On civilised behaviour...

****

From an email received the other day regarding travellers camping on playing fields in Cottingley near Bingley:

...my husband has been to the playing field this evening and reports there are several large mounds of tipped rubble/earth around the perimeter of the field, bags of "household" rubbish and waste, i.e., bottles, cartons, empty tins and general rubbish, strewn around.  The main problem is the large volume of human excrement on the path over the stream between the playing field and the Yorkshire Clinic and possibly on the land adjacent to the banks of the stream bordering the Yorkshire Clinic grounds - my husband did not dare venture this far, deterred by the stench of the visible excrement and also the smell of urine emanating from the immediate area.

Employees of Bradford Council's Parks Department are now undertaking the clean-up with the costs falling on local council tax payers. What makes me most angry about this invasion isn't the fact of some travellers parking on some council-owned land (this is despite the Council making more than adequate provision for travellers in the District) but that they then proceed to leave us, quite literally, to clear up the crap they leave behind.

I have no quarrel with people who make the choice to live a nomadic lifestyle trundling from place to place with their vans and caravans. But, if they want the host population in places they stop to treat them with any sort of respect, it is necessary for travellers to behave with at least a modicum of human decency and civilisation. If such a disgusting experience were unusual we'd perhaps be understanding but it is repeated time and time again by groups of travellers passing through the locality. Broken gates, ruined football or cricket pitches, copious dumps of rubbish and a cavalier approach to what we might call waste management - this is what people see from travellers rather than some sort of adorable and misunderstood minority ill-treated by us folk in houses.

It simple terms whoever you are, don't leave your mess for the rest of us to clear up and expect any sympathy or consideration.

....

Gypsies, tramps and liberal angst...

Or so it seems. More to the point, the objects of that liberal conscience take full advantage of its owners naivety and stupidity. Funnily enough the rest of us are not remotely surprised at George Monbiot's predicament:

We had no idea how to handle them without offending our agonised liberal consciences. They saw this and exploited it ruthlessly.

Oh what a delight to see this posh leftie getting what might be called his comeuppance. You've lost count at the number of times some trendy or other has, through misty-eyes and rose-tinted glasses waxed lyrically at the traveller lifestyle. At how we should protect - even sustain - this culture rather than, on first sight of an old Transit towing a caravan, call the cops.

And this is the whole point. We can and should make the distinction between allowing people to roam around in caravans (just so long as they're not in front of me on the A64) and not allowing people to ignore the law. If someone wishes to live this life that's fine but they have to clear up their mess, refrain from destroying property to find pitches, try not to see public parks or cricket squares as camp sites and respect laws such as not stealing.

I recall sitting in a caravan at Mary Street in Bradford talking to a family (or rather several generations of women - didn't see a man) while eating cheap, shop-bought cakes and drinking sweet tea. Nice they were - illiterate but perfectly pleasant and I dealt with them on that basis. But I have no illusions about some of their relations - those still travelling, those on permanent sites like Mary Street and those now in houses. These people are just as George Monbiot describes - not all of them, all the time but enough for that "call the cops" reaction to be justified.

I also recall sitting in a neighbour's house with a dozen or so travellers - and friends of travellers - drinking and making music. I was asked - I'm the local councillor after all - what I thought of travellers. My response - as I recall - was that travellers are fine just so long as they don't steal stuff and break stuff. And that I'd like it if they got permission before they parked up. This was accepted and I was able to listen to the stories - most of these guys were in the antiques trade (in that loveable rogue, Lovejoy-esque way) and travelled from show to show up and down the country.

We have always to take people as they come. Rather than making sweeping assumptions about "groups marginalised by the concentration of control and ownership of land in Britain", we should look at them and decide whether they're good or bad, whether we want to associate with them and if they might be a threat to the peace. If we don't take this view, they will take full advantage of our indulgence with the result that:

At night they roamed the camp, staffies straining at the leash, cans of Special Brew in their free hands, shouting "fucking hippies, we're going to burn you in your tents!"

Part of me wants to laugh at the 'hippies'' predicament but part also thinks that there were children there (well I've never seen a hippy camp without children) who must have been terrified. What depresses me is that George and his mates didn't call the cops, didn't go for help - it was crimes elsewhere by these people that got them dealt with.

