- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@Observer_Owl
Follow Watford Observer on Twitter
- Find us on Facebook
Watford Observer
Like us on Facebook
New gipsy site considered for green belt land (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
New gipsy site considered for green belt land off Tolpits Lane
1:00pm Wednesday 6th March 2013 in News
By Ben Endley, Senior reporter
New gipsy site considered for green belt land
An area of picturesque green belt land off Tolpits Lane has been earmarked for a new gipsy and traveller site.
The plan for the 3.5 hectare site adjacent to homes and business premises is identified in Three Rivers District Council consultation documents.
The document, which is open for consultation until March 22, proposes the site despite identifying a need for just eight additional spaces as temporary planning permissions expire over the next ten years.
The proposal has already passed through a district council working party and the executive committee without attracting objections from politicians in any party.
Council leader Councillor Ann Shaw said: "In December it was agreed that one site that could accommodate more than eight pitches in the long run, was preferable to seeking several sites, and that the Tolpits Lane site be taken forward for public consultation.
"This was agreed without dissent at both the working party and the executive."
There are currently no publically owned and run sites for gipsies and travellers in Three Rivers although there are two sites for travelling showmen in Mill End which comprise roughly 20 pitches.
The study shows there have only been three incidents of unauthorised encampments in the district since 2008 and concludes: "There is no identified need for a transit site in Three Rivers."
The site is close to an existing traveller site which is owned by Watford Borough Council, and although the proposals for this site are within Three Rivers, the closest town is Watford.
Mayor Dorothy Thornhill said the borough council recently produced their own evaluation in the area but found no need for additional pitches.
She said: "Gipsy sites are always controversial but the current one in Tolpits Lane has never been a problem to anyone, it is well run and has excellent residents.
"Three Rivers will be looking for the area that has the least impact on communities.
"I am not sure there is a proven need for a site there so I am surprised they are going ahead with it.
"We will have a view on this as it’s so close to our border."
The Gipsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Local Development Document is designed to replace the area’s local plan that expired in 2011.
Comments(99)
Andrew1963
says...
1:27pm Wed 6 Mar 13
crazyfrog
says...
1:33pm Wed 6 Mar 13
G_Whiz
says...
1:33pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Some of the money made would be able to purchase a brownfield site for the non-taxpayers to move onto.
Ideally of course it will be kept as it is - And the taxpaying voters views will not be ignored.
All those in favour of these sites are an affront to democracy - name yourselves, so we, who pay your wages know who you are, do not hide behind the words 'a spokesman'. Please.
Sara
says...
1:49pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Residents may not like the rules with which the council have to comply, but the alternative is unplanned and random small sites in settled community residential areas.
crazyfrog
says...
1:53pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Sara wrote:well find a brownfield site for them not one of watford's most picturesque views
If a council site is not approved, gypsies and travellers will continue to be able to get planning permission on almost every small patch of green that they ask for. That is the law and a number of such local sites have been granted on appeal.
Residents may not like the rules with which the council have to comply, but the alternative is unplanned and random small sites in settled community residential areas.
crazyfrog
says...
1:55pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Sara
says...
2:00pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Sara
says...
2:04pm Wed 6 Mar 13
crazyfrog
says...
2:17pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Sara wrote:who paid for that gate to the field to be installed? and for the new fencing around that field? isnt there a plot of land on tolpits lane opposite the old watford west train station? where scammells old offices used to be.
No a deal was not signed months go, the decision for this site was only made as stated in the report above -I know as I was there!
LSC
says...
2:18pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Sara wrote:This is for 'housing' of sorts. Why the main road rule? They get it for free, let them go where they are put.
Which brownfield site do you suggest? Every brownfield site in the area commands a high price as it is sought after for houses. In addition, a gypsy and traveller site must be close to or on a main road.
Sara
says...
2:27pm Wed 6 Mar 13
A gypsy and traveller site cannot compete on price for a brownfield site. In addition, any site which has previously had industrial use will require possibly expensive remediation for contamination.
Officers and members had trawled the District looking for possible sites and this site was agreed without dissent.
The Rover
says...
2:34pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Nobody wants this on their doorstep and it is completely unecessary.
If you oppose these plans you MUST e-mail your objection to TRLDF@threerivers.go
v.uk
Show your local councillors that they cannot make important decisions like this without public consultation and without listening to members of the public who have voted for them in good faith. You only have the 22nd March to get your opinion heard.
Sara
says...
2:50pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Please bear in mind that the decision is not whether or not to have a site, but whether this is the best place available.
crazyfrog
says...
2:54pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Sara wrote:if this wasnt a done deal sara why has money been spent on new fencing around this field and the gate that has been placed behind the hedge? who paid for this and when?
The public consultation is taking p,ace now, as you have yourself pointed out! There cannot be a consultation until the council has something to consult upon.
Please bear in mind that the decision is not whether or not to have a site, but whether this is the best place available.
crazyfrog
says...
2:56pm Wed 6 Mar 13
crazyfrog
says...
3:15pm Wed 6 Mar 13
iam sure this must have been an option so why wasnt that agreed upon?
The Rover
says...
3:18pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Sara wrote:Tolpits Lane is NOT a main road. It is an overused country road. Access from Watford is restricted by a sharp bend and a hump backed bridge, and access from Rickmansworth is blocked by a height restricted bridge over the Met Line. The site is totally unsuitable
The main road rule is because of the large vehicles and mobile homes which are likely to need to reach the site.
A gypsy and traveller site cannot compete on price for a brownfield site. In addition, any site which has previously had industrial use will require possibly expensive remediation for contamination.
Officers and members had trawled the District looking for possible sites and this site was agreed without dissent.
The Rover
says...
3:28pm Wed 6 Mar 13
crazyfrog wrote:Actually the most logical and cheapest answer would be to do nothing and discourage these people from coming to the Watford area!
The most logical and cheapest answer would be to extend the current Holywell site there is a earth bank then lots of field that the council could extend extra pitches onto! that way the services i.e water elect etc would be easily added.
iam sure this must have been an option so why wasnt that agreed upon?
The Rover
says...
3:36pm Wed 6 Mar 13
crazyfrog wrote:and why has the fence and gate been erected when the consultation period has not ended?
Sara wrote:if this wasnt a done deal sara why has money been spent on new fencing around this field and the gate that has been placed behind the hedge? who paid for this and when?
The public consultation is taking p,ace now, as you have yourself pointed out! There cannot be a consultation until the council has something to consult upon.
Please bear in mind that the decision is not whether or not to have a site, but whether this is the best place available.
Andrew1963
says...
4:09pm Wed 6 Mar 13
analyst99
says...
4:44pm Wed 6 Mar 13
...so explain why this is happening please and answer the questions of who has paid for the fence and gate and why have the public had their access denied?
crazyfrog
says...
5:03pm Wed 6 Mar 13
analyst99 wrote:i dont think the public ever had access to this field i believe it is part of Hatters Farm which is at the end of vicarage rd, the farm is owned by the water board but was or still is leased to the Braziers,last year workers were seen replacing the section of fencing in this field that runs parallel with ebury way, a few months ago two posts with a metal railing/ gate were for no reason concreted in to situ behind the hedge this is opposite the camelot building, obviously when needed the hedge can be removed and the gate commisioned directly onto tolpits lane very close to the hump back bridge, when this gate appeared i commented to my partner that something was going to be built there and low and behold we now have this consulatation being announced
The study shows there have only been three incidents of unauthorised encampments in the district since 2008 and concludes: "There is no identified need for a transit site in Three Rivers."
...so explain why this is happening please and answer the questions of who has paid for the fence and gate and why have the public had their access denied?
LSC
says...
5:08pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Andrew1963 wrote:How about the central reservation of the M1? Unused, main road....
What about a site off of the A41 say near to Langlebury Lane? Or the A412 near the Whiip & Collar? Or the A405 near Long Lane?
Sara
says...
5:12pm Wed 6 Mar 13
I have double checked and the land is definitely not owned by the council, nor did Three Rivers pay for or provide a new fence or gates.
A number of other sites were considered, but this one was unanimously thought to be the best one from those available.
Wacko Jacko
says...
5:13pm Wed 6 Mar 13
crazyfrog wrote:Which idiots are you referring to - the site is in Three Rivers, not Watford
Greenbelt protection is being eroded by Watford Borough Council these idiots really want to concrete over every bit of green land in the area its very worrying!
Mohandas
says...
5:20pm Wed 6 Mar 13
crazyfrog
says...
5:21pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Wacko Jacko wrote:anybody that wants to build on Green belt land in general ! in this case TRDC !
crazyfrog wrote:Which idiots are you referring to - the site is in Three Rivers, not Watford
Greenbelt protection is being eroded by Watford Borough Council these idiots really want to concrete over every bit of green land in the area its very worrying!
Sara
says...
5:22pm Wed 6 Mar 13
crazyfrog
says...
5:46pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Sara wrote:Sara thanks for the info your supplying its good that somebody takes the time to look into things, the proposed site would be divided from the existing site by ebury way, was the idea of extending the current site towards king georges not considered? only an earth bank would have to be removed and placed further back to extend the current site surely that would be the best,cheapest and most unintrusive way forward.
Tolpits Lane is an A road and the site is next door to the existing site.
Sara
says...
5:52pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Sara
says...
6:40pm Wed 6 Mar 13
pc49plod
says...
8:07pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Just come on duty and seen the assorted rants going on. Sara seems to be the one person who actually has a handle on all this but, as is usually the case with many of the correspondents, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story !! This site is Three Rivers responsibility not WBC's so take them out of this story. Oh, and the Sarge said everyone has got human rights whether they live in a house or a caravan so let's see who has a problem with that.
G_Whiz
says...
8:37pm Wed 6 Mar 13
pc49plod wrote:I agree with what your sarge says! - So lets all stop paying tax!
Evenin' All,
Just come on duty and seen the assorted rants going on. Sara seems to be the one person who actually has a handle on all this but, as is usually the case with many of the correspondents, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story !! This site is Three Rivers responsibility not WBC's so take them out of this story. Oh, and the Sarge said everyone has got human rights whether they live in a house or a caravan so let's see who has a problem with that.
crazyfrog
says...
8:45pm Wed 6 Mar 13
pc49plod wrote:sarge! sarge! a sarge is a sausage ! you mean sergeant !
Evenin' All,
Just come on duty and seen the assorted rants going on. Sara seems to be the one person who actually has a handle on all this but, as is usually the case with many of the correspondents, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story !! This site is Three Rivers responsibility not WBC's so take them out of this story. Oh, and the Sarge said everyone has got human rights whether they live in a house or a caravan so let's see who has a problem with that.
Harold Hornet
says...
8:53pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Sara
says...
9:32pm Wed 6 Mar 13
There are a number of decent gypsies and travellers and many nasty and wicked members of the settled community.
I do agree that everyone should follow the laws of the land and be responsible citizens, but that also means that we should not make assumptions based on an ethnic or other grouping that people belong to.
LSC
says...
9:35pm Wed 6 Mar 13
If you want to claim benefits, register with a Doctor or get a school place; you need a permanent address.
If you want to avoid the police, tax, courts or bailiffs, you need to be able to move around.
Give these poor people what they want. It's only my money going to be used to do so, and I had no real use for it.
LSC
says...
9:43pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Sara wrote:I used to think like you, and I wish I still could. But life experience has dragged me down.
Can I ask people to remember that we are talking about other human beings here. There are good and bad members of every community and we should be careful not to assume that all the members of any one community are bad.
There are a number of decent gypsies and travellers and many nasty and wicked members of the settled community.
I do agree that everyone should follow the laws of the land and be responsible citizens, but that also means that we should not make assumptions based on an ethnic or other grouping that people belong to.
EVERY experience I have had with this 'community' (they aren't a race, their DNA is the same as you or I) has resulted in some innocent losing money or blood. And I'm sad to say, I have come into contact with them a lot more than I care to remember.
Sara
says...
9:54pm Wed 6 Mar 13
LSC wrote:These are permanent sites we are taking about. The residents on the site in Bedmond are registered with health and education services and they don't claim benefits.
It is quite simple.
If you want to claim benefits, register with a Doctor or get a school place; you need a permanent address.
If you want to avoid the police, tax, courts or bailiffs, you need to be able to move around.
Give these poor people what they want. It's only my money going to be used to do so, and I had no real use for it.
BTW DNA differences between very different racial groups are minuscule. Gypsies and travellers are different groups and indeed are different to each other.
crazyfrog
says...
9:56pm Wed 6 Mar 13
LSC
says...
10:09pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Sara wrote:Fair enough. So why are they called 'Travellers'? We both know why.
LSC wrote:These are permanent sites we are taking about. The residents on the site in Bedmond are registered with health and education services and they don't claim benefits.
It is quite simple.
If you want to claim benefits, register with a Doctor or get a school place; you need a permanent address.
If you want to avoid the police, tax, courts or bailiffs, you need to be able to move around.
Give these poor people what they want. It's only my money going to be used to do so, and I had no real use for it.
BTW DNA differences between very different racial groups are minuscule. Gypsies and travellers are different groups and indeed are different to each other.
So they can claim special status, as and when it suits.
I'm sure there are loads who don't claim benefits; I'm less sure that all tax returns are wholly accurate.
If this is a permanent address, where for instance they might let the DVLA know where they live and pay car tax and insurance; there is a name for that. It's called a 'housing estate'. It makes no difference if those houses are of brick. Permanent housing is a housing estate.
And you can't just build those on Green Belt. Unless of course you play the alternative lifestyle card.
As for the DNA, I'm well aware of how that works. I think it is something like 4 chromosones different, I'd be a lemon.
crazyfrog
says...
10:29pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Sara
says...
10:36pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Actually quite a lot of the travellers do travel, both for work and to visit relatives for extended periods of time around events such as weddings, funerals and childbirth.
As for housing in the Green Belt, the whole of Bedmond village is in the MGB, and new homes at Leavesden, together with the studios are on what used to be MGB.
Retlas
says...
10:37pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Would the debate have been so vociferous had the proposed developement been for a school, hospital or social housing?
Perhaps not?
crazyfrog
says...
11:09pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Retlas wrote:yes it certainly would, I would hate to see any development there its supposed to be protected green belt land.
Just a thought.
Would the debate have been so vociferous had the proposed developement been for a school, hospital or social housing?
Perhaps not?
sowhatsgoingonhere
says...
11:52pm Wed 6 Mar 13
BlaBla123
says...
12:00am Thu 7 Mar 13
At the end of the day these'people'dont deserve the luxurys of brand new shower blocks & central heating as we all know they'll tear it all up and scrap it all for cash!! When are these biggot councilers gonna realise this! Oh it's coz the gypsies don't live in the same street as the councilers - end of!
Mohandas
says...
7:49am Thu 7 Mar 13
The Rover says... 2:34pm Wed 6 Mar 13 Nobody wants this on their doorstep and it is completely unecessary. The fact is that ‘unwanted developments’ are never built next door to where the politicians live.
G_Whiz says... 1:33pm Wed 6 Mar 13 A council with Common sense and a lack of money would sell this land to a developer at an excellent price. Some of the money made would be able to purchase a brownfield site…
Sara says... 2:27pm Wed 6 Mar 13A gypsy and traveller site cannot compete on price for a brownfield site.
At a time when councils and government are fast cutting support to specialist voluntary groups it’s interesting that this commonsense idea was not thrown into the debate.
Sara wrote:The main road rule is because of the large vehicles and mobile homes which are likely to need to reach the site.
The Rover says... 3:18pm Wed 6 Mar 13 Tolpits Lane is NOT a main road. It is an overused country road.
Sara says... 1:49pm Wed 6 Mar 13 If a council site is not approved, gypsies and travellers will continue to be able to get planning permission on almost every small patch of green that they ask for. ….Officers and members had trawled the District looking for possible sites and this site was agreed without dissent.
Sara says... 2:50pm Wed 6 Mar 13 The public consultation is taking p,ace now.
If that is the case, what’s the point of consultation if it’s a fait accompli?
Home Truths
says...
8:51am Thu 7 Mar 13
The Rover
says...
9:08am Thu 7 Mar 13
Mohandas wrote:Precisely. The headline is "New gipsy site considered for green belt land off Tolpits Lane". Note the word "considered" Sara, and not the word "decided". We will fight this proposal to the end. It is not about Gypsies/Travellers, it is the fact that this is green belt, that the site is not suitable, that Tolpits Lane is dangerous enough without site entrance, that access to the site is difficult from both ends of Tolpits Lane, that there is no footpatch leading to the site, that there is no public transport to the site, that the bottom part of the site is prone to flooding, that there are insufficient school places in the area, that you have more suitable sites in Three Rivers, that Tolpits Lane was not even in your original list of considered sites.
Which argument is full of holes?
The Rover says... 2:34pm Wed 6 Mar 13 Nobody wants this on their doorstep and it is completely unecessary. The fact is that ‘unwanted developments’ are never built next door to where the politicians live.
G_Whiz says... 1:33pm Wed 6 Mar 13 A council with Common sense and a lack of money would sell this land to a developer at an excellent price. Some of the money made would be able to purchase a brownfield site…
Sara says... 2:27pm Wed 6 Mar 13A gypsy and traveller site cannot compete on price for a brownfield site.
At a time when councils and government are fast cutting support to specialist voluntary groups it’s interesting that this commonsense idea was not thrown into the debate.
Sara wrote:The main road rule is because of the large vehicles and mobile homes which are likely to need to reach the site.
The Rover says... 3:18pm Wed 6 Mar 13 Tolpits Lane is NOT a main road. It is an overused country road.
Sara says... 1:49pm Wed 6 Mar 13 If a council site is not approved, gypsies and travellers will continue to be able to get planning permission on almost every small patch of green that they ask for. ….Officers and members had trawled the District looking for possible sites and this site was agreed without dissent.
Sara says... 2:50pm Wed 6 Mar 13 The public consultation is taking p,ace now.
If that is the case, what’s the point of consultation if it’s a fait accompli?
How many more arguments against this proposal do you need? When will you accept that you are making (or rather have already made) the wrong decision?
I have a lot of respect for Three Rivers District Council, and think in the main they do a fantastic job (for example, keeping free parking in Rickmansworth to help local business), but on this occasion you are wrong, and wrong for so many reasons.
Sara
says...
9:38am Thu 7 Mar 13
Roy Stockdill
says...
10:01am Thu 7 Mar 13
Of course they don't!!!
Consultations are held by government, councils, large businesses, etc, etc, and they will take weeks or months going through the charade of holding a consultation and then they will do precisely what they always intended to do in the first place! However, this will enable them to hold up their hands and say "But we consulted you, it was democratic."
The whole business of so-called public consultation is a farce and a lie. I remember when we lost our local post office at Garston, along with hundreds of others all over the country. They went through a supposed public consultation - but they still shut them down, causing considerable hardship, especially to pensioners.
Roy Stockdill
says...
10:23am Thu 7 Mar 13
I take the view that if a section of society takes a conscious, deliberate decision to opt out of that society and live by their own rules, then they should expect to have to put up with some inconvenience. But the government, police, councils etc, are running scared of being accused of racism, thus they fall over backwards to accommodate them and give them all the help they can to the detriment of the rest of us, especially those who are forced to live next to these sites.
And if anyone needs any further evidence as to the way this country is going under the Orwellian Thought Police, I would draw their attention to the experience of a Tory MP Tim Loughton, who was aggressively interrogated and grilled by officers of Sussex Police all because he supported the description by his local council of a traveller as "unkempt". The traveller, from his photograph a pretty scruffy individual, was clearly a vexatious litigant and troublemaker, yet the police treated the MP as a criminal. After a 6-months investigation costing around £100,000 the CPS decided to take no further action, but the MP is still awaiting an apology and Sussex Police refuse to answer any questions of explain the actions of their daft politically correct officers.
garston tony
says...
