You can’t just live on the land you own
September 9, 2020 4:14 AM Subscribe
Traveller families in Nottinghamshire who have been living on land they bought for the last three years are taking their fight to stay on their land to the High Court after being denied planning permission by their local council. The council has admitted that it doesn't have any alternative traveller sites for the six families to relocate to if they are kicked off their own land.
Since the 1960s it has become more and more difficult for Travellers on the road in the UK to find legal sites to stay at. This is due to both changes in planning rules, development of fringe land in towns for housing and industry, and a general move away from seasonal employment. This history forms a key part one of the first literary explorations of Anglo-Romany culture by a Traveller, The Stopping Places by Damian La Bas, a second-generation settled Romany speaker educated on a scholarship at Christ’s Hospital.
The Traveller community in the UK is made up of several groups some of whom who have been travelling the UK since the 1500s. But their distinctly outsider status means that racism and discrimination against them remains commonplace. Antagonism flares the most about unauthorised encampments, particularly on playing fields, recreation areas and waste ground. But unauthorised encampments are rising because there is a shortage of authorised sites. Lack of access to authorised sites, also means challenges in accessing education and healthcare.
Housing charity Shelter provides a summary of traveller occupation and eviction rights in England.
Please note that most of the content linked contains a word that I understand is considered a slur outside the UK. Within the UK it is the preferred self-identifier for many people from a particular subset of the Traveller community, including Damian La Bas.
Since the 1960s it has become more and more difficult for Travellers on the road in the UK to find legal sites to stay at. This is due to both changes in planning rules, development of fringe land in towns for housing and industry, and a general move away from seasonal employment. This history forms a key part one of the first literary explorations of Anglo-Romany culture by a Traveller, The Stopping Places by Damian La Bas, a second-generation settled Romany speaker educated on a scholarship at Christ’s Hospital.
The Traveller community in the UK is made up of several groups some of whom who have been travelling the UK since the 1500s. But their distinctly outsider status means that racism and discrimination against them remains commonplace. Antagonism flares the most about unauthorised encampments, particularly on playing fields, recreation areas and waste ground. But unauthorised encampments are rising because there is a shortage of authorised sites. Lack of access to authorised sites, also means challenges in accessing education and healthcare.
Housing charity Shelter provides a summary of traveller occupation and eviction rights in England.
Please note that most of the content linked contains a word that I understand is considered a slur outside the UK. Within the UK it is the preferred self-identifier for many people from a particular subset of the Traveller community, including Damian La Bas.
“ In April 2019, inspector Chris Preston ruled the families shouldn't be given planning permission to allow them to live there. He said the reasons were due to the risk of flooding, the noise from nearby traffic and the "harmful effect" the caravans had on the openness of the land.”
Quite a contrast between the first and last item of the list. Almost like they were running out of valid reasons to deny these people use of their land...
posted by jenkinsEar at 5:03 AM on September 9, 2020 [19 favorites]
Quite a contrast between the first and last item of the list. Almost like they were running out of valid reasons to deny these people use of their land...
posted by jenkinsEar at 5:03 AM on September 9, 2020 [19 favorites]
Around 1 in 6 of UK homes is at some risk of flooding, so that's not exactly a sane reason to evict people.
However, the situation in the UK is that land WITH planning permission is on average 8 to 10 times more valuable than land without. People always know whether the land has planning permission when they buy it. It's just how it works. A big chunk of the land that does have permission is owned by large house builders, who tend to sit on it until the time is right to extract the maximum value from it, either by building on it or selling it on. I live just a few hundred yards from a farmer, an old guy with nobody to pass his struggling small farm onto; it's a dispiriting-looking place, run-down and barely functioning. Except that a housing company just bought his land from him for many millions of pounds after obtaining planning permission for hundreds of houses. He'll be spending his final years unimaginably rich.
