Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

UN and Amnesty International warn of 'grave breach of human rights' about to take place in Essex

79 replies

QueenOfFeckingEverything · 27/08/2011 21:18

Dale Farm eviction set to go ahead next week

Its an ex fucking scrapyard for crying out loud. Hardly a rural idyll to be protected at all costs from development Hmm

Everyone needs somewere to live - councils don't provide sufficient sites, so these people have bought their own site, and yet still they are made to move on. As many as 110 children could now be made homeless.

OP posts:
eaglewings · 30/08/2011 22:53

Thank you for the link Queen, useful to know source. Over 90 % refused, shocking.

Interestingly there is a small 'gypsy' camp just appeared in the French
/ Swiss village I am in at the moment. Their caravans are so clean, a woman was standing on hers cleaning the roof with a broom.

Original poster
QueenOfFeckingEverything · 30/08/2011 23:01

Its going to cost £18million to evict them.

And the cost in human terms is just terrible. 110 children losing their homes and the community they have grown up in.

OP posts:
GeneralCustardsHardHat · 31/08/2011 07:41

But they've been offered suitable alternatives. Why should they be allowed to flout the law? Can I go to one of the national parks, build a housing estate, move a load of families in then expect to be alllowed to stay?

It's about legal precidents if you let them stay you green light all illegal builds.

thefirstMrsDeVere · 31/08/2011 08:40

I cannot understand this 18million figure.
Surely if its costing that much they are doing it wrong?

Original poster
QueenOfFeckingEverything · 31/08/2011 10:15

How is a council flat a suitable alternative for a Traveller?

Its as unsuitable as offering someone in a house due to be demolished a pitch on a Traveller site!

OP posts:
EightiesChick · 31/08/2011 10:56

Don't understand how a former scrapyard has become green belt land?

According to the article, half the site is legal while the other half is not. There are applications waiting to be heard about permission to move onto other sites nearby. Hurry up with them then!

I understand the legal precedent thing but it seems harsh. Meanwhile Notting Hill types go on buildiing all manner of extras onto their houses (if Rachel Johnson is to be believed, and I'd be inclined to think on this topic she is).

cornsilksi · 31/08/2011 11:04

they have been offered unsuitable alternatives

GeneralCustardsHardHat · 31/08/2011 11:59

Look at the site, they've built bricks and mortar housing there. To me that makes a council home suitable.

The figure comes about due to policing, council workers, lawyers costs etc.

If they want to remain there then they should have sought planning permission first not retrospectively. To my mind it makes sense that they move to council housing so they have better accomodation, access to drs hospitals schools etc

Iam puzzled though by the notion of travellers remaining in one place for 10 years.

Poogles · 31/08/2011 12:36

If the law says you need to apply for planning permission before building then it should apply to ALL regardless of creed, colour, religion etc. I would like to extend my house but was not allowed planning permission so therefore will not be doing it. Perhaps the reason such a high percentage of traveller requests are turned down is because they are applying for permission on green belt land etc rather than it being just about them being travellers.

What I don't understand (and am happy to be corrected on) is why living in a permanent house somewhere else is any different from living in a permanent home on the site? If they are travellers, then shouldn't they be travelling? Over 10 years on the same site is more fixed than I have been!

I know issues such as this evoke a lot of emotion - children being made homeless, racist issues etc but surely after 10 years all of the legal arguments have been examined?

eaglewings · 31/08/2011 12:40

Locally to me planning permission seems to be much faster for those who know the right people!

For the sake of the kids education and because of difficulties finding suitable tempory sites, many travellers have a base that they are in much of the year but still go on extended travels to see relatives.

Why can't they have a mixed economy? My local school has a good relationship with the travelling community understanding that they have different but high family standards

WorzselMummage · 31/08/2011 12:46

If they have lived there for 10 years the they are not travellers.

Original poster
QueenOfFeckingEverything · 31/08/2011 12:56

The law considers that they are though.

The Govt. guidance for planners is that "?gypsies and travellers? means
Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family?s or dependants? educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently".

OP posts:
conculainey · 31/08/2011 13:01

Poogles, there are no permanent houses on the site and planning permission is not required for a caravan or a temporary structure which would include the chalet bungalows that some of the travellers live in as they are actually a 2 piece removal building in most cases. The problem lies when the council changed the brown field status of the land (a scrapyard) to a green field site when the people who own the ground were already living there, that in itself is illegal but the council can hardly prosecute themselves. This is a case of making the rules up as they go along and the council are relying on their illegal green field status to move the owners of the land on.
People keep saying that the travellers should travel but that has now become illegal as well as they can no longer stop over anywhere for more than a few hours at a time. These people bought their land legally to try to overcome the problem of not being allowed to travel but they have now been prevented from living anywhere unless it is in a load of run down council properties and under the controlling thumb of the landowners.
Perhaps the estimated 18 million pounds it is going to cost to move these people on would have been better spent sorting out the thousands of chavs who recently caused millions of pounds of damage in London, Manchester and Liverpool instead of moving harmless children and eldery people from their homes, their education and their future.

mankyminks · 31/08/2011 13:06

Am with Poogles and GeneralCustard I'm afraid,what the travelling community is doing is illegal,they knew that from the start and it's only been 10 years because they've managed to string out the final decision on their minority status. You've played the game and lost,accept it and travel. Otherwise I could concrete over my in laws massive garden over a Bankholiday weekend, build a home and say I can't possible live without them.