10:53am Thu 7 Mar 13
crazyfrog wrote:Read the article, its Three rivers council not WBC. If you're going to jump on a bandwagon at least try and get your facts right
Greenbelt protection is being eroded by Watford Borough Council these idiots really want to concrete over every bit of green land in the area its very worrying!
Sara
says...
11:17am Thu 7 Mar 13
Local authorities have to operate within the law and the world as it is and not how they and/or residents would like it to be.
garston tony
says...
11:17am Thu 7 Mar 13
It is my understanding that travellers have to pay to stay on a permanent site, just as your anti social 18 year old local yob (you know the one, the one that plays music till the early hours, has his boozy mates over who shout and fight outside, and who uses and sells drugs out of his home etc) whose never worked in his life, has never paid taxes and whose gotten someone (who he isnt going to support let alone be with) knocked up (who the state also has to care for too now, along with the illegitimate child) has to 'pay' for his one bed flat because his parents (who have also never worked in their lives and live in social housing and get benefits) pretended they were 'evicting' him when really it was just a ploy to get him his own place at the expense of a someone in genuine need.
Sara is right, whilst im sure some travellers do deserve the reputation they have not all of them do and for every one that does live down to the reputation there are probably more white, anglo Brits who are just as bad and possibly far more of a burden and nuisance/menace to the rest of us.
Whilst the traveller may have a lifestyle which is considered outside the norm they are entitled to representation by councils too. And at least travellers provide their own actual accommodation, they just need a place to park it.
Lets get some perspective shall we
LSC
says...
12:11pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Of course, the Nomads aren't very popular; they move to an area and strip it of rescources. They plant nothing, make nothing and when that area is barren, they move along to another leaving a wasteland behind them for somebody else to worry about.
Sounds rather familiar really.
crazyfrog
says...
12:24pm Thu 7 Mar 13
garston tony wrote:yes i jumped the gun and assumed it was WBC'S doing as this is the typical type of thing you would expect from WBC and not TRDC ! but hey ho even when i was wrong i iam right you ask anybody who lives in overdeveloped west watford, you want this site Tony you pay for it ! how much is it going to cost TRDC Taxpayers to construct and run this site? the land isn't even owned by the council.
crazyfrog wrote:Read the article, its Three rivers council not WBC. If you're going to jump on a bandwagon at least try and get your facts right
Greenbelt protection is being eroded by Watford Borough Council these idiots really want to concrete over every bit of green land in the area its very worrying!
garston tony
says...
1:30pm Thu 7 Mar 13
LSC wrote:LSC, talk about generalisation! A post not worthy of being responded to I'm afraid.
I disagree Tony. If you choose to live outside society, then please do exactly that. Loads of space in the Sahara, and lots of real travellers, the Nomads, who live there. Of course, the Nomads aren't very popular; they move to an area and strip it of rescources. They plant nothing, make nothing and when that area is barren, they move along to another leaving a wasteland behind them for somebody else to worry about. Sounds rather familiar really.
garston tony
says...
1:31pm Thu 7 Mar 13
crazyfrog wrote:Crazyfrog, I'll ask you a question in return. I've already hinted at it, but how much did/does it cost to build and maintain social housing. And how many people in social housing have never worked in their lives, never paid taxes and are a scourge on society with anti social behaviour and criminal activity and expect hard working tax payers to fund their life style choices such as having kids etc.
garston tony wrote:yes i jumped the gun and assumed it was WBC'S doing as this is the typical type of thing you would expect from WBC and not TRDC ! but hey ho even when i was wrong i iam right you ask anybody who lives in overdeveloped west watford, you want this site Tony you pay for it ! how much is it going to cost TRDC Taxpayers to construct and run this site? the land isn't even owned by the council.crazyfrog wrote: Greenbelt protection is being eroded by Watford Borough Council these idiots really want to concrete over every bit of green land in the area its very worrying!Read the article, its Three rivers council not WBC. If you're going to jump on a bandwagon at least try and get your facts right
I'm not saying by the way everyone in social housing is like that, but there are some and whilst they may not be the majority if I was a betting man I'd wager there are far more people like that than trouble makers in the traveller community. Obtaining some land and building some hard standings for caravans is going to be far far cheaper than building/providing an equivalent number of homes.
Quibble the actual location, but its dodgy and slippery ground to be basing your arguments on gross generalisation of the group of people involved.
Roy Stockdill
says...
1:46pm Thu 7 Mar 13
If you're homosexual, lesbian, a sex-change person, black or brown, a gypsy/traveller, and even a criminal, you get all the help going while the rest of us are expected to pay for it!
What about a few human rights for US for a change? You know, that large majority of ordinary people who are white, middle class, middle aged and elderly, heterosexual and married with the requisite 2.4 children? Don't we have any rights, then?
The Human Rights Act has become a joke and is nothing more than an ever-expanding gravy train for lawyers and a charter for every malcontent, vexatious litigant and whining, whingeing failure to blame somebody else for their own inadequacies. I read at the weekend that Theresa May plans to get the UK out of it. More powere to her elbow, but I'm not holding my breath!
garston tony
says...
1:47pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Just pointing out that its nonsensical to tar a whole community with the same brush and the hypocrisy of picking on this community when non travellers who cause the same problems (as those travellers who actually do cause problems) are given no where near the same grief.
Sara
says...
1:51pm Thu 7 Mar 13
garston tony
says...
3:08pm Thu 7 Mar 13
In this particular case that doesn’t even apply, the population of this country as a whole is entitled to state assistance with housing and accommodation. That pre dates even the human rights act. Providing sites for travellers is fulfilling that entitlement and is a darn site cheaper than building and maintaining houses and flats. If you're saying that they should not have that same entitlement then that’s you, not the travellers, segregating them from society.
The real point I was trying to make here is that many of the comments here have not been centred on the actual suitability of that site but just spouting prejudicial generalisations about this community. That’s not an argument, that’s just a hate mob mentality.
As to the Human Rights act for all the times it throws up a quirk where it seems people who don’t deserve it are afforded some protection or bias or preferential treatment the reality is that there are far more instances where it does benefit the majority. That just isnt sexy headlines however and is ignored by practically everyone.
crazyfrog
says...
3:22pm Thu 7 Mar 13
garston tony wrote:Tony i agree my argument isn't about who the developement is for but where the developement is, its a shame that the debate has turned into an argument about travellers rather than the fact that a bit more of greenbelt is to be lost and is being eroded, to be honest i can see where the council are coming from and i would welcome them building extra spaces for travellers but not at the expense of eroding greenbelt land
crazyfrog wrote:Crazyfrog, I'll ask you a question in return. I've already hinted at it, but how much did/does it cost to build and maintain social housing. And how many people in social housing have never worked in their lives, never paid taxes and are a scourge on society with anti social behaviour and criminal activity and expect hard working tax payers to fund their life style choices such as having kids etc.
garston tony wrote:yes i jumped the gun and assumed it was WBC'S doing as this is the typical type of thing you would expect from WBC and not TRDC ! but hey ho even when i was wrong i iam right you ask anybody who lives in overdeveloped west watford, you want this site Tony you pay for it ! how much is it going to cost TRDC Taxpayers to construct and run this site? the land isn't even owned by the council.crazyfrog wrote: Greenbelt protection is being eroded by Watford Borough Council these idiots really want to concrete over every bit of green land in the area its very worrying!Read the article, its Three rivers council not WBC. If you're going to jump on a bandwagon at least try and get your facts right
I'm not saying by the way everyone in social housing is like that, but there are some and whilst they may not be the majority if I was a betting man I'd wager there are far more people like that than trouble makers in the traveller community. Obtaining some land and building some hard standings for caravans is going to be far far cheaper than building/providing an equivalent number of homes.
Quibble the actual location, but its dodgy and slippery ground to be basing your arguments on gross generalisation of the group of people involved.
I SEE U
says...
5:41pm Thu 7 Mar 13
LSC
says...
9:10pm Thu 7 Mar 13
I would quite like a house on that site, with that view. But we all know I would not be allowed to build one, for good reason.
It's Green Belt.
If however you can use Green Belt for housing for people of a certain lifestyle choice, then why not for me? That surely is discrimination, isn't it?
Why do I have less rights than some other people to live on that plot of land?
Sara
says...
9:24pm Thu 7 Mar 13
LSC
says...
9:39pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Sara wrote:So run the point of Green Belt past me again?
You can have a house on Green Belt if you want - Bovis and Bellway are currently building 425 of them at Leavesden. Or you could go and live in Bedmond or Sarratt.
LSC
says...
9:51pm Thu 7 Mar 13
"In United Kingdom town planning, the green belt is a policy for controlling urban growth. The idea is for a ring of countryside where urbanisation will be resisted for the foreseeable future, maintaining an area where agriculture, forestry and outdoor leisure can be expected to prevail. The fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and consequently the most important attribute of green belts is their openness."
So perfect for housing and traveller sites then.
crazyfrog
says...
10:44pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Sara wrote:@sara How will TRDC occupy this site will they compusary purchase it or have they already made a financial arrangement with the current leaseholder?
You can have a house on Green Belt if you want - Bovis and Bellway are currently building 425 of them at Leavesden. Or you could go and live in Bedmond or Sarratt.
LSC
says...
11:54pm Thu 7 Mar 13
If anyone disbelieves what I say, it is repeated in one hour on 139.
The fire service are called to attend a bonfire in a public place, started by travellers, around 40 of them attending a wake.
Not only is the fire a nuisance, it is a danger. The Fire Officer in charge rings his boss and is told, quite clearly (and I quote)
"For god's sake don't put it out, they'll lynch you".
THAT is what we are dealing with. You can watch it yourselves at 11.55 tonight. Not anecdotal; documentary.
A dangerous fire was left to burn because our Fire Service was afraid. But rest assured if a traveller was burned, they'd have the ambulance out.
Roy Stockdill
says...
1:10am Fri 8 Mar 13
Beyond belief!
Douglas_Quail
says...
4:33am Fri 8 Mar 13
http://i.imgur.com/F
EVi1o8.jpg
The council described it vaguely as "more than 8 pitches", but it's actually a really quite substantial development.
Seeing as Mayor Thornhill expressed surprise at Three Rivers' decision to build a site of this size, it seems the council is shoving an unsuitably large site in the less affluent part of its jurisdiction so that it can avoid upsetting wealthier constituents across the region.
Why must we lose such a beautiful little corner of the county to make the Council's life easier? If pitches need building then spread them out across Three Rivers, it's wholly unfair to ruin such a large and important piece of green belt.
corbindallas
says...
6:57am Fri 8 Mar 13
Retlas wrote:At least then it would be for the wider community rather than chosen few who seem to have the country running around helping them out with little in return for it. Lets face it gypsy site or mosque proposal, it's going to happen, human rights!!!!
Just a thought.
Would the debate have been so vociferous had the proposed developement been for a school, hospital or social housing?
Perhaps not?
Sara
says...
7:21am Fri 8 Mar 13
The Rover
says...
8:54am Fri 8 Mar 13
garston tony
says...
9:41am Fri 8 Mar 13
I SEE U wrote:Iseeu, the only crap around here is comments like yours.
With all the arguments going on, we all know how it's going to end up. CRAP everywhere, garden waste, fridges , washing machines , theft , burglary , etc. who wants that !!!!
garston tony
says...
9:42am Fri 8 Mar 13
LSC wrote:LSC right so debate the location then, attacking the community isnt doing that is it. Its just showing prejudice. And as Sara points out plenty of homes are built on greenbelt land so its not one rule for one another for another. Although THAT appears to be what you are promoting yourself.
The debates are linked, because this situation comes up time and again. I would quite like a house on that site, with that view. But we all know I would not be allowed to build one, for good reason. It's Green Belt. If however you can use Green Belt for housing for people of a certain lifestyle choice, then why not for me? That surely is discrimination, isn't it? Why do I have less rights than some other people to live on that plot of land?
garston tony
says...
9:43am Fri 8 Mar 13
LSC wrote:LSC, cherry picking again are we? Was the entire program about travellers or just a 5 minute segment? So what filled the remaining 55 minutes then? Or the whole 60 minutes of the other programs in the series?
For anyone interested; I have just been watching Sky Channel 138. A documentary called "999; What's your emergency?" If anyone disbelieves what I say, it is repeated in one hour on 139. The fire service are called to attend a bonfire in a public place, started by travellers, around 40 of them attending a wake. Not only is the fire a nuisance, it is a danger. The Fire Officer in charge rings his boss and is told, quite clearly (and I quote) "For god's sake don't put it out, they'll lynch you". THAT is what we are dealing with. You can watch it yourselves at 11.55 tonight. Not anecdotal; documentary. A dangerous fire was left to burn because our Fire Service was afraid. But rest assured if a traveller was burned, they'd have the ambulance out.
So you have found one example of some travellers behaving badly. Have you not heard however that on some estates in Manchester and Liverpool the fire brigade and ambulance service do not attend without the police because they are being attacked? Not by travellers but by 'Anglo white Brits' who live in houses built and maintained at tax payer expense and whose rent is mostly also going to be paid for via housing benefit where issues of anti social behaviour, crime, waste dumping etc are the daily norm.
Again, you show that for you this is nothing to do with it being green belt land or its suitability and everything to do with ignorant prejudice.
garston tony
says...
9:44am Fri 8 Mar 13
BBC news, 'the number of violent attacks on fire crews in England and Wales is going up'
Apparently there were a total of 1,300 attacks on fire crews last year
Your point LSC? Because I'll explain my point, stop cherry picking
garston tony
says...
9:44am Fri 8 Mar 13
LSC
says...
10:51am Fri 8 Mar 13
It's a fly on the wall thing of all the emergency services normal call outs, not just the anti-social ones, so was about 10-15 minute segment.
The police also attended this incident, and also advised the best course of action is to leave them to it.
That is NOT what happends in Manchester etc where it is true, the police sometimes have to protect the Fire Service. Protect them while they do their job, that is. Not tell them not to bother doing their job at all because the hassle just isn't worth it.
Which is what happened in the scene I described.
garston tony
says...
1:15pm Fri 8 Mar 13
But you're right the incident is different to what happened in Rochdale. In the Sky segment the fire crew assumed that if they went to tackle the fire they would get agro, in Rochdale a fire was started deliberately for the sole purpose of drawing a fire crew out so that said crew could be attacked. Sorry, but that's worse isnt it and so going by your reasoning everyone in Rochdale must be an anti social criminal lout. That’s over 200,000 people you'd judge and label on the action of only about a dozen or so.
Nonsense right.
Of course there are going to be bad eggs within the traveller community, but there are bad eggs in all groups and you cant judge them all by the actions of the worst of their members.
The Rover
says...
2:55pm Fri 8 Mar 13
If TRDC have an obligation to provide for travellers that is fine. I dont have a problem with that. The problem I have is that this is not a suitable site. It is Green Belt, it is not necessary to use this land, there are plenty of other sites across Three Rivers that can be used, and one reason I can see that Tolpits Lane has been chosen is that it is primarily an industrial area and is as far away from voters as they can get. It is also nearer to Watford than it is to any town in Three Rivers.
If you opposite the plan go to www.change.org, do a search for Tolpits Lane, and sign the petition. This is not a petition against the travellers, it is a petiton against the unecessary use of Green Belt land.
garston tony
says...
3:41pm Fri 8 Mar 13
LSC
says...
7:05pm Fri 8 Mar 13
What I am trying to say is that if we had no traveller sites at all, the actual location wouldn't be a subject of debate in the first place. Green Belt, brown site, Tolpits Lane or Trafalgar Square wouldn't matter.
But of course someone will point that they won't just go away, and that is probably true. But to live the life outside society that they insist on breaks the law of the land and can be dealt with accordingly.
I would not pitch a tent in your garden and use your pond as a toilet; and when you object demand that YOU not only found, but paid for, somewhere else for me to live or I'm staying put.
Yes, I do tar most with the same brush because every single one of them who has lived on someones else's land is a criminal.
These are not people who cannot find or afford social housing, which I am happy to contribute to, these are people who actively decide not to and you have to ask why that is.
The only conclusion possible is that they gain some advantage by living how they do, on official sites or B&Q car parks. And I don't like being taken advantage of.
LSC
says...
7:15pm Fri 8 Mar 13
garston tony wrote:What happened in Rochdale was that the police went in....hard. They tried to apprehend these evil idiots.
LSC you still have not acknowledged that highlighting that segment you described is cherry picking. You've taken the assumed behaviour of one group and are hailing it as proof that 300,000 people behave in exactly the same way. Not very scientific is it!
But you're right the incident is different to what happened in Rochdale. In the Sky segment the fire crew assumed that if they went to tackle the fire they would get agro, in Rochdale a fire was started deliberately for the sole purpose of drawing a fire crew out so that said crew could be attacked. Sorry, but that's worse isnt it and so going by your reasoning everyone in Rochdale must be an anti social criminal lout. That’s over 200,000 people you'd judge and label on the action of only about a dozen or so.
Nonsense right.
Of course there are going to be bad eggs within the traveller community, but there are bad eggs in all groups and you cant judge them all by the actions of the worst of their members.
In the case of the documentary I watched, the police made no effort to uphold the law once it was discovered who was breaking it. They backed down and walked away. They instructed the fire crew to do the same even though there was a danger to the public and an obvious crime happening in front of them, with the people who commited standing there.
So if the police can tar a whole community (who they meet more often then I), then I'll take their word.
G_Whiz
says...
1:08am Sat 9 Mar 13
Just proves the apologists on here are once again, clutching at straws!
crazyfrog
says...
6:32am Sat 9 Mar 13
Sara wrote:more cases of greenbelt erosion! this is where its all wrong as well, big developers with clout somehow ahem gaining permission to build on greenbelt land.
You can have a house on Green Belt if you want - Bovis and Bellway are currently building 425 of them at Leavesden. Or you could go and live in Bedmond or Sarratt.
Razor Sharp
says...
5:37pm Sat 9 Mar 13
Shame to see the urbanisation of Watford.
chuffer
says...
1:40pm Sun 10 Mar 13
HertsPeter
says...
9:34am Mon 11 Mar 13
lucyrl
says...
10:05am Mon 11 Mar 13
Home Truths
says...
10:44am Mon 11 Mar 13
croxleyite
says...
12:01pm Mon 11 Mar 13
garston tony
says...
2:33pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Also you claim its one rule for one and another for another yet your calls for action would widen the gap between travellers and non travellers. You cant moan about travellers settling up temporarily on public/private land illegally then say none should be provided for them.
As to living outside of society, where do you draw the line. That’s a very slipper slope youre on there
G-Whiz, because one of the defendants lived on a traveller site doesn’t make all those found guilty travellers nor does it make all travellers criminals. Did you get a four year old to do your reasoning there for you?
Seeing as you're so eagle eyed why don’t you tell us who was convicted last week of knicking at least 700k of jcb's etc? Or in this discussions are we supposed to just jump on the band wagon and forget that criminals exists in all walks of life?
Hometruths, if I was that way inclined I could point out at least six known and convicted criminals on the housing estate not far up the road from this proposed site. I could also point out probably the same amount of anti social yobs. And those are just the ones I know about. Who pays for the extra security for this lot and their mates?
Croxleyite, why don’t you engage with the consultation and find out what shape its taking?
LSC
says...
4:18pm Mon 11 Mar 13
That isn't what I said at all. We, as a society DO provide social housing and long may that continue. If these people CHOOSE not to live in them, well; sorry. The offer was, and is, there. If they CHOOSE to break the law instead, then expect the consequences.
"You cant moan about travellers settling up temporarily on public/private land illegally then say none should be provided for them."
Yes I can. I don't provide rape victims for rapists, just because they want to be rapists. So why should I provide land for people who want to live where ever they fancy, just because they want to?
Society doesn't work like that. There is social housing for those who need it, and there is private housing for those who can afford it. All over the place.
crazyfrog says...
1:14pm Wed 6 Mar 13
what a shame this lovely view will be lost