by Michael Smith
This kind of headline and even worse we are seeing on an almost weekly basis in Britain when local authorities mention that this or that Gypsy Site in their area is being refurbished or such.
The local residents end up in arms, often aided and abetted by one or the other local councilor or even Member of Parliament, as to the cost of the revamps of those sites.
It is strange though that when a “normal” housing estate gets a multi-million Pound Sterling revamp no one says a word against it and everyone, generally, says how necessary such a refurbishment was of this or that estate.
When it comes to the Gypsy (and the Travelers) then there is one law and rule for the Gadje, for the non-Gypsy population, and one for the Gypsy. This is not just so in the case of housing but housing appears to be one of those areas where it is very much pronounced.
No one wants to have a Gypsy Site anywhere in a locality and this regardless as to whether this is a government site or a private Gypsy development.
In the latter case the things look even worse. Very rare, if ever, will Gypsies get the permission to create their own sites or settlements – as they would like to have them – on their own land; on land that they have bought fairly and squarely.
More often than not the excuse for not granting planning rights given is “green belt land” and such.
However, often, as soon as the land is sold, say, by the Gypsy owners to someone else, planning permission is granted for the building of housing units for profit.
We have seen this more than just a few times by now.
In other cases the lands was taken off the Gypsy owners by the municipalities, were a little more revamped and then the original Gypsy owners of the land were told they could rent plots on this now official Gypsy Site.
While Gypsies owned the land it could not possibly become a Gypsy-owned and -run Caravan Site or Gypsy settlement but as soon as the councils took over such properties, with the hard-standings in place and all that, laid by the Gypsies, it could be turned into an official government Gypsy Caravan Site. Suddenly there was no longer a problem with “agricultural ties” or “green belt land”.
Similar things also happen when Gypsies try to move into houses even, especially when they try too live in extended family. They are being hounded by the locals who make all manner of claims, including the one that having Gypsies live nearby reduces the values of heir homes.
This is something that is found in many countries of Europe but Britain, I think, tops the list in this league. While one might have thought different as there does not appear to be so much anti-Gypsyism in Britain, being a country that appear to value the freedom of people, this same freedom does not, however, extend to the Gyppo, and never has.
While hate crimes and racial discrimination against any other group will immediately be dealt with the the authorities, when it comes to us, the Rom, the answer always is that nothing can be done for this or that clause and such. One law and rule everyone else and one discriminatory one for the Gyppo and always applied against him.
Time for a change!
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
Showing posts with label Gypsy sites. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gypsy sites. Show all posts
More travellers sites on the cards
OFFICIAL small scale sites for travellers could be set up in the Suffolk Coastal area.
There have been travellers occupying mainly forestry land for nearly 20 years in the Woodbridge area and now they could be given their own camps.
However, Suffolk Coastal District Council stressed that the provision of sites was not the most urgent requirement of its homelessness strategy and officers have not met with travellers to discuss their needs.
Under the Housing Act 2004 the council has to include gypsies and travellers when assessing housing provision.
The council says there has never been a significant traditional gypsy population, either migratory or fixed. But New Age Travellers have become established since the late 1980s.
They often occupy sites at Hollesley and near the Woodbridge airfield. They are usually hidden away among trees but recently there have been illegal camps set up on Suffolk Coastal land at Sutton Heath, adjacent to popular footpaths, which angered the public.
Suffolk Coastal's cabinet meets on June 17 and will discuss the issue.
Chris Slemmings, cabinet member for housing, said the Government insisted that the homelessness strategy had to address the needs of gypsies and travellers and the council planned to meet three different groups of travellers in the area.
Cllr Slemmings said: ''However, those talks have not yet occurred, nor have we yet looked at possible locations for official camps as it is not a top priority of the homelessness strategy.''
He added the council's main efforts were focused upon the prevention of homelessness.
The population is forecast to rise in Suffolk Coastal by 17.5% in 20 years and the district currently has an above average number of people aged over 45.
More than 75% of the housing stock is owner occupied. The highest percentage of rented homes is in the Felixstowe area.
The rate of unemployment has dropped in 10 years from 5.5% to 1.3% but there has been a trend of people aged 16 to 24 moving away from the area for higher education and to find better paid jobs.
<>
There have been travellers occupying mainly forestry land for nearly 20 years in the Woodbridge area and now they could be given their own camps.
However, Suffolk Coastal District Council stressed that the provision of sites was not the most urgent requirement of its homelessness strategy and officers have not met with travellers to discuss their needs.
Under the Housing Act 2004 the council has to include gypsies and travellers when assessing housing provision.
The council says there has never been a significant traditional gypsy population, either migratory or fixed. But New Age Travellers have become established since the late 1980s.
They often occupy sites at Hollesley and near the Woodbridge airfield. They are usually hidden away among trees but recently there have been illegal camps set up on Suffolk Coastal land at Sutton Heath, adjacent to popular footpaths, which angered the public.
Suffolk Coastal's cabinet meets on June 17 and will discuss the issue.
Chris Slemmings, cabinet member for housing, said the Government insisted that the homelessness strategy had to address the needs of gypsies and travellers and the council planned to meet three different groups of travellers in the area.
Cllr Slemmings said: ''However, those talks have not yet occurred, nor have we yet looked at possible locations for official camps as it is not a top priority of the homelessness strategy.''
He added the council's main efforts were focused upon the prevention of homelessness.
The population is forecast to rise in Suffolk Coastal by 17.5% in 20 years and the district currently has an above average number of people aged over 45.
More than 75% of the housing stock is owner occupied. The highest percentage of rented homes is in the Felixstowe area.
The rate of unemployment has dropped in 10 years from 5.5% to 1.3% but there has been a trend of people aged 16 to 24 moving away from the area for higher education and to find better paid jobs.
<>
Concern over Traveller sites
MOVES to take decisions on providing Gypsy and and Traveller pitches out of local control are causing concern.
The number of pitches needed in Hertfordshire will total more than 176 by 2011 according to proposals which are due to get the green light next week.
The proposals have caused a stir with county and local councillors, and have been labelled as "rough-shod riding".
On Monday Hertford and Stortford MP Mark Prisk challenged the government to "make a statement on the provision of sites for Travellers and Gypsies in Hertfordshire."
Iain Wright MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government, said: "The Government recognise the need to address the on-going shortfall in permanent and transit sites for Gypsies and Travellers."
He added: "The East of England regional assembly is preparing an alteration to the regional spatial strategy for the East of England, which we understand is due to be approved by the assembly on January 25.
"This alteration will determine how many pitches will be required for gypsies and travellers in the region. The current draft suggests the need for 1,187 pitches by 2011, 176 of which are in Hertfordshire."
Councillor Peter Ruffles (Conservatives, St Andrews) said: "Pitches in Hertfordshire have been well managed in my experience, for a good many years. My problem comes when people claim that special cases for Gypsy sites over-ride the existing planning policy controls which quite rightly limit the development of homes for others."
He added: "176 sites cannot possibly be introduced into Hertfordshire under these terms, so I oppose the rough-shod riding of the East of England Assembly."
Derrick Ashley, executive member for planning, external relations and waste, criticised planning decisions being taken at a regional level.
He said: "All planning is now in the hands of the regional assembly, what I would describe as a 'semi democratic quango' but this is due to pass into the hands of the East of England Development Agency (EEDA), which is a non-democratic quango.
"The whole move is away from local decision-making.”
Editorial Comment:
The truth is that, it would appear, the Gypsy Site provision must be taken out of the hand of local authorities and ideally placed into the hands of a body that will cover the whole of the country so as to make for evenhanded work. There is, yes, surely, a need for locals to be able to voice their opinion but this cannot and must not be on the grounds of reasons that are normally given such as “the presence of Gypsies makes the value of the houses decrease” and “crime will increase”, and such. That is, when it comes to Gypsies proper, that is to say, the Romani, nothing but racism. It could be said that in the cases of other itinerants the fears often are well founded.
MVS January 2008
The number of pitches needed in Hertfordshire will total more than 176 by 2011 according to proposals which are due to get the green light next week.
