Mick Grant: Decision made on gypsy and traveller sites

Mick | 03 November 2008 | 10:53

Decision made on gypsy and traveller sites

This morning I took a decision to announce which gypsy and traveller sites we will look at for providing managed camps in the future. I was originally due to make this decision on December 10 at the cabinet meeting but because of the unprecedented public interest in the matter, and because officers had completed work on the issue sooner than expected, I felt it on right to announce the outcomes earlier than planned. It would have been wrong of me to sit on the information for six weeks.

The campaign from residents in Brigg was very strong. There were more than 700 comments made with the vast majority objecting to the proposals. Residents told me they felt the proposed site of Station Road was too close to the town centre, a residential area and the local school. The site is also used for recreation and seen as important areas of public space. There are also existing sites, albeit illegal, in Brigg and we must take these into account too. I agree with these comments and as a result all three suggested sites in Brigg have been rejected as part of this consultation. I now hope the people of Brigg will work with the MP and get a village green for this area as they have started to campaign for and I think this proves the consultation was not a foregone conclusion as was claimed by Brigg ward councillors.

We had just over 100 responses for the three suggested sites in Barton. Of these Caistor Road received the least number and also had comments in support. It was felt this particular site had been a traditional stopping place for the gypsy and traveller community for several generations and, after consultation with that community, was looked at favourably. There are no neighbours overlooking and the site is good in size, well drained and not located on a flood plain. As a result we have dismissed proposed sites on Falklands Way but will look at Caistor Road further.

There were 61 comments raised regarding the Conesby Quarry site on Normanby Road, Scunthorpe. 59 of these were objections. Most comments felt it was too close to the Scunthorpe Speedway site. Many others mentioned the site should have increased security and be properly managed. It has, of course, been used as a transit site in the past. Many objections raised were directly related to the behaviour of one group of travellers, problems which could have been alleviated if there was robust management of the site. As a result of the comments the council can assure residents sites will only be opened if there is a proper warden system in place.

As a result we are taking two sites forward - one in Scunthorpe and one in Barton. The rest have been dismissed.

But this is not the end of the matter. These two sites will be discussed, debated and consulted on as part of the Local Development Framework (LDF). It is not a case of these sites being opened from tomorrow. This will not happen. The LDF will be debated in the New Year and residents will have their say once again during this process.

Back to entries Comment on this entry

Comments: 10

Stars

: 0

Rob Godfrey

on 03 November 2008 at 19:56

First of all Mr Grant representatives of Scunthorpe Speedway booked time off work to present a petition to the council on Nov 17th. With no regard for this petition you have made a decision based on internet responses not real peoples signatures which is quite frankly out of order.
You have duty to receive this petition and defer the decision you have made as not to make this process look stupid.
Secondly you mention a warden based security system well history tells us that the first time conesby mine opened as a travellers site it lasted all of two weeks with the wardens being forced off the site. Trust me because of the location of conesby mine this will definately happen again and up to now everything I have predicted at conesby mine has happened. I have repeatedly asked for a consultation with local businesses to keep them informed and once again you have failed to deliver. I now promise you I will fight this to the bitter end.
Rob Godfrey

June Palmer

on 03 November 2008 at 23:51

I would question why you alone should have the authority to decide on which sites should be used to house travellers. What was the point in paying for a consultation? I definately think this site is too close to the speedway stadium. If you re-open this site expect trouble, when the big firms accross the road start suffering with break-ins and vandalism be prepared for them to move away and relocate.The speedway car park accomodates about 400 cars each meeting. Whilst it is common practice to park at our own risk. I trust that you the council will provide Attendants & security for our cars at every meeting ( if you choose to put a gypsy site within yards from our cars its the least we expect). My sympathies are with Mr Godfrey, he has worked so hard and invested a lot of money in the stadium. How can you live with your concsious. As fans of speedway will will back Mr Godfrey in our hundreds if not thousands.

