Upload a photo Upload a video Upload an mp3 Upload an event

News » WAB Debate

BREAKING NEWS: Pogmoor Gypsy Plan Withdrawn

Tuesday April 5 2011

Residents in Pogmoor have been fighting against a proposal put forward to Barnsley Council for plans for a  a 20-pitch gypsy site at West Road.

The application - by a private resident - was due to be considered by the council's planning board on Tuesday, (April 12) and councillors were expected to do a site visit to West Road at about 11am.

But We Are Barnsley has learned this morning that the planning application has been withdrawn and will not go ahead.

What do you think? Join our debate now and if you're a twitter user you can also use the #wabdebate hashtag.

Leave a comment
comments powered by Disqus
113 Showing 113 comments

Reply Posted by Nicky-WAB on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 14:54
CHANNY on Facebook says "I think its a good thing. At end of day they are ppl just like us who need some where safe and stable to live. We should support this idea rather than slag it off. Id rather them be on a proper site instead of ripping down fences and parking up anywhere they please :)"

Reply Posted by Nicky-WAB on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 14:54
Margaret Rose Twyman on our Facebook page says : "they got to live somewhere !!!!!!"

Reply Posted by Alisonparr on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 14:55
im a pogmoor resident and havent recived a letter !!!

Reply Posted by Nicky-WAB on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 14:56
Hi Alison, letters are on their way out apparently but follow the link we listed below and there's more info there. What are your thoughts?

Reply Posted by Jo on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 14:56
Pogmoor is a residential area with higher than average house prices, I for one would be very annoyed indeed if I lived in a house and saw it's value plummet because of a Traveller camp.

Reply Posted by Lcordell on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 14:57
I agree with CHANNY - they have to live somewhere and having a permanent and secure site has to be better than the alternative for everyone involved.

Reply Posted by Katherine on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 14:57
o they're getting free land to live on which would cost an absolute fortune for normal people to buy and live there? And it's a busy part of pogmoor where people already need to pay for permits to park on their own drives and outside their own houses but it's fine for gypsies to be given a free pass to live there. As if it's not busy enough already around the hospital, test centre and primary school.
And also, the hospital doesn't even have a carpark anymore but yet they can spare land in the area for this.

Reply Posted by Nicky-WAB on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 14:57
Katherine, I've had a look at the planning application and it's actually a private land owner that has applied for permission - it's not council land. It's just the council that has to consider the application.

Reply Posted by Nicky-WAB on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 14:57
Lorna 'Yorkie' Baker on our Facebook page says: "would people still be backing this if they actually lived in Pogmoor or are they just glad its not in their neighbourhood?"

Reply Posted by Nicky-WAB on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 14:58
Brogan Louise Lockwood on our Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/... says: " Folk r being abit prejudice don't class all gypsys as the same!ok they r intimidating but I think if your ok wi them..then their ok wi you!"

Reply Posted by Nicky-WAB on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 14:58
Nataliè Smith on our Facebook page says: "a think its good we need somewere to live, at end of day everyone will complain that we are pulling anyway we need somewere to live!! so think what you want about us try living me life then you will see what its realy like!!"

Reply Posted by Jo on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 14:59
There is already a traveller site in town down Laithes Lane Does it not make sense to build nearer to that.. that would mean that their community centre could be for the community rather than increasing traffic in an already heavily congested area.

Reply Posted by Opsit on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 14:59
Just what Barnsley needs, more tax evasion and increased crime.

The field in question has far greater potential than to be the scene for dodgy goings on and grabbing...my daughter certainly wont be allowed out in the area, however much she craves her inevitable lambrini fix.

I know they get bad rap, but its due to the fact that most people have had some sort of bad experience with them.

Feud's are fixed with fists...not something i'd like to see in the area, especially with the "super school" being built just down the road...

Joggeth onneth.

Reply Posted by anita on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 15:00
they r still humen begins at end of day so they need to live some where they r decent ppl n if u leave them alone they will lave u alone i wunt like to think ppl was rejecting my family just cos of there name plus a wunt like to think tht my elderly family was in a caravan in a high risk of flooding area just cos ppl dont want them living near them

Reply Posted by joanne_s on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 15:00
If they are paying the same kind of council rates, taxes etc as the rest of us fine. And they clear up after themselves. But SOME of them don't. A group of them illegally moved onto a childrens playing field near our old house. They chased the kids off the field, abused the police when trying to move them on and dumped all their household waste onto the field. THAT is the kind of traveller that people do not like. And no i'm NOT saying they're all like that but I can understand why people get annoyed when we have to pay for where we live and would not get away with that without being arrested. Once again it's some that ruin it for all cos the public perception is based on the ones that cause trouble.

Reply Posted by Shaunbywater on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 15:01
People keep saying they have to live somewhere, Rubbish, This is why we have housing waiting lists, These characters are not proper gypsies, Probaly know nothing about there history and why the travel like they do. These people just want to screw the system and cost the Barnsley public money. Say no

Reply Posted by Sparkywin on Tuesday March 15 2011 at 15:01
I live in Pogmoor and work in the town centre area and have to deal with gypsy's /Pikeys all day. They seem to believe that if its in a yard and not tied down then its fair game to take. I have to explain that its not there for them to take and could they put it back to which i get abusive language and in some cases offered out to fight but always away from the cameras.
I have then gone home to find that they have been on to my own property and removed anything of metal or valuable and broke my gates in the process. The police say they cant do anything and that if ive no proof they did it they cant do anything and just issue me with a crime number .

I believe they shouldn't have anywhere near communities and if they need places to pitch there homes they should do it away from towns in fields on the outskirts. If they need to come into town then they can but they will have to travel in using public transport or there own vehicles. Its bad enough now if there only round the corner then the problem will only get worse.

Reply Posted by SteveF on Thursday March 17 2011 at 08:28
Put it this way, there is a 'traveller' site near where I work in Wakefield, they have nicked all the lead off the roof of my workplace, they pinch items on a regular basis from the yard at work and if you challenge them they threaten you with violence, sorry but I don;t want it where I live as well!

Reply Posted by WAB on Thursday March 17 2011 at 09:41
There's been some more activity on Facebook about this last night so I will repost and continue the debate - some interesting points raised on there...

Reply Posted by Reecy on Thursday March 17 2011 at 10:05
no way id like to keep my current caravan n bike

Reply Posted by gen on Thursday March 17 2011 at 11:07
i think the fact that its a private landowner looking for permission for a gypsy site unfortunately changes what alot of these comments r trying to say, not that its the peoples fault, because they didnt know it was a landowner, instead presumed it was free land for travellers, n its not going to be, also if its a private landowner then if the land is left in a state, then owners are going t have pay it tidy it up no1 else, i no its worrying as far as crime and house prices etc, however label someone, n they'll eventually live up to it, or fit into the label!!

Reply Posted by Ray on Thursday March 17 2011 at 12:16
Do you not have spell check?
(ppl, tht, wunt, u, r, n)
And you wonder why people in Barnsley get stereotyped as being idiots

Reply Posted by Ray on Thursday March 17 2011 at 17:01
The people who are all for this arrangement obviously do NOT live in or around Pogmoor.

Goodbye nice, clean and tidy Pogmoor...........hello 'hell hole'

Reply Posted by Jos 23 on Thursday March 17 2011 at 22:02
It is more jobs the area needs not more anti social behaviour. The recession as caused lower house prices without devaluation because of a travelling community moving into the area. I agree everyone needs somewhere to live and we have smithies and wombwell why the need for another area just extend these and then they are in their own community with like minded people .

Reply Posted by saz on Friday March 18 2011 at 10:03
travellers, gypsys what ever.. you've all seen the programme on ch4 every traveller is different yes there are ones we shouldnt trust and lock everything down and others that may be trust worthy and wont steal, we should give them a ago but like you all im not sure on the idea as you never what trouble it could it cause there is a place of land in mexborough that houses permanent travellers and ive never heard of anything bad happen from them i dont live near there but stil if anything it would be in papers or passed around by word of mouth.

Reply Posted by common sense on Friday March 18 2011 at 10:09
so the private land owner in question just wants to make money? I hope he/she has strict rules and regulations for the ppl who will be residing on his/her property! Will the residents be paying council tax or rent to pay for the land, usage of the emergency services, bin collections etc. as every other person does, or because they live in caravans does that make them exempt? I wouldn't want to live next to or near a gypsy site. If the gypsies don't want to be part of a community and live/act accordingly then move them out to fields in the country side, that's the only place for CARAVANS!!

Reply Posted by Becca on Friday March 18 2011 at 10:12
I live in Pogmoor and have done my whole life. This area has always been know for being a nice area and why should it be spoilt by a travelling community!! We already have them rummaging in our garages and gardens every morning "helping" to scrap!!!
Yes they need somewhere to go but the east coast is full of caravan parks why not open up planning permition there I mean it's already full of caravans there what's 20more going to hurt.
And as for the community centre I think it's shamefull. What about the children who live in Barnsley, (who's parents pay council tax & everything else) where do they have to go. They end up with anti-social behaviours against them because all they end up doing is drinking/drug taking in parks or street corners why don't they think of these children & create community centres for these in need of it.
Yes people are saying these people need somewhere to go but how would you feel if they where to do plans for on your door step??
If they want to welcome more gypsies build them more areas which the gypies sites already are, smithies and wombwell! Or all these areas that are no longer in use!
People are saying we are being discriminating etc but we aren't we are thinking of or property our children & our processions I like my car to have wheels and I like my garden to be kept private but if gypsies are up the street they feel they are within there rights to rummage and steal from our gardens.
The big fat gyspie wedding didn't show the true facts about gypsies it only shows what they wanted to show!!!
My family knows some gypsies and occasionally you do get some really nice kind caring people but i know how I would feel if my little sister was walking through the park and she got "grabbed" by them!!
It is not fair and it is not nice to not feel safe in your own home!

Reply Posted by SB on Friday March 18 2011 at 14:30
Firstly let me say that Pogmoor is in the Old Town Ward of Barnsley. The Old Town Ward has already one travellers site within the ward and this is at Smithies, to give Planning Permission to another site is absolutely ridiculous. I hope that the Council listen to the people of Pogmoor. Pogmoor is the past has had to suffer with travellers setting themselves up on the Sugden's Recreation Field , in the copse at the bottom of West Road and attempting to get onto the Recreation ground at the bottom of Glendale Close next to the football field. When they attempted to get onto this site a load of rubble was tipped to block the access, the residents were advised to remove their cars from the street and either put them in garages or somewhere else, due to what repercussions could take place. They also set themselves up on the recreation field at the corner of Pogmoor Road/Dodworth Road each time leaving the site to be cleaned up of litter, human excretia, building materials from work carried out by the travellers in other areas, which costs several thousand pounds each time a site has to be cleaned. The people of Pogmoor are proud to live in Pogmoor, By the way the sites which I mention, this type of thing happened from about April to September, and it would appear that the majority of the travellers owned their own property in North West of England, I wonder if they would appreciate someone parking in virtually their front garden, and leaving a mess for them to clean up. Keep on fighting Pogmoor

Reply Posted by BETTY on Saturday March 19 2011 at 10:16

Reply Posted by betty on Saturday March 19 2011 at 10:18
except next to you eh?

Reply Posted by MikeBrookshaw on Saturday March 19 2011 at 11:37
This must be stopped. How can we stop it? It is proven that areas around such sites become hotspots for crime and property values decrease. Everyone whi cares about this must ring the council to give our views. The number is: 01226 770770

Reply Posted by MikeBrookshaw on Saturday March 19 2011 at 12:15
Using the following website you can quickly and easily write to our MP and the 3 councillors. Simply enter your postcode and this will bring up all 4 people.
Petitions will not stop this but enough letters to these 4 individuals will. Please, even if it is a short message, just use this site to contact them to express our anger at this proposal.


Reply Posted by Joepublic1983 on Saturday March 19 2011 at 14:43
We all need to write individual letters to object. I have also heard that petitions are useless. There is a meeting to be held on Thursday 24th March at 19:30 at Barnsley Hospital Social Club for concerned residents to discuss the issue and find out how to move forward.

The main problem at the moment is that people think that the Council won't allow it to go ahead due to the mess that was created when Gypsy's moved onto Pogmoor Rec a few years ago. And these people are under the impression that it is the Rec that is the land in question - it isn't! It is a plot of private land on West Road that does not belong to the Council.

We can't take the chance by just thinking that it won't go ahead or that it'll never happen. It COULD happen unless we object. We can't just take the Councils word for it!!!

Reply Posted by Baz on Saturday March 19 2011 at 21:05
To do nothing could be fatal, people should be aware that the local authority could turn the application to their advantage by allowing the gypsy camp, the site owners would then have to spend money building the camp which could then become unmanageable. The Council could then apply a compulsory purchase order and obtain the land at a knock down price and in the process maintain their reputation as one of the most gypsy friendly authorities in the country.

Reply Posted by Mr Angry of Sycamore Street on Saturday March 19 2011 at 21:09
Is this the same Mr Lycett that wanted to build a Gyppo camp in Cudworth?Why does he love them so much?Obviously he hasn't had stuff ,stolen from him,by them.Let them build a camp by the damaged nulear reactors in Japan,I'll willingly contribute to their airfare

Reply Posted by Mikebrookshaw on Sunday March 20 2011 at 09:28
I agree with earlier statements that we can not simply sit back and hope the council come to their senses. I have just used the site www.writetothem.com to contact our new MP Dan Jarvis and also our 3 councillors, Kath Mitchell, Malcolm Price and Geoff Bowden. It was so easy and quick to write a brief letter to them.

We must encourage everyone to do the same. Www.writetothem.com

Thanks for the info re the meeting on 24th. I will spread the word as I'm sure you will be already. Have you come across any other websites or blogs on this issue? The more noise that is made from every angle the better!

Reply Posted by Fed up on Sunday March 20 2011 at 09:29
We must unite to fight this, I agree with earlier statements that we can not simply sit back and hope the council come to their senses. I have just used the site www.writetothem.com to contact our new MP Dan Jarvis and also our 3 councillors, Kath Mitchell, Malcolm Price and Geoff Bowden. It was so easy and quick to write a brief letter to them.

We must encourage everyone to do the same. Www.writetothem.com

Reply Posted by Miss Simpson on Sunday March 20 2011 at 11:40

I am about to submitt a full scale re-development proposal to BMBC for 5.5 acres of the dirty, run down industrial land that includes this site. I have been attemptig to resolve various issues on West Road with BMBC since 2006.

The difficulty I am facing is that BMBC would prefer to keep the whole of the area in its present state.

My proposal would potentially see some where in the region of 60 new residential houses, and upto 120 jobs from the provision of modern employment facilites. I wish to stop much of the scare mongering now. Mr Lycett was the man who ran the land as a skip yard and has been appropached by the travelling community who are intersted in purchasing the site themselves, for various reasons BMBC refused to validate the planning application that the travelling community wished to submitt, this lead to Mr Lycett subbmitting this on their behalf. All of the land on West Road is in private ownership.
There has never to my knowledge been any residential application submitted on these sites previously.

I myself have attempted to obtain the support of the local councillors in respect of the residential development that I would like to see transform West Road, unfortunatly some councillors prefer the dirty uses and do not want housing there at all and have refused to offer any assistance. If you as the people of Pogmoor want residential provision on this land the only way you will acheive this is to offer the same support to my MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT in the same way as you are showing concerns over the traveller site. You will all have to write individual letters of support for my application, if you do not no one can anticipate the long term use of this land.

If the organises of the meeting wish me to attand the meeting on Thursday at the hospital club I will be able to show details of the residential and mixed use propoal that I am submitting. I WILL BE FULL SITE LAYOUTS AVALIABLE TO VIEW. If you wish me to do this please post an reply on the site.

Reply Posted by anon on Sunday March 20 2011 at 12:09
Can I just say, I have google this and if you go all way through the details you will note that is was West STREET at Worsbrough not West Road at Pogmoor.

Reply Posted by Irritated on Sunday March 20 2011 at 15:59
Is this the Miss Simpson who's name is referred to on the plans submitted by Mr Lycett? According to those plans it seems as if you are jointly applying for the traveller camp in some capacity with Mr Lycett? Is this correct? Lots of people have been saying all along that Lycett only submitted the plans for the gypsy camp to scaremonger, so people/the council would accept anything else he submitted. I'm assuming the mixed use development you refer to that you are in the process of submitting is what Lycett would rather have his land approved for.

I don't think most people care what the land is used for as long as they know a gypsy camp won't be granted there. I think you'd be given far more respect by the residential area if you just came clean and say 'We want to use this land in a positive way but BMBC won't let us. Please give us your support' rather than 'Oooh let's submit plans for a gypsy site, cause hundreds of families weeks and weeks of worry, and then hope that they'll support us when we submit a new set of plans and hope they don't find out that we've been part of the same team all along.' All you're doing is creating a hostile environment against yourselves.

Reply Posted by anon on Sunday March 20 2011 at 18:15
As I have already stated mr Lycett was approached by a traveller some time ago, a man by the name of Smith. MR SMITH SUBMITTED the origional application for a traveller site in November 2010 but for various reasons the local authority refused to validate the application, had they validated it would have continued to be Mr Smiths application.

The application for Mixed Use is something that has been worked on for manyn years. There have been numerours difficulties withe the local authority who callenged some of the ownership boundaries suggesting that they had an interest in the land. That took some 4 years to resolve. The application that has now been prepared has taken time to prepare.

Mr Smith initially wished to purchase the site WITHOUT planning permission for a traveller site - this was shortly before Christmas when the planning department were refusing to validate his application. BMBC were aware of that at the time.

The development proposal I have complied takes into account several sites including this area of land. I have not submitted the traveller site application and would see no commercial sense in wasting thousands of pounds on submitting traveller site application when it does not relates to my proposed development that I have spent many thousands of pounds having prepared and collating.

As for whether people care what the land is used for, the current state of the site along with the continued vandalism I would expect does concern residents. There were significant problems associated with the year when it operated as a transfer station. The licence for that use is still valid and capable of being used. The smell noise and debris escaping from the site generated a great many complaints. Therefore I do think you are inaccurate in suggesting people are not bothered what the site is used for.

If people choose not support the development I propose then that is their perogative. The site will either remain as a waste transfer station / skip yard, or possible subject to planning become a traveller site. If people are intersted in bettering the area then it is up to them to support the Mixed Use development.

Reply Posted by anon on Sunday March 20 2011 at 19:42
The origional party to this application was a Mr Smith, but BMBC would not validate his application for various reasons, therefore Mr Lycett reluctanlty agreed to assist Mr Smith and have the application transfered into his name. Mr Smith is a potential willing purchaser of the land. Mr Lycett has no knowledge of anyone haveing the same name as him having submitted an application for a traveller site in Cudworth.

Reply Posted by WAB - Nicky on Monday March 21 2011 at 14:34
I have reopened this debate since it is proving such an interest to people...

Reply Posted by Jez on Monday March 21 2011 at 14:45
So basically you're saying either we support your application for housing (which I'm sure would make you tonnes of cash) or we'd get stuck with something we don't want. Nice approach you have there! Talk about bait and switch!!

Reply Posted by haribo on Monday March 21 2011 at 15:30
This is not housing land. If there was houses on every scrap of land then where would people work?!! You are just trying to blackmail everyone into agreeing to your plans for housing, whether for a Travellers site or regular housing - its that same. we need to retain employment sites for the future!!

Reply Posted by anon on Monday March 21 2011 at 15:56
The development proposal as outlined below will not just provide housing, it is a mixed use development and will incorporate a residential care facility, convalecense bungalows, childrens 0-3 years daycare unit and further units that will also provide employment opportunities. In essence there are potentially 120 permenant jobs to be created if the site is designed correctly. To keep the land a a skip yard may only generate at the most 14 jobs. So in essence the scheme is designed to enable both to be accomodated. As I have already stated my application is not for a travellers site, my application is still being worked upon.

Reply Posted by anon on Monday March 21 2011 at 15:58
Not at all my development pproposal is not attached to that which Mr Lycett has submitted. What you have to appreciate is that individual land owners may sell to who they choose and who offers the best deal for them. I am trying to put together a deal that will be appealing to all involved. If however the traveller who has show interst in the site offers more financial incentive than I can offer then it is up to the land owner if he wishes to accept that instead.

Reply Posted by anon on Monday March 21 2011 at 16:28
What you don't seem to appreciate is that my development proposal covers some 5.5 acres in 6 seperate ownerships. Mr Lycett in only one of those owners and the application that he has submitted covers only a proportion of the land that I am trying to see re-developed.

I am running a commercial business that specialises in peicemeal sites/ multi-ownership or other difficulties for which traditional developers only access these sites after these issues are resolved. I have invested a great deal of time and expense in dealing with this matter to date. What I am clear and certain on is that the residents in direct contact with West Road do not want the industrial uses to continue; having tried to put together a deal several times to redevelop the land for some type of industrial uses the site was critisised severly by end users for the close proximity to the houses. This would under current planning regulations create end users with noise, pollution and hours of operation difficulties as well as difficulties in providing enough vehicular turning space for HGV's. The modern employment uses such as carehome/ child care and modern office / employment units are unlikely to require anywhere near the amount of vehicular space or create the same disturbance that heavey industry causes. Social care providers also have a preference for being located adjacent to housing. There is also a provision to be made for affordable homes - to be provided to housing associations etc.

There is a much bigger picture to appreciate with a development of the nature that I am proposing it would be great if it was all as easy as you are trying to make it sound. If people wish to object to my proposal that is a matter for them, but they would also be objecting to creating 120 jobs on land that for the present uses will never acheive anywhere near the same level of employment . All parking for the new uses would be within the actual boundaries of the units, this would eliminate the requirement for on street parking at West Road and open up the possibility of double yellow lining the road or making it a resident only area. All housing would be provided with at least 2 parking spaces and additional parking is designed within the housing areas for visitors etc - again avaoiding any parking difficulties.

