Gypsy family home secured by Newport council

South Wales Argus: Gypsy family home secured by Newport council Gypsy family home secured by Newport council

A NEWPORT man says his Welsh Romany Gypsy family can get on with their lives after a planning committee voted to let them stay at their home permanently.

A majority of Newport Council planning councillors agreed Hendry and Pat Price’s site, Coal Pit Lane, Castleton, could have planning permission. An alternative plan for them to have temporary permission for three years – backed by Michaelston-y-Fedw Community Council and the Marshfield ward councillor – was rejected by the committee.

Hendry Price, who officers warned could be made homeless if permission wasn’t granted, said: “My biggest concern was the sleepless nights coming if it went wrong – where would we go? I’m very overwhelmed. My family can amend the things we need to do and we can carry on with our lives without being in more stress.”

The committee heard the site causes considerable risks to highway safety on the rural Coal Pit Lane. However Mr Price has agreed to put in a new access to the site which officers say will have improved visibility.

Sean Cullen, who had submitted objections on behalf of the Michaelstone-y-Fedw Community Council and residents, said the site wasn’t suitable for long term residential use and temporary permission was only granted in very exceptional circumstances. He said a planning inspector had indicated, in granting temporary permission, that permanent permission wasn’t acceptable. The council had backed temporary permission as a maximum.

However David Williams, on behalf of the Prices, said: “The family are trying to provide their own site without imposing their accommodation need on the authority, which could easily cost the council £50,000.”

Mark Hand, head of planning, said the local development plan process, which is looking at three possible gypsy sites, does not take into account the needs of the Coal Pit Lane family. Committee member Cllr Richard White, whose Marshfield ward covers Coal Pit Lane, said he understood the family came from Cardiff which is looking for more gypsy sites.

He said: “Wouldn’t it be sensible to wait until those sites are implemented?”

But a council officer said the Cardiff LDP process couldn’t address the capital’s own needs “nevermind anyone else’s”. Cllr White’s proposal for temporary permission of three years failed – three votes to four. The recommendation to grant conditional planning permission passed five votes to one.

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:04pm Mon 9 Dec 13

_Bryan_ says...

If I understand this story correctly, this family have built a home on green belt land without obtaining planning permission and have somehow got away with it.

Perhaps we should all buy up a little piece of the green belt and build on it - after all a precedent has now been set to say its fine to do so
If I understand this story correctly, this family have built a home on green belt land without obtaining planning permission and have somehow got away with it. Perhaps we should all buy up a little piece of the green belt and build on it - after all a precedent has now been set to say its fine to do so _Bryan_

6:02pm Mon 9 Dec 13

alritebutt says...

are the planning councillors for real? How stupid! For goodness sake wake up, why are these idiots employed!!
are the planning councillors for real? How stupid! For goodness sake wake up, why are these idiots employed!! alritebutt

7:03am Tue 10 Dec 13

Woodgnome says...

The Labour planning committee appear to have completely ignored planning presumptions and the wishes of local people and local community council.
The Labour planning committee appear to have completely ignored planning presumptions and the wishes of local people and local community council. Woodgnome

8:54am Tue 10 Dec 13

kez1968 says...

why do we bother having laws in this country, aslong as you come from a minority, you are guaranteed not to be harassed by public officials, because they are too gutless to stand up to left wing activists and be accused of racism by them. I'm sure if this was a middle class family from Hampshire, the outcome would be totally different.
why do we bother having laws in this country, aslong as you come from a minority, you are guaranteed not to be harassed by public officials, because they are too gutless to stand up to left wing activists and be accused of racism by them. I'm sure if this was a middle class family from Hampshire, the outcome would be totally different. kez1968

9:24am Tue 10 Dec 13

Llanmartinangel says...

kez1968 wrote:
why do we bother having laws in this country, aslong as you come from a minority, you are guaranteed not to be harassed by public officials, because they are too gutless to stand up to left wing activists and be accused of racism by them. I'm sure if this was a middle class family from Hampshire, the outcome would be totally different.
How true that is.
[quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: why do we bother having laws in this country, aslong as you come from a minority, you are guaranteed not to be harassed by public officials, because they are too gutless to stand up to left wing activists and be accused of racism by them. I'm sure if this was a middle class family from Hampshire, the outcome would be totally different.[/p][/quote]How true that is. Llanmartinangel

9:34am Tue 10 Dec 13

Llanmartinangel says...