K D Farmery

on 04 November 2008 at 00:11

In public life, timescales of consultations are published in order that EVERYONE knows the parameters in which they are working.
How can you curtail such a period because it suits you? This is done in total disregard of the general public, the voting public of North Lincolnshire.
Such behaviour should be referred to the Public Standards Committee for bringing public office into disrupt.
It is very evident that consultation is a sham.
I support Mr Godfrey in his comments -

Richard Hollingsworth

on 04 November 2008 at 00:18

Mr.Grant. The siting of a 'permanent' camp at Conesby Quarry would show total disregard for the local businesses who will be affected and a valuable sporting facility that is there for the local community. Time and again the Conesby Quarry site has proven unsuitable and cost the local tax payer hundreds of thousands of pounds. Yet, it is being contemplated again!! Just because there aren't any residents next door does not make this a suitable site. It has no facilities near by, just the vunerable businesses.
I hope you can re-think your proposal and find a more suitable location.
Best regards,
Richard

Bill Cheetham

on 04 November 2008 at 09:31

Cllr Grant. I am equally dismayed that this consultation appears to have terminated in you taking and announcing YOUR decision before the Council's Full Cabinet have had a final opportunity to consider, debate and validate, what surely should be a COUNCIL decision!? Perhaps you can clarify the consultation protocols for many of us and rule out these evident perceptions of dubious democracy at work? Sincere thanks and regards.

Dawn

on 04 November 2008 at 13:14

councillor grant haha thats a laugh in itself ..... i think you really need to get things in order in the fact that you would rather have gypsys in town then good honest taxing paying people i know who i would rather have sounds to me like there has been some back handers along the way in mr grants favour i will back rob godfrey 100% in this fight along with thousands more

J Smith

on 04 November 2008 at 17:46

Mr. Popular, 2008!
I am extremely disappointed with your latest action, however, not suprised in the slightest! I support Mr. Godfrey and all the people of Scunthorpe who have/are objecting to the siting of the gypsies. Time to re-group on a much wider scale! You have not heard the last of us Mr. Grant, you have re-fuelled the issue.
The people of Scunthorpe do not want the gypsies, listen to your community!

C KEY

on 04 November 2008 at 21:46

What an absolute farce and once again a councillor takes no notice of the public. Decision made by an individual before proper debate?How many times does the Conesby Warren site have to be rebuilt before the council realise they are throwing good money after bad? How many times do local businesses have to be damaged, broken into etc before they are driven to despair. How many times does the council and police turn a blind eye to the poor , badly understood "travellers" At the moment we have a successful Speedway team and a promotion who are trying their best to put Scunthorpe on a pedestal in the speedway world. For them to have to sustain severe costs in keeping their site free from gypsies is soul destroying for them, heavy on the pockets and damned anoying to the hard working , law abiding tax payers of North Lincs.
I heartily agree with Mr Godfrey's comments and implore this councillor to think again.

Tracey

on 05 November 2008 at 13:27

Mr Grant I was one of the people along with many others who signed the petition objecting to the gypsy / travellars site at Conesby Quarry. I am deeply disapointed that our objections have not been taken into account maybe you should republish the true number off objections when the petition has been recived.
As you have said in the New Year these sites will be discussed and debated as part of the Local Development Framework and residents will have their say. Well I'm sure a lot off speedway supporters will have something to say on your decision. Myself & family and I'm sure many others will be fighting with Rob Godfrey on this.

Paul Duff

on 10 November 2008 at 12:38

The problem isnt just about having a managed site - The Conesby Quarry site is well hidden, and also well away from any amenities. Bored travellers, managed by a warden, who wont be there 24 hours a day, if there at all, on a site in the middle of nowhere, are a recipe for disaster. All the businesses in the area have suffered over the last couple of years, financially and painfully. Wilful damage, theft, rubbish, environmental damage, are just some of the problems the previous 'travellers' have caused. It is disappointing that no meeting was held prior to the decision, to allow voices to be heard and discussions held. Instead, it transpires our council leaders make up the decisions themselves, without proper consultation with the electorate. Shocking, I say, though harldy surprising. The Conservative representative in Brigg, held a meeting, listened to his Constituants, and, it seems, that has influenced decisions made by the Labour Ward Councillor. I leace you to ponder that one - we get no consultation, face to face meeting, opportunity to express futher concerns - I know who looks like getting votes in my house at present.