Traveller Sites: Hart Village

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

A little clarification regarding timescales - from today's Mail ....

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/more-time-to-object-over-gypsy-site-1-5961443

[testing times]

Am I the only one who thinks this has a whiff of misinformation being given out by CAB and his aspiring assistant Director aimed at limiting the number of objectors. You tell people that they only have three days to lodge objections when in fact you have 2 or 3 weeks and add in that there is no scope for changing the decision made by the committee when in fact, as we we now know, councillors can refer it to the full council if enough of them want to - perhaps it's the case that the Labour/Tory coalition would rather they didn't?

[mk1]

The biggest fools in all this are the Ward Councillors. It is clear the SCABs are going to keep it in Hart if they can.
Fisher has to chose between his hopes of getting back into Labour and his Ward.

[minime]

Am I the only one who thinks this has a whiff of misinformation being given out by CAB and his aspiring assistant Director aimed at limiting the number of objectors. You tell people that they only have three days to lodge objections when in fact you have 2 or 3 weeks and add in that there is no scope for changing the decision made by the committee when in fact, as we we now know, councillors can refer it to the full council if enough of them want to - perhaps it's the case that the Labour/Tory coalition would rather they didn't?

No you are not the only one.

I have a letter which CAB gave out on Wednesday night clearly stating that all objections has to be sent to Jim Riddle by 18th August.  Although CAB had printed his name at the bottom, the letter wasn't signed, dated or printed on council letterhead - read into that what you will....

I also attended a small meeting on Thursday night in the village hall where Damien Wilson was giving 'advice' on how to object and what criteria to use.  It was at this meeting where he said we had until the day before the meeting at the college on 24th September to submit any objections/representations.

It is a case of one of two things.... deliberate misinformation or total incompetence. 

As for referring the decision back to the full council, I am doubtful they will get the support/numbers they need.  Unfortunately, even though I am sure many councillors will be thinking that the decision is flawed, I think they will be concerned that it may end up in their backyard if they take it back to the full council.

[rabbit]

minime:

Unfortunately, even though I am sure many councillors will be thinking that the decision is flawed, I think they will be concerned that it may end up in their backyard if they take it back to the full council.

Exactly what I was thinking. Nothing in it for them in supporting such a proposal.

[steveL]

Interesting how things can be progressed quickly when the need arises. The talk of extending accomodation facilities for people with learning difficulties in Burbank sprung up from nowhere at the 17th June meeting of the Adult Services Committee and yet it took only 11 days for it to be nodded through on the Finance and Policy Committee on the 28th of the same month..

Those at the meeting in Hart last Wednesday will recall CAB's talk of planning permission having been given to the two sites in Burbank which effectively removed them from the list of 16 possible sites. It wasn't true.

As we see from today's Mail article, obtaining planning permission in Hartlepool is a long, long process. What suited the circumstances much, much better was a 6-month exclusivity arrangement which could be arranged far more quickly and which binds neither the Developer or HBC to anything. This is probably just as well, because this isn't even half of a plan. There are doubts if Burbank is the right location for the new accomodation and in any case there is no money at the moment to see it through.

The one thing an exclusivity arangement has going for it is that it stops any prospect of using the site for a Traveller's site in its tracks; something Burbank Councillor, Robbie Payne appears to have been over-the-moon about judging by the inappropriate remark he came out with at the meeting.

A stitch up if ever there was one.

17th June 2013 Adult Services Committee
http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/egov_downloads/17.06.13_-_Adult_Services_Committee_Decision_Record.pdf

http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/egov_downloads/17.06.13_-_Adult_Services_Committee_Decision_Record.pdf

28th June 2013 Finance and Policy Committee Meeting
http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/egov_downloads/28.06.13_-_Finance_and_Policy_Committee_Decision_Record.pdf

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/concern-over-hartlepool-borough-council-planning-delays-1-5961087

[mk1]

The Council have to provide a site.
One will be built.

If Hart manage to  escape then the whole circus starts all over again.
For certain no site will be provided in the Wards of the 2 SCABs.
Senior Labour councillors will also rig it so they escape.
The Tories have to be kept on board so no chance of it going in their Wards.
If I were a non Labour Councillor I would start worrying.
The SCABs are so corrupt they will do anything  to keep power.
I see another change in the Constitution looming..........

[pensionater]

If you look at the choice of Hart another way,it is on the outskirts of the town so there is no real reason for the travellers to come into the centre of town. Just a thought.

[fred c]

"The Dear Leader" oftenstates that he is doing his best for Hartlepool, well he could always organise a petition to stop "All Gypsy Sites", I feel sure he could get in excess of 30,000 people to sign it, he would then be able to say to Central Government...... Hartlepool says No to Gypsy Sites. ( I jest of course )

Or he could always get members of "The Mob" to send emails in support of Calling in The Decision.

That would at least be an Open, Transparent & Accountable decision, unlike the underhand self serving decision making that he is overseeing at the moment.

[steveL]

From experience, I would say a 30,000 signature petition would simply be ignored.

We'll be publishing a list of which councillors voted for the 'call-in' and which didn't.

[DRiddle]

We'll be publishing a list of which councillors voted for the 'call-in' and which didn't.

Well at least the residents affected will be safe the knowledge the Conservatives will surely vote to call it in. I mean, this is textbook Daily Mail/ Centre right politics.

The right wing headline writes itself "Gypsies set to ambush rural village".

So that's at least 3 votes........ isn't it? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAU5MTXmAPY

[DRiddle]

Also, I think there's been 2 or 3 attempts to establish whether the local conservatives will be backing the move to 'call in' the decision via the Hartlepool Posts twitter feed.

However, as yet whoever mans the tory twitter feed has ducked the question and instead is focussed on pointing out the date for submissions.

I'm sure people in Hart are keen to know what the conservatives think of this. Hart Village and Elwick Village are very similar in lots of ways so it'll take some nerve for a TRUE Conservative to say "Actually yes we support it going in a village surrounded by working farm land".

[marky]

I see Christopher Akers-Belcher is maintaining his reputation as the biggest liar in town. In tonight's Mail he claims that there was no dissent against choosing the Hart sites during the meeting of the Finance and Policy Decision. A trawl of The Mail past stories shows otherwise:

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/hartlepool-councillor-denies-rumours-that-politics-played-a-part-in-choosing-hart-village-for-gypsy-site-1-5937866

[steveL]

Well spotted, Marky. I remembered the Mail write up but couldn't find it. What I did spot is a piece on the local Tory site telling us of their opposition to all sites which makes me wonder why they are now refusing to sign up to the chance to have the matter referred back to the council.

"Hartlepool Conservatives are launching a campaign to halt the unacceptable proposals put forward for the provision of gypsy & traveller sites in the town. We believe that the current 13 shortlisted sites are completely unacceptable and have shown no regard for the views of neighbouring residents."

http://www.hartlepoolconservatives.org.uk/news/conservatives-slam-unacceptable-gypsy-traveller-site-proposals

[testing times]

You're not really 'wondering' are you Steve? You know as well as I do that we have a Labour/Tory Coalition in HBC. The Tories may have a website; they just don't have any Tory councillors.