If on the other hand, you are a middle class solicitor and not part of a minority group:
http://www.southwale
sargus.co.uk/news/10
504588.Newport_solic
itor___s_fury_as___1
0k_new_windows_may_h
ave_to_be_removed/
If on the other hand, you are a middle class solicitor and not part of a minority group: http://www.southwale sargus.co.uk/news/10 504588.Newport_solic itor___s_fury_as___1 0k_new_windows_may_h ave_to_be_removed/ Llanmartinangel

12:02pm Tue 10 Dec 13

whatintheworld says...

kez1968 wrote:
why do we bother having laws in this country, aslong as you come from a minority, you are guaranteed not to be harassed by public officials, because they are too gutless to stand up to left wing activists and be accused of racism by them. I'm sure if this was a middle class family from Hampshire, the outcome would be totally different.
if it were a middle class family from hampshire it defintely would be different.

a middle class family might have a better chance at finding alternative accomodation.

the main reason these people got "let off", is that the alternative would have made them homeless - costing is 50k a year till we could re-home them.

if only there was some area, a site if you will, where all these gypsy families could live. it could have bespoke access built so disruption wasn't an issue.

unfortuanatly, councils keep voting against these sites...

not in my backyard son!
[quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: why do we bother having laws in this country, aslong as you come from a minority, you are guaranteed not to be harassed by public officials, because they are too gutless to stand up to left wing activists and be accused of racism by them. I'm sure if this was a middle class family from Hampshire, the outcome would be totally different.[/p][/quote]if it were a middle class family from hampshire it defintely would be different. a middle class family might have a better chance at finding alternative accomodation. the main reason these people got "let off", is that the alternative would have made them homeless - costing is 50k a year till we could re-home them. if only there was some area, a site if you will, where all these gypsy families could live. it could have bespoke access built so disruption wasn't an issue. unfortuanatly, councils keep voting against these sites... not in my backyard son! whatintheworld

12:40pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Llanmartinangel says...

whatintheworld wrote:
kez1968 wrote:
why do we bother having laws in this country, aslong as you come from a minority, you are guaranteed not to be harassed by public officials, because they are too gutless to stand up to left wing activists and be accused of racism by them. I'm sure if this was a middle class family from Hampshire, the outcome would be totally different.
if it were a middle class family from hampshire it defintely would be different.

a middle class family might have a better chance at finding alternative accomodation.

the main reason these people got "let off", is that the alternative would have made them homeless - costing is 50k a year till we could re-home them.

if only there was some area, a site if you will, where all these gypsy families could live. it could have bespoke access built so disruption wasn't an issue.

unfortuanatly, councils keep voting against these sites...

not in my backyard son!
They wouldn't have been 'made homeless'. They'd have just not been allowed to live as they want. Like a of of other homeless people.
[quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: why do we bother having laws in this country, aslong as you come from a minority, you are guaranteed not to be harassed by public officials, because they are too gutless to stand up to left wing activists and be accused of racism by them. I'm sure if this was a middle class family from Hampshire, the outcome would be totally different.[/p][/quote]if it were a middle class family from hampshire it defintely would be different. a middle class family might have a better chance at finding alternative accomodation. the main reason these people got "let off", is that the alternative would have made them homeless - costing is 50k a year till we could re-home them. if only there was some area, a site if you will, where all these gypsy families could live. it could have bespoke access built so disruption wasn't an issue. unfortuanatly, councils keep voting against these sites... not in my backyard son![/p][/quote]They wouldn't have been 'made homeless'. They'd have just not been allowed to live as they want. Like a of of other homeless people. Llanmartinangel

12:51pm Tue 10 Dec 13

kez1968 says...

whatintheworld wrote:
kez1968 wrote:
why do we bother having laws in this country, aslong as you come from a minority, you are guaranteed not to be harassed by public officials, because they are too gutless to stand up to left wing activists and be accused of racism by them. I'm sure if this was a middle class family from Hampshire, the outcome would be totally different.
if it were a middle class family from hampshire it defintely would be different.

a middle class family might have a better chance at finding alternative accomodation.

