Travellers

Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England has said "The green belt is under threat from a new community right to build that will allow a local referendum to overrule protection for the countryside". That doesn't sound like 'beyond the green belt' to me Jangran.

Nothing wrong with people 'travelling' quite fancy being footloose myself. But once you decide to become a permanent part of any community you should abide by the basic rules of that community.Yes, these people have the right to send their children to school and all the other benefits that anyone else can claim. However, they do not have the right to live outside the laws that the rest of us have to abide by.

This does seem to be a "listening" government - that is, it changes its mind when there is sufficient public outcry. I wonder if they are worrying about the next election? By then the economy is likely to be in such a mess, they will need all the friends they can get...

One thing that never changes, though is the importance of big business. No good trying to fight an election if you haven't enough money to do it properly.

By the way, the green belt is not being threatened - it is a bit of a sacred cow. What is beign threatened is the countryside - that is, beyond the green belt, which is just a cordon sanitaire around towns, preventing them from spreading out too much. I think it is a 60s invention, but I may be wrong there. So actually, it is bankers' country houses that are being threatened, or would be if any of the wretched individuals actually lived in the UK.

Oh ...like that idea jangly

Didn't the government propose something about selling off woodlands earlier? Wasn't there such a fuss that they dropped the idea? Or am I imagining it?

Perhaps they should go and build a few industrial units in the extensive grounds of the bankers' country houses.

Yes, Supernan. I find the proposals really worrying too.

What with our government going down this road, and Obama backing out of his committments to reduce emmsisions, it gets very depressing.

And all in the name of economic growth.

Much more important than our planet, of course.

Wise words granny23. The phrase "fiddle while Rome burns" springs to mind. I am referring to the proposed legislation to dramatically change the planning system. At the moment the proposals are out for consultation. However after watching Jeremy Paxman interview Greg Clarke MP it was apparent to me that whatever the outcome of the consultation the Tories intend to implement their changes. The green belt protection that we have now will be under threat. Local authorities will find it more difficult to refuse planning to supermarkets, new roads or housing development. Iconic landscapes will be lost forever. The planning system we have at present protects all that we love about the English countryside. I don't live in the countryside, I am a Londoner. Maybe that's what makes be appreciate our wide open spaces all the more. The National Trust, RSPB, WWF and more have grave reservations. Come on all you Grans - get your banners out!!

Granny23. They need this book. www.amazon.co.uk/How-Shit-Woods-Environmentally-Approach/dp/0898156270

No doubt Baggy these are the same people who drop litter in towns too!!
I'm just far enough away from the 'corner' shop ...to get all sorts dropped over my garden wall.
I, too, like fell and mountain walking (though never visited Scotland to do so) and am shocked by what people leave behind.
Whatever happened to the "leave nothing but footprints ...take nothing but pictures"?

Well said, granny23. We are constantly shocked by the mess left behind in Scotland by visitors to the beautiful countryside. A friend of mine runs mountain marathons and she always carries a bag just for collecting the litter she finds up mountains!!! You'd think people who like walking in the hills would look after them, but no. Of course, it only takes a few slobs to spoil it for the rest of us. What beats me is that they carry full cans/bottles up the hill but leave the much lighter empty ones instead of carrying them away again. People are weird.

And planning laws, as you say, are even weirder, and very unfair.

PS G23 that happens in popular tourist spots here in Wales, too, and most of our visitors are people enjoying the scenery (when not behind trees, boulders or bushes, that is).

Yet more rational words from Granny23 Thank you.

GMA - as I explained in my earlier post the men may well be away working. The women tend to have had more formal schooling, because they have spent more time at settled sites, helping with the younger children and atrtending school. It tends to be the women who attend to 'business' on behalf of their families. We had (have?) a local travellers liaison group and the attendees were exclusively women and children.

During my working life I learnt a great deal about traveller culture which IS different but in many ways much stricter and more moral than standard 'British' way of life. As in all cultures some people adhere to the codes and some do not.

Zepharine says How would you feel if someone bought land next to you and set up a motor bike track, or a caravan site - well the answer to that is very annoyed but we would just have to suck it up. Our village has trebled in size over the last few years with the addition of dormitory housing, in spite of objections from every local organisation, residents, councillors, petitions - resulting in overload of schools, community facilities and the drainage system. The stringent planning regulations are no barrier to development, even in green belt, when money and big business are involved. Methinks it is the Planning Laws which are in need of overhaul such that they serve the ordinary populace (including travellers) rather than the interests of the rich and powerful.

One further wee aside - the whole family had a lovely sunny day out and picnic last month at beautiful Loch Lubnaig, only spolied by the discovery that every tree, boulder and bush in the vicinity had a pile of poo and paper hankies behind it -(and not a gypsy traveller in sight!).

I am very interested in everybodys point of view. Yes I do understand about green belt land and what our countryside would be like without it, BUT nobody has told me why we do not see any traveller men at these confrontations. Where are they all, sitting inside the caravans drinking tea and watching TV? Out at work? or maybe travelling. The traveller women all appear to be very strong and vocal so maybe the men leave them all to it. Or is there another reason.........do you know?