In closing, one last traveller tale. A friend of mine was a police officer in Essex - Grays and South Ockenden to be precise - and spoke of receiving the call announcing the arrival of some travellers. His response - as the grandson of travellers - was to ask what they had done.

"Nothing"; came the reply.

"What would you like me to do then" my friend asked?

"Arrest them before they do something!"

The right approach, I guess, lies somewhere between treating travellers as "marginalised" by our evil capitalist world and arresting them on sight. Society - that's us the taxpayer - invests a fair amount in these folk: providing designated sites, employing 'liaison' officers, setting on special education units and preparing grand strategies for working with "gypsies and travellers". I guess what society wants is for those travellers to respect this fact and cut the rest of society a little slack. That and stop breaking the law quite so often.

....

....

Dale Farm - this is about planning not human rights or equalities. Just planning....

****

Let’s assume, just for a minute that I own a large field on the edge of Cullingworth. And let’s assume that I wake up one morning a decide to put fifty or so mobile homes on that field so as to rent them as holiday lets or cheap short-term accommodation.


I am sure that, shortly after the arrival of the first mobile home, I would receive a visit from a planning enforcement officer telling me that I don’t have permission to put those mobile homes on that field. And in the friendly conversation with that planning enforcement officer, he or she will tell me that I am very unlikely to get permission as the site is in the ‘green belt’.

Now, dear reader, catch the bus and travel a couple of hundred miles south to a similar location – a field in the ‘green belt’ outside an ordinary Essex village. And ask yourself this question – what exactly are the “very special circumstances” (PPS2 3.1) that should permit the placing of a large number of mobile homes on this particular field. Forget about the Human Rights Act, set aside all the special pleading on behalf of minorities and just consider the base facts.

It would be wrong to grant permission unless there are those ‘very special circumstances’ – Basildon Council did not find those circumstances and refused permission and subsequently (and rightly) enforced its decision – a decision supported by the then secretary of state

It was noted that in the decision notice discussing appeals in relation to sites at Dale Farm issued on 22 February 2007, the Secretary of State had concluded that there was significant harm to the Green Belt and also harm to highway safety because of the limitations of the highway network in the locality. This harm was considered to be unacceptable, even on a temporary basis, and could not be adequately mitigated by conditions. The Secretary of State considered that the issue of need and the personal circumstances of the occupiers did not outweigh the identified harm.

There has been a series of court actions that, in the end, upheld the original Council decision that this represented a development that harmed the ‘green belt’ and that there were no very special circumstances that outweighed this harm.

In the end this is a planning matter rather than anything else. I will acknowledge that we perhaps need to make more provision for travellers by way of sites but under our current planning regime this provision is a matter that should be considered in the strategic planning process (currently the ‘local development framework’ system although this will change under the Localism and Decentralisation Bill currently before parliament).

The purpose of development control is to implement the council’s planning policies in the context of national guidance and the specifics of each application. Had Basildon’s planners made any other decision it would have represented a very significant change to the treatment of ‘green belt’ in respect of caravans, mobile homes and temporary accommodation. This does not just relate to how we treat “travellers” but to a variety of other potential developments from holiday lets to retirement parks.

The reason this decision is right must be clear – whatever we may think of planning regulations, they need to be implemented consistently. If it is not permitted development for me to build one small bungalow in the ‘green belt’ – and (all other things being equal) it isn’t – it cannot be permissible for anyone to develop 51 caravan pitches with hard-standing and permanent facilities.

Travellers do not have any special privileges in respect of planning regulations other than those contained within ODPM Circular 01/2006 which states:

There is a general presumption against inappropriate development within Green Belts.

New gypsy and traveller sites in the Green Belt are normally inappropriate development, as defined in Planning Policy Guidance 2: ‘Green Belts’ (PPG2). National planning policy on Green Belts applies equally to applications for planning permission from gypsies and travellers, and the settled population. Alternatives should be explored before Green Belt locations are considered.

So why have so many people arrived to “support” the resident on this site – ageing actresses, so-called anarchists and even antediluvian Liberal Peers:

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Avebury has criticised the decision to evict dozens of families living illegally at the Dale Farm site in Essex.

His remarks (which he’d never have made when he was MP for Orpington I bet) come on the day that the travellers facing eviction from the site took their fight to Downing Street where they handed in a 1,000-signature petition.

I can respect those who reject the premise of planning control – although I am equivocal as to whether they are right:

As Dale Farm residents have discovered to their cost, to accept that a self-styled bunch of planning experts has the right to tell you whether or not you can build a home on land you own is a cruel restriction on people’s freedom and liberty.

But the argument that there is anything in all this about “human rights” or “equalities” is to misrepresent the entire debate. It maybe that the law is an ass but, right now, it’s the law.

....

Smells like political interference...

****

There was a meeting of the Shipley Constituency Area Committee - one of Bradford's Area Committees - this evening. Item 10 on the agenda for the meeting was entitled:

Review of decision on gypsy/traveller encampments

The gist of this item was that the resolution of the Committee back in December was contrary to the Council's Constitution. The relevant part of the resolution said:

"That the Chief Executive, in consultation with other Local Authority Chief Officers that he considers appropriate, be requested to press the Government to introduce more robust legislation to deal with the problematic and persistent unauthorised encampments as part of a strategy to manage the needs of travelling communities."

The City Solicitor deems that this resolution is outside the remit of the Committee as it does not have "...the authority to instruct the Chief Executive to lobby the Government to change the law as that would be a policy decision."  According to the City Solicitor the Constitution states that Area Committees can only "contribute to the formulation" of policy.

Unfortunately the City Solicitor wasn't in attendance so could neither explain nor defend her decision. However, it seems to me that the Committee's resolution did not breech the Constitution since is does not "instruct" the Chief Executive, it "requests" an action from that person.

Moreover, since the issues that led to the resolution related directly to a series of events in Bingley - within the Shipley constituency - it seems to me that the Committee was acting well within its remit to:

"Consider and address issues raised through neighbourhood forums, liaison groups, parish and town councils and other community bodies"

Much though I like the City Solicitor, it seems to me that this decision raises two serious concerns:

1. The Committee has been constrained in seeking reasonable actions to address specific issues relating to the Area it serves

2. There was a four month gap between the original resolution and today's date - this seems an excessive time for one individual to consider a given resolution that raises concern

The whole affair smells a funny colour - call me a cynic but I sense political interference.

....

Travelling is a lifestyle choice...

Now, dear reader, I know you are of a sensitive disposition so it is only fair to warn you that some people might find what is to follow offensive. Not offensive as in “I’m really upset by what you said about me” but offensive as in “I’m not really offended at all but I am going to display my supposed moral superiority by saying that you are being offensive to some or other group in our diverse society.”

So here goes, dear reader…

Being a traveller is a life style choice.

Living in a caravan and wandering from place to place is not an inevitable function of ethnicity – assuming there is actually some real ethnic specificity to being a traveller. There are plenty of Gypsies (or are we supposed to called them Roma these days – I lose track of the precise and politically correct designation) who live in houses, who don’t wander from place to place and who go about an otherwise unremarkable life. These people are not travellers (except on those occasions when they go some place for a visit).

As I said, being a traveller is a lifestyle choice. And it is a lifestyle choice that doesn’t always endear those making that choice to other folk. It is also a lifestyle choice that makes it pretty difficult to ensure that children get an education, get vaccinated and get treated for illnesses.

Now I don’t have any problem with people deciding that they want a life on the open road – that’s their business. I can even deal with some of the negatives in a pretty laissez-faire manner. And I have had a few ‘live and let live’ arguments with locals about travellers.

But I do object to vast sums of public money being directed to picking up the pieces behind ‘travellers’ and I can think of better ways for Yorkshire Councils and the European Union to spend £1,000,000 than on “RomaSOURCE” which intends:

“…to make sure that local communities in Yorkshire, which have only recently seen significant migration by European Roma, learn from the experiences of other European countries where Roma have traditionally lived. This will benefit not only Roma themselves, but also lessen the impact on existing communities in places where Roma have settled.”

And I don’t agree with Cllr Rowley from Wakefield that:

“This project will provide a great opportunity to make sure we are developing the skills and knowledge we need to provide services to this extremely vulnerable group. Doing this will benefit both Roma people and the communities that they live alongside.”

Note the word "alongside" there! As I said – being a traveller is a lifestyle choice.

....