the main reason these people got "let off", is that the alternative would have made them homeless - costing is 50k a year till we could re-home them.

if only there was some area, a site if you will, where all these gypsy families could live. it could have bespoke access built so disruption wasn't an issue.

unfortuanatly, councils keep voting against these sites...

not in my backyard son!
nothing to do with them being gypsy or being in my back yard, it's about building a home with no planning permission and getting away with it, it's unfair and it shouldn't be allowed.
[quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: why do we bother having laws in this country, aslong as you come from a minority, you are guaranteed not to be harassed by public officials, because they are too gutless to stand up to left wing activists and be accused of racism by them. I'm sure if this was a middle class family from Hampshire, the outcome would be totally different.[/p][/quote]if it were a middle class family from hampshire it defintely would be different. a middle class family might have a better chance at finding alternative accomodation. the main reason these people got "let off", is that the alternative would have made them homeless - costing is 50k a year till we could re-home them. if only there was some area, a site if you will, where all these gypsy families could live. it could have bespoke access built so disruption wasn't an issue. unfortuanatly, councils keep voting against these sites... not in my backyard son![/p][/quote]nothing to do with them being gypsy or being in my back yard, it's about building a home with no planning permission and getting away with it, it's unfair and it shouldn't be allowed. kez1968

2:49pm Tue 10 Dec 13

GogExile says...

whatintheworld wrote:
kez1968 wrote:
why do we bother having laws in this country, aslong as you come from a minority, you are guaranteed not to be harassed by public officials, because they are too gutless to stand up to left wing activists and be accused of racism by them. I'm sure if this was a middle class family from Hampshire, the outcome would be totally different.
if it were a middle class family from hampshire it defintely would be different.

a middle class family might have a better chance at finding alternative accomodation.

the main reason these people got "let off", is that the alternative would have made them homeless - costing is 50k a year till we could re-home them.

if only there was some area, a site if you will, where all these gypsy families could live. it could have bespoke access built so disruption wasn't an issue.

unfortuanatly, councils keep voting against these sites...

not in my backyard son!
If they own the land, own the mobile home and vehicles then they clearly aren't without assets. So, why the is the threat of being made 'homeless' and costing the public £50,000 being used to browbeat a blatantly unfair planning decision out of the council? Surely the sale of merely some of these assets would cover the cost of privately renting a home? Oh, and if you've followed this story, they left a site in Cardiff due to threats from Irish travellers at which point they BOUGHT the land they are now sited on, If they can afford to buy land, they can afford to home themselves, or am I being simplistic?
[quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: why do we bother having laws in this country, aslong as you come from a minority, you are guaranteed not to be harassed by public officials, because they are too gutless to stand up to left wing activists and be accused of racism by them. I'm sure if this was a middle class family from Hampshire, the outcome would be totally different.[/p][/quote]if it were a middle class family from hampshire it defintely would be different. a middle class family might have a better chance at finding alternative accomodation. the main reason these people got "let off", is that the alternative would have made them homeless - costing is 50k a year till we could re-home them. if only there was some area, a site if you will, where all these gypsy families could live. it could have bespoke access built so disruption wasn't an issue. unfortuanatly, councils keep voting against these sites... not in my backyard son![/p][/quote]If they own the land, own the mobile home and vehicles then they clearly aren't without assets. So, why the is the threat of being made 'homeless' and costing the public £50,000 being used to browbeat a blatantly unfair planning decision out of the council? Surely the sale of merely some of these assets would cover the cost of privately renting a home? Oh, and if you've followed this story, they left a site in Cardiff due to threats from Irish travellers at which point they BOUGHT the land they are now sited on, If they can afford to buy land, they can afford to home themselves, or am I being simplistic? GogExile

2:55pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Llanmartinangel says...

