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

Dale Farm - green belt land

19 replies

DoubleDegreeStudent · 23/09/2011 22:32

Sorry, I know there have been a few threads on this, but they are all so long and I am confused.

The travellers are on green belt land, which cannot be built on. Therefore the eviction is not a case of human rights and racial discrimination, as they are (I think) claiming, but actually a misuse of land. I understand it is unfair to let them live there for ten years then turn round and say "oh, sorry, you can't actually be here", but ultimately that is what has happened, isn't it?

If I went and started living in a caravan on a bit of green belt land I don't think I'd be allowed to stay. Why is it different?

Sorry for being a bit obtuse.

OP posts:
Beamur · 23/09/2011 22:36

Green belt? I don't know I thought it was a scrap yard - but it may not have had permission to be a scrap yard..
But they have applied for and been repeatedly refused planning permission to live there.
My understanding is they are in breach of the law from that point of view, have exhausted all legitimate planning avenues to gain permission to stay there. So the Council have to get to a point where they take enforcement action.
I don't think the Council have suddenly decided to take action - this must have been building for years.

bubbles4 · 23/09/2011 22:37

There are already two threads on this.

Original poster
DoubleDegreeStudent · 24/09/2011 15:03

I know, Bubbles. I said I know that there are other threads, but I was trying to avoid trawling through 500 posts. Thanks for bothering to read my opening sentence Hmm.

Beamur - thanks Smile

OP posts:
EggyAllenPoe · 24/09/2011 15:12

a scrapyard in the green belt is still subject to the tight planning restrictions of the green belt -though those applicable to 'commercial' or 'agricultural' usage - whichever it was. getting PP for anything however seemingly inconsequential in such places is very difficult indeed.

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 24/09/2011 15:16

My understanding is that the ex scrap yard was next door to Dale Farm, and is the legal part of the site. Dale Farm was greenbelt when bought, and the Travellers then built upon it, hoping for retrospective planning permission. This was not granted, and there followed eight years of appeals through various courts. Two years ago the Government intervend and said they could have two years grace, to find other sites. Those two years are up, the ex scrap yard (legal bit) is practically empty and Dale Farm (illegal) residents now face eviction.

Happy to be corrected if I've got anything wrong.

BetsyBoop · 24/09/2011 16:02

according to the BBC pictures the ex-scrap yard is the illegal bit.

Beamur · 24/09/2011 19:02

I thought, the legal site was adjacent to the scrap yard - no-one is being evicted from there, but then they bought the scrap yard, extended the living area - which is now the part which all this trouble is over. Only half of the site is illegal (the scrap yard) the other half is legit.

pointythings · 25/09/2011 18:37

My question in all this is - if the planning application had been from a building company proposing to build a nice middle class housing estate, would the outcome have been different?

I think it would.

QueenOfFeckingEverything · 25/09/2011 18:51

Probably, pointythings.

70 houses are being built in one development on green belt land in Basildon this year - and 500 houses are being planned for a recreation ground in Basildon Hmm

KatharineClifton · 25/09/2011 18:56

And it was the council who sold the travellers the scrap yard land. Land which had been concreted by the council. What did they think would be done with it? The adjacent (non-traveller) farmer built on his 'green-belt' land without planning permission, then had no problem with getting it retrospectively.

Dillydaydreaming · 25/09/2011 19:03

It's not as simple as claiming they are being treated differently to the farmner. The point is this is a smallish area with one school and there was already a leagl site with many families on there. Adding another site of lots of families stretched the local services to breaking point - which is the reason they were turned down for retrospective permission. If therre are not the local facilities to support the new development (and there were not) then it stands to reason it needs to go elsewhere.
Nowt to do with green belt imo

KatharineClifton · 25/09/2011 19:12

Services are expanded to serve the population. Not the other way round. That would make a sick sick society.

Dillydaydreaming · 25/09/2011 19:22

But there are other areas where the services would have been more readily available, or are you saying it would be fine for them to pitch up next door to you, flood out the local school and leave rubbish everywhere (as they do here). The legal side of the site was fine, didn't overwhelm the local school and the services could cope. The arrival of the illegal side tipped it all over the edge - or should Basildon Council have said "oh you've built here illegally, never mind, here's an extra school, extra rubbish collections etc?
Fine if everyone thinks it should be so but the planning laws need changing for everyone if so AND I am assuming that the services increase for the influx of anyone else who comes here too.

KatharineClifton · 25/09/2011 19:29

The council sold the land to travellers. They would of known that travellers would move onto the land.

Planning laws are already different for travellers and non-travellers in the rates of yays and nays received on applications.

pointythings · 25/09/2011 20:18

I agree, Katherine. The council were happy enough to sell them the land. What did they think the travellers were going to use it for, growing vegetables?

As for 'areas where services are more readily avaialble' - you are having a laugh, aren't you? Ever since the previous government removed councils' responsibility to provide traveller pitches, the number of pitches has plummeted. Pitches have been shut down and no replacements have been provided because of the local NIMBYs. What are travellers supposed to do?

Well, they're supposed to conform and live exactly like the rest of us do, of course. That's what the policy of closing pitches was all about in the first place.

mayorquimby · 25/09/2011 20:25

And what would the reaction have been if the council had refused to sell them the land on the basis of "well we can't sell you the land, we know you'll break the laws regarding planning permission because you are travellers?"

KatharineClifton · 25/09/2011 23:12

That's a good point mayorquimby. What are the terms and conditions under which councils can sell land?

Dillydaydreaming · 26/09/2011 06:16

ANyone can buy land either with or without planning permission. If you buy land WITHOUT planning permission you take a risk that it will remain without planning permission.
Who knows what was said, the travellers could have said it was for the horses/extra space for children to play. What they did NOT say was that their plans were to add 80 hard standing structures.
There is bad feeling in the area over all this, I'd like those of you defending them to have a taste of what we have had to cope with over the past 10 years because trust me it has not been good.

Dillydaydreaming · 26/09/2011 06:24

...and there is no NIMBY stuff here either, I don't seek the removal of the legal site and accept that life is difficult for travellers with the closing of pitches. I just don't want this illegal lot here because they are NOT nice neighbours......unless you are doing exactly what they say and agreeing with them. If you raise complaints though you see a different side and believe me when I say it is not nice.
I live nearby, I have had 10 years of disruption from them and I want them gone. When YOU have put up with the same then I will listen to your view.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread