To think that rights/wrongs aside, a council needing to make £300m cuts should focus it's funds somewhere other than evicting gypsies?

[Blubell]

I know there are massive fors and againsts in the Dale Farm evictions, and I don't want to start a big travellers debate, but in this time of austerity measures, and the fact that Essex council needs to cut £300m in 3 years, is evicting the site now, when it's a case that has been going on for 10 years really the best way to spend the little cash they have? Its been reported it's going to cost the council £18m to return the site - which used to be a scrapyard so hardly a place of outstanding beauty - back to greenbelt, how many carers, libraries etc will be lost to fund that? Just a thought.......

Dead right StickyGhost. This always comes up because the Nazis regarded Roma as they regarded Jews. But if the worse the Nazis had ever done to Roma or to Jews was to apply the same laws to them as to "Aryans" . . . well, let's leave it there.

"I read this morning that 103 of the 106 pupils at the primary school near the site are travellers children. What will happen to that school if the travellers
are moved on?" presumably the locals will send their children back there once they no longer feel intimidated by the traveller population.

It's worth remembering that the reason why it's taken so long is because of appeals etc. It's right that they be evicted now otherwise all the court action will have been for nothing.

I have no sympathy for them.

natation Personally I'm all for inclusion however a lot of people do not want their children mixing with travellers.

Again, my perception, I would say travellers have the biggest problem of any minority group with discrimination and sterotyping. Mind you the discrimination is a two way thing. Listen to any travellers spokesperson on the telly and that becomes abundently clear.

I would be interested, if anyone is lurking, to know what the perception of travellers is in Eire. Just a curiosity thing on my part.

'I read this morning that 103 of the 106 pupils at the primary school near the site are travellers children. What will happen to that school if the travellers are moved on?'

ummm the local community will start using it again I'd guess!

In my limited experience, the travellers didn't want their children mixing with the static population either, particularly the girls as they didn't like it when they started having ideas about carrying on their education etc.

Oh it isn't all about evicting these poor much-maligned ten-year travellers you know.

Basildon council has wasted millions money on VERY UNSAFE new road lay-outs yet has closed the special pre-school which my DS who has SN went to because it wasn't cost-effective.

As I understand the local Council haven't just left these people for years. There has been 10 years of court action with many appeals by the traveller community. Yes it is very costly, but the council is right to enforce the law.

Imagine if they didn't! Local people would be arguing they should be able to build on the green belt as well, even if they haven't got planning permission.

And I don't think it is common for people to build and apply for planning permission retrospectively! I don't think it is uncommon IME with minor changes e.g. shop putting up a new larger sign -where the owners may genuinely not realise they had to apply for planning permission. But locally to me where this has happened the council have in some cases given planning permission and in others denied it and insisted that the property is returned to its original state. And it has been.

There have been some highly publicised cases about people building illegally, retrospectively applying for planning persmission, and been turned down. They have been told to demolish their house.

I agree that there is a very high level of discrimination against the travelling community. But enforcing planning legislation, in the same way it is enforced against others, is not discrimination.

I think it depends on the sort of travelling community. Here we have no problems. The travellers integrate into mainstream education (by and large) well and the girls continue to the local 6th form colleges. I don't know any who have conformed to the stereotype and been married off at 16. The traveller girls wouldnt touch a 'gawjo' with a ten foot barge pole anyway; they have far too much respect for themselves!

trois - Of course every individual is different anyway. But the term travellers lumps together Irish travellers and traditional romany. They actually have different cultures.

To me it matters not whether they are travellers or flying hippos.

They broke the law by building on land they probably knew they would not get planning permission for.

Therefore they should be evicted, as should anyone else who does the same thing on the same scale,regardless of whether they are travellers or not.

I do feel sorry for the locals and all the stress this must have caused them.

As others have said, I cannot understand how you are a traveller if you have been living in a bungelow in the same place for the last 10 years.

Terrible waste of money. They could build several small serviced sites for a fraction of that much. The council is instead insisting that they just vapourise.

The planning permission process for Travellers (referring to Irish Travellers here) involves 90% of initial applications being turned down (as opposed to 20% for the general population). The initial refusal is normally followed by appeals that can last years, and is usually followed by granting of retrospective pp; this is done in the majority of cases. Hence the ten years of court action. This is business as usual for Traveller applications.

There is a built in assumption that the law as it appears on the surface will not be upheld on the part of both parties to the process, everywhere Travellers and councils are involved in pp, but that secondary processes that are allowed by law will allow the Travellers' applications to prevail. This is fair because most local opposition to Travellers' applications is based on trumped up reasons, which becomes obvious over time.

OP bearing that in mind you should be extra angry at the lawbreaking travellers making this extra expense at a time like this.

There is no option under our laws to say "we can't afford this right now so carry on breaking the law" nor should there be.