Planning is a contentious issue in the UK, not just because of nimby-ism, but because of conflicting pressures due to a shortage of suitable and affordable housing, environmental constraints, and so on. There are valid reasons to have a strong system for planning approval. But a strong system doesn't have to be a system that marginalises parts of the population and forces them to live in what amount to increasingly scarce 'reservations'.
What sticks in the craw somewhat is that we have a government that is quite happy to deregulate things so that developers can subdivide old office buildings and rent out the resulting tiny flats for insane rents. But the Traveller community doesn't have the political clout of property developers; just the opposite in fact - successive governments have pushed them to the margins, and the right-wing press has always demonised Travellers as being petty criminals, not accepting that where there is crime in those groups, it's driven by economic and social exclusion, no different from anywhere else.
Unfortunately, Travellers are one of the last minorities in the UK that's it's still socially acceptable to use ethnic slurs against. I think that tells you what this issue is really about.
posted by pipeski at 5:36 AM on September 9, 2020 [32 favorites]
However, the situation in the UK is that land WITH planning permission is on average 8 to 10 times more valuable than land without. People always know whether the land has planning permission when they buy it. It's just how it works. A big chunk of the land that does have permission is owned by large house builders, who tend to sit on it until the time is right to extract the maximum value from it, either by building on it or selling it on. I live just a few hundred yards from a farmer, an old guy with nobody to pass his struggling small farm onto; it's a dispiriting-looking place, run-down and barely functioning. Except that a housing company just bought his land from him for many millions of pounds after obtaining planning permission for hundreds of houses. He'll be spending his final years unimaginably rich.
Planning is a contentious issue in the UK, not just because of nimby-ism, but because of conflicting pressures due to a shortage of suitable and affordable housing, environmental constraints, and so on. There are valid reasons to have a strong system for planning approval. But a strong system doesn't have to be a system that marginalises parts of the population and forces them to live in what amount to increasingly scarce 'reservations'.
What sticks in the craw somewhat is that we have a government that is quite happy to deregulate things so that developers can subdivide old office buildings and rent out the resulting tiny flats for insane rents. But the Traveller community doesn't have the political clout of property developers; just the opposite in fact - successive governments have pushed them to the margins, and the right-wing press has always demonised Travellers as being petty criminals, not accepting that where there is crime in those groups, it's driven by economic and social exclusion, no different from anywhere else.
Unfortunately, Travellers are one of the last minorities in the UK that's it's still socially acceptable to use ethnic slurs against. I think that tells you what this issue is really about.
posted by pipeski at 5:36 AM on September 9, 2020 [32 favorites]
Quite a contrast between the first and last item of the list. Almost like they were running out of valid reasons to deny these people use of their land...
Well, here is the objection in full:
The laying of the hardstanding, concrete base and erection of the building are part and parcel to facilitate the existing unauthorised development consisting of the use of the land for residential occupation by caravans. To that extent the development represents sporadic unauthorised development on the land, which is located within the Newark Urban Area –Open Break. The undertaking of permanent development results in the erosion of the openness of the Open Break between Newark and Winthorpe which aims to retain the separate identities and characteristics of the existing settlements. The development thereby fails to comply with Policy NUA/OB/1 of the Allocations & Development Management Development Plan Document 2013.
The "Open Break" planning policy is meant to stop towns and villages merging into one another. It looks like a local version of the anti urban sprawl Green Belt rules that date back to the 1950s. It is not a spurious reason for an objection.
posted by antiwiggle at 5:50 AM on September 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
Well, here is the objection in full:
The laying of the hardstanding, concrete base and erection of the building are part and parcel to facilitate the existing unauthorised development consisting of the use of the land for residential occupation by caravans. To that extent the development represents sporadic unauthorised development on the land, which is located within the Newark Urban Area –Open Break. The undertaking of permanent development results in the erosion of the openness of the Open Break between Newark and Winthorpe which aims to retain the separate identities and characteristics of the existing settlements. The development thereby fails to comply with Policy NUA/OB/1 of the Allocations & Development Management Development Plan Document 2013.
