Dale Farm evictions - have I missed something?

[silverfox]

According to the BBC the cost of evicting the gypsies/gypos, travellers/pikies from their squat could amount to ?18m so far over the 10 year battle.

That's a lot of hip replacements, children's nursery places, free dental check ups etc etc ...

I've listened to half-wits quoting some EU nonsense about how this is a cultural issue - so the offer of permanent bricks and mortar housing is unacceptable to travellers blah blah blah ... another site in Liverpool is too far away...

If they are travellers help them to move on. What's wrong with that?

[Marmora Man]

Simple. The travellers do not have planning permission for their residences. Everyone is equal under the law. Therefore the travellers must submit to the law and clear the site. No special cases.

[Alan Medic]

From what I understand the land was used as a scrapyard. The travellers bought the land. Only part of it is 'green belt' and is being cleared. I would like to know how it has cost ?18M for it to reach this conclusion. It seems like such a waste of money with a large element of a witch hunt involved.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think the real issue is the time it has taken to evict/demolish (ten years I think) and the cost of course.

Surely, if someone breaks planning laws (the core of this dispute), it shouldn't take any council ten years to deal with it. The lesson of Dale Farm is that the longer a local authority takes, the worse the problem becomes, until it gets to a point where people start sympathising with those breaking the planning laws, and the more expensive it becomes to act. I think the Local Authority have been extremely inept throughout.

[Marmora Man]

DJKQ - I agree totally.

[zelda100]

Yes, DJKillaQueen, I agree too. I think the council have been more than inept though... I was on a train recently and happened to overhear a conversation where a woman who works in legal aid recounted a case she had a few years ago. Basildon Council - in an attempt to get the travellers to leave - had published all the details of the travellers including their children's special educational needs statements (without being 'redacted' so all names etc were still on there). Not surprisingly, they were taken to court and ordered to pay damages to the (I think) three children involved. But it gets worse - Basildon council actually appealed against this and spent another ?18k on the appeal, to get out of paying... ?300 to each child.

Shameful if true (I have no way of authenticating it, but have no reason to doubt what she was saying).

[Alan Medic]

I don't think you can 'evict' people from their own land. You can clear the land of structures which offend the planning laws. I wonder should I report my near neighbour for having such a structure?

[DJKillaQueen]

If those structures are being 'lived in', you have to 'evict' the occupants before you can demolish the dwellings under planning laws.

[ianr]

zelda100 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, DJKillaQueen, I agree too. I think the council have been more than inept though...

> I was on a train recently and happened to overhear a conversation where a woman who works in

> legal aid recounted a case she had a few years ago. Basildon Council - in an attempt to get the

> travellers to leave - had published all the details of the travellers including their children's

> special educational needs statements (without being 'redacted' so all names etc were still on there).

> Not surprisingly, they were taken to court and ordered to pay damages to the (I think) three children

> involved. But it gets worse - Basildon council actually appealed against this and spent another ?18k

> on the appeal, to get out of paying... ?300 to each child. Shameful if true (I have no way of

> authenticating it, but have no reason to doubt what she was saying).

This is probably the judgment, dated 9 November 2010, in the case you're thinking of. It was the two children who brought the action, seeking judicial review of Basildon's refusal to follow the Local Government Ombudsman's recommendation that each be paid ?300 compensation. It was held that Basildon were correct in not taking the LGO's recommendation to be binding, but unreasonably and unlawfully at fault in the reasoning that led to their decision.

The LGO, who acted as an interested party in the judicial review, reported earlier this year that the council subsequently made the recommended payments.

[Edited to reformat only]