@Phien "This was cheap land because it was a scrap yard..."

An ILLEGAL scrap yard..

I just don't understand why all the press photographers don't take any pictures of the men gypsies, not the boys. Are the photographes being threatened? We only see pictures of women and children.

It is worth noting that the new National Planning Policy Framework will help solve the gypsy and traveller problem. Brownfield sites in the green belt (like Dale Farm) will be opened up for development regardless of whether they are designated for development in the local plan. The NPPF gives a command to ‘approve’ when the local plan is silent. Developments must meet the green belt tests of permanence and retaining openness, but many small scale permanent gypsy sites will pass the rather vague openness test. Sites as big as Dale Farm are unlikely to get through, but there should be enough brownfield land in the green belts of England to make a significant contribution to needs of the travelling community.
No one should be surprised that the government is keeping this aspect of the NPPF quiet. Ministers have shown no grasp of the implications of the new policies, and they would in any event be unlikely to advertise a change that might well upset many of the people who vote for them.

To add some enlightened and, certainly compared to some of the opinions, intelligent comment, I am proud to be a member of the travelling community.
To dispel some common myths: I have no criminal prosecutions against me; I run a legitimate business and paid in excess of £18,000 in tax last year. I also own a legal site for travelling people which has full planning consent.
Obtaining planning consent for this type of use is a long and expensive process, simply because there is no zoning for this use in the UK. Most other uses have clearly zoned areas ie residential, commercial, light industrial and agricultural (sometimes known as greenbelt). It would seem obvious to the layman that residential would be the use most suited to travelling people and their homes. However, the planning authorities rarely see it that way so until some clear guidance emerges from central government on a suitable zoning for travelling people this problem will constantly re-occur.
It's often said that a little education or knowledge can be a dangerous thing. However, I can see from some of the comments on this page that complete ignorance is just downright dangerous.

Of course my comments were aimed at john woods and the ilk and no one else...

We've heard a lot about the rights of the travelers being violated but what about those of the residents of Cray's Hill? Imagine seeing a house you put more than 100K of TAXED income (i.e. you need to earn at least twice that) become worthless due to this site being next door. I think the apologists might have a different perspective under those circumstances.

sowhat: 'local racists'... Yawn fucking Yawn! Calling someone racists doesn't wash with anyone anymore!! That's apart from you political retards that is......

"The residents have been paying council tax despite the fact that under the communities and local govt act it is illegal to charge council tax where (a) there is no planning permission and (b) where occupation is unlawful."

It is not illegal, those properties are exempt from council tax only while they are UNOCCUPIED.

See: The Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992

'Ethnic cleansing' my backside.

If these people had abided by the same laws that the rest of us obey, then there would be no trouble. The fact that they seem to believe that normal rules don't apply to them is the problem. And if they also produced income tax returns and tax discs for their vehicles, perhaps they'd get a bit more respect...

Could it be that the 90% rejections are due to the applications being either retroactive or on green belt sites

Stop moving on to Green Belt land then - use Brown sites instead.........No, I bet not....Im sure all my friends that are Mums would prefer to be at home with their children too like the traveller women have a tradition of - but we have large mortgages to pay |(or rents...) ..we live within the law - join us.......

While unexpectedly setting up camp in fields / car parks etc. and submitting retrospective planning applications are clearly against the law, it's also worth taking into account there's a severe shortage of places where they can legally set up camp. If there were more legal sites around, I'd assume there wouldn't be as many cases of communities setting up illegal sites. As the article states, the new localism bill may have the perverse effect of reducing the number of legal sites, so exasperating the problem.

I suspect greenbelt sites are frequently chosen as they're easier to access than vacant urban plots, which are frequently surrounded by metal fencing to which notices are attached claiming the site's patrolled by a private security company.

Maybe some of these plots (which are often relatively flat expanses of concrete) could be opened up for temporary traveller use. Perhaps its also worth creating a distinction between the 'discourteous' travellers (the kind you often read about in the paper that are noisy and disruptive, who also typically litter the site with both domestic and human waste) and 'courteous' travellers (I assume there must be some who clean up after themselves and don't make a big impact on the locality) - so that where legal plots are available, conditions can be imposed to encourage the travellers to look after the site. Perhaps then they could start to improve their reputation...

So the 'left', as represented by Ms Redgrave, focuses on the 'human right' of these people to set up home wherever they like. Meanwhile, this same 'left' ignores the Bombardier workers in Derby who are going to lose their jobs because of government and EU decisions.

Have any of you pro-'travellers' people ever had these type of people move in near your house?

As a kid I remember them pitching up in a bit of wasteland two roads from my house. The land was next to my school and several of my schoolmates were beaten up and there was an increase in burglaries while they were there.

Ergo, people hate them and would rather they went away. They are a ridiculous, insular people who need to take responsibility for their actions.

Disgraceful behaviour by Basildon Council. The Travellers have nowhere else to go, and the problem will simply be moved to unauthorised sites.
Travellers own the land at Dale Farm, its just that they don't have planning permission for structures to be built there.

I actually live in Basildon district about 4 miles from Dale Farm, I also, years ago worked in the Planning Department of Basildon District and remember the problems associated with Dale Farm years and years ago.

I suspect the reason that 90% of "travellers" planning applications are rejected compared with 20% from other applicants is due to applications for sites on greenbelt land. Couple this with the fact that obtaining planning permission is costly, most people, myself included would contact the local planning department to ask if planning permission is feasible for any work to be done.

This aside, if we allow the people of Dale Farm to contravene planning laws so blatantly what is stopping others from buying "cheap" greenbelt land and pitching up and using Dale Farm as a precedent? It wouldn't be long until the greenbelt was no more.

I am glad that something is being done at long last, and if my council tax were to increase as a result of maintaining planning laws I for one would not mind.

JOHN WOODS MAY GOD FORGIVE YOUR SINS, YOU ARE A BIGOT. TWO QUESTION'S HAVE YOU EVER MET A TRAVELLER? WOULD YOU ALLOW PEOPLE TELL YOU HOW TO LIVE? HE WHO CAST THE FIRST STONE.did you know there has never been anyone sentenced for hate crime againest travellers YET!!!!!!

to the last two contributors...have you any valid worth while comments other than stereotypical clap trap and idiocy? These Travellers are tax payers, they own the land they are on, they have falling foul of laws that are already being looked at ie green belt being built on...put your hatred aside for a moment and try to think, maybe you will start to understand there is more to the matter than your blind emotion..this is a human rights issue, you have human rights to and they are being eroded via the attack on the Travellers human right...THINK!

What about the human rights of all the crays hill village people that pay their taxes, mortgages, rents. Who live with the abuse and threatening behaviour every day! Whose green belt land is being turned into a rubbish tip! Who have power cuts and telephone lines cut off constantly with cables being stolen for scrap! Welcome to crays hill village where your house worth is cut by a third even though you have worked all your life to pay for it. To every protestor would you really want to live here!

Greg:
What is "hypopcracy"???
Do you mean "hypocrisy" by any chance?
When you talk the crap you talk, you might as well get your spelling right so you don't appear a complete twat but just a twat.
The good people of Little England are all here tonight on this site.Why don't you all go and moan on the "daily Mail" site instead of here?

Some facts for the Daily Mail bigots on here.
The Judge accepted on Friday that the council's claims on greenbelt land were 'misleading'.
The residents have been paying council tax despite the fact that under the communities and local govt act it is illegal to charge council tax where (a) there is no planning permission and (b) where occupation is unlawful.
The fact that they have paid council tax means they are recognised by one Govt department as residential but yet anothe department deemed them illegally there - which is it?
Will they pay back that 900 pound a year for ten years to all the people who paid it?
Will Basildon Council be prosecuted for unlawfully and illegally claiming council tax for a decade or more?
Will anyone actually bother to read the wealth of factual information on Dale Farm out there or will people just repeat the Govt and Mail narratives ad infinitum because bigoted ignorance is better than blissful ignorance?

I'll be taking legal action against the New Statesman if there are any more racist comments.

Creg:
It is actually "the sole purpose" not "the soul purpose".
Sorry I don't debate with people who can't spell their own language.
Only joking.
No I don't debate with people who admire the rich and despise the poor.
I don't see the point.

Anon

I second that emotion.

It's sickening listening to the whinging of these obese, unhealthy people moaning that they have health issues that are going to worsen if they have to move. Take some responsibility for your situation, why dontcha!