Original poster
QueenOfFeckingEverything · 31/08/2011 13:09

Yep, Travellers can't travel or live on the road any more, its a way of life that has been made impossible. There's next to nowhere they can stop now, all the traditional places have gone. It started with the Enclosure Act and has carried on to the present day.

So they try to play by the rules that have been laid down, they buy their own land, they try to live on it - and they are not allowed.

So what should they do? Are we really as a society saying 'Tough shit, suck it up, live in a house'?

OP posts:
Original poster
QueenOfFeckingEverything · 31/08/2011 13:13

Those chalet things don't need PP, its true. I know this because our copy of Countryside magazine (no, I don't buy it, it just turns up 'cos we have NFU insurance!) is always full of adverts for them that proclaim their permitted status in greenbelt areas.

OP posts:
mankyminks · 31/08/2011 13:16

Buy a piece of land WITH planning permission maybe?? Like other people do... Then go ahead and build.

mankyminks · 31/08/2011 13:38

So,if I understand it right,I buy a huge piece of land with panning permission for 1 dwelling. I can then concrete over the rest of my land and put lots of caravans/chalets up.Then I wait for all my family and friends and other likeminded people to move in a live happily ever after? I know that's putting it very simplistic but that's what it boils down to doesn't it? Trying very hard not to be provocative because that's not what I'm after.

conculainey · 31/08/2011 13:39

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

faverolles · 31/08/2011 13:42

WRT the chalets, they can be put up without PP, but only up to a certain amount of floor space, not sure exactly how much space, but realistically probably no more than a couple per acre (but happy to be put right on this)
This applies to having sheds/agricultural buildings, caravans/static caravans.
DH and I own a plot of land. We (quite legally) have a couple of sheds on it that we use to camp in.
However, if you intend to use said chalet/shed/caravan to live in for more than 28 days in a year, the land needs PP on for change of use. I think this is to do with amenities - water, sewage, rubbish collection etc.
So technically, they can put their caravans on a plot, but from a legal standpoint they cannot live in them.
This rule is there to stop every Tom, Dick and Harry from simply parking up their caravans in desirable areas and living there.
I live in an area where travellers camp for a couple of weeks of the year on their way to Appleby horse fair. The police presence in the small town goes from having a police surgery twice a week to having twenty policemen on duty round the clock due to massively increased crime. Local horses (especially coloured ones) have to be stabled and padlocked in every night (could tell you far more about this, but you'd probably be bored)
The trouble the travellers have with PP isbecause they set up home before applying, and the sorts of buildings they try to get passed are not in keeping with the rest of the area - anyone who has applied for PP will know that this is an important factor when applying.
The high numbers of traveller applications being rejected is down to this, not racism.

mankyminks · 31/08/2011 13:46

Conculainey,if the status of the field was illegally changed from brown field to green field surely there must be evidence of that and that would have been used in all those court cases there have been? Don't know the story about the next door neighbour but surely that's worth pursuing! No,there shouldn't be one rule for travellers and another for non travellers,absolutely not, but that does then go for ALL the rules surely?

mankyminks · 31/08/2011 13:50

Got to nip out for a bit,but will be back as I really want to be better informed about the ins and outs of this case. Very pleased that even though this is a emotive subject there has been no shouting so far.

conculainey · 31/08/2011 13:53

MM, there is no way a scrapyard could ever come under greenfield status so the change from brown to green was made illegally back in 1982, the rules were changed to suit the residents one of whom claimed the presence of the travellers had devalued his property by 300k, I wonder how much a scrapyard right beside his house devalued his property.

EightiesChick · 31/08/2011 14:10

I heard a report earlier on the radio which said that the scrapyard was illegal. So the history of the land seems pretty cloudy, to say the least.

conculainey · 31/08/2011 14:21

The second picture in this link shows the scrapyard , the concrete and hundreds of scrap cars along with buildings prior to the land being purchased by the travellers, this is clearly a brown field site which has been changed to a greenfield site to suit the residents.
oncewewerebirds.blogspot.com/2011/04/dale-farm-zero-eviction-day-942011.html