From Bedford On Sunday
YET another odour assessment must be carried out at a Gypsy and Traveller site before a council will even consider how much it will cost to open.
The Mayor of Bedford Borough, Dave Hodgson, told Bedfordshire on Sunday that the council and Anglian Water are currently carrying out further odour assessments at the Meadow Lane site in Bedford and the results are due back at the end of this month.
Only then will he consider what the costs of opening the site permanently will be and it could be that it never exists in anything but a temporary form.
He said: “Once we get the odour report we can move forward. We will see if we can find the money somewhere. Certainly it is not happening as quickly as I’d like.”
However the Mayor and the Borough Council have been criticised over the five year delay it has taken to get to this point since the site was first suggested and even if it opened today it would only provide enough pitches to meet the requirement until 2021.
Councillor Alison Foster who has herself put forward an alternative site at Fairhill in Clapham Road, Bedford, with other councillors, said: “If there was really a will to develop Meadow Lane it would have been done by now. There has been one excuse after another about why it can’t be delivered.”
Sunday, 15 December 2013
Urgent action needed to stop Gypsies and Travellers and homeless people falling through gaps in healthcare system
From Health Canal
RCGP commissioning guidance says action needed to help vulnerable groups
Radical changes are needed to meet the healthcare needs of vulnerable groups – including sex workers, Gypsies and Travellers and homeless people – according to new commissioning guidance for GPs.
The paper, Improving access to health care for Gypsies and Travellers, homeless people and sex workers, written by the Royal College of General Practitioners and Department of Health says that GPs who commission services in England, under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, should consider paying for mobile units and clinics, and other outreach facilities.
Cultural awareness training for frontline NHS staff dealing with Gypsies and Travellers is another key recommendation in new guidance, aimed at improving access to healthcare for vulnerable groups.
The report also calls for:
More ‘one-stop’ healthcare hubs where vulnerable groups can receive multiple services in one place at one time.
Greater community engagement to allow vulnerable groups to have their voice heard and develop support networks.
More localised decision making for commissioners, who should seek greater collaboration with vulnerable groups to deliver mutual health and financial benefits.
More communication and joined up working between health, social care and voluntary services targeted at marginalised groups.
Greater integration between health and housing services to identify and treat health problems associated with poor living conditions.
Gypsies and Travellers
On the issue of providing health services for Gypsies and Travellers, the report says that 42% of English Gypsies are affected by a long-term condition, as opposed to 18% of the general population.
The paper adds that there a range of contributing factors to the poor health outcomes of Gypsies and Travellers, and the difficulties in accessing services. These include low levels of literacy, together with stigma, poor access to health information and some widespread health-beliefs which increase the likeliness that they will not seek treatment.
RCGP Chair Dr Maureen Baker, said:
“Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, commissioners of healthcare in England now have a duty to reduce health inequalities in access to services and outcomes.
“It is vital that commissioners put the needs of forgotten and disenfranchised groups at the heart of their commissioning strategies.”
A Department of Health spokesperson said:
“With the implementation of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, we have a unique opportunity to try to get things right and break the circle of exclusion for some of the most vulnerable in society.
“In this changing landscape, with GPs becoming commissioners as well as providers of care, we need to make sure that some of the most vulnerable in society remain high on the agenda.”
RCGP commissioning guidance says action needed to help vulnerable groups
Radical changes are needed to meet the healthcare needs of vulnerable groups – including sex workers, Gypsies and Travellers and homeless people – according to new commissioning guidance for GPs.
The paper, Improving access to health care for Gypsies and Travellers, homeless people and sex workers, written by the Royal College of General Practitioners and Department of Health says that GPs who commission services in England, under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, should consider paying for mobile units and clinics, and other outreach facilities.
Cultural awareness training for frontline NHS staff dealing with Gypsies and Travellers is another key recommendation in new guidance, aimed at improving access to healthcare for vulnerable groups.
The report also calls for:
More ‘one-stop’ healthcare hubs where vulnerable groups can receive multiple services in one place at one time.
Greater community engagement to allow vulnerable groups to have their voice heard and develop support networks.
More localised decision making for commissioners, who should seek greater collaboration with vulnerable groups to deliver mutual health and financial benefits.
More communication and joined up working between health, social care and voluntary services targeted at marginalised groups.
Greater integration between health and housing services to identify and treat health problems associated with poor living conditions.
Gypsies and Travellers
On the issue of providing health services for Gypsies and Travellers, the report says that 42% of English Gypsies are affected by a long-term condition, as opposed to 18% of the general population.
The paper adds that there a range of contributing factors to the poor health outcomes of Gypsies and Travellers, and the difficulties in accessing services. These include low levels of literacy, together with stigma, poor access to health information and some widespread health-beliefs which increase the likeliness that they will not seek treatment.
RCGP Chair Dr Maureen Baker, said:
“Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, commissioners of healthcare in England now have a duty to reduce health inequalities in access to services and outcomes.
“It is vital that commissioners put the needs of forgotten and disenfranchised groups at the heart of their commissioning strategies.”
A Department of Health spokesperson said:
“With the implementation of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, we have a unique opportunity to try to get things right and break the circle of exclusion for some of the most vulnerable in society.
“In this changing landscape, with GPs becoming commissioners as well as providers of care, we need to make sure that some of the most vulnerable in society remain high on the agenda.”
Dangerous soil is a threat to Traveller site - experts - Somerset
From the Weston Mercury
races of the three potentially dangerous elements have been discovered and should not be ignored, according to surveyors Craddy Pitchers Davidson after it tested soil samples.
Its report says people living on the site at Old Junction Yard, off Winterstoke Road, would be at risk.
It also states that anyone living on the site should not plant vegetables in the ground because of the contaminated soil, while exposure to dust by direct and indirect ingestion and inhalation of indoor air are also potential dangers.
