Traveller families win court battle over living on land

[Sheepshanks]

dazwalsh said:

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.

Just self-identify as a Traveller?

[Highway Star]

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.

Poorly worded by the journalist. These are the number of individual Traveller pitches the LPA must provide, not the number of ‘sites’. I would think that most readers would imagine a ‘site’ as being a piece of land made up of multiple pitches.

[Julia121]

Equus said:

Julia121 said:

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

Could certainly be a nice bomb to drop on your neighbours, if you own such land and you're packing up to move on...

Sheepshanks said:

dazwalsh said:

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.

Just self-identify as a Traveller?

I was mulling this over. If you put a caravan on a piece of land and stretch out the validating process for four years then would you get planning permission by default? Surely one can pull the Human Rights card whenever asked for supporting evidence which could delay it until job done

[Equus]

Julia121 said:

If you put a caravan on a piece of land and stretch out the validating process for four years then would you get planning permission by default?

No, it doesn't work like that, unfortunately (the 4/10 year rule doesn't apply if there is any 'active' enforcement or Planning process relating to the breach).

[BobSaunders]

Highway Star said:

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.

Poorly worded by the journalist. These are the number of individual Traveller pitches the LPA must provide, not the number of ‘sites’. I would think that most readers would imagine a ‘site’ as being a piece of land made up of multiple pitches.

Ah, that makes much less sensationalism.

[irocfan]

BobSaunders said:

Highway Star said:

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.

Poorly worded by the journalist. These are the number of individual Traveller pitches the LPA must provide, not the number of ‘sites’. I would think that most readers would imagine a ‘site’ as being a piece of land made up of multiple pitches.

Ah, that makes much less sensationalism.

I must admit that I did think that that was a lot of pitches

[Highway Star]

irocfan said:

I must admit that I did think that that was a lot of pitches

Indeed. I checked back through to the need assessment which the journalist had actually linked in the article, fair play to them.

I am currently acting for a landowner in the South East and have been promoting his land through the Local Plan process for a number of years. We currently have a draft allocation for several hundred homes in what is one of a very small number of proposed greenfield Green Belt releases. However the Council is requiring that 15 traveller pitches are provided on site. This was introduced at a relatively late stage as a fait accompli as it is one of the only places in the Borough where a G&T site could be accommodated and the Council has to find 50-odd pitches in its Local Plan. Landowner is not happy, prospective purchasers won’t be happy. However we’ll design the site accordingly and it’ll mean that the Council will be meeting its assessed need to produce a sound plan.

[sospan]

Several years ago a mate described a scenario that was ongoing near his village. Someone started keeping chickens in a field he owned. A lot of them not just a token number, running it as a business. He then went down the route of claiming he needed to put a building there to improve security and be on site for pest control (foxes etc). The way it was heading was he was holding out with a caravan initially whilst continuing to push for a house. My mate said it was basically a ruse to build then abandon the chicken business.
Unfortunately I don’t know the long term outcome.
What are the chances of something like this succeeding?

[eldar]

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.

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

Yup. I'm rapidly becoming interested in caravans, dags and bareknuckle fighting.

[Equus]

sospan said:

My mate said it was basically a ruse to build then abandon the chicken business.

What are the chances of something like this succeeding?

Large-scale poultry farms are one of the few exceptions where it can be justified - not because of foxes, but because for battery farming, failures in the automatic drinkers or ventilation systems can kill thousands of birds very quickly, if someone is not on site to attend to them when the alarms go off).

But you will always get an 'agricultural tie' on the resultant dwelling, saying that it can only be occupied by an agricultural worker. Such ties can be lifted in the future, if you can prove the need has changed, but for this reason most LPA's are quite stringent about allowing them in the first place... they used to be a well-known long-term strategy for getting a new dwelling in open countryside by the back door.

For a poultry farm, if the business 'failed', they would certainly want evidence that it had been marketed as a going agricultural concern for a certain period, before they would lift the tie.

It's possible, but far from a quick or easy solution.

When I was in the Cotswolds, someone tried to get permission for a caravan in a field for breeding alpacas, virtually next door to me, on the basis that they were high-value animals and needed to be protected from theft. The LPA told them to do one, and took enforcement all the way when they tried to site a caravan unlawfully.