The re-development proposal is designed so that you may leave home in the morning, take you children to daycare, go to work, and visit gran in the evening without having to walk more than 500 meters in any one direction. People would save time and travel costs and it is hoped would create a community environment for themselves and future generations.

Reply Posted by haribo on Monday March 21 2011 at 16:39
So why have you submitted for a travellers site then? You have only submitted to get people annoyed enough to support your ‘mixed use’ proposal that will most likely end up being all housing!

Reply Posted by phil on Monday March 21 2011 at 16:50
"They've got to live somewhere"
Er, they're travellers, aren't they supposed to 'travel'? It's easy for idiots to comment when it's not on their doorstep, we all know they'd be up in arms about it then.

It's hard not to judge them all the same, when every single one I've ever met (that's quite a lot) has no respect for anyone or anything, and are just out for what they can get. It's sad to say it, but I dread them coming into work because they just trash the place, steal things, (then accuse you of putting it in their bag - er, ok) let their offspring run riot, and one adult even took a dump in the kitchen aisle - not joking. Who wants that element nearby? Bad enough at work, don't want to come home to it aswell.

Rise up, Poggy.

Reply Posted by anon on Monday March 21 2011 at 17:39
I have not submitted for the traveller site, if you read what I have been writing you will note that one of the land owners has taken over the application of a traveller who is trying to purchase an area of the land that forms part of my mixed use development. A mixed use development is that - mixed use. All housing would be a pure residential application. My application is split into 3 mixed use sites all adjacent each other and connected by an access road. Please read my other comments. Mr Lycett is one land owner on West Road, my develpment site covers land in 6 seperate ownerships and extends to 5.5 acres. I must make it clear that my proposal stretches from the side of the former remploy site all way to the end of West Road and leaves 3 units in place that are already in existance but redevelops land that has not been commercially used for 8 years. The Remploy site was granted planning consent some time ago for appartments, so West Road has already become a more residential area in principle already. My application is attempting to retain some of the land for commercial use but to remove the dirty uses that are not really acceptable in such a built up area. Residents in the area do not want heavey industry- this has been proved by passed representations made to the planning department regarding the disruption felt by these uses. There are continued complaints regarding the excavation of ash at one of the sites on West Road.

The comments I am noting on this page suggest that a traveller site is not wanted, a mixed use site is not wanted, housing is not wanted. I am aware that heavey industry is certainly not wanted. Something has to go on those sites. I have put together a very workable scheme that provides social care needs, housing and jobs.

Reply Posted by Bella_49 on Monday March 21 2011 at 18:39
Dear Anon/Miss Simpson, Why not apply to build start up units for sole traders/small enterprises. This is what the land is designated for, and I am sure no one would object to this. We will fight any other proposals to the best of our ability. I am about to be made redundant as are a lot of people in Barnsley and want to see new businesses starting up so that hopefully and can gain new employment.

Reply Posted by on Monday March 21 2011 at 21:05
Can people remember that Pogmoor used to have a working mans club and certain people didn't want that,so i'm sure that travellers won't be wanted either

Reply Posted by We Are Not Stupid on Monday March 21 2011 at 21:29
Ok "Anon" or Ms Simpson before you changed you name on here... If you and Mr Lycett are nothing to do with each other (........ despite the fact you share the same P.O. Box on the planning application form, awww how sweet.......) and we all got behind you and asked for the council to change the use of land to include residential use, what is to stop Mr Lycett or your good self putting in plans for a traveller site again if your later plans got rejected for any reason. It is obvious you are trying to scare everyone into accepting ANYTHING other than a traveller site, so my vote would stay with not letting it become anything but employment land so that a travellers site can never exist there. It is obvious with these tactics what the parties involved are like and will try bullying tactics if all else fails.

Reply Posted by Anon on Monday March 21 2011 at 22:29
Do you think if Eric Illsley was still a councilor that he would allow this I dont think so . The term gypsy traveller surely meens to roam so roam off somewhere else. Pogmoor is highly populated by pensioners that have lived in pogmoor nearly all there lives and could quite easily be vulnerable to cold callers. I read not so long ago been a old man ripped off to the sum of £10s of thousands by so called builders from smithies area of Barnsley with names lets say common place in the traveller comunity I believe they where working harrogate area at the time and in their 20s. Im not saying this would happen but you dont invite the oppertunity to arise. I know bad apples and all that but dont put them all in the same barrel to let them rot.

Reply Posted by Anon on Monday March 21 2011 at 22:35
I bet she doesn't live in POGMOOR! I do believe that especially in the men gypsys have a high percentage of illiteracy but they all seem to have managed to get driving licences one of the many mysteries of this world that always puzzles me. Can anyone elaborate on this?

Reply Posted by anon on Monday March 21 2011 at 23:17
i am not a traveller myself, but they do need somewhere to live travellers are not all bad, everyone would be complaining if they pitched up at the side of the road, this way its a secure site for them to live in, all everyone is doing is discriminating against them because they are travellers and the repitation they hold, how do you think these people feel reading all these comments slandering them, they are normal people just like u and me and i think what people are saying about them is really not nice they should be treated equally!!!!!

Reply Posted by Grrrr on Monday March 21 2011 at 23:43
1) If you like the idea of having travellers move in near you why not team up with Mr Lycett and suggest a site near you where they can go and apparently be welcomed with open arms.

2)Travellers have invaded the Pogmoor Rec before and it was littered, became unsafe and speaking to an OAP today her and her dog were threatened by these friendly loverly people that they were going to let their dog attach hers.... WOW nice people. I'm sure there are some nice people who are travellers but lets face it, the vast majority aren't so nice and regard to rest of us... you an me who pay our dues and taxes etc as Gorgers on society..... HOW COME me a tax payer all my life has to pay for prescriptions when 'travellers' get them for free.... how come my kid isn't guaranteed a place at a local school but theirs are...... treated equally.... WHAT A JOKE! I don't want them in Pogmoor, i don't want to feel intimidated when i walk the streets of my local area and i don't want my house price devaluing by a bunch of people who can't be bothered to contribute to society, claim they are travellers but want a 'permanent' home.... GET A MORTGAGE AND PAY YOUR TAXES LIKE THE REST OF US!

Reply Posted by Baz on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 00:22
Over the last seven days I have personally encountered the following stories all concerning the people who would live on the doorstep of Pogmoor residents,all after the last illegal camp:

Shopkeeper who lost hundreds of poundsworth of stock.

Garage worker who was abused and had written evidence.

Elderly couple who regularly witnessed travellers defecating in the field.

Gentleman who had his garage broken into, bike stolen and identified same when walking through rec. - notified police who weren't interested.

Builder who had his van stolen and identified it at site in Wombwell - reported to police who advised him to claim on his insurance policy.

Elderly gentleman who refused gypsies an excessive fee for pruning a conifer tree and later had petrol thrown over his hedge and fence and fired.

To add I would ask how these people get their money, it certainly aint by honest means.

Reply Posted by anon on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 11:10
The mixed use development creates some modern units for employment purposes, these will potentially create upto 120 jobs depending on the end users. So there will be something in there for everyone. The mixed use development is employment and housing.

Whay also has to be considered is that there are some very large sites all accross Barnsley, the new Capital park and the Claycliff Business Parks both have ridiculous amounts of vacant space that has been built and further land valiable for the provision of additional new units. There are also lots of start up premises on BMBC run sites and other in private ownership, at Birdwell there is a significant amount of land that Yorkshire Forward are opening up along the link roads. With all of the above taken into consideration just to build units would not be commercially viable as they would stand empty for long periods of time therefore the land is unattractive for that one use. A mixed use provides some security to the adjacent uses because in the evenings when the units are empty at lease there are people at home in the evening on a mixed development and that keeps away crime and vandalism.

Reply Posted by anon on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 11:22
As I have said my development is for 5.5 acres and covers land owned by 6 seperate land owners, any land owner may sell to the developer s/he chooses. My guess is that they will choose the one offering the best financial deal to them. If Mr Lycett chooses to sell to the travelelrs without planning permission he may do that if he chooses and then it would be up to the travellers to do with the land as they wish I doubt that it would make much difference if it was still referred to as employment land it would then be up to the Council to enforce any illegal use of the land against the owners of the land. Mr Smith decided to illegally turn the land to a traveller site without planning consent then it would be upto BMBC to take action against Mr Smith if he had become the owner.

The land has to be used for something at present West Road is 'Class B' uses, I have cust and paste these below and they explain some of the uses. Many of which you really would not want on your door step.

What Is B Class Planning Usage?
Find out the exact details of B use classes:

B1 - Business | B2 - General Industrial | B3 - Special Industrial A | B4 - Special Industrial B
B5 - Special Industrial C | B6 - Special Industrial D | B7 - Special Industrial E | B8 - Storage or Distribution

Use Class B1: What is B1 Planning Usage?
B1 building use is use for all or any of the following purposes:

(a) as an office other than a use within class A2 (financial and professional services),

(b) for research and development of products or processes, or

(c) for any industrial process, being a use which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit.

Use Class B2: What Is B2 Planning Usage?
General Industrial
B2 building use is for the carrying on of an industrial process other than one falling within class B1 above or within classes B3 to B7 below.

Use Class B3: What Is B3 planning Usage?
Special Industrial Group A
B3 building use is for any work registrable under the Alkali, etc. Works Regulation Act 1906[5] and which is not included in any of classes B4 to B7 below.

Use Class B4: What Is B4 planning Usage?
Special Industrial Group B
B4 building use is for any of the following processes, except where the process is ancillary to the getting, dressing or treatment of minerals and is carried on in or adjacent to a quarry or mine:

(a) smelting, calcining, sintering or reducing ores, minerals, concentrates or mattes

(b) converting, refining, re-heating, annealing, hardening, melting, carburising, forging or casting metals or alloys other than pressure die-casting

(c) recovering metal from scrap or drosses or ashes

(d) galvanizing

(e) pickling or treating metal in acid

(f) chromium plating

Use Class B5: What Is B5 planning Usage?
Special Industrial Group C

B5 building use is for any of the following processes, except where the process is ancillary to the getting, dressing or treatment of minerals and is carried on in or adjacent to a quarry or mine

(a) burning bricks or pipes

(b) burning lime or dolomite

(c) producing zinc oxide, cement or alumina

(d) foaming, crushing, screening or heating minerals or slag

(e) processing pulverized fuel ash by heat

(f) producing carbonate of lime or hydrated lime

(g) producing inorganic pigments by calcining, roasting or grinding

Use Class B6: What Is B6 Planning Usage?
Special Industrial Group D
B6 building use is for any of the following processes:

(a) distilling, refining or blending oils (other than petroleum or petroleum products)

(b) producing or using cellulose or using other pressure sprayed metal finishes (other than in vehicle repair workshops in connection with minor repairs, or the application of plastic powder by the use of fluidised bed and electrostatic spray techniques)

(c) boiling linseed oil or running gum

(d) processes involving the use of hot pitch or bitumen (except the use of bitumen in the manufacture of roofing felt at temperatures not exceeding 220°C and also the manufacture of coated roadstone)

(e) stoving enamelled ware;

(f) producing aliphatic esters of the lower fatty acids, butyric acid, caramel, hexamine, iodoform, napthols, resin products (excluding plastic moulding or extrusion operations and producing plastic sheets, rods, tubes, filaments, fibres or optical components produced by casting, calendering, moulding, shaping or extrusion), salicylic acid or sulphonated organic compounds;

(g) producing rubber from scrap

(h) chemical processes in which chlorphenols or chlorcresols are used as intermediates

(i) manufacturing acetylene from calcium carbide

(j) manufacturing, recovering or using pyridine or picolines, any methyl or ethyl amine or acrylates

Use Class B7: What Is B7 Planning Usage?
Special Industrial Group E
B7 building use is for carrying on any of the following industries, businesses or trades

(a) Boiling blood, chitterlings, nettlings or soap

(b) Boiling, burning, grinding or steaming bones

(c) Boiling or cleaning tripe

(d) Breeding maggots from putrescible animal matter

(e) Cleaning, adapting or treating animal hair

(f) Curing fish

(g) Dealing in rags and bones (including receiving, storing, sorting or manipulating rags in, or likely to become in, an offensive condition, or any bones, rabbit skins, fat or putrescible animal products of a similar nature)

(h) Dressing or scraping fish skins

(i) Drying skins

(j) Making manure from bones, fish, offal, blood, spent hops, beans or other putrescible animal or vegetable matter

(k) Making or scraping guts

(l) Manufacturing animal charcoal, blood albumen, candles, catgut, glue, fish oil, size or feeding stuff for animals or poultry from meat, fish, blood, bone, feathers, fat or animal offal either in an offensive condition or subjected to any process causing noxious or injurious effluvia

(m) Melting, refining or extracting fat or tallow

(n) Preparing skins for working

Use Class B8: What Is B8 planning Usage?
Distribution or Storage
B8 building use is for storage or as a distribution centre.

Reply Posted by anon on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 11:24
The former working mens club was granted permission for flats, but the council purchased the land and decided to use it for a car park.

Reply Posted by anon on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 11:25
they just drive without them

Reply Posted by Nik on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 12:24
Mr. Angry, you got to realise there is no preference to cultural orientation when a wad of money is being handed over.

Reply Posted by SteveF on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 12:36
There is something very dodgy going on here with this application! Meeting at Hospital Club this Thursday about this, the councillors who are there can get ready!

Reply Posted by Nick on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 13:39
I wonder where all the people who are now complaining about West Road were when we had to put up with the rubbish blowing out of the scrap yard for 18 years ?????????????? The tankers driving up and down day and night distrubing you in your beds when there was a haulage yard. There were vermin, noise and dirty every where. There have been druggies using the empty sites and police have had to come to the vandalism on the empty units - one even got fired. I dont want a traveller site, but I would rather see some houses because at least people will have somewhere to live. if there are also some units that people will be able to work from that will be even better. All the people wanting to keep it as it is obviously live in a different part of pogmoor I dont want small units with people comming at all hours. There are lots of those sites up and down away from houses.

Reply Posted by Tony on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 13:53
I ran a business on West Road and it is not a good place to work from, I think if the whole lots is likely to be re-developed that is a good thing. I would rather see houses and new buildings than a traveller site

Reply Posted by Jan8554 on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 14:00
Does ANYONE know the history of Pogmoor ? There is a pub called the Travellers Rest .......... because it is where travellers used to stop

Reply Posted by cupcake on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 15:29
This is maybe why they want to be near the lead works.

Reply Posted by amy on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 15:33
I agree that anyone who says they should base at Pogmoor, obviously don't live there! I don’t want to stereotype all travellers, but the ones I have encountered with are rude and have no respect for others or the land. Prime example when they took over the Pogmoor play field by the main road, it was littered and was left a mess. When my children went to the children’s play area with their grandparents, they were harassed and had the foulest language that a child or adult should use or hear. Pogmoor is a nice area of Barnsley, that’s why people pay the high council tax prices and pay for high house prices, the idea of having a traveller’s site there is WRONG!

Reply Posted by WAB on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 15:33
Hi Steve - it's not actually a council plan. It's a private land-owner. The only involvement the council has is in considering the planning application. Hope this helps.

Reply Posted by Sammy on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 15:34
my house has been up for sale for ages, if they wanted to buy that I really would not care who they were I would take the money. You have to look after yourself, I know its not nice but thats the way things are.

Reply Posted by Georg68e on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 15:48
I agree.
I would prefere decent houses but I think the whole lot should be houses. All these people saying keep it all for employment very obviously do not live anywhere near the site, we dont want all those HGV's. It is bad enough that they might lead the lead works use the West Road, I dont agree with that either.

My sister would love to be able to afford a house near us, if the developer does put some affordable or housing association houses on that land I think it is a good thing. It stops poggy being just for old retired people and those with a nice nest egg, it makes it somewhere for real people who might just have young families not just for those who dont want change because they are too up their own a**es to think about whats really needed. As for all this talk of jobs, well all West Road has done for years is attracked yobs, druggies and vandals. At night its full of kids getting drunk, who wants that. I do not want all those businesses again, and if they really wanted to be there wouldn't all that land be being used by them. Instead they are all using that new place at j37.

Give me proper neighbours anyday. Houses, Houses, Houses. Not muck, muck and more muck, or HGV after HGV.

Reply Posted by Alison on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 15:59
i must not fit in poggy then shame really cos i have lived here most of my life and been where i am now for the last 8 years , im not old and retired im 33..far from retirement and i also have a young family , i didnt buy my house thinking " oh what a nice nest egg " as you put it and yes pogmoor is a nice area but i am far from being up my own arse to be honest poggie is just poggie to me just like any other area , and as for the comment about " druggies and vandels " does that mean they should whack some houses on sudgens rec , because you get all types on there too ???? , Everyone is on about stereo typing people and putting them in pigeon holes regarding gypsies you have done exactly the same with the residents off pogmoor .

Reply Posted by Nataliesmith on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 16:02
to everyone who saying this and that about gypsys stop it am a Romany gyspsy and at the end of the day instead of slaging my culture off why don't you fin out weather it's Irish travellers or romany gyspys who's having the site because am sick of people sterotyping gypsys with travellers we are different to them always have been always will be! at the end of the if it's Romany gyspys I say let it go ahead because we have the most respect for people how have respect for us my family live in a house pay tax like everyone else and also me and my little sister go to school and were the most respectfull children you will meet and we live in barnsley! but many of romany gypsys aren't lucky enough to get a house because we get sterotyped for being travellers! so before you slag gyspsys off get your facts right first!

Reply Posted by on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 17:17
I was walking my dogs on that area and saw the "travellers" breaking the fence and gate down to get on there... I went home and phoned the police and then went back and watched from a distance.. the police came down west road and stood and watched them break the gate down and carry it and throw it down the railway banking then drive onto the grassed area.... never did a thing to stop them.... later I got the curtesy call from the police... I asked if I was to vandalise council propery would the police just stand and watch me??? The " travellers were eventually moved by the council but left so much rubbish and mess behind...

Reply Posted by annoyed!!!!! on Tuesday March 22 2011 at 18:34
Last year we were up at Locke park with friends and there was a big gang of gypsies they were the most rudest,obnoxious people i have ever had seen in all my life.The kids were turning out bad language i'd ever heard in all my life.My friend asked politely if they could tone it down because there were kids around to which she was told to "f**k off or she'd get her f**ing head kicked in"!!!!!!!.We moved away from them and they followed us and carried on swearing and insuting us our kids were playing in the sandpit and one of their kids filled up a empty plastic bottle with sand and hit my friends son around the head with it.So to think they would be moving to Pogmoor just fills me with dread.

Reply Posted by Feeb on Wednesday March 23 2011 at 10:14
Very well said Natalie - I agree that you can't tar everyone with the same brush. I think it's just people are very frustrated by these plans as it is employment land and they feel like people are trying to con them

Reply Posted by Guest on Wednesday March 23 2011 at 22:06
Pure speculation, but has anon got any connection to coda studios who I believe prepared the plans for the traveller's site?

Reply Posted by WAB - NICKY on Thursday March 24 2011 at 15:44
RE THE PUBLIC MEETING TONIGHT: Sorry I can't make it to film guys - please let me know how you get on.

Reply Posted by John Smith on Thursday March 24 2011 at 18:01
i have been in a pub called the red lion... i was sincerely disapointed when i discovered no red lions have ever been there, its all just a load of hear say... sorry jan but your an idiot if you think pogmoor was built by travellers. it was developed for coal. and that is that.

Reply Posted by John Smith on Thursday March 24 2011 at 18:06
thank god... an intellegent point! i knew if i read for long enough, i'd find one...

Reply Posted by John Smith on Thursday March 24 2011 at 18:11
its just the travellers site that is not wanted by the people of pogmoor. we will put up with whatever you want to do on your own land, but dont devalue ours!

Reply Posted by anon on Thursday March 24 2011 at 19:43
im not saying they are all lovely cos im sure there is travellers who arnt lovely!! you cant say you feel intimidated by them cos in every village/town there are always gangs of teenagers which im sure people feel intimidated by but what you going to do about them kick them out of pogmoor aswell?? some teenagers are just as bad some worse than travellers. ive got no friends who are travellers n im not in on any of these plans but it is not fair how people are talking about them, their culture is different to our culture and they have firm beleifs all u are doing is discriminating against them and its wrong the way you talk about them is horrible they are human beings not a piece of dirt some travellers do pay taxes how do you know all of them dont? you dont! this is just racist if you was saying all these comments to a different race person you would get done for it because they are travellers you get away with it which is wrong!

Reply Posted by Dub on Friday March 25 2011 at 12:31
Sorry Ray but you say Barnsley people get stereotyped as being idiots.....just like everyone are stereotyping the travellers/gypsys as being criminals etc....there's good and bad in every walk of life!

Reply Posted by anon on Friday March 25 2011 at 19:53
so what you are saying is we should just steroetype against travellers and not romany gypsies? just so i am clear?

Reply Posted by anon on Friday March 25 2011 at 20:04
I am sure like most people on here, i would rather not stereotype this community. However, the evidence speaks for itself where traveller sites are concerned and I object to this being within my neighbourhood. I have worked hard to pay my mortgage and am trying by any means not to lose the value in my home that I have worked hard for. Surely people can understand that?

Reply Posted by R of Pogmmor on Saturday March 26 2011 at 17:09
I think the people who would live on site will bring no benefit to our community. It has been widely publised that the persons who'd live on the site do not want to intregrate into the communities around them, therefore why live in the centre of an established community.
If houses and lite industry complex was passed, the council would recieve council tax and business tax, so benefitting Barnsley. If small units such as eldery care, childcare and afterschool care and light industry were intregrated this will bring jobs for the local area and people.
We must think of the residents who would benefit from having the area cleaned up and the general area would flourish instead of been dragged down. With proper planning the site of mixed use can accommadate traffic and parking measures to lessen the impact on the residents. The area can be planned to be an appealing area with open areas, trees and gardens. If the site is used in other ways these issues will be out of control.
The person who's comment states the person submitting the mixed use plans," stands to make wads of cash", must accept that this is the case in most business plans and actions. If you own something you sell it for a good price. There is not a person who would not, so lets not be jealous that someone will make a profit, Lets keep to the main point of this and object through writting individual letters to Joe Jenkinson against planning application 2010/1452, speak and write to our councilors, to encourage the appropriate use of the land for a mixed use site.
We need to think of our community and keep Pogmoor alive, it is a diverse area with eldery, retirees and working families both of high and low incomes, with flourishing and achieving schools. We need to take care of our environment and take care of each other.

Reply Posted by Living close to the site on Tuesday March 29 2011 at 10:00
The most common sense that has been said on here all way through................... I think you are right, if there is an appropriate alternative development in the offing that will benefit the community that has to be good. Housing is greatly needd in the area and if there are to be some childcare and care of the elderly provisions then thats even better. A proper development taking everything into consideration has to be better than the mess that is there at the moment. We have llived in the area for 20 years and have had to put up with all sorts of dirt and smells coming from all along West Road. I don't want the industrial uses to continue and would much prefer a sensible mixed use alternative as you have outlined above.

I think the point about critisising the developers for making money is unfair too. Anyone developing anything is there to make money, If people are provided with accomodation and the area is cleaned up that will be a benefit most residents would be pleased to see. It's not all as black and white as many of the comments on this page are suggesting. I would welcome someone tidying the whole area up because it needs it. Its bad enough that the lead works has been granted consent for the extension. A couple of small units on that land would not cause the problems that turning the whole lot into a retail or distribution park or worse still back to the skip yard because no one wanted that.

i have read the uses and checked what could go on that land with planning and all those 'B class' uses below could go on West Road if planning was granted. That would be even worse than the traveller site.

I am backing the mixed use and I think anyone living close to the site should really think about what they want to live near for the next 20 years, certainly not a maggot farm, excavation site or anything where businesses are likely to be coming in and out all hours of the day and night. I really think mixed use is they way forward.

Reply Posted by Have some compashion on Tuesday March 29 2011 at 10:10
I really feel for you Natalie and I think that everyone is being unfair. I am not a supporter of the site because I do think that there may be problems, but I understand that the site at Smithies Lane is always very clean and tidy and there is no more trubble than on any other housing estate so it is possible that we are all prejudicial without realising. I do wonder whether people would be so critical if something was planned for another category of person such as blacks or asians. The Eldon Centre is being sold off as an ethnic centre and I don't hear people screaming about that, there is a mosque on Dodworth Road but people did not start saying the town will be full of terrorists because of it.

I think we are all a little bit small minded at times but that is human nature and we are very unfair to tar everyone with the same brush. I had a couple of travellers trimming trees in our garden the other week. They were from Wakefield and were the politest lads I could have wished for, they got on with the job and clean up the drive after they had finished. If it had not been for the fact that they told me they were travellers I would not have known, so it does show you not everyone is the same. I am sure there are people who have been to prison for quite serious things and we treat them better than we treat travellers who have not done anything to deserve their reputation other than be born into a way of life.

Reply Posted by Living close to the site on Tuesday March 29 2011 at 10:19
Living close by I can say that there has not been much employment on any of that land for a very long time and there have been sign boards up for it to be let or sold but still no takers. I dont want the muck that is down there any more and think that the mixed use has got to be better. People betting frustrated is one thing but when we had to put up with all the waggons in and out and the mess caused not to mention the noise and smells from all the uses years ago there were no where near as many people kicking off about that but all of a sudden all these people are interested in whats happening because they think it might affect them. Well it has been affecting us for years and I would be glad to see the lot rebuilt as houses and clean it up once and for all. There are plenty of employment sites up at Dodworth and Bough and they are not in the middle of a housing estate. The people who want to keep it as all employment obviously dont live on top of it like we do. What happens on there will affect the residents in the adjacent streets the most not people from Kingston, Stocks Lane and the other side of Pogmoor so it should be us that are listended to not those who are simply concerned that they may end up with a traveller site devaluing a house that is in a different part of Pogmoor or more than a mile away.

I would rather see some nice houses and have done with.

Reply Posted by Living near the site on Tuesday March 29 2011 at 10:22
It was full of people who dont live anywhere near the land who were spouting off about what they would like to see on there. The people who live near their want to see houses all along West Road, but they could not be heard for those who seem to have an agender of their own.

Reply Posted by Living close to the site on Tuesday March 29 2011 at 10:34
What a lot of rubbish, do you live anywhere near this site ? We do and we do not want start up units where people will be coming and going all day everyday when they want, that would be worse than a travellers site. The people who live near the site want to see more housing in keeping with the fact that the area is residential. The council has loads of its own units for start up business that are empty all across Barnsley what use would having some more be and who would make them keep the units tidy rather than start stacking waste up outside their units ? The units down there were a disgrace for years building more of them would make the situation worse not better. The suggestion of the care for the elderly and childcare is a far better idea and at least the local people would benefit.

Reply Posted by Liing close to the site on Tuesday March 29 2011 at 10:38
They have just built a big site at Capital Park and that is offering pleanty of employment land, we have put up with all the mess on West Road for years and even businesses dont want to be on there any more. I bet you never lived close to the skip yard when it was running for the best part of 2 decades, or near to the excavations that are taking place all day long. The best thing that ever happened along there was when Remploy closed and the haulage yard next to it went. Get real I am fed up of hearing all these people who very obviously do not live opposite this site.

Reply Posted by Living close to the site on Tuesday March 29 2011 at 10:38
yet another person who does not live close to the site.

Reply Posted by Living close to the site on Tuesday March 29 2011 at 10:39
You have my support and I think a lot of my neighbours would like this idea.

Reply Posted by Living close to the site on Tuesday March 29 2011 at 10:51
The travellers were up there today having a look at the site and measuring things, I think they will just move on and that will be the end of it, if anyone is going to put something else forward for that land I hope they get on with it quick. All these objections to alternatives are likely to stop someone submitting an alternative. If the travellers move on to the land the Council has told me that they lost the last appeal against them in Breirly and that went to the High Court and that they are likely to lose any appeal against this.

I dont want the travellers and I dont want all industrial land or employment land or whatever else you want to call it. Nice houses and care for the elderly and children I will support. But I cannot see anyone wanting to spend money submitting plans when everyone is saying that they will object to anything other than industrial land use. I live there and a lot of the complainers dont live anywhere near the land.

If someone has got an alternative that will benefit the residents then shouldn't we support that rather than end up with a traveller site that the majority dont want ? If they move onto the land they will stay there and you can make as much noise as you want but it wont make any difference even the girl that answered the phone in the planning department said so.

Reply Posted by Living close to the site on Tuesday March 29 2011 at 10:54
I think you need to realise that this girl feels like she is being personally attacked by all these comments, she says that she and her sister go to school so she is still very young. stop being so bolshy towards her she is trying to express herself as best she can there is no need to be sarcastic

Reply Posted by Local Resident on Tuesday March 29 2011 at 14:00
As someone who knows a bit about planning and lives locally I would like to offer my thoughts.