The "Open Break" planning policy is meant to stop towns and villages merging into one another. It looks like a local version of the anti urban sprawl Green Belt rules that date back to the 1950s. It is not a spurious reason for an objection.
posted by antiwiggle at 5:50 AM on September 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
It sounds like the issue isn't the caravans, but that they built an actual permanent structure in the form of laundry/ bathrooms without planning permission? Because I think anyone should be allowed to live in mobile housing on land that they own, but building on land is more complicated.
That said, there is precious little space any more for travellers, and I think councils need to figure out space for them and other people who want to live in mobile homes or tiny houses or other similar small properties. It would give everyone options.
Personally I think a lot of problems would be solved with a land/ property tax that increases dramatically with the number of properties you own. Land and property hoarding is a huge source of inequality.
posted by stillnocturnal at 6:07 AM on September 9, 2020 [8 favorites]
That said, there is precious little space any more for travellers, and I think councils need to figure out space for them and other people who want to live in mobile homes or tiny houses or other similar small properties. It would give everyone options.
Personally I think a lot of problems would be solved with a land/ property tax that increases dramatically with the number of properties you own. Land and property hoarding is a huge source of inequality.
posted by stillnocturnal at 6:07 AM on September 9, 2020 [8 favorites]
I think anyone should be allowed to live in mobile housing on land that they own
Normally in the UK, even this is not allowed, except as a temporary measure (e.g. while doing a house renovation). Rules vary locally, but not by much. The issue of how to accommodate Traveller people is largely left to local authorities, whose policies tend to reflect the anti-Traveller biases of their populations.
posted by pipeski at 6:31 AM on September 9, 2020 [8 favorites]
Normally in the UK, even this is not allowed, except as a temporary measure (e.g. while doing a house renovation). Rules vary locally, but not by much. The issue of how to accommodate Traveller people is largely left to local authorities, whose policies tend to reflect the anti-Traveller biases of their populations.
posted by pipeski at 6:31 AM on September 9, 2020 [8 favorites]
Because I think anyone should be allowed to live in mobile housing on land that they own
I feel confident that it's not actually the case in England. You need both planning permission for change of use (eg from agricultural to residential land, elsewhere this might be called rezoning?) and a site licence (for permanent occupation of a mobile home), unless you're staying there for two nights or fewer. What you can and cannot do with land even in rural areas is much more tightly regulated here than in many other places.
posted by plonkee at 6:33 AM on September 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
I feel confident that it's not actually the case in England. You need both planning permission for change of use (eg from agricultural to residential land, elsewhere this might be called rezoning?) and a site licence (for permanent occupation of a mobile home), unless you're staying there for two nights or fewer. What you can and cannot do with land even in rural areas is much more tightly regulated here than in many other places.
posted by plonkee at 6:33 AM on September 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
There are valid reasons to have a strong system for planning approval. But a strong system doesn't have to be a system that marginalises parts of the population and forces them to live in what amount to increasingly scarce 'reservations'.
I agree with this and that there's no reason that a strong planning system cannot support Travellers rather than diminish them. I would like to see more of a presumption in favour of allowing Travellers to live on land that they own with proportionate and sensible regulation (eg any structures must be sound, and provision of water, sewerage and electricity must be sensible). This should also include Travellers who are on the road having places to stop (either council owned/third-party owned or Traveller owned).
posted by plonkee at 6:43 AM on September 9, 2020 [9 favorites]
I agree with this and that there's no reason that a strong planning system cannot support Travellers rather than diminish them. I would like to see more of a presumption in favour of allowing Travellers to live on land that they own with proportionate and sensible regulation (eg any structures must be sound, and provision of water, sewerage and electricity must be sensible). This should also include Travellers who are on the road having places to stop (either council owned/third-party owned or Traveller owned).