GogExile wrote:
whatintheworld wrote:
kez1968 wrote:
why do we bother having laws in this country, aslong as you come from a minority, you are guaranteed not to be harassed by public officials, because they are too gutless to stand up to left wing activists and be accused of racism by them. I'm sure if this was a middle class family from Hampshire, the outcome would be totally different.
if it were a middle class family from hampshire it defintely would be different.

a middle class family might have a better chance at finding alternative accomodation.

the main reason these people got "let off", is that the alternative would have made them homeless - costing is 50k a year till we could re-home them.

if only there was some area, a site if you will, where all these gypsy families could live. it could have bespoke access built so disruption wasn't an issue.

unfortuanatly, councils keep voting against these sites...

not in my backyard son!
If they own the land, own the mobile home and vehicles then they clearly aren't without assets. So, why the is the threat of being made 'homeless' and costing the public £50,000 being used to browbeat a blatantly unfair planning decision out of the council? Surely the sale of merely some of these assets would cover the cost of privately renting a home? Oh, and if you've followed this story, they left a site in Cardiff due to threats from Irish travellers at which point they BOUGHT the land they are now sited on, If they can afford to buy land, they can afford to home themselves, or am I being simplistic?
You aren't being simplistic you are being logical which is the first hurdle our brainless public servants usually fall at.
[quote][p][bold]GogExile[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kez1968[/bold] wrote: why do we bother having laws in this country, aslong as you come from a minority, you are guaranteed not to be harassed by public officials, because they are too gutless to stand up to left wing activists and be accused of racism by them. I'm sure if this was a middle class family from Hampshire, the outcome would be totally different.[/p][/quote]if it were a middle class family from hampshire it defintely would be different. a middle class family might have a better chance at finding alternative accomodation. the main reason these people got "let off", is that the alternative would have made them homeless - costing is 50k a year till we could re-home them. if only there was some area, a site if you will, where all these gypsy families could live. it could have bespoke access built so disruption wasn't an issue. unfortuanatly, councils keep voting against these sites... not in my backyard son![/p][/quote]If they own the land, own the mobile home and vehicles then they clearly aren't without assets. So, why the is the threat of being made 'homeless' and costing the public £50,000 being used to browbeat a blatantly unfair planning decision out of the council? Surely the sale of merely some of these assets would cover the cost of privately renting a home? Oh, and if you've followed this story, they left a site in Cardiff due to threats from Irish travellers at which point they BOUGHT the land they are now sited on, If they can afford to buy land, they can afford to home themselves, or am I being simplistic?[/p][/quote]You aren't being simplistic you are being logical which is the first hurdle our brainless public servants usually fall at. Llanmartinangel

3:11pm Tue 10 Dec 13

NakedDancer says...

Anyone can build something and apply for retrospective planning permission - with the risk it may not be granted, or an injunction granted during the build. It seems the Planning Department had no legal grounds to prevent this development, other than the access.

What I find strange is the Planning committee discussing this family's ethnicity, circumstances and gypsy sites elsewhere. Surely that should be totally irrelevant to the planning decision.
Anyone can build something and apply for retrospective planning permission - with the risk it may not be granted, or an injunction granted during the build. It seems the Planning Department had no legal grounds to prevent this development, other than the access. What I find strange is the Planning committee discussing this family's ethnicity, circumstances and gypsy sites elsewhere. Surely that should be totally irrelevant to the planning decision. NakedDancer

4:35pm Tue 10 Dec 13

keithbob says...

oh well.the bulgarian romanys on the way over here in january are going to be rubbing their hands at this news,sets a precedent doesnt it!
oh well.the bulgarian romanys on the way over here in january are going to be rubbing their hands at this news,sets a precedent doesnt it! keithbob

6:50pm Tue 10 Dec 13

richie55 says...

_Bryan_ wrote:
If I understand this story correctly, this family have built a home on green belt land without obtaining planning permission and have somehow got away with it.

Perhaps we should all buy up a little piece of the green belt and build on it - after all a precedent has now been set to say its fine to do so
But dont forget to say you are a Welsh Romany Gypsy!
[quote][p][bold]_Bryan_[/bold] wrote: If I understand this story correctly, this family have built a home on green belt land without obtaining planning permission and have somehow got away with it. Perhaps we should all buy up a little piece of the green belt and build on it - after all a precedent has now been set to say its fine to do so[/p][/quote]But dont forget to say you are a Welsh Romany Gypsy! richie55

5:11pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Hevsym says...

I may be a little bit naive, but if they are gypsies, why do they want to stay there? aren't they supposed to travel around and NOT stay anywhere permanently?
I may be a little bit naive, but if they are gypsies, why do they want to stay there? aren't they supposed to travel around and NOT stay anywhere permanently? Hevsym

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree