Traveller families win court battle over living on land

Traveller families win court battle over living on land

Author
Discussion

Equus

Original Poster:

9,699 posts

61 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
LINK

I haven't read the actual judgement yet, but I assume that it means it will be open season, in Planning terms, on traveller sites, with any LPA that cannot demonstrate a 5-year land supply for such sites, in the same way that they're left vulnerable on conventional housing in the same situation.

EastLondonGunner

26 posts

50 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
Link doesnt do anything for me? Could be my phone I guess....

Equus

Original Poster:

9,699 posts

61 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
EastLondonGunner said:
Link doesnt do anything for me? Could be my phone I guess....
Works for me;

Should be to a BBC News website article headlined: "Traveller families win court battle over living on land they own"

Andeh1

6,118 posts

166 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
Sets a bit of a rubbish precedent as more gypsies take the risk of setting up shop on any hit of land then digging their heels in using this victory as ammunition.

But then if a local planning team are so derelict in their duties, that was always going to be a potential avenue to leverage.

alorotom

8,488 posts

147 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
In principle I can't see anything wrong with this ... I do think however that once its established that they are indeed living there they should be allocated a postal address for the plot(s) and then the associated council tax should be levied since it is after-all a formal dwelling location.

Equus

Original Poster:

9,699 posts

61 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
Andeh1 said:
But then if a local planning team are so derelict in their duties, that was always going to be a potential avenue to leverage.
Problem is, there are an awful lot of LPA's who are 'so derelict in their duties', because delivery of Traveller sites is awfully unpopular and therefore difficult to get past local communities and Planning Committees. Many, many Authorities have a shortfall against assessed requirements.

But yes, in terms of consistency of approach to the same issue for 'normal' housing, it's actually surprising it's taken this long for such a judgement to be made.

CoolHands

11,611 posts

155 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
Really? So I can go and buy a field in the Lake District and then start living there. I will enjoy the views. Also, beds in sheds etc I own my garden so I can build what what I want and rent out?

What’s the point of planning?

Equus

Original Poster:

9,699 posts

61 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
CoolHands said:
So I can go and buy a field in the Lake District and then start living there. I will enjoy the views. Also, beds in sheds etc I own my garden so I can build what what I want and rent out?
(Very) broadly speaking, yes, you can and have been able to for some time, for 'normal' housing, if the LPA can't demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.

It remains subject to 'non-housing specific' Planning policies, but they're not allowed to attach any weight to housing-specific policies in such circumstances.

The difference, of course, is that there are fewer LPA's with such shortfalls on conventional housing.

CoolHands

11,611 posts

155 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
So I can make a list of all lpas that fall into that category, buy a nice field with views, build a house on it. As if they can live in a caravan on their own land, why can’t I live in a house on my own land

This will go well

Equus

Original Poster:

9,699 posts

61 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
CoolHands said:
So I can make a list of all lpas that fall into that category, buy a nice field with views, build a house on it.
Again, very broadly speaking, yes, you can, and developers target 'vulnerable' LPA's in this way, all the time.

Alucidnation

14,447 posts

130 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
Why is it going to boil piss?

It is land they own and they have won the right to live on it.

It's not like they have pitched up on the local bowling green is it?

Julia121

327 posts

14 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
May just be the court of appeal passing the buck straight back to the council; leaves them looking good in front of travellers whilst the council are left with the bad guy's tab when they say no again.

On a positive note, would this suggest that those who've got paddocks could see their value potentially rising? whistle

Equus

Original Poster:

9,699 posts

61 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
Julia121 said:
May just be the court of appeal passing the buck straight back to the council; leaves them looking good in front of travellers whilst the council are left with the bad guy's tab when they say no again.
And the likely outcome in many cases is that LPA's will pass the buck on to the Appeals Inspectorate, I am sure, by continuing to refuse such applications at Committee and forcing them on to appeal... but in light of this judgement, PINS will then be obliged to concede this particular point (so it will be PINS that become the bad guys: your local Councillors will say 'well, we took note of local sentiment and refused it, it's those big, nasty people from Cardiff who over-ruled us').

Julia121 said:
On a positive note, would this suggest that those who've got paddocks could see their value potentially rising? whistle
Could certainly be a nice bomb to drop on your neighbours, if you own such land and you're packing up to move on... biggrin

Edited by Equus on Tuesday 27th October 09:11

CoolHands

11,611 posts

155 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
Alucidnation said:
Why is it going to boil piss?

It is land they own and they have won the right to live on it.

It's not like they have pitched up on the local bowling green is it?
One word. Green belt.

Equus

Original Poster:

9,699 posts

61 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
CoolHands said:
One word. Green belt.
That's two words.

BobSaunders

2,435 posts

115 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
"Newark and Sherwood District Council has found it needs to deliver 77 sites for the Gypsy and Traveller community by 2024 - and 118 sites by 2033."

Wow.

Joe M

466 posts

205 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
Does this mean the guy with the bad flooring that shouts at electricians can put his kitchen in now?

Sheepshanks

21,950 posts

79 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
BobSaunders said:
"Newark and Sherwood District Council has found it needs to deliver 77 sites for the Gypsy and Traveller community by 2024 - and 118 sites by 2033."

Wow.
175 for Cheshire.

There's a very similar situation going on in our village to that in the OP - they've bought land just across the main road on the outskirts of the village, have moved in and are applying for retrospective permission.

I think, generally, people are hoping if it does get the go-ahead it'll mean the current pressure from the Council to accept a site right in the heart of the village will go away.

troika

1,094 posts

111 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
Alucidnation said:
It's not like they have pitched up on the local bowling green is it?
That’s already been trashed and shat all over. It’s interesting when you see these ‘family photographs’, there are never any men in them. Why is that? Are all the children test tube babies in LGBT families?

I’d love to build a house in my field. Absolutely zero chance.

Edited by troika on Tuesday 27th October 10:49

dazwalsh

5,309 posts

101 months

Tuesday 27th October
quotequote all
CoolHands said:
Really? So I can go and buy a field in the Lake District and then start living there. I will enjoy the views. Also, beds in sheds etc I own my garden so I can build what what I want and rent out?

What’s the point of planning?
Welcome to 2020, You can't, but they can, as they are a "race" and we arent allowed to apply the laws of the land incase they get offended.