posted by plonkee at 6:43 AM on September 9, 2020 [9 favorites]
Move along, get along, move along, get along. Go. Move. Shift.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 7:52 AM on September 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 7:52 AM on September 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
The "Open Break" planning policy is meant to stop towns and villages merging into one another. It looks like a local version of the anti urban sprawl Green Belt rules that date back to the 1950s. It is not a spurious reason for an objection.
cf. Environmental racism in Europe, subsection "Discrimination towards Romani and Travellers in Green Belt lands"
posted by wreckingball at 8:30 AM on September 9, 2020 [7 favorites]
cf. Environmental racism in Europe, subsection "Discrimination towards Romani and Travellers in Green Belt lands"
posted by wreckingball at 8:30 AM on September 9, 2020 [7 favorites]
I really enjoyed reading The Stopping Places, and found it fascinating. Though it is a well-written, thoughtful and very gentle book, I found it full of insights into conflict. Conflict both between travellers and the mainstream settled population, and between different communities of travellers.
Describing La Bas as second-generation is very fitting; reading it really reminded me of the writings and experience of second- and third-generation migrants who have a difficult-to-resolve duality of identity, between their modern mainstream-culture self and their recent ancestors who lived such a very different lifestyle.
posted by vincebowdren at 10:19 AM on September 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
Describing La Bas as second-generation is very fitting; reading it really reminded me of the writings and experience of second- and third-generation migrants who have a difficult-to-resolve duality of identity, between their modern mainstream-culture self and their recent ancestors who lived such a very different lifestyle.
posted by vincebowdren at 10:19 AM on September 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
The Green Belt sounds like a lovely idea, but it has me scratching my head why a parcel of land meant to be a division between developed settlements (towns, villages, cities, whatever) came to be legally owned by individuals.
If it's meant to be park land or wilderness, then it shouldn't have been sold to people.
posted by explosion at 10:43 AM on September 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
If it's meant to be park land or wilderness, then it shouldn't have been sold to people.
posted by explosion at 10:43 AM on September 9, 2020 [3 favorites]
why a parcel of land meant to be a division between developed settlements (towns, villages, cities, whatever) came to be legally owned by individuals.
If it's meant to be park land or wilderness, then it shouldn't have been sold to people.
The rules of green belt means that the land has to be green space; but that can mean farmland (pastoral or arable), or woodland, or sports pitches, or heath, or parkland, or a lot of different things.
In the UK, the systems of landscape conservation such as the Green Belt are mostly implemented not through ownership but through defining what any owner can or can't do with the land; I understand that other countries organise themselves differently, but that's how it works here.
posted by vincebowdren at 11:11 AM on September 9, 2020 [6 favorites]
If it's meant to be park land or wilderness, then it shouldn't have been sold to people.
The rules of green belt means that the land has to be green space; but that can mean farmland (pastoral or arable), or woodland, or sports pitches, or heath, or parkland, or a lot of different things.
In the UK, the systems of landscape conservation such as the Green Belt are mostly implemented not through ownership but through defining what any owner can or can't do with the land; I understand that other countries organise themselves differently, but that's how it works here.
posted by vincebowdren at 11:11 AM on September 9, 2020 [6 favorites]
If it's meant to be park land or wilderness, then it shouldn't have been sold to people.
The idea that there might be land somewhere in the UK that isn't owned by someone comes across as rather quaint to this British person. I mean, there's a certain amount of land owned by the Forestry Commission, the Ministry of Defence, the Crown Estates, the National Trust, English Nature (so the state, or in the latter cases, charities), but the vast majority of land in the UK is privately owned. There are some national parks, but only about 8% of the country is accessible to the general public without trespassing.
Pretty much all of the land between towns and villages is privately owned farmland, except for the occasional park or old country estate run by the National Trust etc. The few wilderness areas we do have tend to have their own rules, just as restrictive in terms of land use as everywhere else.
posted by pipeski at 1:53 PM on September 9, 2020 [10 favorites]
The idea that there might be land somewhere in the UK that isn't owned by someone comes across as rather quaint to this British person. I mean, there's a certain amount of land owned by the Forestry Commission, the Ministry of Defence, the Crown Estates, the National Trust, English Nature (so the state, or in the latter cases, charities), but the vast majority of land in the UK is privately owned. There are some national parks, but only about 8% of the country is accessible to the general public without trespassing.