Elim Housing Association has applied for planning permission to build 24 permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches at the site, which is adjacent to the former refuse tip and can be accessed off a roundabout close to a retail area which is home to an Iceland store, McDonald’s drive-thru and Pizza Hut restaurant.
A 30cm-thick cover under the ground would need to be provided in areas of soft landscaping, and Craddy Pitchers Davidson recommends a cover 60cm thick to be placed in any gardens.
The report says this would remove the ‘principal pathways’ through which residents ‘could potentially be exposed to contaminated soils’.
It says: “It cannot be discounted that significant risks to chronic human health in the context of the proposed residential development, arising from near surface soils, are present.”
Elim Housing, in its design and access statement, said: “The aim is to provide a well designed, neat and attractive site for Gypsy and Traveller families to settle within Weston.
“It is designed to facilitate effective site management to safeguard the living environment for the residents on the site and those within the locality.”
Last week, Weston Town Council recommended North Somerset refuse the application due to the high number of objections to the plans and the contamination and railway noise.
The application will be heard by North Somerset Council’s south area committee on December 19.
races of the three potentially dangerous elements have been discovered and should not be ignored, according to surveyors Craddy Pitchers Davidson after it tested soil samples.
Its report says people living on the site at Old Junction Yard, off Winterstoke Road, would be at risk.
It also states that anyone living on the site should not plant vegetables in the ground because of the contaminated soil, while exposure to dust by direct and indirect ingestion and inhalation of indoor air are also potential dangers.
Elim Housing Association has applied for planning permission to build 24 permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches at the site, which is adjacent to the former refuse tip and can be accessed off a roundabout close to a retail area which is home to an Iceland store, McDonald’s drive-thru and Pizza Hut restaurant.
A 30cm-thick cover under the ground would need to be provided in areas of soft landscaping, and Craddy Pitchers Davidson recommends a cover 60cm thick to be placed in any gardens.
The report says this would remove the ‘principal pathways’ through which residents ‘could potentially be exposed to contaminated soils’.
It says: “It cannot be discounted that significant risks to chronic human health in the context of the proposed residential development, arising from near surface soils, are present.”
Elim Housing, in its design and access statement, said: “The aim is to provide a well designed, neat and attractive site for Gypsy and Traveller families to settle within Weston.
“It is designed to facilitate effective site management to safeguard the living environment for the residents on the site and those within the locality.”
Last week, Weston Town Council recommended North Somerset refuse the application due to the high number of objections to the plans and the contamination and railway noise.
The application will be heard by North Somerset Council’s south area committee on December 19.
‘Trojan horse’ claim over plans for Gypsy site - Sussex
From the Rye and Battle Observer
FIFTY residents from Brightling, Dallington and Ashburnham attended a public hearing in Bexhill Town Hall over a village Traveller site on Tuesday.
The Planning Inspectorate had called the hearing over a planning appeal for Telegraph Point, Coldharbour Farm in Brightling.
Objectors were joined by parish council leaders from all three villages along with district councillor Bob White.
The appeal centred on attempts to lift a temporary occupation clause for an elderly man.
Objectors say they believe the appeal is a ‘Trojan horse’, which will allow Rother District Council to make the site permanent, therefore fulfilling its obligations to provide a number of permanent Traveller sites in the district.
Linda Parker, from the Coldharbour Action Group, said: “Council officers were unable to explain why they were defending their position that this highly visible and contentious site, at the top of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, was unsustainable, when it transpires it is now one of only two sites left for consideration for two permanent pitches in the upcoming 2014 public consultation.
“Officers would only confirm that elected council members were free to disregard detailed reports, previous inspectors’ findings and the expert view of specialist council officers. The lack of relevant experience of some elected council members involved in the permanent site selection was raised by Wendy Myers, chair of Dallington PC.
“Residents repeatedly expressed great concern about irregularities in Rother District Council’s selection process and the lack of an explanation of the decision to have this site allocated to the short list for permanent Traveller provision, outlining in detail reasons for unsustainability for the council.
“The residents also reinforced how this appeal would inevitably affect that permanent site selection process, particularly now that the RDC Cabinet has just dismissed the recommendation from the Scrutiny and Overview Committee to re-examine 16 possible sites in favour of this site.”
An RDC spokesman said: “The appeal relates to a non-determination of a planning application relating to the removal of a personal condition.
“The site allocations process is separate to that of the yesterday’s appeal and will be subject to public consultation in due course.”
The Planning Inspectorate decision is due in the New Year.
FIFTY residents from Brightling, Dallington and Ashburnham attended a public hearing in Bexhill Town Hall over a village Traveller site on Tuesday.
The Planning Inspectorate had called the hearing over a planning appeal for Telegraph Point, Coldharbour Farm in Brightling.
Objectors were joined by parish council leaders from all three villages along with district councillor Bob White.
The appeal centred on attempts to lift a temporary occupation clause for an elderly man.
Objectors say they believe the appeal is a ‘Trojan horse’, which will allow Rother District Council to make the site permanent, therefore fulfilling its obligations to provide a number of permanent Traveller sites in the district.
Linda Parker, from the Coldharbour Action Group, said: “Council officers were unable to explain why they were defending their position that this highly visible and contentious site, at the top of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, was unsustainable, when it transpires it is now one of only two sites left for consideration for two permanent pitches in the upcoming 2014 public consultation.
“Officers would only confirm that elected council members were free to disregard detailed reports, previous inspectors’ findings and the expert view of specialist council officers. The lack of relevant experience of some elected council members involved in the permanent site selection was raised by Wendy Myers, chair of Dallington PC.
“Residents repeatedly expressed great concern about irregularities in Rother District Council’s selection process and the lack of an explanation of the decision to have this site allocated to the short list for permanent Traveller provision, outlining in detail reasons for unsustainability for the council.