The proposals have caused a stir with county and local councillors, and have been labelled as "rough-shod riding".
On Monday Hertford and Stortford MP Mark Prisk challenged the government to "make a statement on the provision of sites for Travellers and Gypsies in Hertfordshire."
Iain Wright MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government, said: "The Government recognise the need to address the on-going shortfall in permanent and transit sites for Gypsies and Travellers."
He added: "The East of England regional assembly is preparing an alteration to the regional spatial strategy for the East of England, which we understand is due to be approved by the assembly on January 25.
"This alteration will determine how many pitches will be required for gypsies and travellers in the region. The current draft suggests the need for 1,187 pitches by 2011, 176 of which are in Hertfordshire."
Councillor Peter Ruffles (Conservatives, St Andrews) said: "Pitches in Hertfordshire have been well managed in my experience, for a good many years. My problem comes when people claim that special cases for Gypsy sites over-ride the existing planning policy controls which quite rightly limit the development of homes for others."
He added: "176 sites cannot possibly be introduced into Hertfordshire under these terms, so I oppose the rough-shod riding of the East of England Assembly."
Derrick Ashley, executive member for planning, external relations and waste, criticised planning decisions being taken at a regional level.
He said: "All planning is now in the hands of the regional assembly, what I would describe as a 'semi democratic quango' but this is due to pass into the hands of the East of England Development Agency (EEDA), which is a non-democratic quango.
"The whole move is away from local decision-making.”
Editorial Comment:
The truth is that, it would appear, the Gypsy Site provision must be taken out of the hand of local authorities and ideally placed into the hands of a body that will cover the whole of the country so as to make for evenhanded work. There is, yes, surely, a need for locals to be able to voice their opinion but this cannot and must not be on the grounds of reasons that are normally given such as “the presence of Gypsies makes the value of the houses decrease” and “crime will increase”, and such. That is, when it comes to Gypsies proper, that is to say, the Romani, nothing but racism. It could be said that in the cases of other itinerants the fears often are well founded.
MVS January 2008
Grant should address Gypsy and Traveller housing too
The Building & Social Housing Foundation today called on the Government to address the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers in the new Housing and Planning Delivery Grant (HPDG).
The Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) has been consulting on proposals for the allocation mechanism for the new £510m Grant, but BSHF has responded, noting that it makes no attempt to address the very serious housing needs of Gypsies and Travellers.
According to research highlighted in BSHF’s 2007 report into the housing situation of Gypsies and Travellers, twenty-one per cent of all Gypsies and Travellers living in caravans are legally and practically homeless, having no lawful place to park.
However, less than one square mile of land in the whole of England would be sufficient to provide pitches for all Gypsy and Traveller families who are currently homeless.
The report also found that Gypsies and Travellers experience the worst health and education status of any disadvantaged group in England with 18 per cent of Gypsy and Traveller mothers experiencing the death of a child, compared to one per cent in the settled community.
It also found that Gypsy and Traveller children have significantly lower educational achievements.
Although Gypsies and Travellers are legally recognised as ethnic groups, racist attitudes towards them are still common.
This has been a major factor in the current under-provision of suitable authorised sites and the high number of unauthorised encampments, with all the tensions this can create with neighbouring communities.
Jim Vine, Housing Policy Analyst for BSHF, said: “Last year our report called for urgent increases in the provision of authorised sites for Gypsies and Travellers; the Housing and Planning Delivery Grant is one tool that could help to make that happen.
“The stated aim of the Grant is to incentivise improved housing delivery, including more effective planning, and nowhere is this more needed than housing for Gypsies and Travellers.”
He added: “Under-provision of appropriate authorised sites causes problems for the travelling and settled communities alike.
“If there are insufficient pitches on authorised sites Gypsies and Travellers are forced to resort to unauthorised sites.
“These unauthorised sites are inevitably harder to service, so lead to issues such as waste not being routinely collected.
“Conversely, well-run authorised sites can receive services very similar to ‘bricks and mortar’ homes; rent and council tax can be charged and refuse collection can be regular.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
