I was in attendance at a meeting in Solihull council discussing potential traveller sites suitability in the borough. I also got the chance to air my views on this issue.
Further information can be found on the Solihull News website here
The speech that I gave to the council:
THank you. Due to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty the EU in its own right has become a signatory to the ECHR whose duristiction all public bodies including this council, are obliged by the convention and its jurisprudence. Hence this is a constituency matter for me and I have arrived from Strasbourg to give you my thoughts on this matter
There has been much focus on the Human Rights and Humanitarian needs of the travellers - work permitted by the Council even after the unlawful bank holiday development to accommodate need and no doubt further considerations later on when the site closes. But where is the Councils consideration of the HR and needs of the settled community? Simply contesting the planning case is not enough. The Council can go further to inject a new sense of balance
I am pleased to see that the report has agreed with my long standing view and call that the Eaves Green Lane site is unsuitable
I am pleased to see that the report has agreed with my long standing view and call that the Eaves Green Lane site is unsuitable
The Council can show its appreciation of the HR of the settled community by
(a) Asserting its position strongly in the case of Eaves Green Lane (EGL) by not allowing further planning applications at the unlawful and adjoining site - which will cause tension, stress and trauma to those villagers who have already sat for nearly 700 days in all weathers to achieve their planning and legal victories so far. To continue further applications at this site and the site next door - where there are already provocative signs erected giving notice of future development attempts would be to fail the people of Meriden as well as the travellers
(b) Remove the School Rd Hockley Heath site from consideration - it is green belt and has many of the same characteristics of the EGL site which has been found to be wanting by everyone who has passed decision on it. You will hear eloquent arguments from others as to its unsuitability. By ruling this out immediately you can remove the burden of blight
(c) Reject 'wish list' research that may emerge - regarding your G&T needs assessment regarding alleged G&T need in the Borough. We need to get to understand the REAL needs of real people - not the greed of developers who want to exploit our green belt. Such research can be guilty of simply taking expression of aspiration as verifiable need - if this happens then the Authority quickly finds itself the victim of unrealistic targets which in turn fuel unauthorised developments by savvy developers who seek to exploit this alleged unmet need
(d) Commit to an evolutionary growth strategy aimed at facilitating family growth at tolerated sites - THIS is a humanitarian approach
(e) Use a greater level of imagination in the search for suitable sites - proactively TARGET sites for discussion - engage with communities - look at sites on our boundaries and borders and beyond which should be brownfield and not greenbelt. The new Government has introduced a duty to co-operate in the Localism Act - use it. Do NOT use the blunt instrument of 'call for sites' - which can often be used for the wrong reason i.e. to stimulate the sale of land rather be anything to do with addressing G&T need. The process itself causes blight, uncertainty and stress - as does the prospect of a new development - of unknown size - at a - usually - unsuitable location in the community
Strike a blow for equality tonight. These things serve EQUALLY the human rights of the settled and travelling community alike
(a) Asserting its position strongly in the case of Eaves Green Lane (EGL) by not allowing further planning applications at the unlawful and adjoining site - which will cause tension, stress and trauma to those villagers who have already sat for nearly 700 days in all weathers to achieve their planning and legal victories so far. To continue further applications at this site and the site next door - where there are already provocative signs erected giving notice of future development attempts would be to fail the people of Meriden as well as the travellers
(b) Remove the School Rd Hockley Heath site from consideration - it is green belt and has many of the same characteristics of the EGL site which has been found to be wanting by everyone who has passed decision on it. You will hear eloquent arguments from others as to its unsuitability. By ruling this out immediately you can remove the burden of blight
(c) Reject 'wish list' research that may emerge - regarding your G&T needs assessment regarding alleged G&T need in the Borough. We need to get to understand the REAL needs of real people - not the greed of developers who want to exploit our green belt. Such research can be guilty of simply taking expression of aspiration as verifiable need - if this happens then the Authority quickly finds itself the victim of unrealistic targets which in turn fuel unauthorised developments by savvy developers who seek to exploit this alleged unmet need
(d) Commit to an evolutionary growth strategy aimed at facilitating family growth at tolerated sites - THIS is a humanitarian approach
(e) Use a greater level of imagination in the search for suitable sites - proactively TARGET sites for discussion - engage with communities - look at sites on our boundaries and borders and beyond which should be brownfield and not greenbelt. The new Government has introduced a duty to co-operate in the Localism Act - use it. Do NOT use the blunt instrument of 'call for sites' - which can often be used for the wrong reason i.e. to stimulate the sale of land rather be anything to do with addressing G&T need. The process itself causes blight, uncertainty and stress - as does the prospect of a new development - of unknown size - at a - usually - unsuitable location in the community
Strike a blow for equality tonight. These things serve EQUALLY the human rights of the settled and travelling community alike