Pretty much all of the land between towns and villages is privately owned farmland, except for the occasional park or old country estate run by the National Trust etc. The few wilderness areas we do have tend to have their own rules, just as restrictive in terms of land use as everywhere else.
posted by pipeski at 1:53 PM on September 9, 2020 [10 favorites]
>Normally in the UK, even [living in mobile housing on land that you own] is not allowed, except as a temporary measure
A temporary 20 years if you're a caravan park or semi-permanent residence -- which is okay for people we're not putting outside our social contract.
posted by k3ninho at 4:31 PM on September 9, 2020
A temporary 20 years if you're a caravan park or semi-permanent residence -- which is okay for people we're not putting outside our social contract.
posted by k3ninho at 4:31 PM on September 9, 2020
" ... the "harmful effect" the caravans had on the openness of the land.... outweighed the personal circumstances of the families and the benefits of the children having a 'settled base'"
The 'openness of the land' around London, Manchester and the West Midlands - the UK's biggest conurbations - doesn't seem to be a concern.
"The families' land is in Newark-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire...."
Population 27,700. The county's ethnicities (WP) are: 94.1% White British/Irish/Other, 2.5% South Asian, 1.5% Afro-Caribbean .
Oh ... and LOOK! "Over half of the population of the county live in the Greater Nottingham conurbation ... [with] a population of about 650,000, though less than half live within the city boundaries."
So clearly the 'openness of the land' is not a concern for the great majority which does own land in the area. Including those outside the city boundaries.
A balancing note. Here in the US, in recent years, a FEW cities across the country have (with thorns thrust under the right fingernails) ended their policies of zoning single-family dwellings (Minneapolis was first, IIRC), in order to get higher densities in long-privileged areas.
It's fairly clear these days in the US that it'll be some time before we can manage to do better than Newark-on-Trent. It's always easier to see rascism-at-a-distance, innit? Methinks more fish-slapping is called-for.
posted by Twang at 5:20 PM on September 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
The 'openness of the land' around London, Manchester and the West Midlands - the UK's biggest conurbations - doesn't seem to be a concern.
"The families' land is in Newark-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire...."
Population 27,700. The county's ethnicities (WP) are: 94.1% White British/Irish/Other, 2.5% South Asian, 1.5% Afro-Caribbean .
Oh ... and LOOK! "Over half of the population of the county live in the Greater Nottingham conurbation ... [with] a population of about 650,000, though less than half live within the city boundaries."
So clearly the 'openness of the land' is not a concern for the great majority which does own land in the area. Including those outside the city boundaries.
A balancing note. Here in the US, in recent years, a FEW cities across the country have (with thorns thrust under the right fingernails) ended their policies of zoning single-family dwellings (Minneapolis was first, IIRC), in order to get higher densities in long-privileged areas.
It's fairly clear these days in the US that it'll be some time before we can manage to do better than Newark-on-Trent. It's always easier to see rascism-at-a-distance, innit? Methinks more fish-slapping is called-for.
posted by Twang at 5:20 PM on September 9, 2020 [1 favorite]
Caravan parks have to be licenced, and they have to have planning permission for any permanent structures like shower blocks. Same as this.
The planning laws are actually really clear, and reasons for refusing planning permission are very standardised. Local authorities do have to consider flooding risk these days (my mum’s parish council just turned down permission for a developer who had inadequate provision for dealing with runoff, that is entirely normal process).
The major conurbations mentioned above are the exact reason why planning committees now have to consider “openness” of the land, to prevent the merging of adjacent towns and villages.
