That's not a decision he gets to make. It certainly is green belt, or the council wouldn't keep winning the court cases on the basis that it is. Anyway, the facts are simple. They didn't have planning permission, the houses should not have been built therefore they should be removed. This is the law. It applies to everyone. Nobody else gets a 'get out of jail free' card over this. If you built a house without planning permission, even if it was your only dwelling, you'd still be compelled by law to vacate it and it would be dismantled. The same law applies to you and them. Why there's still any sort of argument about it is just another illustration of how our legal system is much more about allowing lawyers to buy BMW M5's every three years than it is enforcing the law or any ludicrous notions of justice.

As for the money it cost, it's a drop in the bucket, especially over 10 years. You should see the amount of money the SFO wastes every bloody year trying to prosecute people for financial scams not even the people perpetrating them really understand.

Jon

There is planning permission for part of the site. I don't disagree with you one bit concerning the other.

What riles me is, like you suggest, all of these crappy little 'non-cases' that get dragged out for years and made into some huge non-story when all the while the only ones benefiting are the lawyers.

It's all bollox. That is my in depth opinion.

In which case as a brown field site they should be allowed to build houses if they follow the regulations.

I note that the very same laws are being used against David Gilmour out of Pink Floyd who has to take down a building in his garden due to lack of planning permission.

The major issue here, though, is one of precedent. If the travellers win, then that means that they have a legal excuse to set up similar camps elsewhere, rendering the planning laws useless in such situations.

If the council wins, they effectively preserve those laws, and other local authorities can apply them as intended. It's an important case for that reason.

I think my point is it should have been sorted out in the blink of an eye years ago.

It's effectively like someone building a conservatory without planning permission. They have a a legal site there and have added an extension, sort it out FFS and get the extension removed. Why does that take millions of pounds and several years to sort out?

because the lawyers got called in and they will use any means necessary to win/increase their payout. Use every legal avenue. Failed on the planning regulations, quick use the race relations act, failed on that use the human rights act. Appeal at every avenue and hope that the other side caves in because of the mounting cost.

Indeed.

I do know why, I just want to know why... If you know what I mean.

Hopefully they should get the boot today.

Decision delayed until Thursday. Those skiing holidays won't pay for themselves y'know.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-15057483

Aye, especially in these times.

The Judge agreed that all was in order with the Council's want to remove them from the illegal site, it just needs going through.

Blah fecking blah.

UK bureaucracy is slower in moving than a snail doing a 3 point turn in a match box. Blindfolded.

Basildon say that any costs caused by the delays will have to be met by the travellers. Good luck with getting that particular crock of gold from the end of that rather grim looking rainbow.

When they say Travellars they might mean travellars solicitors - who are prbably doing it via legal aid so from your back pocket in the end

Is it me, or is the chance of this saying “Save Dole Farm” pretty high?

Well I maybe it was photoshopped by the Daily Mail?

It annoys me how smug these buggers get.
You haven't got away with breaking the law yet you know.