“The residents also reinforced how this appeal would inevitably affect that permanent site selection process, particularly now that the RDC Cabinet has just dismissed the recommendation from the Scrutiny and Overview Committee to re-examine 16 possible sites in favour of this site.”
An RDC spokesman said: “The appeal relates to a non-determination of a planning application relating to the removal of a personal condition.
“The site allocations process is separate to that of the yesterday’s appeal and will be subject to public consultation in due course.”
The Planning Inspectorate decision is due in the New Year.
Saturday, 14 December 2013
Council evicts Travellers from Ditchling Road encampment - Sussex
From the Argus
Travellers were evicted from public land after a judge ordered them to leave.
A group of caravans left land next to Ditchling Road on Wednesday morning after Brighton and Hove City Council won a possession hearing in the county court.
A council spokesman said the Travellers had not been moved on to a “designated location”.
The local authority also announced it had won another injunction relating to an unauthorised encampment of lived-in vehicles on land at Wild Park, Brighton.
Travellers were evicted from public land after a judge ordered them to leave.
A group of caravans left land next to Ditchling Road on Wednesday morning after Brighton and Hove City Council won a possession hearing in the county court.
A council spokesman said the Travellers had not been moved on to a “designated location”.
The local authority also announced it had won another injunction relating to an unauthorised encampment of lived-in vehicles on land at Wild Park, Brighton.
Travellers hit back in row over land - Essex
From the Thurrock Gazette
A TRAVELLER family have spoke out insisting they are ‘not like other Gypsies’ and pleaded with neighbours to let them live in peace.
Four generations of the family have lived in Malvern Road, Little Thurrock, since May, after they illegally pitching up on the land at the back of the road.
Peter Birch, 32, and Rebecca Birch, 27, live with their eight-year-old son. Also on the site is Mr Birch’s grandparents, mum and dad, uncle, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and their nine-month old baby.
The family say they have been victimised by the neighbours, when all they want to do is live alongside them.
Rebecca Birch said: “Everything has been blown out of proportion.
“We are a quiet family and a normal family.
“We have lived on a number of sites around the country and have never received treatment like this. Neighbours don’t talk to us and just sneer so it has got the stage where we are scared to talk to anyone else. We want to be a part of this community as much as everyone else but how can we?”
Despite the council unanimously voting against the Traveller site in October, which includes five mobile homes, Rebecca said they would not be giving up without a fight.
Neighbours hit back at claims they had victimised the neighbours.
One neighbour said: “If people feel threatened then they aren’t going to want to be sociable. Things are fraught but we aren’t used to police raids in the early morning.”
Another added: “I put some sweets through the letterbox on Halloween this year. Is that an example of victimising someone?”
Little Thurrock councillor Rob Gledhill said the Traveller family had not been in contact with him.
He said: “If they had contacted me about their planning application I would have made it clear I would not support it as it is an inappropriate use of the greenbelt.”
Kent police did not charge anyone living on the Traveller site after arresting a man on suspicion of vehicle related crime on November 19.
A TRAVELLER family have spoke out insisting they are ‘not like other Gypsies’ and pleaded with neighbours to let them live in peace.
Four generations of the family have lived in Malvern Road, Little Thurrock, since May, after they illegally pitching up on the land at the back of the road.
Peter Birch, 32, and Rebecca Birch, 27, live with their eight-year-old son. Also on the site is Mr Birch’s grandparents, mum and dad, uncle, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and their nine-month old baby.
The family say they have been victimised by the neighbours, when all they want to do is live alongside them.
Rebecca Birch said: “Everything has been blown out of proportion.
“We are a quiet family and a normal family.
“We have lived on a number of sites around the country and have never received treatment like this. Neighbours don’t talk to us and just sneer so it has got the stage where we are scared to talk to anyone else. We want to be a part of this community as much as everyone else but how can we?”
Despite the council unanimously voting against the Traveller site in October, which includes five mobile homes, Rebecca said they would not be giving up without a fight.
Neighbours hit back at claims they had victimised the neighbours.
One neighbour said: “If people feel threatened then they aren’t going to want to be sociable. Things are fraught but we aren’t used to police raids in the early morning.”
Another added: “I put some sweets through the letterbox on Halloween this year. Is that an example of victimising someone?”
Little Thurrock councillor Rob Gledhill said the Traveller family had not been in contact with him.
He said: “If they had contacted me about their planning application I would have made it clear I would not support it as it is an inappropriate use of the greenbelt.”
Kent police did not charge anyone living on the Traveller site after arresting a man on suspicion of vehicle related crime on November 19.
Travellers’ site angers Westbourne residents - Sussex
From the Chichester Observer
AN OUTPOURING of anger greeted local authority figures answering questions on a proposed transit Travellers’ site in Westhampnett.
The move by Chichester District Council to create nine pitches next to the Westhampnett depot sparked uproar, with homeowners claiming it was a ‘fait accompli’ and that it was ‘killing’ the village.
Chairman of Westhampnett Parish Council Bob Holman, speaking at the opening of a public meeting at the March Primary School on Monday (December 9) said: “The announcement came to us with total incredulity.
“It’s quite clear this has been kept under wraps for as long as possible.”
Around 70 people turned up to question Diane Shepherd, chief executive of Chichester District Council, the council’s head of community services Steve Hansford, cabinet member Josef Ransley and Inspector Will Rolls, of Chichester Police.
Residents slammed the lack of consultation.
“There should have been some sort of consultative process among the parish,” said Westerton resident Windsor Holden.
“I’m listening to the tenses that have been used. I’m not hearing much conditional. It’s all being presented very much as a fait accompli.
“We seem to be having very little say in this. It seems the camp will be going ahead and our concerns about it are not being taken seriously.”
Westhampnett parish councillor Caroline Moth said: “You must have known about this for months and this is the first time you’ve bothered to come to us.
“There’s no consultation, it’s a joke.”
Cllr Ransley told residents he was first informed five weeks ago of the proposal.
Resident Helen Hill said she attended the parish’s last public meeting a year ago to discuss the proposed 500 homes on land in Westhampnett as part of CDC’s emerging local plan.
“It seems to me that you’re killing this village,” she said.
“What do you think is going to happen when you build that site at the end of the road?”
Homeowners also raised fears about rising crime levels from having a transit site, but Insp Rolls reassured them this would not be the case.
He had spoken with a colleague, policing an area including a similar site in Lewes, East Sussex.
“In the four years they have had the transit site they’ve had no crimes in the local community that can be attributed to anybody from the site.
“You obviously all have a preconceived idea of what they’re going to be like,” he said, adding there had been no ‘crime spike’ from having the site and that the police dealt in evidence, not past stories.
“It’s not freedom of speech, it’s borderline racist,” he said after some villagers said it was freedom of speech to say Travellers committed crimes.
District councillor for Westhampnett Andrew Smith was asked for his take.
“As the local councillor, I’m not exactly jumping for joy that the one site for the whole of West Sussex that’s been volunteered is in my ward.
“I anticipated it would be an angry meeting and that’s what it’s been.”
He added the site could ‘unlock’ the powers of the Criminal Justice Act, allowing to Sussex Police to move on illegal encampments in the county, and experiences in East Sussex showed a small site with ten pitches did seem to solve the problem to a large degree.
Support for the site
OTHER parishes have welcomed the news of a proposed Travellers’ site.
So far, Tangmere has come under ‘invasion’ from Travellers on around eight occasions this year – at one stage around 40 caravans arrived on the village’s airfield.
Work has been ongoing in the past few days on defences to protect the village for 2014.
Vice-chairman of the parish council Brian Wood said: “Tangmere Parish Council has now installed 175 posts around the recreation field in an attempt to avoid future incursions.
“In addition, West Sussex County Council has installed a padlocked gate and height barrier at the museum entrance to the airfield.
“The Highways Agency has installed a padlocked barrier at the Cassons layby on the A27 .
“All these measures have been taken in an attempt to avoid further incursions in and around the village in the years to come.
“Tangmere Parish Council welcome the news that the possibility of a Travellers transit camp is being considered, hopefully this will provide the police authority with additional powers to deal with illegal camps.”
‘Open and transparent’ process
RESIDENTS have been assured they do have an opportunity to take part in consultation.
Chichester District Council’s chief executive Diane Shepherd said residents had the opportunity to put their views forward at the full council meeting on Tuesday.
“It’s an open, transparent meeting that you can all attend. That’s your right to be heard,” she said.
If approved, the council will then apply to its own planning department for planning permission.
With no transit site in West Sussex, police have no powers to move on Travellers who illegally set up camp.
If a transit site is available, they can use their powers under the Criminal Justice Act to move them on to the transit site. If people refuse to move, then police can force them to leave the county, but this option does not exist while there is no site available.
The overall cost of the site would be £1.3m, but the council hopes to receive funding from the Homes and Communities Agency, if it puts in an application by the end of March, 2014.
The cost would be split between Chichester District Council, West Sussex County Council and the remaining seven councils in the county.
AN OUTPOURING of anger greeted local authority figures answering questions on a proposed transit Travellers’ site in Westhampnett.
The move by Chichester District Council to create nine pitches next to the Westhampnett depot sparked uproar, with homeowners claiming it was a ‘fait accompli’ and that it was ‘killing’ the village.
Chairman of Westhampnett Parish Council Bob Holman, speaking at the opening of a public meeting at the March Primary School on Monday (December 9) said: “The announcement came to us with total incredulity.
“It’s quite clear this has been kept under wraps for as long as possible.”
Around 70 people turned up to question Diane Shepherd, chief executive of Chichester District Council, the council’s head of community services Steve Hansford, cabinet member Josef Ransley and Inspector Will Rolls, of Chichester Police.
Residents slammed the lack of consultation.
“There should have been some sort of consultative process among the parish,” said Westerton resident Windsor Holden.
“I’m listening to the tenses that have been used. I’m not hearing much conditional. It’s all being presented very much as a fait accompli.
“We seem to be having very little say in this. It seems the camp will be going ahead and our concerns about it are not being taken seriously.”
Westhampnett parish councillor Caroline Moth said: “You must have known about this for months and this is the first time you’ve bothered to come to us.
“There’s no consultation, it’s a joke.”
Cllr Ransley told residents he was first informed five weeks ago of the proposal.
Resident Helen Hill said she attended the parish’s last public meeting a year ago to discuss the proposed 500 homes on land in Westhampnett as part of CDC’s emerging local plan.
“It seems to me that you’re killing this village,” she said.
“What do you think is going to happen when you build that site at the end of the road?”
Homeowners also raised fears about rising crime levels from having a transit site, but Insp Rolls reassured them this would not be the case.
He had spoken with a colleague, policing an area including a similar site in Lewes, East Sussex.
“In the four years they have had the transit site they’ve had no crimes in the local community that can be attributed to anybody from the site.
“You obviously all have a preconceived idea of what they’re going to be like,” he said, adding there had been no ‘crime spike’ from having the site and that the police dealt in evidence, not past stories.
“It’s not freedom of speech, it’s borderline racist,” he said after some villagers said it was freedom of speech to say Travellers committed crimes.
District councillor for Westhampnett Andrew Smith was asked for his take.
“As the local councillor, I’m not exactly jumping for joy that the one site for the whole of West Sussex that’s been volunteered is in my ward.
“I anticipated it would be an angry meeting and that’s what it’s been.”
He added the site could ‘unlock’ the powers of the Criminal Justice Act, allowing to Sussex Police to move on illegal encampments in the county, and experiences in East Sussex showed a small site with ten pitches did seem to solve the problem to a large degree.
Support for the site
OTHER parishes have welcomed the news of a proposed Travellers’ site.
So far, Tangmere has come under ‘invasion’ from Travellers on around eight occasions this year – at one stage around 40 caravans arrived on the village’s airfield.
Work has been ongoing in the past few days on defences to protect the village for 2014.
Vice-chairman of the parish council Brian Wood said: “Tangmere Parish Council has now installed 175 posts around the recreation field in an attempt to avoid future incursions.
“In addition, West Sussex County Council has installed a padlocked gate and height barrier at the museum entrance to the airfield.
“The Highways Agency has installed a padlocked barrier at the Cassons layby on the A27 .
“All these measures have been taken in an attempt to avoid further incursions in and around the village in the years to come.
“Tangmere Parish Council welcome the news that the possibility of a Travellers transit camp is being considered, hopefully this will provide the police authority with additional powers to deal with illegal camps.”
‘Open and transparent’ process
RESIDENTS have been assured they do have an opportunity to take part in consultation.
Chichester District Council’s chief executive Diane Shepherd said residents had the opportunity to put their views forward at the full council meeting on Tuesday.
“It’s an open, transparent meeting that you can all attend. That’s your right to be heard,” she said.
If approved, the council will then apply to its own planning department for planning permission.
With no transit site in West Sussex, police have no powers to move on Travellers who illegally set up camp.
If a transit site is available, they can use their powers under the Criminal Justice Act to move them on to the transit site. If people refuse to move, then police can force them to leave the county, but this option does not exist while there is no site available.
The overall cost of the site would be £1.3m, but the council hopes to receive funding from the Homes and Communities Agency, if it puts in an application by the end of March, 2014.
The cost would be split between Chichester District Council, West Sussex County Council and the remaining seven councils in the county.
Friday, 13 December 2013
Traveller site plan scrapped in Chalfont St Giles - Buckinghamshire
From GetBucks
PLANS to potentially change land into a Traveller site have been scrapped after a couple bought the site.
The Lagger in Chalfont St Giles, one of 12 locations across Chiltern marked for possible Gypsies, Travellers and travelling Shoepeople sites by Chiltern District Council, will now be developed by farm owners.
Top Farm owners Kathy and Andy Douthwaite purchased the land south to them in a bid to develop it with potential community use of two barns and other structures onsite.
Mrs Douthwaite said: “We are trying to clear it up at the moment and hopefully get it together again. There are lots of challenges and work. It is very exciting in many ways.
“It has two significant barns. We are open to lots of ideas about how it can be used. We would be open to renting them out to the people who want to use them.
“There is an awful lot of potential to try and turn it round and put it back into use.
“I have thoughts about something the school children could access which could link with the animals. It is very early days.”
Villagers formed Chalfont St Giles Residents Against Inappropriate Development (RAID) to fight the proposal of using the Lagger as a site.
“It aimed to protect the location’s green belt land and members believe a Travellers camp is not a suitable development for the area.
Chairman Tony O’Neil said: “This news will come as a great relief to all those in the village who have expressed real anxieties over this issue. It is the best Christmas present we could have hoped for.
“We wish the new owners well, and thank them wholeheartedly for what they have done to protect the local environment, and the peaceful rural nature of this area.
“I’d also like to thank all those who gave active support to this campaign, as well as all those residents who responded to the call for action by demonstrating their real concerns and submitting their comments as recommended to Chiltern District Council.”
Councillors have delayed plans to announce the sites for five weeks following a public consulation as they need more time for consideration.
They will be due for online viewing on January 13.
PLANS to potentially change land into a Traveller site have been scrapped after a couple bought the site.
The Lagger in Chalfont St Giles, one of 12 locations across Chiltern marked for possible Gypsies, Travellers and travelling Shoepeople sites by Chiltern District Council, will now be developed by farm owners.
Top Farm owners Kathy and Andy Douthwaite purchased the land south to them in a bid to develop it with potential community use of two barns and other structures onsite.
Mrs Douthwaite said: “We are trying to clear it up at the moment and hopefully get it together again. There are lots of challenges and work. It is very exciting in many ways.
“It has two significant barns. We are open to lots of ideas about how it can be used. We would be open to renting them out to the people who want to use them.
“There is an awful lot of potential to try and turn it round and put it back into use.
“I have thoughts about something the school children could access which could link with the animals. It is very early days.”
Villagers formed Chalfont St Giles Residents Against Inappropriate Development (RAID) to fight the proposal of using the Lagger as a site.
“It aimed to protect the location’s green belt land and members believe a Travellers camp is not a suitable development for the area.
Chairman Tony O’Neil said: “This news will come as a great relief to all those in the village who have expressed real anxieties over this issue. It is the best Christmas present we could have hoped for.
“We wish the new owners well, and thank them wholeheartedly for what they have done to protect the local environment, and the peaceful rural nature of this area.
“I’d also like to thank all those who gave active support to this campaign, as well as all those residents who responded to the call for action by demonstrating their real concerns and submitting their comments as recommended to Chiltern District Council.”
Councillors have delayed plans to announce the sites for five weeks following a public consulation as they need more time for consideration.
They will be due for online viewing on January 13.
Labour MP Jack Dromey under fire over 'Pikey' tweet
From the BBC
MP Jack Dromey should not have used the potentially offensive word "Pikey" in a Twitter message but it was an "innocent mistake", Labour sources have said.
The shadow minister tweeted a picture of himself with a postal worker.
His caption said: "With Gareth Martin, the Pikey from the Erdington Royal Mail Sorting Office. A great guy!"
After he faced accusations of racism, Mr Dromey tweeted that Mr Martin's nickname was a reference to the Dad's Army character Pike.
Conservative MP David Morris has written to Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe calling on him to investigate whether Mr Dromey's message constituted incitement to racial hatred.
"As I am sure that you are aware, the word 'pikey' is a deeply offensive word, and is a racially charged term due to its association with Irish Travellers and Roma Gypsies," writes the Morecambe and Lunesdale MP.
"I have received a number of complaints from members of the travelling community in my constituency, and am writing on their behalf."
'Careful'
A Labour source said the party had spoken to Mr Dromey earlier on Friday after being contacted by journalists who had picked up on a growing Twitter storm about the comment.
"It was a stupid thing to do and he should not have said it," the source added, but he insisted it was "an innocent mistake".
He said the MP had been referring to the Dad's Army character rather than using a derogatory term for "somebody of Romany extraction".
Mr Dromey had agreed to issue a clarification after the potentially offensive nature of the tweet was pointed out to him.
The second message read: "Don't panic, Mr Mainwaring. This morning's meeting was with Gareth, a Postie nicknamed after Corporal Pike from Dad's Army."
Labour sources said the incident - not the first time Mr Dromey has landed himself in hot water over his use of social media - showed how important it was to think before tweeting, in case words were misconstrued.
"It is an offensive word and it just shows how everybody should be extremely careful with language on Twitter," said a spokesman.
Mr Dromey, a former trade union leader, is married to Labour's deputy leader and equalities spokeswoman Harriet Harman.
He is a shadow communities and local government minister and chairman of the all-party Parliamentary Group on Migration.
MP Jack Dromey should not have used the potentially offensive word "Pikey" in a Twitter message but it was an "innocent mistake", Labour sources have said.
The shadow minister tweeted a picture of himself with a postal worker.
His caption said: "With Gareth Martin, the Pikey from the Erdington Royal Mail Sorting Office. A great guy!"
After he faced accusations of racism, Mr Dromey tweeted that Mr Martin's nickname was a reference to the Dad's Army character Pike.
Conservative MP David Morris has written to Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe calling on him to investigate whether Mr Dromey's message constituted incitement to racial hatred.
"As I am sure that you are aware, the word 'pikey' is a deeply offensive word, and is a racially charged term due to its association with Irish Travellers and Roma Gypsies," writes the Morecambe and Lunesdale MP.
"I have received a number of complaints from members of the travelling community in my constituency, and am writing on their behalf."
'Careful'
A Labour source said the party had spoken to Mr Dromey earlier on Friday after being contacted by journalists who had picked up on a growing Twitter storm about the comment.
"It was a stupid thing to do and he should not have said it," the source added, but he insisted it was "an innocent mistake".
He said the MP had been referring to the Dad's Army character rather than using a derogatory term for "somebody of Romany extraction".
Mr Dromey had agreed to issue a clarification after the potentially offensive nature of the tweet was pointed out to him.
The second message read: "Don't panic, Mr Mainwaring. This morning's meeting was with Gareth, a Postie nicknamed after Corporal Pike from Dad's Army."
Labour sources said the incident - not the first time Mr Dromey has landed himself in hot water over his use of social media - showed how important it was to think before tweeting, in case words were misconstrued.
"It is an offensive word and it just shows how everybody should be extremely careful with language on Twitter," said a spokesman.
Mr Dromey, a former trade union leader, is married to Labour's deputy leader and equalities spokeswoman Harriet Harman.
He is a shadow communities and local government minister and chairman of the all-party Parliamentary Group on Migration.
The need for Gypsies and Travellers to respond to the Government’s balance of competences review on fundamental rights
From Garden Court Chambers
Marc Willers explains why it is so important that Gypsies and Travellers respond to the Government’s balance of competences review on fundamental rights by submitting evidence before 13 January 2014.
Introduction
The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) issued a call for evidence for a review on the balance of competences between the UK and EU in relation to fundamental rights on 21 October 2013. The deadline for submitting evidence is 13 January 2014.[1]
In essence, the Government seeks evidence and views upon the EU’s framework for ensuring that its member states respect fundamental rights and on its work to promote fundamental rights (through the Fundamental Rights Agency).
One commentator has said that:
‘the Fundamental Rights Review is potentially very important – the stated aim of the Balance of Competences reviews is to audit what the EU does and how it affects the UK government and those residing within the UK more generally. The main website can be found here. …
The Review puts fundamental rights in a somewhat negative light, as a restriction on Member State action: on p10 it says “The key point is that EU fundamental rights constrain what the EU and, in certain circumstances, its Member States can do.” But that is not the key point of fundamental rights at all – the key point is protecting or guaranteeing rights for individuals, organisations, etc., and the UK needs a coherent and strong policy in order to ensure that the rights of individuals and businesses within the UK are properly protected. The EU influences fundamental rights protection in different ways – for example, its institutions and Member States may be constrained to ensure protection of fundamental rights; national courts must follow the CJEU in relation to fundamental rights when interpreting or applying legislation, or considering the lawfulness of public authority action that implements EU law; and the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency carries out campaigns and educational programmes to promote rights.’[2]
I specialise in providing advice and representation to Gypsies, Travellers and Roma and I consider it essential that those representing and protecting their interests respond to the Government’s call for evidence and emphasise just how important it is for them: that EU law is implemented in a way which is compatible with fundamental rights; and that the valuable work of the Fundamental Rights Agency is recognised and supported by the UK.
The EU Fundamental Rights Framework and the Charter
The requirement to respect fundamental rights as a matter of EU law has been consistently recognised by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) since the late 1960s. In 2000, the EU and its member states adopted the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’). Essentially, the Charter draws together the rights that member states have already committed to respect in other international conventions and covenants (including the European Convention on Human Rights). Indeed, the preamble to the Charter states that:
The Charter reaffirms…the rights as they result, in particular, from the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to the Member State…the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as the Social Charters adopted by the Community as well as by the Council of Europe.
The list includes all the civil and political rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights as well as a number of economic, social and cultural rights.
When the Lisbon Treaty came into force in 2009, the Charter became a legally binding document with which EU institutions are bound to comply; and with which EU member states must also comply when they implement EU law. Article 51(1) of the Charter states that:
The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law. They shall therefore respect the rights, observe the principles and promote the application thereof in accordance with their respective powers and respecting the limits of the powers conferred on it in the treaties.[3]
As a consequence, individuals now have the right to complain that EU law, or national legislation that implements EU law, breaches the Charter. Complaints relating to a member state’s compliance with the Charter, when implementing EU law, can be brought before the national courts (which can then seek guidance from the CJEU on the correct interpretation through the preliminary reference procedure).
My understanding is that up until now there have been few cases where Gypsy and Traveller claimants have relied upon the Charter.[4] That position may change as those representing them become more familiar with its provisions and its scope.
The Fundamental Rights Agency
The EU promotes respect for fundamental rights through the work of the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA). I think it is vital that we highlight the excellent work done by the FRA on promoting and protecting the fundamental rights of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma throughout Europe by producing important data and research which demonstrates the inequalities and discrimination that they face as vulnerable members of society.[5] For example, see:
FRA’s ‘multi annual Roma programme’
http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2013/multi-annual-roma-programme
Analysis of FRA Roma survey results by gender
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2013/analysis-fra-roma-survey-results-gender
The FRA report ‘The situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States’
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/situation-roma-11-eu-member-states-survey-results-glance
The FRA report ‘Housing conditions of Roma and Travellers in the European Union – Comparative report’
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2011/housing-conditions-roma-and-travellers-european-union-comparative-report and
The ‘EU-MIDIS Data in Focus Report 1: The Roma’
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2009/eu-midis-data-focus-report-1-roma
Without research and data such as that produced by the FRA we would not have had the April 2011 Communication from the Commission to the EU Parliament ‘An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020’ which sets goals for Roma inclusion in education, employment, health and housing across the EU.[6]
To that end, EU member states were asked to adopt National Roma Integration Strategies (‘NRIS’), which specify how they would contribute to the achievement of the goals and the FRA was given the important role in monitoring and assisting EU-wide efforts to implement the EU’s plan for Roma integration.
Unfortunately, the UK Government’s response to the EU’s requirement that it adopt a NRIS has been disappointing. Rather than adopt a NRIS in name it published a Progress Report[7] in April 2012 which included 28 ‘commitments’. However, many of those commitments seem to fall well short of the explicit measures that would need to be adopted in order to prevent and compensate for the disadvantages that Gypsies, Travellers and Roma face within our society.[8]
Conclusion
We need to ensure that the UK Government respects fundamental rights when it implements EU law and that FRA continues to be given the support and funding it needs so that it can promote the rights of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma and help eradicate the discrimination and social exclusion that they face as some of the most marginalised and vulnerable members of our society.
Help to achieve those goals by responding to the MOJ’s call for evidence.
Please send your response to the MOJ by midday on 13th January 2014 to fundamentalrightsBoC@justice.gsi.gov.uk
[1]See http://eutopialaw.com/2013/11/25/fundamental-rights-and-the-uks-balance-of-competences-review/ for a summary of the Review.
[2] See Catherine Taroni at http://eutopialaw.com/2013/11/25/fundamental-rights-and-the-uks-balance-of-competences-review/
[3] The UK Government along with Poland sought an ‘opt out’ from the Charter through Protocol No. 30 to the Lisbon Treaty on the application of the charter to Poland and the UK. Whether the Protocol has any substantive effect is questionable. In N.S. v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Advocate General of the Court opined that it did not amount to an opt out.[3] He held that the wording of Article 1(1) of the Protocol effectively repeated what all member states had already committed to in Article 51.
[4] By way of example, the Charter was used in legal argument by Jan Luba QC, when acting on behalf of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the important recent case of R(W) v Worcestershire County Council [2013] EWHC 3845 (Admin) as a guide to the interpretation of section 17 of the Children Act 1989 – though the point did not find its way into the judgment (which begins with the words ‘Everyone loves a funfair. They are part of the tapestry of our national life... ). See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/3845.html
[5] See http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/roma
[6] See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0173:FIN:EN:HTML
[7] See http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/roma_uk_strategy_annex2_en.pdf
[8] See the article by Willers and Greenhall at http://www.gypsy-traveller.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/TAT-News-Roma-Strategies-18.3.2012.pdf
Marc Willers explains why it is so important that Gypsies and Travellers respond to the Government’s balance of competences review on fundamental rights by submitting evidence before 13 January 2014.
Introduction
The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) issued a call for evidence for a review on the balance of competences between the UK and EU in relation to fundamental rights on 21 October 2013. The deadline for submitting evidence is 13 January 2014.[1]
In essence, the Government seeks evidence and views upon the EU’s framework for ensuring that its member states respect fundamental rights and on its work to promote fundamental rights (through the Fundamental Rights Agency).
