 
My major problem with this is that they do not provide them with some sort of alternative.

It makes me laugh that human rights laws make it illegal for us to deport illegal immigrants back to countries where they may force torture, and makes it illegal for us to discharge patients from hospital to be sent to a country that doesnt have the medical facilities we do.

But when it comes to kicking gypsies out of their homes, no problems at all.

And to think we pored scorn on the Chinese for bulldozing people's houses to build the facilities for the Olympics. We're no better.
 
Al Vallario said:
It's a pretty clear-cut case. The travellers bought land without planning permission, well aware planning permission wouldn't be granted for it. They built on the land without permission, and failed to gain retrospective permission.

No planning permission = eviction

Don't quite see where all the 'ethnic cleansing' nonsense comes into this? :confused:
Click to expand...

because the planning permission is a convenient scapegoat to evict them.

They are unpopular for all the reasons people have posted above, and this is just a technicality to get them out.

If this wasn't about evicting them, the local council should have agreed some kind of way they could be granted planning permission. They do after all, have planning permission for the other half of the settlement.

But they weren't interested in reaching a deal, they wanted them out.
 
PermaBanned said:
Other people's words, not mine.

I haven't seen any permanent structures, never mind any large enough to require planning permission. Are they basically trying to get them on the concrete thing?
Click to expand...

They have set up permanent pitches on the site against planning laws and the pitches that they set up are contrary to the planning restrictions due the area being a green belt conservation area. Whether they own the land or not doesn't give then the right to occupy it in such a way due to restrictions placed on that land. Restrictions that they would have been aware of at the time of purchase.

They should be removed, it is not about racism, hatred or discrimination. It is about a group of people who have broken restrictions they had prior knowledge of and have ignore repeated requests to desist and return the land in question to it's original use. Since the site began to expand 10 years ago the travellers on the site have been offered various options and help to find a suitable legal plot, they have refused all such options and help.

This is a last resort, but one that the travellers have bought upon themselves.
 
Castiel said:
They have set up permanent pitches on the site against planning laws and the pitches that they set up are contrary to the planning restrictions due the area being a green belt conservation area. Whether they own the land or not doesn't give then the right to occupy it in such a way due to restrictions placed on that land. Restrictions that they would have been aware of at the time of purchase.

They should be removed, it is not about racism, hatred or discrimination. It is about a group of people who have broken restrictions they had prior knowledge of and have ignore repeated requests to desist and return the land in question to it's original use. Since the site began to expand 10 years ago the travellers on the site have been offered various options and help to find a suitable legal plot, they have refused all such options and help.

This is a last resort, but one that the traveller have bought upon themselves.
Click to expand...

A green belt conservation area that had been covered in a hard surface for decades before they owned it, and had been used by the council for storage of scrap cars?

They bought it, based on what the previous owner said, under the impression that it was brown belt land.
 
MrLOL said:
My major problem with this is that they do not provide them with some sort of alternative.
.
Click to expand...

For a decade options and alternatives have been offered, including other sites and unused pitches in the legal site at dale farm. All have been rebuffed or ignored. It is not as if this is something that has just happened or a decision that was taken arbitrarily.
 
PermaBanned said:
A green belt conservation area that had been covered in a hard surface for decades before they owned it, and had been used by the council for storage of scrap cars?

They bought it, based on what the previous owner said, under the impression that it was brown belt land.
Click to expand...

Then they should have made the relevant legal and planning searches that anyone makes when buying land.

Regardless of this, they have been offered alternative sites and in some cases pitches in the legal site at Dale Farm.

They were all refused or ignored. The simple fact is that they sought to bypass and circumvent the planning laws by using the retrospective regulations, they failed.

They should now move on. They are not above the law.
 
PermaBanned said:
Not if that impression was the correct one, which is a possibility.
Click to expand...

They should have had a survey and legal search done on the land. That would have turned up the restrictions placed on the land.

They were foolish for not doing so, in the same way that someone who buys a house without doing the similar would be foolish for buying blind.

The reality is that they have had plenty of notice, alternatives and offers of help from the local council and the surrounding councils to re-home them, the legal site that is at Dale Farm is considered of sufficient size for the area and any extension of that deemed illegal.

It is not different for anyone else, each of us is restricted by the planning laws which are there for good reason, just how large should a traveller site get, and at what point does it become a township or a ghetto which would require significant resources and infrastructure to maintain health and sanitation.

This is not discrimination, it is simply a group of people who think the law should not apply to them and are now upset when they find it does.
 
Perhaps they all should have converted to Islam - I'm sure the authorities would then have been more sympathetic to their cause!;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom