Dale Farm

[Joe]

Will the baliffs move in?Surely the situation should not have dragged on for years.I remember when the people moved in years ago and they were told that they had to get building regs to build.Joe public have to.

As for the so called supporters,one sounded like incitement to me.

[Val_2]

Whats this about then?

[Clarkkent]

A very large travellers' site in Essex. The High Court has determined that it is not legal and the local authority (Basildon, I think) is now trying to enforce the court order.

One of the complexities is that the travellers have been led to believe that they have a distinctive ethnic identity and are claiming racial discrimination. I have heard some of them speaking and they sound Irish to me.

[woolybanana]

Yes, most are Irish. It seems that many own property elsewhere, either pitches or homes.

Don't see how they can claim the right to act illegally, though it looks as if the issue may be being handled badly.

[Quillan]

According to what I saw on the BBC News the farm/field was bought some time back by a group of travellers. They applied and got permission to put a toilet block up and to have pitches for their caravans. What has happened is others have turned up and just stayed, there is no permission for these extra pitches so they have to go. If you see some of the aerial photo's of the site it's quite clear which are legal and which are not in most cases. There is also a health issue as the toilet block was never designed for such high usage not to mention the rubbish 9human and otherwise) spread around the exterior of the site where these other travellers have taken residence.

If memory serves the first travelers were allowed to buy the site, construct the toilets and take up residence there because there was nowhere else in the county that would take them. Being a bit remote it originally suited everyone for them to be there. Again a classic example of the press labeling all the same and a few bad people ruining it for the rest.

[woolybanana]

An aerial map on the BBC news site suggests that about half of the site is illegal and is alleged to be greenbelt land.

[Frederick]

These illegal sites have to go. The disgrace is that these people have been able to drag out the appeals for so long and at such expense to the council tax payers . I for one am fed with people claiming they are different from the rest us us where-ever they fetch up from and

demand / require special treatment. I had planning issues for a conservatory and had to jump through hoops just to stick one on the gable end of my Dorset house .. I hope to see all these unplanned sites levelled from now on...and as fast as they try and build them

[Gardengirl]

[quote user="Frederick"]These illegal sites have to go. The disgrace is that these people have been able to drag out the appeals for so long and at such expense to the council tax payers . I for one am fed with people claiming they are different from the rest us us where-ever they fetch up from and demand / require special treatment. I had planning issues for a conservatory and had to jump through hoops just to stick one on the gable end of my Dorset house .. I hope to see all these unplanned sites levelled from now on...and as fast as they try and build them[/quote]

I agree - everyone must abide by the same rules!

Some of the older residents have been moved out ready for today, away from trouble, but people from around Europe have arrived at the site over the past few weeks, and they seem to be the ones who are planning trouble, having faced situations like this in the past. Some who claimed to be anarchists were interviewed on TV recently, and didn't see why 'these poor people with nowhere else to go' should have to face their problems alone. There are other traveller sites nearby, with settled families on them, just like Dale Farm used to be. It's thought that when moved on, families will move illegally on to some of those, causing similar disruption as they did at Dale Farm; another 10 years of court proceedings? A traveller spokewoman who doesn't live on the Dale Farm site was bemoaning the fact that the new arrivals were causing problems for her with the travellers, as she would have been helping them lawfully to find new places to live. 

A 'traveller' resident at Dale Farm was intererviewed on radio this morning, saying that the council shouldn't have allowed them to stay so long, if they hadn't wanted them to stay, which could sound reasonable - apart from the fact that it was the 'travellers' having the council take them to higher and higher levels of courts over the past 10 years that hasd drawn all this out. I fail to see how anybody can be called travellers, who stay put on sites for years on end, apart from the add trip back to Ireland in very expensive caravans and cars. Where do they pay taxes? Not in the Dale Farm area, where they live.

[Joe]

Can you believe it they have been given an appeal untill Friday.It beggars belief that this goes on.

[Gardengirl]

That's just what the traveller spokswoman was going for this morning, and seemed sure of getting. She actually said that the local authority was going to wait until she'd been to court.

[HoneySuckleDreams]

I've been following this for a while and there has been a lot of heated debate on the subject. You should read the comments on the Daily Mail site...quite frightening.

However, the point is that they own the land (or someone else does but allows them to stay there), but they don't have/have had permission to build on it. So how can you justify evicting them? Flatten the illegal buildings for sure, but what bit of the law says they should be evicted?

I admit, that I broke planning law in the UK as I built something that I didn't realise I needed permission for (a tad bigger than that was allowed for for a conservatory). By the same argument that some people are arguing now, I should have been evicted. (I would like to add that I hate, with vigour, pikeys and all that they stand for as "they" took advantage of my alzheimer ridden 84 yr old grandma).

 

[Pickles]

[quote user="crazyfrog"]I've been following this for a while and there has been a lot of heated debate on the subject. You should read the comments on the Daily Mail site...quite frightening.

However, the point is that they own the land (or someone else does but allows them to stay there), but they don't have/have had permission to build on it. So how can you justify evicting them? Flatten the illegal buildings for sure, but what bit of the law says they should be evicted?

I admit, that I broke planning law in the UK as I built something that I didn't realise I needed permission for (a tad bigger than that was allowed for for a conservatory). By the same argument that some people are arguing now, I should have been evicted. (I would like to add that I hate, with vigour, pikeys and all that they stand for as "they" took advantage of my alzheimer ridden 84 yr old grandma).[/quote]

The punishment for illegal construction would be normally be to be required to remove or demolish the offending structure, and that is what would have happened to you. Likewise in the Dale Farm case, I suspect that they are actually being required to remove or destroy their chalets. The word "eviction" is probably being applied (erroneously by the media) to the mobile constructions rather than the people: if all they wanted to do was to stand around or walk about on the land that they had bought, I doubt that they would be breaking any laws. However, since they can't live on the land without a building/caravan or other construction, they are effectively being evicted, but this is a secondary effect. (Not to them, naturally)

Regards

Pickles

[LEO]

[quote user="crazyfrog"]

I've been following this for a while and there has been a lot of heated debate on the subject. You should read the comments on the Daily Mail site...quite frightening.

However, the point is that they own the land (or someone else does but allows them to stay there), but they don't have/have had permission to build on it. So how can you justify evicting them? Flatten the illegal buildings for sure, but what bit of the law says they should be evicted?

I admit, that I broke planning law in the UK as I built something that I didn't realise I needed permission for (a tad bigger than that was allowed for for a conservatory). By the same argument that some people are arguing now, I should have been evicted. (I would like to add that I hate, with vigour, pikeys and all that they stand for as "they" took advantage of my alzheimer ridden 84 yr old grandma).

 

[/quote]

I think it could be fairly stated that their life motto, would be ;

To take financial  advantage, no matter what!

[PaulT]

Still, let them keep fighting in the court - after all they are probably on legal aid so they do not have to worry about the bill because the taxpayer will gladly pay it.

Essex Council council tax payer will also help out with funding the council in Court.

The lawyers are most put out by all of this as they do not know what to do with all the money coming their way - I can just imagine some of them 'I am sure we can get another court hearing out of this.

And yesterday there was the poor judge - this has gone through umpteen courts and now he wants more information.

Look on the bright side though, if the so called travellers who have been static for 10 years win then the Government may as well do away with planning laws and just let people do what they want.

Watched Eggheads on the BBC instead of the 6 o'clock News last night. I had turned the air blue in the car on the way home listening to Radio 4s PM programme so I thought I would spare my neighbours.

Paul

[Clarkkent]

[quote user="PaulT"]

And yesterday there was the poor judge - this has gone through umpteen courts and now he wants more information.

[/quote]

Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the way the law works will correct me, but if the travellers go to law now, it must be on the basis that they are using a legal argument that has not been uswed before. Therefore there is no appropriate existing information. The judge will have to consider the new argument and research statutes and precedents before telling them to vacate the land.

[JohnM]

I do find it rather ironic (and, or Hypocritical) that a group of people who have shown disrespect for the law for 10 years, now have no hesitation in turning to it.

[woolybanana]

Did not a bunch, or rather a clutch of thieving MPs try to use the law to say that they could not be tried by the courts as they were answerable only to Parliament? Same difference.

[Quillan]

Legal Aid - I think that you will find that how legal aid is calculated, how much you can get and what for have changed dramatically over the last ten years and I doubt that these people would meet most of the criteria for getting legal aid and even if they were successful the amount, under the (new) scheme will only be between £500 and £3,000.

Dale farm has 34 perfectly legal pitches with toilet, shower and other facilities. Theses pitches were allowed when the previous government did away with the legal requirement for councils to provide temporary pitches for travellers. The problem with Dale Farm is that there are a further 51 illegal pitches and these are within the green belt. Some of these illegal pitches have double mobile homes that bolt together to create a bungalow type building ( these cost anywhere between £80k and £180k so they won't be short of money) for which planning permission must be granted just like it has to be for individual pitches.

So out of the 85 pitches 31 are quite legal and do not have to move, just the 51 illegal pitches have to go.

The temporary halt is because the travellers council (barrister) believes that some procedures required for the issue of the eviction order may not have been carried out properly. What will happen now is a new order will be granted after these procedures have been carried out which is expected to be completed by Friday.

Sources

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14985572

Legal Aid sources can be found by Googling "criteria for legal aid in UK"

[JohnM]

True wooly, hypocracy did raise its ugly head with some of the MP's.

But that doesn't stop me from being annoyed at this group being hypocritical as well.

[woolybanana]

Couldn't agree more, JohnM.[:)]