Alemci -- If things change and change is inevitable, why not accept that the concept of greenbelt is ridiculous, that it should be built over, and people who need sites for their trailers should be allowed pp to stay there? Unless you think provision of sites for Travellers doesn't fit into your definition of change as progress from some sort of barbarous past.
Andrewofgg -- 'You don't answer the question: must the council provide more of the same if the numbers expand?' Yes; the Traveller population is growing at a far faster rate than the general population. More, not fewer sites will be needed in the future to accommodate them.
'Nor the question: should the travellers accept the outcome of the legal proceedings they have issued?' If it is the final word, then yes, but if not the final word then they can keep on going until the final word is issued.
And then the whole circus can then begin again in someone else's backyard, right?
It will keep on going round and round until someone, somewhere decides that reason should prevail, and that enough sites should be provided, even if that means bulldozing greenbelt/reclaimed industrial land.
How is it right to deny 90% of planning applications from one particular group, Notacitychick and Lassylass, et al?
As for 'wasting so many millions of taxpayer money on a gamble that was only ever going to go one way. They are not above the law.' They are not so stupid that they would gamble on an issue that was only going to go one way. The majority of Traveller planning permission applications are granted on appeal, that is, after the initial application has been turned down but often after a protracted appeals process. That's how the law has worked so far for them. Apparently your view of what the law consists of is contradicted by their direct experience.