Dale Farm Traveller Encampment Sacked by Riot Police

[Zaune]

Guardian liveblog

For those of you who haven't been following this, a large Irish traveller group in Essex purchased a plot of land formerly occupied by a scrapyard a few years back. They've been refused planning permission for the additional sites, for no readily apparent reason other than the fact that they're Irish travellers.

And now they're being thrown off land bought with their own money by riot police. While a sizeable percentage of the Great British public cheers the cops on, going by the comments on that article.

[Kinyo]

And this has nothing to do with Green Belt planning law?

[Zaune]

And this has nothing to do with Green Belt planning law?

What part of "it used to be a scrapyard" was I not clear on? The local council were quite happy to turn a blind eye to green belt planning law for that, how is a bunch of caravans and small houses supposed to be worse?

[TC27]

And this has nothing to do with Green Belt planning law?

No its cleary the fascist Tory bullington club cracking down on some poor inoccent Irish travellers as part of a grand scheme that ends with David Cameron eating your baby.

[Kinyo]

And this has nothing to do with Green Belt planning law?

What part of "it used to be a scrapyard" was I not clear on? The local council were quite happy to turn a blind eye to green belt planning law for that, how is a bunch of caravans and small houses supposed to be worse?

What a site has been used for is irrelevant in planning applications. Its "Whats the status of the land". I this case Green Belt and "What is the proposed use" and in this case, property development. The erection of dwellings for inhabitation.

To develop on Green Belt you need a damn good reason and homes aint one of them. Helps to stop property developers building every which way.

Half the Dale Farm site is fine, council has no issue. Its the half built on Green Belt.

10 years have been spent trying to sort this out and since the Travellers dont want to leave the council has to evict them.

[2000AD]

They're not being thrown off land they own. They bought part of the land, and the people on that part are fine to stay, it's the people that are on the greenbelt land that the camp was expanded into, beyond the land they purchased, without planning permiossion that are getting evicted.

EDIT:
[Snide aside] If someone stays in the same place for 10 years can we stop calling them a traveller? [/snide aside]

[evilsoup]

^As far as I know, they do own the greenbelt land. But that doesn't mean they have the right to build houses there (the fact that you cannot build on the greenbelt makes it less expensive, too - so these 'travellers' got the land for a knock-down price).

@Zaune: You're wrong in this case, but I approve of your instincts in being suspicious of this kind of use of state power.

[Hillary]

They're not being thrown off land they own. They bought part of the land, and the people on that part are fine to stay, it's the people that are on the greenbelt land that the camp was expanded into, beyond the land they purchased, without planning permiossion that are getting evicted.

Wrong - they own all the land, but only have planning permission for part of it.

[White Haven]

Whether they're allowed to build there is, indeed, mostly a separate consideration from the prior existence of a scrapyard on protected land -- to a point. What should be happening concurrently, however, is an immediate, automatic corruption investigation regarding how the scrapyard managed unmolested previously.

[Kinyo]

Probably don't need an investigation White Haven, just a lot of free time, knowledge of Access to Information, and idea what your looking for and access to Basildon Councils reports from their planning meetings.

It could be the land was designated Green Belt after the Scrapyard opened its doors or after it ceased functioning. Could be it was granted permission to work as it was out of the way at the time, a NIMBY building as you will. Finally if its not in the reports of the planning meetings then you can seriously screw the council by bringing to light the absence of the reports/minutes. What with that being a requirement in the Council constitution. (Assuming Basildon Council's is similar to my local councils)

Investigations are expensive and if someone knows its going on then its relativley easy to hide what you need too. A man with too much time on his hands just looks wierd until he hits paydirt.

[Sharp-kun]

What should be happening concurrently, however, is an immediate, automatic corruption investigation regarding how the scrapyard managed unmolested previously.

Depends on when it was made greenbelt land.

From the BBC timeline:

Scrapyard owner Ray Bocking, denied permission to carry on his business, sells Dale Farm to an Irish travelling family for £122,000.

"Denied permission" as it was declared Greenbelt land?

[Sharp-kun]

http://www.basildon.gov.uk/index.aspx?a ... place=true

That's the council's comment on the scrapyard.

[Kinyo]

http://www.basildon.gov.uk/index.aspx?a ... place=true

That's the council's comment on the scrapyard.

So planning permission wasn't needed because it wasn't noticed. However for anything other than a scrapyard planning permission is needed. That does clear that up.

Good find.

[Sharp-kun]

http://www.basildon.gov.uk/index.aspx?a ... place=true

That's the council's comment on the scrapyard.

So planning permission wasn't needed because it wasn't noticed. However for anything other than a scrapyard planning permission is needed. That does clear that up.

Good find.

More than that, to reinstate the scrapyard now would also require planning permission.

The only reason it got away with it would seem to be that it took almost 20 years to notice and by that point it was "established use". Now that its gone anything being built requires permission.


I've little sympathy for them, they're travellers but they want to set up homes and have been there for 10 years? They're dodging council tax and the actual residents in the council don't want them there.

[evilsoup]

Nono, the scrapyard was grandfather'd-in, it was allowed because it wasn't noticed. But it's had a change of use to this camp, and now it won't be allowed to be a scrapyard again without planning permission (which it won't get).

[Kinyo]

Nono, the scrapyard was grandfather'd-in, it was allowed because it wasn't noticed. But it's had a change of use to this camp, and now it won't be allowed to be a scrapyard again without planning permission (which it won't get).

Planning law is never, nor will it ever be, simple.

My local council has had a few people tear down houses after they built them and attempted to hide them.

One involved someone hiding their house behind hay bails and waiting out the 10 years. Council successfully argued that the bails where structural and that the time period began to elapse upon their removal not on completion of the house.

In the case of Dale Farm I imagine that one of the stumbling blocks to a successful application was objections from the local residents. Its not just people from Dale Farm that have to live there but existing residents as well.

The best that can be done with the part of the land without planning permission is to let it grow over.

[Simon_Jester]

I must confess that there's something perverse about a situation where legal issues make it so impractical to do anything with a plot of land that it makes more sense and is more cost-effective to let it revert to wilderness. At least, outside of dedicated nature preserves. It just seems odd to me...

Whether they're allowed to build there is, indeed, mostly a separate consideration from the prior existence of a scrapyard on protected land -- to a point. What should be happening concurrently, however, is an immediate, automatic corruption investigation regarding how the scrapyard managed unmolested previously.

I'm pretty sure the scrapyard went there in the 1960s, from a cursory reading into the history of the event, so it's kind of a moot point- even if corruption was involved, it became involved so long ago that it's largely irrelevant.

[bilateralrope]

I must confess that there's something perverse about a situation where legal issues make it so impractical to do anything with a plot of land that it makes more sense and is more cost-effective to let it revert to wilderness. At least, outside of dedicated nature preserves. It just seems odd to me...

I'd only view it as perverse if that was an unintentional effect. But this is the intended effect of declaring land part of the green belt.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Nono, the scrapyard was grandfather'd-in, it was allowed because it wasn't noticed. But it's had a change of use to this camp, and now it won't be allowed to be a scrapyard again without planning permission (which it won't get).

Planning law is never, nor will it ever be, simple.

My local council has had a few people tear down houses after they built them and attempted to hide them.

One involved someone hiding their house behind hay bails and waiting out the 10 years. Council successfully argued that the bails where structural and that the time period began to elapse upon their removal not on completion of the house.

I remember that one about the hay bales, I think it was posted here on SDN at one point.

[Rogue 9]

Oh, bullshit a pile of hay is structural.

[Starglider]

In my experience planning authorities are the absolute worst kind of obstructive jobsworth beurecrats, utterly opposed to any kind of innovation and happy to treat self-builders with sneering contempt, but possible to overcome for giant developers with money, time and political connections. Pointlessly obstructive planning is a major factor in why UK house prices are far too high (relative to salaries). Their contributions in terms of improving the quality of buildings errected are negligible if not negative. Personally I would fire the lot of them.

[Simon_Jester]

Oh, bullshit a pile of hay is structural.

In this case, the piles of hay are there as part of a pretty obvious attempt to circumvent a law, so I can see how the law is interpreted to block the attempt.

I mean, building a house on a plot of land and hoping no one will notice for ten years? Come on.

This is not to say that I approve of British planning law or authorities- but any legal system in any country will take a dim view of attempts to circumvent it by dodgy means. Using haystacks to hide the existence of your house in hopes that no one will spot it and write you up for violating a building code until the statute of limitations expires is pretty dodgy.

[El Moose Monstero]

In my experience planning authorities are the absolute worst kind of obstructive jobsworth beurecrats, utterly opposed to any kind of innovation and happy to treat self-builders with sneering contempt, but possible to overcome for giant developers with money, time and political connections. Pointlessly obstructive planning is a major factor in why UK house prices are far too high (relative to salaries). Their contributions in terms of improving the quality of buildings errected are negligible if not negative. Personally I would fire the lot of them.

So you think anyone should be allowed to build whatever they want without considering the character of the local area or building regulations for the safety of future buyers? If that's a strawman, how would you police buildings horiffically out of character or that are unsafe?

There may be some cases where people perfectly capable and willing of doing these sort of things due to being considerate and competent are obstructed. I bet that these cases are gleefully reported in the media. However, when do you hear about the crazy or half-assed planning applications that are rejected? How can you prove that the improvement in quality of the buildings erected are neglible when you NEVER SEE the buildings that aren't allowed to be erected?

[Kinyo]

In my experience planning authorities are the absolute worst kind of obstructive jobsworth beurecrats, utterly opposed to any kind of innovation and happy to treat self-builders with sneering contempt, but possible to overcome for giant developers with money, time and political connections. Pointlessly obstructive planning is a major factor in why UK house prices are far too high (relative to salaries). Their contributions in terms of improving the quality of buildings errected are negligible if not negative. Personally I would fire the lot of them.

Hard to fire a sitting councillor as much as many people would want too

Having been to planning committee's as an observer and in an official capacity I can tell there are a few hurdles to overcome.

Once you submit the plans its got to make sense from the Council's development strategy taking into account the type of land (Green Belt, Green Field and Brown Field). Round where I live its going to be easier to get planning permission for a red brick bungalow than it is for a massive steel and glass structure because its going to stand out like a sore thumb.

Second biggest hurdle is convincing Councillors to go along with Officers recommendations (or against if the Officer has issue with the plans). For the most part this is done through not being a dick and being willing to compromise. I must have seen 3-4 applications go through with conditions attatched because people where willing to sit down and say "Well what would I need to do" and not "RAWR PLANNING LAW IZ TEH SHAMBLES!!!".

From my experience "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir" gets you through planning better that arguing technicalities.

[Surlethe]

Why would the local government designate an area a green belt and not actually buy it to make sure it stays wilderness? "You just bought this land, it's your property now, but YOU CAN'T DO SHIT ON IT LOL" It seems more like a cruel practical joke on would-be property owners than a useful policy.