YANBU.

It would cost far less to grant planning permission than it would to evict them, no?

The only 'message' that the council can afford to send out right now is that they are broke.

v. interesting post, mathanxiety.

Pippi -- It's Traveller with a capital T, not traveller as in one who spends your life travelling. Nomadism is a traditional part of their culture. Since they have begun sending their children to school they have gradually started spending more time in chalets (fancy trailers placed on foundations, that can be taken apart and packed onto a truck) and less time doing the sort of wandering and subsisting on odd jobs and farm labouring that they used to. They are being sucked into a more modern lifestyle by the general drift of the economy since WW2 but they still retain their sense of identity and some of their old ways. Many spend the entire summer travelling to see extended family, working elsewhere, etc.

yanbu as to it being a waste of money, glad I don't live near there, would be pissed if services that are needed were being cut to fund this.
not sure who is to blame, just seems a wrong way of spending the money.

The planning permission process for Travellers (referring to Irish Travellers here) involves 90% of initial applications being turned down (as opposed to 20% for the general population). The initial refusal is normally followed by appeals that can last years, and is usually followed by granting of retrospective pp;

My first question would be "For the same things?" because of course they are not asking for planning permission to add a bathroom/conservatory to their house. So you are comparing oranges and apples there to make it seem like prejudice.

The big question though is how after appealing they then get their way. This reveals shocking laxness and favouritism towards travellers that needs investigating. Thank you for bringing that to our attention, Math.

Troisgarcons -- Travellers are not viewed very favourably in Ireland. They do not do themselves many favours in the PR department as they tend to stick together and appear loyal to their own, but there is a case to be made for the view that the few are spoiling it for the many.

mathanxiety - Most people I know for large builds e.g. new house, conversion of barn, etc, talk to planning officers before they apply for planning permission to see if they are wasting their time. I know property developers do this as well. So your stats aren't necessarily useful as for example, lots of property developers won't bother putting in an application if they know it is going to be turned down.

In fact I have known planning officers advise people to withdraw planning applications if they are likely to be refused as a refusal can make it harder to get permission in the future if circumstances change.

So unless travellers also do this, then the stats aren't comparable.

Also the stats would have to compare like with like e.g. % of applications granted to build new house on land where there is not currently a dwelling for both travellers and settled community. I know that getting permission to build a house on land like this is very very difficult whoever you are.

Thread title wants to be edited to read travellers,they are not gypsies and never will be.Proper Romany gypsies have no wish to be associated with them.

I am not condoning breaking the law and I'm not siding with anyone, the point I was trying to make was the process has so far taken 10 years, so it's not a crime that needs immediate action, so would it be such a terrible thing if the process to prosecute took a slower path if it meant saving other services? They need to cut £300m, should the eviction really be on the "to do" list? Could there be a more cost effective, meet in the middle solution? There's already a site there, they're not moving them all on, just reducing the amount of travellers, so it's not going to magically rid the area of them.

Here's a booklet prepared for use in Devon that hints at what Travellers face in the pp process. The figures of 90% vs. 20% denial of pp are important without taking into account what sort of pp is applied for, whether expansion or initial permission to take up residence, when you take into account that concerted campaigns can be mounted against Traveller applications, that outright racism can be camouflaged as reasonable objections, and that Travellers can face further difficulties in the form of unchecked bullying of children in schools once they do settle.

Here is how it is done 'naicely' "The best objections are the non personal ones, the ones that are valid planning stuff eg especially flood plains, dangerous access, lack of local services and difficulty of laying them on, protection status of land etc. Flooding risk is the best one cos it presents a danger to the residents themselves so planners wont allow that without a lot of protection work and only if that wouldn't affect those 'downstream'. (from Horse and Hound website forum scroll down to Lachlanandmarcus' post at the bottom)

'Where can the Dale Farm Travellers go?' from BBCnews.com. It is disingenuous for the council to suggest the Travellers can move into fixed accommodation. Travellers do not do well in fixed accommodation "Joseph Jones from the Gypsy Council... said: "The same way that when people were flooded out of their homes in the north of England not so long ago and relocated to fields with static caravans, after a period of time people were saying they were going crazy, they couldn't live in a static caravan, they were brought up in a house; that is their cultural bias, we can understand that... That is the same situation for people who were born, brought up in and always have lived in static caravans." Don't assume from the pov of having lived in a house or flat all your life that anyone can do it.

"BBC News contacted 30 local authorities across England and found that almost every one that operated travellers' sites was running at almost full capacity. Many had no pitches available at all." The community that is to be moved will need 80 pitches. The idea that there are plenty of pitches available to them all round the rest of the country is a flat out lie.

I don't know how any group could possibly engage in any sort of good faith negotiation with someone like Mr Ball of Basildon DC, who appears to be either delusional or downright mendacious.

Horse and Hound link here