Paying off blackmailers usually works.

Hmm. more fool them. First thing to do would be check the LA's Local Plan, see if the land falls inside or outside the development line. Then do some homework on the number of identified development plots within the LA's area of remit compared to Government targets for the area, then research local employment potential, transport infrastructure, schooling places......

It might take an hour or two of someone's time, but it's a damned site cheaper than forking out money at the first sign of panic.

If it's "affordable housing" then it could encourage people to stay in the village, who would otherwise be priced out, so it might be a good thing.

In message , Matthew Church writes

Arent the villagers paying what it's worth to them?

They may be "special" purchasers, but so what?

How would that make any difference? If you are a 'gypsy' you can buy some land, and then build whatever you want on it without having to worry about the authorities actually doing anything about it.

Is he selling the field as a field? Or as a possible site for houses? Sites for houses can be worth more - though did anyone force the locals to pay more than the field is worth?

Self-built houses still tend to be quite a bit cheaper than buying already built ones.

Martin <

And your evidence for this? Here in Somerset they have tried exactly that on several occasions. All but one has been removed after much legal expense. Likewise in Cambridgeshire. The latest try on in Somerset is just about to be subject to court action.

Something is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it, no more and no less.

Matt.

Unmitigated tripe.

Jon

"The judges said special consideration had to be given to the needs of gypsies and their different lifestyle."

Oh right, then the huge house built just up the road from me without planning permission and then allowed to remain, must be a mirage.

"> > Unmitigated tripe.

Don't worry about Jon S. Green - he's a well known ring-piece in Cambridge who should be well aware that the well publicised issue concerning travellers near Cambridge is as you say - them tucked in nicely while the authorities wave pieces of paper at them and say "I am the voice of authority". Travellers one - council nil. Police - keeping mum. Exactly the same as other traveller sites in Cambridge which have years of court orders / eviction orders / appeals / refusals to leave / more orders to go followed by more refusals etc etc etc. Traveller law is simple: might is right. Believe others or find out the hard way. The choice is yours.

Which is a very long way from them being given carte blanche as you suggested.

I'd suggest ignoring cowards who're afraid to post their libels under their real names. I've not seen many people sharing your views, by the way.

That would be the issue in Cottenham, then, in which SCDC, having received court approval for clearance, is in the process of expediting. Doubtless there'll be a fracas, but action's in progress.

Hardly a case of "without having to worry about the authorities actually doing anything about it".

Jon

2 points to Richard and Matthew EVERYTHING has a price and that price is what you're willing to pay. no more no less. Sounds like a good plan though anyone selling dome land I can get hold of a white transit at a push and I have a friend who can look swarthy as you like at the drop of a hat!

You never can ignore it can you? Like a fish to the bait.

Can't stop laughing long enough to give a detailed response to that one.

A liitle lad from the planning department versus a load of tooled up travellers. No contest.

Errmm Martin you are looking at a different problem, There are two phases, phase one started (around here at least) in Spring 2003. There have always been itinerant groups of travellers in Surrey settling and moving on again but in 2003 something changed.

PHASE 1 ? SPRING 2003

1) Somebody buys a patch of agricultural land. 2) Electric (for barns) and water (for troughs) is laid. 3) 5pm on Friday, as council offices close, lorries move on to the site. By Sunday evening hard standing for n caravans is fenced into plots with mains electric and water. 4) Monday morning 9.30am council offices reopen and application is lodged for retrospective planning permission. 5) Case is delayed and dragged through appeals, human rights etc.

PHASE 2 ? AUTUMN 2004

1) Somebody wants to sell a patch of agricultural land 2) Local people fear it might fall into the wrong hands. 3) They decide they simply cannot allow that to happen. Nobody can outbid wealthy Middle England in their unspoilt villages if they group together, so the price they offer (in sealed auction) reflects their determination?

Other people in this thread have suggested that the councils are doing a good job and will win. Yes, the caravans will be towed off, the electric and the water torn up, the hard standing ploughed in?

?but where will those 30, 50, 70 caravans go?

County councils have been negligent in not providing enough temporary sites for itinerants, when they start looking around for places to build them where will they look first? On or near the existing sites perhaps?

Could be a good thing (as has been said), making the countryside more affordable for local people, discouraging the "holiday home" vacuity of our chocolate box villages. If poor farmers are becoming wealthy farmers at the expense of wealthy second-homers perhaps that isn't such a bad thing either?

If you are going to buy a second home in the countryside better make sure it isn't anywhere near a field :o(

Why should their 'lifestle' mean they can ignore the law?

More a case of the law ignoring them or treating them as a special case.

Were this a group of local newly-weds doing this to be able to stay and live in the area, then there might be a bit more sympathy. Local people are surely entitled to special consideration too.

Which is the greater injustice, a few caravans parked in a field without the necessary planning permission - or second homes that are empty most of the year being permitted in areas of acute housing shortage?

Who is the most vocal in trying to stop development around villages, those who have lived there all their lives and want their children to be able to live in the area too - or those second-homers and new-comers who want to protect their investments?

The difference is, of course, that locals will obey the planners and meekly accept that their children will have to move out of the area. The gypsies are at least making a fight of it - I hope the locals do likewise. Planning should be planning - not just banning.

Thanks for that. The little bits missing from the origional post that make all the difference in the actual context of the post. Seems like the origional post and the details below talk about two different things altogether. Glad you could clear up the confusion.

Martin <