One commentator has said that:
‘the Fundamental Rights Review is potentially very important – the stated aim of the Balance of Competences reviews is to audit what the EU does and how it affects the UK government and those residing within the UK more generally. The main website can be found here. …
The Review puts fundamental rights in a somewhat negative light, as a restriction on Member State action: on p10 it says “The key point is that EU fundamental rights constrain what the EU and, in certain circumstances, its Member States can do.” But that is not the key point of fundamental rights at all – the key point is protecting or guaranteeing rights for individuals, organisations, etc., and the UK needs a coherent and strong policy in order to ensure that the rights of individuals and businesses within the UK are properly protected. The EU influences fundamental rights protection in different ways – for example, its institutions and Member States may be constrained to ensure protection of fundamental rights; national courts must follow the CJEU in relation to fundamental rights when interpreting or applying legislation, or considering the lawfulness of public authority action that implements EU law; and the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency carries out campaigns and educational programmes to promote rights.’[2]
I specialise in providing advice and representation to Gypsies, Travellers and Roma and I consider it essential that those representing and protecting their interests respond to the Government’s call for evidence and emphasise just how important it is for them: that EU law is implemented in a way which is compatible with fundamental rights; and that the valuable work of the Fundamental Rights Agency is recognised and supported by the UK.
The EU Fundamental Rights Framework and the Charter
The requirement to respect fundamental rights as a matter of EU law has been consistently recognised by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) since the late 1960s. In 2000, the EU and its member states adopted the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’). Essentially, the Charter draws together the rights that member states have already committed to respect in other international conventions and covenants (including the European Convention on Human Rights). Indeed, the preamble to the Charter states that:
The Charter reaffirms…the rights as they result, in particular, from the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to the Member State…the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as the Social Charters adopted by the Community as well as by the Council of Europe.
The list includes all the civil and political rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights as well as a number of economic, social and cultural rights.
When the Lisbon Treaty came into force in 2009, the Charter became a legally binding document with which EU institutions are bound to comply; and with which EU member states must also comply when they implement EU law. Article 51(1) of the Charter states that:
The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law. They shall therefore respect the rights, observe the principles and promote the application thereof in accordance with their respective powers and respecting the limits of the powers conferred on it in the treaties.[3]
As a consequence, individuals now have the right to complain that EU law, or national legislation that implements EU law, breaches the Charter. Complaints relating to a member state’s compliance with the Charter, when implementing EU law, can be brought before the national courts (which can then seek guidance from the CJEU on the correct interpretation through the preliminary reference procedure).
My understanding is that up until now there have been few cases where Gypsy and Traveller claimants have relied upon the Charter.[4] That position may change as those representing them become more familiar with its provisions and its scope.
The Fundamental Rights Agency
The EU promotes respect for fundamental rights through the work of the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA). I think it is vital that we highlight the excellent work done by the FRA on promoting and protecting the fundamental rights of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma throughout Europe by producing important data and research which demonstrates the inequalities and discrimination that they face as vulnerable members of society.[5] For example, see:
FRA’s ‘multi annual Roma programme’
http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2013/multi-annual-roma-programme
Analysis of FRA Roma survey results by gender
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2013/analysis-fra-roma-survey-results-gender
The FRA report ‘The situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States’
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/situation-roma-11-eu-member-states-survey-results-glance
The FRA report ‘Housing conditions of Roma and Travellers in the European Union – Comparative report’
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2011/housing-conditions-roma-and-travellers-european-union-comparative-report and
The ‘EU-MIDIS Data in Focus Report 1: The Roma’
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2009/eu-midis-data-focus-report-1-roma
Without research and data such as that produced by the FRA we would not have had the April 2011 Communication from the Commission to the EU Parliament ‘An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020’ which sets goals for Roma inclusion in education, employment, health and housing across the EU.[6]
To that end, EU member states were asked to adopt National Roma Integration Strategies (‘NRIS’), which specify how they would contribute to the achievement of the goals and the FRA was given the important role in monitoring and assisting EU-wide efforts to implement the EU’s plan for Roma integration.
Unfortunately, the UK Government’s response to the EU’s requirement that it adopt a NRIS has been disappointing. Rather than adopt a NRIS in name it published a Progress Report[7] in April 2012 which included 28 ‘commitments’. However, many of those commitments seem to fall well short of the explicit measures that would need to be adopted in order to prevent and compensate for the disadvantages that Gypsies, Travellers and Roma face within our society.[8]
Conclusion
We need to ensure that the UK Government respects fundamental rights when it implements EU law and that FRA continues to be given the support and funding it needs so that it can promote the rights of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma and help eradicate the discrimination and social exclusion that they face as some of the most marginalised and vulnerable members of our society.
Help to achieve those goals by responding to the MOJ’s call for evidence.
Please send your response to the MOJ by midday on 13th January 2014 to fundamentalrightsBoC@justice.gsi.gov.uk
[1]See http://eutopialaw.com/2013/11/25/fundamental-rights-and-the-uks-balance-of-competences-review/ for a summary of the Review.
[2] See Catherine Taroni at http://eutopialaw.com/2013/11/25/fundamental-rights-and-the-uks-balance-of-competences-review/
[3] The UK Government along with Poland sought an ‘opt out’ from the Charter through Protocol No. 30 to the Lisbon Treaty on the application of the charter to Poland and the UK. Whether the Protocol has any substantive effect is questionable. In N.S. v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Advocate General of the Court opined that it did not amount to an opt out.[3] He held that the wording of Article 1(1) of the Protocol effectively repeated what all member states had already committed to in Article 51.
[4] By way of example, the Charter was used in legal argument by Jan Luba QC, when acting on behalf of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the important recent case of R(W) v Worcestershire County Council [2013] EWHC 3845 (Admin) as a guide to the interpretation of section 17 of the Children Act 1989 – though the point did not find its way into the judgment (which begins with the words ‘Everyone loves a funfair. They are part of the tapestry of our national life... ). See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/3845.html
[5] See http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/roma
[6] See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0173:FIN:EN:HTML
[7] See http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/roma_uk_strategy_annex2_en.pdf
[8] See the article by Willers and Greenhall at http://www.gypsy-traveller.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/TAT-News-Roma-Strategies-18.3.2012.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)