ForumGarden

Travellers win reprieve from Dale Farm eviction as judge rules council cannot throw them out yet | Mail Online

Is It just me or do others find a slight Irony In Travellers who don't travel.

I just can't understand why it has taken 10 years and nearly 18 million pounds to resolve this. I thought that if you were refused planning permission but still went ahead, you were legally obliged to remove the building(s).

theia;1371075 wrote: I just can't understand why it has taken 10 years and nearly 18 million pounds to resolve this. I thought that if you were refused planning permission but still went ahead, you were legally obliged to remove the building(s).


Exactly !

My take on this Is just let them stay.

The cost to remove them and fight eviction now the European Court Is Involved will run Into millions for one thing.

Their children are settled In schools and some of them have jobs.

If they are evicted, they just become some-one else's problem and the whole eviction process starts up again.

Having said that, I also found some Irony In a statement one of the female traveller's said.... 'To put us In a house Is to put us In prison'.... errr They are are building houses Illegally on Dale Farm. Oh the Irony !!

But then, won't that create a precedent and make a mockery of planning permission? I don't know enough about the system to make an informed comment, so perhaps someone who does can respond.

theia;1371080 wrote: But then, won't that create a precedent and make a mockery of planning permission? I don't know enough about the system to make an informed comment, so perhaps someone who does can respond.


Given the complexity of the planning and eviction laws, are any of us qualified to comment?

Bryn Mawr;1371092 wrote: Given the complexity of the planning and eviction laws, are any of us qualified to comment?


I wouldn't imagine so...but I think it's interesting to discuss it, even with our limited understanding

theia;1371093 wrote: I wouldn't imagine so...but I think it's interesting to discuss it, even with our limited understanding


We're always qualified to comment, we have an opinion - whether we are qualified to pass informed comment is always in doubt :wah:

The way I understood It was that the council originally allowed them to buy the land to stand hard standing mobile homes and caravans on. Since then, the traveller's have Ignored planning permission regs and just built additional houses on that land.

They own the land but have never had the right to build.... That's the problem.

oscar;1371103 wrote: The way I understood It was that the council originally allowed them to buy the land to stand hard standing mobile homes and caravans on. Since then, the traveller's have Ignored planning permission regs and just built additional houses on that land.

They own the land but have never had the right to build.... That's the problem.


Yes, that is a bit of a problem...because those people who have been ordered to take down various constructions, buildings etc through lack of planning permission could be quite peeved if the travellers are not treated in the same way.

I have 'travellers' 'in the family, it is a well known scam.

You get land for caravans/mobile homes, and jack them up and build off them. Technically they are still mobile, but permanent.

These people have entrenched themselves by devious means, it is a question without an answer.

They should be thrown off without any second thought legally, but who has the heart and will to do so ?