Proposed Travellers Sites

[steveL]

For Info:



My understanding is that, after waking up to the fact that most, if not all, of these possible sites fall within Labour wards, the Labour Group have attempted to add another two possible sites - both of which are in non-Labour wards.

The eleborate selection and assessment criteria adopted by HBC appear to have been summarily dumped in order to include the additional sites which means that any appeal against their inclusion would be virtually guaranteed to be successful.

Full Documentation:

http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/files/traveller sites assessment.pdf

http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/files/traveller sites final.pdf

http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/files/traveller sites public consultation.pdf

http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/files/traveller sites methodology.pdf

[Stig of the Seaton Dump]

I know of planning applications that have been refused because you would be able to see the proposed houses from Summerhill. The houses were not that close just that they would have been visible and that would have detracted from the countryside appeal.

So that is not acceptable but a gypsy encampment is !!!!

Twisted.

[steveL]

Looking at the table, the most likely sites appear to be either in West View Road or Burbank - although I'm sure Labour will be working on a plan to put it in Brashy's back garden. 

[Lord Elpus]

My understanding is that Briarfields has been included as well.

[steveL]

Briarfields? oh that will go down really well......

[The Great Dictator]

Why not Graythorp or little india ?

[allinthistogether!!]

My understanding is that Briarfields has been included as well.

Well that'll go down like a lead balloon.

I just think we have enough scum and thieving in this town before inviting a load of gypsies in...

[steveL]

one seems to be on the Brus roundabout next to the tunnel

[norfolkngoode]

I've just read this......I live on the edge of town, next to open countryside. I was absolutley convinced my local area would be on any list as a potential site for the travelling feckers. I am amazed (and over the moon) that it isn't. We shouldnt even be in this position were we are considering putting them anywhere near residential, industrial, or even derelict areas. Nobody should have these feckers inflicted on them.

The ideal place for them is Seaton Meadows... it even sounds nice!

You can guarantee that whoever makes the final decision on a site will make sure it's nowhere near them.

They should be left to do as their name implies and travel.

[allinthistogether!!]

one seems to be on the Brus roundabout next to the tunnel

Yeah i saw that. Is it the land opposite the Post Office? Or as you're looking at the tunnel from the roundabout, the land to the right?

Both have houses next to them....

[steveL]

yea that's it, right next to the tunnel. I think it's grassed over at the moment

[mk1]

What usually happens in situations like this is you get the matriarchs of the group sobbing on the telly  saying they  just want somewhere  decent to live out their twighlight years. You see lots of women with kids in the background. If ever a male strays  into shot they insist their faces are obscured.
The real situation is the men are all out on the road getting up to their usual tricks and the site is used as a base for all the illegal activity. Faces are obscured so the granny conned out of her life savings does not see  the thief on telly!

[steveL]

HBC doesn't really have a choice as its been national legislation for years that each authority must provide a site (s). HBC has got away with not doing so for years but it looks like the requirement has finally caught up with them.

[Stig of the Seaton Dump]

The red box is an area that was cleared of houses by HBC because of severe subsidence.

How would an amenities block not sink too ?

Supposedly the gateway to executive development on the old Steetly site as well ?

[testing times]

When you look at the list there's another site in Old Cemetery Road on the way to the 'new executive housing site'. Joined up thinking? I don't think so.
Thanks for the write-up on the front page BTW - a lot more informative than the Mail coverage.