Have now read your last post, jangran. Thank you for that and your great good sense. Power corrupts indeed.

Thank you for the explanation, cream and jan. I fully approve of green belt laws. Funny how councils sometimes flout them for their own ends, but that's another issue.

If the travellers lived on their green belt land in a more traditional 'traveller' way, in movable caravans, which did move periodically to other sites, I suppose that would (technically if not aesthetically) be within the law, wouldn't it?

It rather sounds as if they aren't travellers at all but 'permies' like most of us.

Well, I am all in favour of the rule of the law, of course. We are all equal under the law, aren't we? Or are we? I was a member of a borough council for over 25 years, and I found out a lot about planning law during that time.

To summarise - anyone who wanted a small improvement had to jump through various hoops when applying for planning permission, and it took ages, and was quite often turned down. However, builders usually gained permission to erect houses, even if their request did not fit in with the local borough plan. The reason, I found out, eventually, was that HM government had (I think it was in Planning Guidance Note 3) decided that it should be assumed that businesses should be granted permission unless there was very good reason not to. This decision was taken a lot more seriously by planning officers than was any views expressed by mere elected members.

In other words, whilst domestic applicants for planning permission had to prove that they would cause no inconvenience to anyone, people that opposed business applicants had to prove that the application would make life more or less impossible. If they did that, successfully, so that the council turned down an application, the businesses would appeal to the Secretary of State, who would then grant the permission. And the council would have to pay costs.

I found out a bit about travellers when I was on the Council too. It seemed that no-one objected to travellers, but no-one wanted them anywhere near to them. There is (or was then) a legal duty on councils to provide sites for travellers, but it was a duty that was impossible to carry out because no-one wanted travellers near them, and whoever was the councillor for the areas with a proposed site took care to ensure that the site was found unsuitable.

The result, of course, was that travellers really did have to travel in my borough, and could only stay in one place long enough to be evicted (although that sometimes took quite a while).

The trouble with the rule of law is that the laws are all written by and for the "haves", not the "have nots"

They do own the land and they can't build on it for the same reasons as you or I can't just build on land we own. They have to apply for planning permission and any building have to conform to all planning regulations. This problem has being ongoing for at least 10 years and ECC has tried to resolve it. How would you feel if someone bought land next to you and set up a motor bike track, or a caravan site, or built a mansion and held all night raves. The planning laws are there for a reason, although they seem in danger of being eroded any time now.

The reason they havent got planning permission to build on 'there own land' is because it is Green Belt Land - countryside - any of us can own green belt land but we would never get planning permission to build. It is usualy land that seperates towns and villages and stop areas turning into sprawling areas of houses with no defenition between differnt towns or villages. So as they have not got planning permission to build they are in effect breaking the law by living on there green belt land.

I haven't read the article, but it has been mentioned that the travellers own the land they illegally built on. Does anyone know why they aren't allowed to build on their own land? Just asking.

Also, it's not clear to me why the council wants to move the travellers on, if they're on their own land.

Puzzled.

That's the point Baggy, the people on this site are not nomadic, they have been there for years and Essex county council have been trying to move them on for years. The ECC have tried to resolve this problem in many ways over the years without much success. They are next to a council provided, legally run site and you can see that the the unofficial site is overcrowded. Yes they have the right not to live in houses and travel but but how did they acquire the right not to live by the rules the rest of us have to? I am not a Daily mail reader. I used to live in Essex.

People should be allowed to live a nomadic sort of life if they want. It's a very ancient way of living, which we should respect. Mutual respect might then be forthcoming.

I object to litter too, but just looking around some of the lochs in Scotland and thinking about all the junk that's supposed to be floating around in the Atlantic, I think "the rest of us" need to sort our own trashy lifestyles before criticising others.

Plus, it was the Daily Mail!!!!!!! Written to provoke negativity.

Well said, Granny23 and Joan. Thank you for your considered comments.

Hello Glass. Yes, did thank you.

I don't live in England, but I grew up in Yorkshire and remember being scared of Gypsies, as we called them then, and I was terrified of their dogs. When they camped near my friend's house, a railway house in an isolated location, I never ever dared go past their site, as their dogs were vicious and would bite. So everyone kept away from them and they kept away from the locals. I don't remember any trouble - it was just a sort of separation, which both sides preferred.

The travellers of today have a right to their lifestyle, as have the residents of the areas where they live. I don't think the locals are lying when they say they've been harassed. I don't think it is a lie that the travellers have bought land and built on it without permission. And I do think councils tend to do little and hope for the best.

It is up to the authorities to act sooner rather than later - obviously demolishing illegal dwellings is going to cause bother. Ignoring problems does NOT make the problems go away. A bit of early common sense by the authorities would have prevented all this, and the Daily mail would have had to find some other right wing cause.