Traveller Sites: Hart Village

[ARC86]

There's an interesting document floating round, a newsletter from the Foggy Furze Councillors Christpher Akers-Belcher, Kevein Cranney and Kaylee Sirs praising themselves up for the way that they fought to have Brenda Road(around B&Q) discounted as the preferred site for the Travellers.

Under Drummond's Cabinet, the Brenda Road site had been chosen as the most suitable site largely because it was already where the Travellers went and if it could be converted to an official site with proper facilities then that would be good enough.

The three Labour Councillor's fought against the site because it was in their ward (even though the travellers had already been there for donkeys years) and this was what triggered the current selection process.
Cllr Peter Jackson infamously screamed 'not in my f***i*g backgarden' at the meeting when he first realised that his own Wiltshire Way was on the original list.

Two glaring examples of Not In My Back Yard . . . but OK in Yours.

Sorry Steve but that is a load of tosh.. travellers may well have sited there in the past, but your comment implies that nobody in that area is bothered that they were there. That is simply not true.. peoples lives have been blighted for years because of the travelling community.. whats most interesting about this whole episode is the fact that mayor drummond and his cabinet said that only 5 sites where available across town.. funny how all these extra sites were found after the people fought back.. when questioned by residents the councillors worked with the residents association and even residents from the Seaton ward to prevent this becoming a reality.. you may not like it but councillors Cranney, Sirs & CAB are very well thought of in their ward and kudos to them for putting those who elected them first. They got three cheers from residents for putting up the good fight and winning the battle against the mayor and his cabinet

I wouldnt like to think you were my ward councillor if you think the opinions and feelings of constituents dont match yours.. fortunately we have councillors who do work hard for the area and long may it continue

[Lord Elpus]

In reply to ARC89 quote; ' funny how all these extra sites were found after the people fought back'.

It was also funny how all these extra site were found once Drummond's administration was a dead duck.  The decision on the short listed sites should have been taken by an impartial party (the Planning Inspector) and not in effect by one political party with too many political vested interests.

The people of Hart know they've been stitched up, you know it, I know it and CAB knows it.  Shame he can't be man enough to just admit it.

Political Leadership for the good of the town? my a**e.

[SRMoore]

The people of Hart know they've been stitched up, you know it, I know it and CAB knows it.  Shame he can't be man enough to just admit it.

Political Leadership for the good of the town? my a**e.

I'm not going to get drawn into the argument about more suitable sites as I don't agree with any of them but I will say that you can't protest about Hart being 'stitched up' and that you agree entirely with the planning officers when you yourself voted against the planning officers recommendations and FOR Hart.

[SRMoore]

Fisher loves to play to an audience and does well at it but I'm afraid that there's no excuse for either himself or Beck to play the 'I know nothing' card. If Fisher and Beck knew nothing about the meeting of the Finance and Policy Committee that would decide on the Traveller's site, then they were the only two councillors in the Civic that didn't.

This whole issue had gone on for months. It was always going to be controversial and Hart Ward voters were entirley dependent on their three councillors keeping on top of the subject in case their own ward was ever put forward as a possible site.

It was - weeks ago

.... . . and once two sites in Hart Ward had been identified it was down to the three councillors to track the issue and make sure it didn't slip by them. The agenda for the finance and policy meeting was published a full week in advance and the fact that the meeting was to take place was trailed well in advance both on this site and in the Hartlepool Mail.

In fact, so well was the meeting trailed - and this is the killer - that the meeting, when it did take place, was well attended by members of the public. So how can it be that a significant number of the public knew all about the meeting but  the three Civic 'insider's as Councillors did not?

It really doesn't hold water, does it?

Fisher's final excuse was that as a member of the Planning Committee, he didn't want to prejudice his 'impartial' position as a planning committee member by turning up or speaking at the Finance and Policy Meeting.

Again, this falls down when it was made clear that there is to be no Planning Committee involvement and that any appeals must be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate direct who will solely make the decision on any appeal.

So sorry, Keith. You made a good attempt at a juggling act tonight but one by one, the balls hit the deck.

The allowance donation was a recovery stunt offered because he quietly knew fine well that he'd dropped a major bollock.

I logged in to make my thoughts known on what went on last night but Steve has summed them up perfectly with the above.

One thing that has gone unreported is Iain Wright completely losing his temper and screaming at members of the public who had, quite rightly, pointed out that they knew these rules came about because of him and they demand he stands up and moves to have them overturned. Needless to say, he refused to give that commitment and stated that he's "make representations but you should write to the planning inspector".

[Hartlepudlion]

I agree that the Ward Cllrs got off very lightly. How could they not know about the meeting!

Fisher did talk the talk but I felt he had some loud assistance several times  from the same members in the room, ringers?

The MP and leader got a grilling but both were adamant that they were not going to support the Hart residents in their appeal. I guess that it was a political decision. Labour stand every chance of losing the marginal seat so why risk a safe one.

Simmons and Richardson showed up later on in the meeting. From the look on their faces they were not happy. So come on you two and show the rest of the Labour sheep how to depose 'our dear leader' and consort.

[fred c]

Fisher loves to play to an audience and does well at it but I'm afraid that there's no excuse for either himself or Beck to play the 'I know nothing' card. If Fisher and Beck knew nothing about the meeting of the Finance and Policy Committee that would decide on the Traveller's site, then they were the only two councillors in the Civic that didn't.

This whole issue had gone on for months. It was always going to be controversial and Hart Ward voters were entirley dependent on their three councillors keeping on top of the subject in case their own ward was ever put forward as a possible site.

It was - weeks ago

.... . . and once two sites in Hart Ward had been identified it was down to the three councillors to track the issue and make sure it didn't slip by them. The agenda for the finance and policy meeting was published a full week in advance and the fact that the meeting was to take place was trailed well in advance both on this site and in the Hartlepool Mail.

In fact, so well was the meeting trailed - and this is the killer - that the meeting, when it did take place, was well attended by members of the public. So how can it be that a significant number of the public knew all about the meeting but  the three Civic 'insider's as Councillors did not?

It really doesn't hold water, does it?

Fisher's final excuse was that as a member of the Planning Committee, he didn't want to prejudice his 'impartial' position as a planning committee member by turning up or speaking at the Finance and Policy Meeting.

Again, this falls down when it was made clear that there is to be no Planning Committee involvement and that any appeals must be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate direct who will solely make the decision on any appeal.

So sorry, Keith. You made a good attempt at a juggling act tonight but one by one, the balls hit the deck.

The allowance donation was a recovery stunt offered because he quietly knew fine well that he'd dropped a major bollock.

I logged in to make my thoughts known on what went on last night but Steve has summed them up perfectly with the above.

One thing that has gone unreported is Iain Wright completely losing his temper and screaming at members of the public who had, quite rightly, pointed out that they knew these rules came about because of him and they demand he stands up and moves to have them overturned. Needless to say, he refused to give that commitment and stated that he's "make representations but you should write to the planning inspector".

He was standing up.... I would hate for him to be 6`4" he would be a real handful... a simple case of "Small Mans Syndrome"....... funny how members of "The Mob" can lose the Plot & scream & abuse members of the public, but go off it when members of the public give them stick in return.

[grim reaper]

So Fisher, Beck & Robinson were not aware of the committee meeting?
Are they all 'out of the loop' with regard to politics in the Civic?
Don't councillors talk to each other?
Aren't documents circulated prior to meetings?

Stitched up? Too bloody true, and by the whole rotten establishment, not just Fisher & Co. 
To paraphrase a hackneyed saying, "They were all in it together!!"

As for Wright, what did he say/shout? 
It shows he KNOWS he's on his way out.
I'm told he tried to blame the Govt. for this situation when it was HIS communist ideological Govt. that introduced the law, and HE was the minister smoothing its pathway. 

I'm told the clown with the bleach blond hair looked like a bug eyed cockatiel.
And he's supposed to represent a 'stately' office. 
What a complete joke.
Hope there are pictures in the Mail.

[CC082]

It's appeared...

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/hundreds-turn-out-at-highly-charged-meeting-over-hart-gypsy-site-1-5953681

[mo the lawn]

I cant understand why people are knocking our MP. I think hes come on very well since he played the little one of the Driscoll brothers on Only Fools And Horses  but he still wears the same coat

[rabbit]

SteveL, I read some of that letter that you referred to above. (the one that the Inspector Kevin Ward had written in February this year.

In one sentence in the letter, dismissing the suitability of the site at Brenda Road, the inspector wrote:

"I consider that the site would not provide a suitable living environment given the proximity of general industrial uses, a retail park and busy roads."

Have you seen the new houses being built between the railway and Mainsforth Terrace?

Using the above remarks, this site would also not be a suitable environment for a traveller`s camp either, but somehow someone has decided that it is o.k. for standard housing in Hartlepool.

[Kato]

I find it staggering that the wishes of a whole town and surounding communities can be ignored in favour of one non taxpaying traveller.

Not only will I be writing a letter to oppose the development at Hart, I will also be writing one to ask why the council leaders are so out of touch with their staff.  Now even J Riddle has passed on the letters to Tom Britcliffe, a town planner, who lives in Hart Village.

At least he may take ownership of the issue and fight the proposed sites for us.

[steveL]

@rabbit The contradiction doesn't surprise me; there's some very unreal aspects to the whole approach to this subject.
For example, the Traveller Site, as it's become known, is aimed at Travellers who don't - well - travel. People who want to take up permanent residence in the town but in caravans rather than houses. Travellers that do travel will presumably continue to park up where they always have leaving us not much further forward and many would say, having taken a large step backwards.

There seems to have been some sort of survey carried out amongst Romas who are currently living in houses in town asking them if they would prefer to have the choice of living in caravans. If I remember rightly, six such families currently living in houses said that they would. The was described as a 'need'.

Asked if a site was available now, how many would want to move into a caravan immediately, only 1 family said that they would. This was described as trhe 'demand'.

There was much play on these two words 'need' and 'demand' last night which confused everyone.

[Lord Elpus]

The people of Hart know they've been stitched up, you know it, I know it and CAB knows it.  Shame he can't be man enough to just admit it.

Political Leadership for the good of the town? my a**e.

I'm not going to get drawn into the argument about more suitable sites as I don't agree with any of them but I will say that you can't protest about Hart being 'stitched up' and that you agree entirely with the planning officers when you yourself voted against the planning officers recommendations and FOR Hart.

At the end of the meeting CAB asked if we all agreed that the two sites in Hart should go forward to the Planning Inspector. My clear recollection was that I and Cllr A Lilley objected, this was not recorded in the minutes. 
The minutes read;

In summary, it was noted that Site 11 – Ref 462: Hart Smallholdings East
and Site 13 – Ref 465: Hart Smallholdings West were the two sites to
remain on the list for further consideration as a proposed gypsy and
traveller site.
One Member did comment that the soil in this area was extra rich soil and
was very unhappy to see this site included, however no alternative sites
were proposed for consideration at this point.
A discussion ensued on the two sites at Hart Smallholdings and it was
noted that the access to the West site would have least impact on local
traffic.

[Sanddancer]

First post on this site but I have been an observer for over a year.
Please look at the first posts here from August 7th informing of the council sub committee meeting on the 8th August. So anyone reading this site knew there was a meeting
I was talking to all and sundry in The White Hart on Wednesday evening about the meeting. Yet our councillors tell us they knew nothing about it. Disingenuous or what??

[fred c]

The people of Hart know they've been stitched up, you know it, I know it and CAB knows it.  Shame he can't be man enough to just admit it.

Political Leadership for the good of the town? my a**e.

I'm not going to get drawn into the argument about more suitable sites as I don't agree with any of them but I will say that you can't protest about Hart being 'stitched up' and that you agree entirely with the planning officers when you yourself voted against the planning officers recommendations and FOR Hart.

At the end of the meeting CAB asked if we all agreed that the two sites in Hart should go forward to the Planning Inspector. My clear recollection was that I and Cllr A Lilley objected, this was not recorded in the minutes. 
The minutes read;

In summary, it was noted that Site 11 – Ref 462: Hart Smallholdings East
and Site 13 – Ref 465: Hart Smallholdings West were the two sites to
remain on the list for further consideration as a proposed gypsy and
traveller site.
One Member did comment that the soil in this area was extra rich soil and
was very unhappy to see this site included, however no alternative sites
were proposed for consideration at this point.
A discussion ensued on the two sites at Hart Smallholdings and it was
noted that the access to the West site would have least impact on local
traffic.

I was sure I had heard your objection, but I`m getting on a bit & wondered if i had imagined it.... lmao

Yet another reason for HBC to Install a recording system........ The one used by Cllr Thompson worked like a charm, & it gave us all a chance to Pee our Pants a second time listening to "The Dear Leader" & Carls Blustering.