[NWMark]

I don't know who sets or where the requirements came from for the number of required sites per LA but its a joke - my LA built a brand new site with 14 spaces about 5 years ago, latest figures (July 2018) show 11 unoccupied pitches - they don't get used even when built!

and the LA needs to build another 13 sites (not pitches) by 2028.

[Equus]

NWMark said:

my LA built a brand new site - they don't get used even when built!

Part of the problem, of course, is that LA traveller sites are a bit like LA council estates (only much, much, worse - think the worst 'sink' Council estate where all the problem families are dumped, then multiply it by a factor of 5).

So most travellers themselves don't want to live on them unless they have absolutely no alternative. If they're not allowed to move around freely and pitch where they want (as they were, largely, before the introduction of the current Planning system and subsequent specific legislation in the 1960's), then most would see the next best alternative as buying land for themselves, not being forced onto Council run 'reservations'.

The Planning system, and the methodology for assessing supply/demand of traveller pitches needs to be adjusted to cope with this.

We now have a system whereby (in theory) LPA's are obliged to take account of an provide housing land supply for self-builders of 'normal' houses, so would it be too much trouble to implement a similar system for travellers wanting 'private' pitches?

[snowman99]

This is why a local landowner won’t sell land to anyone other than a couple of other farming families. Before you know it it’s been resold and travellers move in.

Edited by snowman99 on Tuesday 27th October 16:32

[Escort3500]

I didn’t deal with traveller/gypsy casework when I was in Pins but regularly used to read relevant appeal decisions and the outcome of high court challenges. It’s fair to say that the majority of appeals which succeeded did so because the LPA couldn’t demonstrate an adequate supply of pitches as Equus says

Local resistance to establishing such facilities was a significant problem for councils I worked for prior to joining Pins; that’s why you often see a them in countryside away from housing etc. Until councils make adequate provision they’ll continue to lose appeals (and risk an award of costs).

Edited by Escort3500 on Tuesday 27th October 19:14

[V8RX7]

sospan said:

Several years ago a mate described a scenario that was ongoing near his village. Someone started keeping chickens in a field he owned. A lot of them not just a token number, running it as a business. He then went down the route of claiming he needed to put a building there to improve security and be on site for pest control (foxes etc). The way it was heading was he was holding out with a caravan initially whilst continuing to push for a house. My mate said it was basically a ruse to build then abandon the chicken business.
Unfortunately I don’t know the long term outcome.
What are the chances of something like this succeeding?

Very well known path to get a house

Near me someone has just managed to get a 3 bed "temporary house" to look after horses !

I did wonder why they couldn't use a small caravan - the first thing that went up was large privacy gates

[AJL308]

Sheepshanks said:

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.

How can there possibly be the need for so many? How many "travellers" are there?

[AJL308]

Highway Star said:

Indeed. I checked back through to the need assessment which the journalist had actually linked in the article, fair play to them.

I am currently acting for a landowner in the South East and have been promoting his land through the Local Plan process for a number of years. We currently have a draft allocation for several hundred homes in what is one of a very small number of proposed greenfield Green Belt releases. However the Council is requiring that 15 traveller pitches are provided on site. This was introduced at a relatively late stage as a fait accompli as it is one of the only places in the Borough where a G&T site could be accommodated and the Council has to find 50-odd pitches in its Local Plan. Landowner is not happy, prospective purchasers won’t be happy. However we’ll design the site accordingly and it’ll mean that the Council will be meeting its assessed need to produce a sound plan.

Razor wire? Machinegun towers?

Absolutely zero chance I'd buy a house there. Although if I got my turn on an MG-42 I might consider it!

[dazwalsh]

Sheepshanks said:

dazwalsh said:

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.

Just self-identify as a Traveller?

I lack the numerous stolen dogs and quad bikes in my front yard though, and I know jack all about driveways, so it wouldn't be convincing enough.

[Sheepshanks]

AJL308 said:

How can there possibly be the need for so many? How many "travellers" are there?

To be fair, as someone pointed out earlier, it's 175 pitches. Certainly the plan for our area uses site/pitch/plot interchangeably

[C Lee Farquar]

troika said:

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

Edited by troika on Tuesday 27th October 10:49

You can, just as they do, but you need to deal with the fall out from the Council, just as they do.