I was aware they owned the land and it was a planning permission issue (it was in BBC coverage). I don't have a lot of sympathy with people who try to force permission through as a fait accompli, and I think that having your application rejected is a risk you take when you gamble in that way - sometimes it pays off, and other times it doesn't. I've read about lots of examples where planning offices have rejected retrospective permission and the work has had to be undone, so it's not a particularly unusual situation. I would have thought that the siting on green belt land would make it far less likely that they be given retroactive permission whether they're Travellers or not.
That's not to say that I don't think there was any ulterior motive here (I'm sure there was)... just that I don't have a lot of sympathy for their cause in this instance. OTOH, I do have sympathy with the lack of legal sites for Travellers to use.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-09-14 10:43 am (UTC)That's not to say that I don't think there was any ulterior motive here (I'm sure there was)... just that I don't have a lot of sympathy for their cause in this instance. OTOH, I do have sympathy with the lack of legal sites for Travellers to use.