News

MP Joins Traveller Site Objection Battle

Tuesday August 28 2012

A BARNSLEY MP has joined the battle against a proposed location for a traveller site in Darfield because he says it is not an appropriate location.

Barnsley Council - under its new Sites and Places proposals - has earmarked a plot of land off Doncaster Road as one of two potential locations for a new gypsy site.

But MP Michael Dugher has come out against the plan.

He sais it does not meet government guidelines as an official report published in 2007 stated that the preferred locations for permanent sites in South Yorkshire were in the West of Barnsley and Rotherham.

He said:“It is clear that the proposed area in Darfield is not an appropriate location for a Travellers’ site. It seems that it does not fit the necessary criteria or meet Government guidelines.

"The land is located away from local services and could be unsafe.

“The site would also encroach on to land that forms a natural green belt between Ardsley and Darfield. And it is important to note that all previous planning applications for that area have been rejected.

“I believe it is only right that local residents have a full say as to what happens in their community - that is why I am listening to local people and to local Councillors.“

Two meetings have been arranged by local councillors to discuss the issue - on 6 September from 6pm at Illsley Road Community Centre, Darfield, then on 15 September from 10.30am, a full public meeting will take place at the same venue.

Reply Posted by Wendy on Tuesday August 28 2012 at 12:26

Will Mr Dugher also note that the BMBC has plans for 200+ houses on playing fields in Darfield - this is ,in my opinion , a monstrous thing to do in this Olympic Year when everyone is supposedly encouraging children and young people to take up Sport and Athletics. I know we are a long way from Whitehall and this is probably why it can be allowed to happen. Wonder if it would happen if the playing field was the Eton School Playing Fields - I dont think so !

Reply Posted by Rothschild on Tuesday August 28 2012 at 18:20

I would wager several of my body parts and various organs on that either he, one of his family or one of his friends has property somewhere close to the proposed site. Anyone in for a nice set of kidneys and a big toe...?

Reply Posted by greenginger on Tuesday August 28 2012 at 19:43

To be fair ( no I dont live in Darfield) I think he has a few good points. Why should a traveller site ( which we all know will bring down an area) be to the east of barnsley in an area which has been refused planning?
Why dont they stick it across near Penistone, Cawthorne or Silkstone? Because they know that the site will ruin an area thats why! The only places that have been mentioned are Womwell or Darfield and lets face it they already have a traveller site at Low Valley. If the MP has it right about the site being situated to the west of Barnsley then let it be put over there somewhere. Give the people who live outside the ugly town a break for once.

Reply Posted by Hmmmmm on Tuesday August 28 2012 at 20:00

In all due respect and no offence to anyone but whe hell do people even want to give them land? Gypsie/travellers whole point of living there life sytle is to travel and not stay in one place, if they stay permanent would they be charged like council tax on the land as we pay for our homes?? Would they pay anything at all?

Reply Posted by dave on Wednesday August 29 2012 at 11:01

It says it all when the local gypsy community are objecting to this site or is this issue a smoke screen hiding the bigger project of building on the Longbow fields. It's not more houses we want in Darfield it's more facilities such as a supermarket or a leisure centre similar to the one at Bolton on Dearne and Hoyland. Our kids have nowhere to go or anything to do except face criticism from some griping pensioners who didn't have a good childhood themselves but's that is another subject

Reply Posted by Wendy on Wednesday August 29 2012 at 11:32

I agree with Dave being against a travellers site is but one issue here in Darfield and to support the objections is a vote winner - less of an issue for some - but more of an issue for the children is the lack of playing space - there are 3 housing estates round the Foulstone Playing Field and the only play space otherwise is the 'Inky' Fields which is hilly, hidden and frankly not somewhere that can replace the playing fields . I see someone has been cutting the grass and marking out the footie fields - but it would be a disgrace if they were to be replaced by more houses .

Reply Posted by wendy on Wednesday August 29 2012 at 11:40

By The Way I am a Pensioner - not a griping one I hope but one who used to tell people when I was a kid ' I live right in the middle of the country - in a country village called Darfield' , I don't think I could even see the pits - for me it was lovely ! - and I want other children to love our little bit of 'in the country' - oh ! and another BTW I live near to both proposed developments in Darfield .

Reply Posted by dave on Wednesday August 29 2012 at 20:50

I saw the grass being cut by what I believe was the local junior football teams cos' now the fields are no longer school playing fields ( due to the Foulstone closing). The BMBC are now charging for the cutting. I wonder if leaving the grass uncut is a sign that the deal for the fields to become houses has already been signed and delivered. Point taken about being a pensioner Wendy but I did say some, maybe they all live near me which is also next to the Longbow fields.

Reply Posted by Terry on Thursday August 30 2012 at 11:05

I knew with the closure of the Foulstone school that this would happen. Why not leave the local playing field as a playing field and use one of the fields on the other side of the A635 to build houses. As far as the Travellers site goes it is wrong to place it upon land that is offically GREEN BELT land and has been refused many times in the past building or developement permission. Like the Housing there are plenty of fields with good access to the A635. But like you say Dave I too believe the deal has all ready been passed by underhanded methods that most of the government use. As Dad used to say if a MP opens there gobs its a lie!!!

Reply Posted by Dave on Thursday August 30 2012 at 15:46

Talking to Barry the owner of the garden centre and the quarry wanted for a gypsy site, he told me that he wanted to build the garden centre on the quarry site but was refused permission by BMBC because they believed the entrance to it on the A635 was dangerous, what's happened to change their minds now. If it was dangerous in the past surely it's dangerous now.

Reply Posted by mr s on Thursday August 30 2012 at 16:21

me my wife and two young children was moved due to the trouble we had with travellers , causing a smashed frontroom window, smashed windscreen , key scratches, stole my two kids newish scooters, name calling and threats ! the COUNCIL moved us to darfield, and now they are planning travellers site??????????? BMBC what are you doing !!!!!!!!!!! WILL be in your office for a housing tansfer soon.

Reply Posted by mr s on Thursday August 30 2012 at 16:24

BMBC, Listen to the people of darfield, i have been living in darfield for just over 8 month, Darfield is a lovely place to live, if a travellers site was to be erected we will need to be safer , meaning more police on patrol, and we need to be asured that US the local residents will be safe,

Reply Posted by mr s on Thursday August 30 2012 at 16:29

BARNSLEY COUNCIL will select some areas of Barnsley to host a 'big conversation' with locals who will be asked how the council should cut £37 million from it's budget.

How to cut 37 million........DONT build a travellers site .....Simples

Reply Posted by gary on Saturday September 1 2012 at 15:06

goverments 2 scared to say no full stop, send em sumwhere else

Add new comment

Your email address will not be visible to other users of the website when you leave a comment.