Traveller Sites: Hart Village

[steveL]

  Yes, OK but all we're talking about here is the chance to have the whole issue given an airing by the full council and I don't really see how anyone refuse to sign up to that given the strength of public feeling about it. You would think Tories especially would welcome that given Eric Pickles stance on the issue.

[fred c]

Yes, OK but all we're talking about here is the chance to have the whole issue given an airing by the full council and I don't really see how anyone refuse to sign up to that given the strength of public feeling about it. You would think Tories especially would welcome that given Eric Pickles stance on the issue.

Given the stance by Eric Pickles & the statement by Hartlepool Conservatives............

Speaking about the launch of the campaign, Shane Moore said "whilst I appreciate that the council is legally bound to provide a suitable site for the gypsy & traveller community I cannot help but share serious concerns held by residents who live next door to these proposed sites who fear that it will have a detrimental effect on property prices, visual impact, insurance premiums and potentially an increase in crime". He went on to say "over the coming week we will have petitions located in local amenities close to the named areas and we will be encouraging as many residents as possible to attend the public consultation meetings and to speak to your local councillors to have your opinions heard".

You really have to wonder exactly what goes on with the TorLabs, when a statement like the above is issued by their local party you have to ask, Why wont they support "Calling In" the original council decision ?

It seems as though they have their own version of "The Dear Leader"

[ARC86]

The difficulty here is when calling this in you have to name another preferred site.. the tories dont have one that is pretty obvious now, so as PHF are calling it in what site will they be nominating?

[DRiddle]

Arc, is that 100% certain that to call it in an alternative has to be proposed NOW? I thought it just meant it would go back for further discussion?

[ARC86]

Im not 100% sure but it seems likely that to be the case.. it seems a bit perverse opposing a site without having an alternative so close to the deadline.. to be honest david i dont think it makes much difference becaise as it stands the government inspector will end up choosing the site.. but it does still ask the question if PHF were in power where would they propose the travellers site to be?

[DRiddle]

Well, my personal answer to that is already on record. I only speak for me though. I'm just a member of PHF currently. Nothing more.

[ARC86]

Thats why i cant take PHF seriously there are no concrete policies and it appears to be made up as they go along.. have you never thought the way of bringing change to labour is by joining and airing your graces?

[mk1]

I think the Hart protester think they have bought themselves out of any civic responsibility. It is usualy the case that those with a bit more money than most of the others expect special treatment.
There are all sorts of things we con't like to live near but they have to go somewhere. The people of Hart should tell us what exactly they think their share of the  public burden they are willing to share. I expect the reply to be 'zero'
As for the gypsy site it will end up being dumped on those who are less able to complain. It is certain it will end up imposed on those already bearing more than their fair share of the towns problems. The well connected NIMBY will always prevail.
In advance of  any complaints the Labour group are (in my eyes) a very  well connected group of super NIMBYs who will protect their own  living area before their Ward. Leyburn street out and Manor back in!

[mk1]

Thats why i cant take PHF seriously there are no concrete policies and it appears to be made up as they go along.. have you never thought the way of bringing change to labour is by joining and airing your graces?

Talking of herding cats I see the UKIP Chief Executive has given up on that bunch of loonies..................

[Kato]

It makes me laugh how people view Hart as exclusive, or posh.  There is nothing here and little damage to do.  Its a small community that is based on generations of families mainly.  Visit the raby arms or white hart and look at how posh those pubs are... 1970's toilets passed retro fashion a while ago.  The gypsy community, if based here would have to go into town for supplies, as us villagers do. 

If you think the towns not going to be impacted having gypsy settlements in Hart then your completely misinformed and short sighted.  Theyll most certainly go shopping in town, and for free!

[mk1]

It makes me laugh how people view Hart as exclusive, or posh.  There is nothing here and little damage to do.  Its a small community that is based on generations of families mainly.  Visit the raby arms or white hart and look at how posh those pubs are... 1970's toilets passed retro fashion a while ago.  The gypsy community, if based here would have to go into town for supplies, as us villagers do. 

If you think the towns not going to be impacted having gypsy settlements in Hart then your completely misinformed and short sighted.  Theyll most certainly go shopping in town, and for free!

Laugh away but I clearly wrote 'a bit more money than most'.
Anyway it is all moot because the residents will not accept the site under any circumstances. The aim is to get it shifted full stop.
For your information I live in the town and accept the fact the site will be built somewhere. I bet it ends up nearer me than you.

[steveL]

Im not 100% sure but it seems likely that to be the case.. it seems a bit perverse opposing a site without having an alternative so close to the deadline.. to be honest david i dont think it makes much difference becaise as it stands the government inspector will end up choosing the site.. but it does still ask the question if PHF were in power where would they propose the travellers site to be?

Absolute twaddle.

Any decision by a policy committee can be called in. Do they all deal with gypsy sites?

[DRiddle]

have you never thought the way of bringing change to labour is by joining and airing your graces?

The Labour Party doesn't exist in Hartlepool, not anymore.

[TSteels]

This isn't to do with where's posh or not, it's to do with the reasons the site was chosen. If this was a Tory controlled council and they had stuck it i the poorest, Labour voting area they could find I'd be just as angry. Decisions should be made on their merits, this was made on the basis of votes and that is despicable. Indeed the only thing worse is the fact that the Tories are helping them do it!!

Shane can talk all he wants about Tories standing up for people, but when push came to shove - they didn't!!!

[Lord Elpus]

Im not 100% sure but it seems likely that to be the case.. it seems a bit perverse opposing a site without having an alternative so close to the deadline.. to be honest david i dont think it makes much difference becaise as it stands the government inspector will end up choosing the site.. but it does still ask the question if PHF were in power where would they propose the travellers site to be?

In reply to Comrade ARC89, before the meeting of the 8th Geoff Lilley spoke to Peter Devlin and questioned if the meeting could be seen as being fair or impartial, bearing in mind that four of the sites were in Manor House ward where a by-election was imminent in six days.  Devlin thought the meeting should go ahead.

With the best will in the world any Councillor worth their salt would fight to keep the ward they represent or live in out of the final shuffle, therefore, one could not expect a fair and balanced decision.  Councillors should have recognized that fact and simply referred all the sites on the short list to the Planning Inspector for him to decide based on planning criteria.  Instead the decision was a political one with little regard to the criteria used by Officers - instead choosing their own self and party interest first.

The simple question is, was it right to put self and party first.  Or should they have recognized the  right thing to do under the circumstances was to allow for a fair and impartial decision be taken by a planning inspector.