A FURIOUS row erupted at a meeting of Warrington Borough Council when members clashed over the controversial granting of planning consent for a gypsy caravan site.
The Labour opposition group and the controlling Lib Dem-Conservative group each blamed the other for the situation.
During the stormy debate, Labour leader Coun Terry O’Neill was admonished by the Mayor, Coun Brian Axcell, for describing members of the controlling group as “laughing monkeys.”
Background to the row was a ruling by the Planning Inspectorate that a gypsy caravan site can be set up on land at Brook House Farm, Sandy Lane West, Orford.
The council originally refused planning consent for the development but a planning inspector upheld an appeal by the gypsies and awarded costs against the council because of its “unreasonable behaviour”.
Hundreds of local people opposed the scheme.
Labour’s Coun John Kerr-Brown (right) originally tabled a motion calling for the council to appeal to the High Court to get the decision overturned. But when it was discovered such an appeal would be “out of time” he amended it to one urging the council to take action to prevent private developers setting up further travellers’ sites in Warrington.
The row flared when Coun Bob Barr, Lib Dem, (left)put forward a further amendment which welcomed the fact that the council was “taking action” to prevent further sites being set up.
Coun Kerr-Brown said the council had failed in its duty to find suitable sites for travelling people in the borough and, as a result, private developers were “cherry picking” sites in the borough. Two had been set up in North Warrington which could have been blocked if the council had taken action.
Coun Hans Mundry, Labour, condemned the Lib Dem amendment as “a wrecking motion.”
Labour’s Coun Linda Dirir said the amendment turned the earlier one completely on its head.
“If it is accepted then the whole process of this council debating motions is reduced to a farce,” she said.
Coun Barr said his amendment simply corrected an inaccuracy in the earlier one because the council was, in fact, already taking action. He had himself attended a meeting with representatives of the travelling community. The aim was to arrive at a situation where travellers and local people could live together as part of the same community.
This was necessary because the council, when it was controlled by Labour, had neglected the travellers in the past.
But Coun |Kerr-Brown retorted: “No action has been publicised. No sites have been identified. There has been no consultation. Nothing has been done.”
Coun O’Neill said he was asking his group not to take any further part in the debate and Coun Barr’s amendment was eventually approved by the controlling group with the Labour Group abstaining.
5 Comments
Why on earth do we have to pander to a group who pay no taxes, generally do not obey the laws of the land and are a disgusting bunch of dirty litter mongers at best? Gypsies are not a race; it is a lifestyle choice and nothing more. If these people want a permanant place to live and facilities for their families, go and buy or rent a house and pay the appropriate taxes like the rest of the country do.
Excellent !!! About time someone stated the obvious, although in y’alls hot bed of liberilism, I doubt that your intelligent opinion will count for much.
O’Neill taking his ball home again. I am sure the Council will run quite smoothly without “his group’s” input.
I also agree with Baz.
In all fairness the Council did refuse the planning application… it was the distant planning inspector who overturned their refusal and granted approval 😉
Not much point in having the coucil planning dept and development control committee really as their decisions to refuse applications seem very easy to appeal against and get overturned !?!?!
Maybe they need to put better ‘cases’ forward to back up their refusals in future or they maight all be out of a job 🙂
There is a difference between true Romany gypsies (who are an ethnic group) and “travellers” who seem to be described as “gypsies” these days. Either way, I agree with Baz. Their children get into oversubscribed schools, they seem to be exempt from the rule about unauthorized absences and take their children out of school whenever they feel like it, they seem to think that rules don’t apply to them and no-one at a school will challenge them because it’s not politically correct and they are usually overly agressive towards other parents and teaching staff if someone dares challenge their behaviour.