Traveller Sites: Hart Village

[fred c]

Yeah they were about as subtle as a 5 Gallon Bucket of Sh*te, but no one is under any illusions about how sneaky & underhand "The Mob" have become under the leadership of "The Dear Leader"

[bimbo 1]

I OWN MY HOME ON THE MANOR AND I DONT WANT IT ON MY STEP EITHER ITS BAD ENOUGH WITH THE LITTLE SCALLY WAGS THEY GIVE HOUSES TO . THESE PEOLPLE WHO GET HOUSES NOW YOU DONT SEE THEM CLEAN WINDOWS SWEEP FRONTS ITS JUST NETS UP LETS PARTY (SO I DONT THINK WE NEED THEM DO YOU.)WHEN THEY PASS YOU OR USE YOUR GARDEN AS A LOO FORBID IF YOU TRY AND SAY SOMETHING.CAR SMASHED WINDOWS OUT SO GOD HELP US IF WE GET TRAVELLERS

[DRiddle]

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/video-tensions-rise-during-hart-gypsy-debate-1-5957668

the mail have fixed the video link.

[DRiddle]

I actually think that's a good point raised regarding the wider origin of the basis for Iain Wright bringing this in back in 2008. Although we could talk all day and not really come up with anything that will even come close to having the EU legislation turned around anytime soon.

Personally, any energy I expend on this will be focussed on the way the local Labour group ignored their own officers' recommendations.

Although it is a fair point raised in terms of a wider debate.

[steveL]

Interesting development to try and get the whole matter referred to the full council. It will certainly be interesting to know who supports the move and who doesn't.
http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk

[steveL]

I thought Tracy Walker did a decent report of this in The Mail and the video was interesting. So glad Menswear didn't cover it; his reports are usually so bland and 'on message' we usually end up having to tell people what actually happened.

[Missy K]

I thought Tracy Walker did a decent report of this in The Mail and the video was interesting. So glad Menswear didn't cover it; his reports are usually so bland and 'on message' we usually end up having to tell people what actually happened.

Just watched the video and thought the MP was lacking in stance, but again its not often he has to address a crowd of rightly angrily disappointed folk rather than speaking to his followers, well done to Councillor Beck and Councilor Fisher too I think both of you have gained the ears and support of Hart.

[SRMoore]

I thought Tracy Walker did a decent report of this in The Mail and the video was interesting.

Agreed. Tracy is a good egg and gave a good and impartial report.

[steveL]

Interesting development to try and get the whole matter referred to the full council. It will certainly be interesting to know who supports the move and who doesn't.
http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk

My Lord this is political grandstanding at its absolute worst!

The email states that emails of support need to be submitted by Monday (20th) to 'call in' this decision which would mean that the full council would meet within 7 days I'd imagine. (Approx 26th).

You don't need to be a genius to work out that the deadline set by the Planning Inspector for the final decision from HBC is SUNDAY 19th August. Therefore, even if full council reached a different conclusion to that of the Finance and Policy committee the deadline will have passed.

Whilst I wholeheartedly support the residents of Hart in their fight against these sites I would urge councillors to stop playing political games at their expense.

I also still find it inappropriate for a councillor who may have raised concerns about the choice of Hart sites yet still voted them through, after giving no alternative option, to now try and take the moral high ground.

Pathetic.

Yes the deadline is the 18th, but if the deadline is not met then the consequences would be that the Planning Inspector himself would make the choice from the list of 16 shortlisted sites and at least we could then be sure that he would make the choice using the proper criteria and not based on what best suits the local labour party. . . the people of Hart Ward would class that as a result, I'd say.

Or, he would allow the council a week ot two extra to take into account the strength of feeling that is being expressed.

This is not Grammar School, Shane and the one thing you can be sure of is that the Planning Inspector isn't going to keep the council in detention after school for not meeting a deadline.

At the meeting on Wednesday, you heard the call for HBC to be referred to the Ombudsman for maladministration. If that is about to happen, then let it be for a decision made by the full council and not a subset of a few committee members. At the moment, a good two-thirds of the council can hold their hands up and claim that the decision was nothing to do with them. So let's know where every individual councillor stands on the issue and your Tory mates can start by supporting the referral to full council.

. . . and by the way, neither of the Lilleys voted anything through...you can keep saying it as often as you like but it still won't be true.


.

[SRMoore]

IF and extension was granted by the planning inspector to allow clarification, that would allow for a possibly a different vote.

Though the fact remains that the planning inspector has the final say anyway and could still choose a site other than Hart.

[mk1]

Shane I have no great preference for any party but you increasing seem to me to  be having your toast buttered on both sides.
I believe you come here and  tell us you are not happy with the way the Tories have sold the votes of the 3 councillors to Labour and I believe in group meeting or when addressing Tory voters you  bask in the glow of one who is doing the best for the Party by accepting the reality of your low support and saying the Labour deal is in the interests of Tory voters.
Wells is just as corrupt and vain as the SCABs.
Wells has done a grubby deal in order to give the Tories a stranglehold on planning applications.
You claim you do not agree but I see no concrete steps on your part to  solve this corruption nor do I see anything like an outright condemnation of this grubby tactic.
I see no difference in  the two parties, Labour and Tory.  They are equally corrupt.

[mk1]

Since the minutes state that no other site was proposed by them I fail to see how they 'voted' against Hart.

Churchill said:

'History will be kind to me. I know because I am going to write it'

[SRMoore]

*Must not feed the trolls!*

If you would like to hear how I speak to other party members you are welcome to sit with us at full council meetings or at any of our social events which are usually advertised on our website.

[steveL]

Absolutely not because from the first minute of the meeting when Stephen Akers-Belcher said that he refused to discuss any of the Owton Manor sites, they knew that a political decison was being made and they said so which fits in perfectly well with your own view that the Planning Applications in Burbank were a stitch up.

[minime]

This is my first post here so be nice everyone 

I attended last night's meeting in the village hall and we were informed by Damien Wilson that the letters to the Planning Inspector didn't have to be in until 24th September, rather than 18th August which has been stated everywhere else.  He said it was too late to object about the site but we could object about the decision and process.  This has caused some confusion with myself and others in the village, so could somebody clarify the correct closing date for letters?

I am concerned that other people who were at this meeting think they have until the 24th and will miss the opportunity to object to the decision.

Thanks in advance