Dale Farm Cleared Tomorrow?

Keyser Soze · 19 Sep 2011 at 21:51

Dale Farm: Travellers win injunction delaying eviction

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14978942

not sure if posted.

PermaBanned · 19 Sep 2011 at 21:57

Dolph said:
Well, apart from the fact I'm not a feral moron like the vast majority of rent-a-protestor

Ah, you mean you're just a soulless sheep with nothing worth standing up for?

I went over the line, didn't i?

Defcon5 · 19 Sep 2011 at 21:59

I bet the ***** who superglued themselves to the caravans are feeling a little silly now its being delayed...

Fr0dders · 19 Sep 2011 at 22:15

Stretch said:
I've lived close to a traveller camp and whilst I'm not going to over exaggerate (I didn't get my house broken into, property vandalized, personally assaulted (although it did come close) etc) it did frequently make life extremely unpleasant.

The local residents to this settlement didn't seem to have any complaints.

There have been numerous stats bounded around over the years, that crime has not risen, they send their children to school etc..

As communities of travellers / gypsies / ****** go, they seem a well behaved bunch.

if the local press was full of stories of them living in squalor, crime rates being 100 % higher than average in the local area etc.. i would have no sympathy for them. But that doesnt appear to be the case here.

The posters on here flying accusations around without even realising that they own the land just highlights the ignorance the vast majority of the English people have.

Hatter The Mad · 19 Sep 2011 at 22:18

MrLOL said:
The local residents to this settlement didn't seem to have any complaints.

Are you sure about that? Over the last few weeks I've seen oodles of them interviewed, and they do have problems. One of them had such a problem that he went to set fire to a building that was encroaching on his fence ('the last straw') during the Sky interview (he was arrested, of course).

LabR@t · 19 Sep 2011 at 22:18

if they are travelers why don't they f'ing do some traveling then I hear Siberia is nice this time of year.

Dolph · 19 Sep 2011 at 22:19

MrLOL said:
The local residents to this settlement didn't seem to have any complaints.

There have been numerous stats bounded around over the years, that crime has not risen, they send their children to school etc..

As communities of travellers / gypsies / ****** go, they seem a well behaved bunch.

if the local press was full of stories of them living in squalor, crime rates being 100 % higher than average in the local area etc.. i would have no sympathy for them. But that doesnt appear to be the case here.

The posters on here flying accusations around without even realising that they own the land just highlights the ignorance the vast majority of the English people have.

The issue is one of planning law. As I said this morning in the thread, planning laws may be stupid, obstructive and generally unnecessary, but they also apply to everyone.

Either we permit their behaviour and abandon any pretence of managing building the UK (which I wouldn't actually have too much problem with), or we enforce the law as it is equally for everyone.

Fr0dders · 19 Sep 2011 at 22:20

Hatter The Mad said:
Are you sure about that? Over the last few weeks I've seen oodles of them interviewed, and they do have problems. One of them had such a problem that he went to set fire to a building that was encroaching on his fence ('the last straw') during the Sky interview (he was arrested, of course).

Sky news were out in force today and most of the people they spoke to were concerned more about the wasting of £18 million of public cash, than the gypsies.

*edit*

On another note, this is worth a read :

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/09/19/can-we-rationalise-the-dale-farm-eviction/

[TW]Fox · 19 Sep 2011 at 22:21

MrLOL said:
Sky news were out in force today and most of the people they spoke to were concerned more about the wasting of £18 million of public cash, than the gypsies.

So you get your way and they can stay. What do you think the potential effcts on planning law this would have are?

What if next door fancies building a block of flats in his garden? Happy about that?

LOAM · 19 Sep 2011 at 22:22

From a planning pov this latest court injunction from a planning pov simply can't be upheld. It's greenbelt land with no permission on the half in question. If they let them stay the legal precedent and planning ramifications are huge.

Fr0dders · 19 Sep 2011 at 22:24

Dolph said:
The issue is one of planning law. As I said this morning in the thread, planning laws may be stupid, obstructive and generally unnecessary, but they also apply to everyone.

Either we permit their behaviour and abandon any pretence of managing building the UK (which I wouldn't actually have too much problem with), or we enforce the law as it is equally for everyone.

I still don't see why the caravans need removing if this is purely about planning permission.

If this is purely about the structures errected without permission, why not only demolish the offending buildings (of which there are only a few)

If this is about planning for change of use, how can permission for change of use be given to only half the land ?

[TW]Fox · 19 Sep 2011 at 22:26

Is this the bit where you dispute the law, MrLOL?

If so, I'm out.

Dolph · 19 Sep 2011 at 22:28

MrLOL said:
I still don't see why the caravans need removing if this is purely about planning permission.

You need permission for a permanent caravan site.

If this is purely about the structures errected without permission, why not only demolish the offending buildings (of which there are only a few)

Because you need permission for a permanent caravan site

If this is about planning for change of use, how can permission for change of use be given to only half the land ?

Because the land was originally two sites with two different uses?

Turambar · 19 Sep 2011 at 22:28

MrLOL said:
I still don't see why the caravans need removing if this is purely about planning permission.

If this is purely about the structures errected without permission, why not only demolish the offending buildings (of which there are only a few)

If this is about planning for change of use, how can permission for change of use be given to only half the land ?

You still need planning permission to site a Caravan or other temporary structure such as a Portacabin if it is intended to be kept there for significant periods of time.

Dolph · 19 Sep 2011 at 22:29

MrLOL said:
Sky news were out in force today and most of the people they spoke to were concerned more about the wasting of £18 million of public cash, than the gypsies.

This is an argument for much quicker legal resolution rather than an argument not to bother.

Fr0dders · 19 Sep 2011 at 22:30

[TW]Fox;20107274 said:
So you get your way and they can stay. What do you think the potential effcts on planning law this would have are?

What if next door fancies building a block of flats in his garden? Happy about that?

I'm actually pro house building.

The current proposed changes to the planning system IMO are a good one. Too long have the NIMBY brigade stiffled our development over concerns about nothing.

Too long have self builders had their permission blocked by local residents who objected to the development without ever even looking at the details of what they were objecting too. One couple i read about actually went and knocked on the doors of local residents and asked them why they objected. They showed them the plans and explained that all they wanted to do was build a family home in the village.

2nd time round, they got permission.

And this characterizes our current planning system. Given the current shortage of affordable housing, if they wanted to build a block of flats in the industrial units over the road (there is a group of three in a little courtyard) as was proposed recently i wouldn't have any ojbections.

But we had no end of letters put through our door from people who very much did object to it. For seemingly no apparent reason.

Dolph said:
Because the land was originally two sites with two different uses?

I hadn't read anywhere it was originally two sites. Hence me asking why change of use was approved for one half and not the other.

Dolph · 19 Sep 2011 at 22:32

MrLOL said:
I'm actually pro house building.

The current proposed changes to the planning system IMO are a good one. Too long have the NIMBY brigade stiffled our development over concerns about nothing.

Too long have self builders had their permission blocked by local residents who objected to the development without ever even looking at the details of what they were objecting too. One couple i read about actually went and knocked on the doors of local residents and asked them why they objected. They showed them the plans and explained that all they wanted to do was build a family home in the village.

2nd time round, they got permission.

And this characterizes our current planning system. Given the current shortage of affordable housing, if they wanted to build a block of flats in the industrial units over the road (there is a group of three in a little courtyard) as was proposed recently i wouldn't have any ojbections.

But we had no end of letters put through our door from people who very much did object to it. For seemingly no apparent reason.

I'm pro the changes to the current planning setup too, it's a horrendous mess that distorts land values, gives undue weight to complaints and generally just seems to be a jobs club, however that doesn't mean that repeated rejections of permission can or should be ignored, and it certainly doesn't mean we should give in to stubbornness, violence or intimidation in the process.

LOAM · 19 Sep 2011 at 22:34

MrLOL said:
If this is about planning for change of use, how can permission for change of use be given to only half the land ?

Because the original application either didn't request change of use or a subsequent one was refused. It's designated greenbelt land and is thus reserved for wild, undeveloped or agricultural land. As pointed out planning law can be insanely annoying and at times purile but its there to protect amenity space and the countyside.

You can't change the rules for one group of people without opening the flood gates of development in greenbelt land.

Fr0dders · 19 Sep 2011 at 22:35

LOAM said:
Because the original application either didn't request change of use or a subsequent one was refused. It's designated greenbelt land and is thus reserved for wild, undeveloped or agricultural land. As pointed out planning law can be insanely annoying and at times purile but its there to protect amenity space and the countyside.

You can't change the rules for one group of people without opening the flood gates of development in greenbelt land.

well that's wrong for a start ?

Dolph has just explained above that it was originally two sites and one has planning permission, one doesn't.