I do wish people who have never set foot in the UK, and know nothing about our history of land ownership or planning regulations, would stop pontificating. I mean, I can start posting about how there is no way jaywalking can possibly be illegal in the US, and if you don’t want people crossing the road wrong you shouldn’t have put the road there in the first place.
posted by tinkletown at 5:33 PM on September 9, 2020 [9 favorites]
The planning laws are actually really clear, and reasons for refusing planning permission are very standardised. Local authorities do have to consider flooding risk these days (my mum’s parish council just turned down permission for a developer who had inadequate provision for dealing with runoff, that is entirely normal process).
The major conurbations mentioned above are the exact reason why planning committees now have to consider “openness” of the land, to prevent the merging of adjacent towns and villages.
I do wish people who have never set foot in the UK, and know nothing about our history of land ownership or planning regulations, would stop pontificating. I mean, I can start posting about how there is no way jaywalking can possibly be illegal in the US, and if you don’t want people crossing the road wrong you shouldn’t have put the road there in the first place.
posted by tinkletown at 5:33 PM on September 9, 2020 [9 favorites]
So clearly the 'openness of the land' is not a concern for the great majority which does own land in the area. Including those outside the city boundaries.
If you don't get it, you don't get it, but any building on the Green Belt in the UK is near enough guaranteed to get you into trouble with the public. Both those who live in the countryside, and frequently those who live in town as well.
That said, the absolute root cause of this is the lack of provision of pitches for Travellers by local government. Both long term and transit sites. The latter is a big problem in Surrey - we get groups coming through for funerals or weddings, there's no transit sites, and you end up with illegal encampments.
posted by MattWPBS at 6:23 PM on September 9, 2020 [6 favorites]
If you don't get it, you don't get it, but any building on the Green Belt in the UK is near enough guaranteed to get you into trouble with the public. Both those who live in the countryside, and frequently those who live in town as well.
That said, the absolute root cause of this is the lack of provision of pitches for Travellers by local government. Both long term and transit sites. The latter is a big problem in Surrey - we get groups coming through for funerals or weddings, there's no transit sites, and you end up with illegal encampments.
posted by MattWPBS at 6:23 PM on September 9, 2020 [6 favorites]
*If it's meant to be park land or wilderness, then it shouldn't have been sold to people*
You may wish to consider when English law first recognised the concept of land ownership, and when we created our National Parks and Green Belt legislation. There was a bit of a time lag between the two, during which time most of the country came under private ownership.
You could also think a little about why so much land in the US was “ownerless” in the 19th century and free to be turned into the National Park system, where the original owners might have gone, and why that doesn’t really apply in non-colonised countries.
I also don’t think many non-UK posters really understand what a UK National Park looks like. It’s a planning designation to protect a characteristic landscape, it’s not meant to be an area of wilderness. It includes towns and villages. This is all within a National Park. You can build houses, supermarkets, and factories in a National Park, you are just subject to more planning regulations than you would be outside of one.
posted by tinkletown at 7:17 PM on September 9, 2020 [14 favorites]
You may wish to consider when English law first recognised the concept of land ownership, and when we created our National Parks and Green Belt legislation. There was a bit of a time lag between the two, during which time most of the country came under private ownership.
You could also think a little about why so much land in the US was “ownerless” in the 19th century and free to be turned into the National Park system, where the original owners might have gone, and why that doesn’t really apply in non-colonised countries.
I also don’t think many non-UK posters really understand what a UK National Park looks like. It’s a planning designation to protect a characteristic landscape, it’s not meant to be an area of wilderness. It includes towns and villages. This is all within a National Park. You can build houses, supermarkets, and factories in a National Park, you are just subject to more planning regulations than you would be outside of one.
posted by tinkletown at 7:17 PM on September 9, 2020 [14 favorites]
Local authorities do have to consider flooding risk these days (my mum’s parish council just turned down permission for a developer who had inadequate provision for dealing with runoff, that is entirely normal process).
From my perspective, this is huge, and a totally valid reason to deny people permission to build permanent structures on floodprone lands.
Some of the other reasons seem less compelling, and there is a definitely tinge of that old quote about "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Yes, the rules apply to everyone, but the impacts are not felt equally.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:30 PM on September 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
From my perspective, this is huge, and a totally valid reason to deny people permission to build permanent structures on floodprone lands.
Some of the other reasons seem less compelling, and there is a definitely tinge of that old quote about "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Yes, the rules apply to everyone, but the impacts are not felt equally.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:30 PM on September 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
This question about habitability of land is a thing in Australia as well (which has a set of very different planning systems to the UK, though with the same legal roots for land ownership, and a similar system for 'permissions'). It's just not the case that you an 'just live on land you own', and never has been. This man has been battling the Council to live in a caravan on land he owns, and though you can understand his points of view, he's got no case. He doesn't want to be homeless, the Council doesn't want to approve housing where there's no sewage, power, or any other services, and where he isn't paying rates—or else far richer people than him would do it! Building without an approval is always, and every time, going to get prosecuted, because Councils have to be seen to enforce their own rules.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 10:56 PM on September 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
The planning laws are actually really clear, and reasons for refusing planning permission are very standardisedAbsolutely—and questions of rezoning, and Planning Policy, which change the permissible uses for land, are a major source of political corruption, maybe the source. People buying a block of rural land to live on is one thing, a shell company owned by politically connected people buying a block of ag land to build a coal mine on is the other thing...
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 10:56 PM on September 9, 2020 [4 favorites]
You may wish to consider when English law first recognised the concept of land ownership, and when we created our National Parks and Green Belt legislation. There was a bit of a time lag between the two, during which time most of the country came under private ownership.
Land ownership in England can essentially be traced back to the distribution of land by William the Conqueror to his followers after his invasion in 1066. National parks and the greenbelt both date to the 1950s. When we say time lag, we mean the best part of 900 years.
posted by plonkee at 1:38 AM on September 10, 2020 [6 favorites]
Land ownership in England can essentially be traced back to the distribution of land by William the Conqueror to his followers after his invasion in 1066. National parks and the greenbelt both date to the 1950s. When we say time lag, we mean the best part of 900 years.
posted by plonkee at 1:38 AM on September 10, 2020 [6 favorites]
There are valid reasons to have a strong system for planning approval. But a strong system doesn't have to be a system that marginalises parts of the population and forces them to live in what amount to increasingly scarce 'reservations'.
Indeed. It is important to note that, as drafted, the law does provide all kinds of protections. Local Authorities are required to include policies to address the needs of Travellers in local development planning and when doing housing needs review.
In practice LAs have substantial latitude in how they apply those rules and often use that latitude to exclude Travellers.
posted by atrazine at 8:33 AM on September 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
Indeed. It is important to note that, as drafted, the law does provide all kinds of protections. Local Authorities are required to include policies to address the needs of Travellers in local development planning and when doing housing needs review.
In practice LAs have substantial latitude in how they apply those rules and often use that latitude to exclude Travellers.
posted by atrazine at 8:33 AM on September 10, 2020 [1 favorite]
the Council doesn't want to approve housing where there's no sewage, power, or any other services
I don't think people from the US get this, because building large-ish settlements of thousands of people without any of these provisions is perfectly fine in the US, and has been for a very long time. Regulations are just now making living/building in places like that more difficult, but even in the US, the regulations and ownership provisions are likely/possible to be younger than those owning/settling the land.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:27 PM on September 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
I don't think people from the US get this, because building large-ish settlements of thousands of people without any of these provisions is perfectly fine in the US, and has been for a very long time. Regulations are just now making living/building in places like that more difficult, but even in the US, the regulations and ownership provisions are likely/possible to be younger than those owning/settling the land.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:27 PM on September 10, 2020 [2 favorites]
« Older Notes From Along Kentucky Route Zero | "Suhela is a constant, like the acceleration of... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by The Underpants Monster at 4:45 AM on September 9, 2020