I really don't think it will be a travellers site for the following very good reasons:

1) If a planning permission for a gypsy camp can be secured then this establishes a residential use on the site. The presumption will then in favour of residential development which makes it far more likely that a planning application for a much more suitable and desirable development incorporating housing will be granted. Given that applications for a mixed use development have been submitted according to Anon then this very much appears to be the strategy.

2) It would be madness for the owner to sell the site as a gypsy camp if he can get planning for a residential use on it. This is a prime piece of land in the heart of one of the most desirable residential areas of Barnsley. What is going to be worth more, 20 traveller pitches or a mixed use development incorporating offices, care facilities and housing?

3) According to the document submitted with the plans the council has had a decision to refuse a traveller site in the greenbelt overturned at appeal. The judge also upheld heavy criticism levelled by the planning inspector at the council for failing to make adequate provision for travellers in the borough. I would guess that if this is refused the owner will likely appeal the decision and is effectively threatening to do so by referring to the previous overturned decision.

4) I've looked at the plans on the planning explorer and the pitches are massive. If the owner were really serious about extracting maximum value from the site as a gypsy camp then I'm sure it could be more intensively designed to increase the number of pitches and hence increase the value of the site for this use.

5) The application is for outline permission only. If a gypsy site were to be built here it would need to have full planning permission, which would require a second application for full planning application to be submitted, assuming that the outline application is successful. In my opinion this will never happen in light of the intentions stated by anon to create a much more comprehensive mixed use development at the site.

I am just sorry that the people of our community are being put through all the worry and distress of the prospect of a gypsy camp in their midst in what appears to be a complex planning battle with the council. I don't think the owner is trying to bully the residents of Pogmoor into accepting any use at this site by submitting controversial plans for a gypsy site. As mentioned above there are very good reasons for why plans for a gypsy site has been submitted, namely points 1 and 3.

I can only think the owner is doing this because the council are determined to maintain this site for employment use even though its obvious to pretty much everyone that this is no longer really appropriate and has led to the continuing decay of the site with all the associated problems highlighted by people on here who live close to the site. In which case its the council that are failing us by letting this site just go to waste, so much so that the owner has to put in plans for a gypsy camp to try and get a more suitable use on the site!

Well done to the lady who stood up in the meeting last thursday and asked just what the councillors are supposed to be doing for us. If the council thinks that leaving the site as it is or establishing a gypsy camp is preferable to a development that brings jobs, care facilities and much needed private and social hosuing then I think we all should be asking the council what on earth they are doing for Barnsley period!!

Reply Posted by Angry resident on Friday April 1 2011 at 20:38
Would your name be Simpson by any chance?

Reply Posted by Angry resident on Friday April 1 2011 at 20:38
Would your name be Simpson by any chance?

Reply Posted by Bella. on Friday April 1 2011 at 20:58
The people at the meeting all live in Pogmoor and are entitled to a voice in this matter. Also the residents who live on West road do not want a gypsy site there and I know quite a few of them.

Reply Posted by Bella_49 on Friday April 1 2011 at 21:12
There seems to be a thread of post over the past few days all call for this 'mixed use site'. I may be cynical but, an awful lot of people seem to be using this pharase which Miss Simpson uses to describe what she, Mr Simpson and Mr Lycett propose as the other option for the land.

Reply Posted by claire p on Saturday April 2 2011 at 14:34
I have looked at the application and it is called 'a full application' not outline and I have asked those in the planning department who say that they would not need any further application at all to use the site if it were given permission. I asked about the appeal that it takes of in the application and was also informed by planning department that they did loose an appeal in the high court because they have not been providing enough spaces for gypsies and that they would be likely to loose again.

I have been and spoken to Mr Lycett and asked him what it is all about, he told me that he had become fed up because there is a woman that has been trying to put some type of deal together for all the area and that it was taking a really long time and he has been offered £50,000 per plot if they are big plots to sell them to the gypsies because the man that wants to buy it says that he can sell them on to gypsies from Doncaster, in Doncaster apparently there are not enough plots left and they are bringing even more money.

In reply to 'Living Close to the site' I too saw some gypsy looking folk up there last week and think you are right, they could just move on to the land - I asked the woman in planning what would happen if they did that and she said it would be enforcement and that the council was most liikely loose on appeal because the travellers could claim a breach of human rights and then refer to the high court case that the council lost.

I dont like the idea of it but I think we may be stuck with the gypsies regardless. I agree with the comment about the council trying to stop something that will bring jobs and social / priate houseing and the other stuff - the council are not providing it so wouldn't it make sense if someone else is prepared to do it to let them rather than trying to block what sounds to be a fairly good idea.

Reply Posted by Sheliart on Saturday April 2 2011 at 14:44
Everyone keeps on about this other use, but I have not had a letter about it. Am I right in my understanding that there has been an application that has a crech, carehome and houses? - The council wont tell me anything about that, with reading the post on here i am not sure way everyone is getting up tight about the other application that no one has seen yet. Have you seen the plans? Because the threads on here say that the other use would cover an area much bigger area than the gypsy camp. Would that not mean that there would be a gypsy camp in the middle of the other development ?

Reply Posted by CHERYL on Wednesday April 6 2011 at 14:37
Whats wrong with travellers moving in!! i think it's disgusting that so many people are against it! why can't they have somewhere that is a permanent place to live! The way forward is to bring different communities together and create more diversity in barnsley, i would personally much prefer to have a permanent travellers site than another lot of of thrown up ben bailey houses in Barnsley.

Reply Posted by Toby on Friday April 8 2011 at 14:25
I've read through a few of the comments and i'm afraid to say that I think i've just wet myself.

First there is Cheryl who thinks it is disgusting that TRAVELLERS haven't got a PERMANENT home and asks why this is. Perhaps Cheryl it is because they would not be travelling if they lived in a permanent home. Just a thought.

Then we have 'people' saying that people need to support the next application that comes along for the land but only if that application is for houses because otherwise the travellers will move in anyway which nobody wants. Industrial use of the land wouldn't be good for these people though, oh no, only housing applications and we all NEED to support them. Now i'm not wishing to make accusations but hypothetically speaking that sounds very much like what I imagine a land owner who has orchestrated the whole thing for his own gain would say.

Again hypothetically speaking, what I would do if I owned this land is I would put an application for something really bad in. Something which I know the local residents will hate. Then I would withdraw the application and stick a new application in for some houses and I would then start telling people 'oh look, you really should support my housing application because if not the travellers might move in. These houses would stop the travellers'. I might even post these comments under another name on the internet...

hypothetically of course...

Reply Posted by guest on Monday April 11 2011 at 21:26
Just a suggestion, but rather than everyone is the town saying what they think should go on that land, wouldn't it be an idea to ask the people on West Road, Cresswell St, and The Lindales what they would like to be next to, these are the people who live there and are affected the most. My aunty is one of the closest to that land and she doesn't want the gypsies nor does she want any industrial any more. I really dont get what the problem is if people are saying that they want some houses on it. Lets face it do you want to leave near other houses or live near a scrap yard, gypsy site or an area that is being excavated (the bottom yard on there has been a right pain in the bum since they started about 2 years ago).

Reply Posted by Al on Wednesday May 4 2011 at 18:53
Hi Toby - have you noticed that the applications for the gypsy site and the latest 3 applications were prepared in the same offices in Sheffield, by the same company (Coda). A bit of a coincedence don''t you think. Also the facts contained in the applications are not entirely true - the application for site B by Mrs Simpson certainly contains, shall we say 'errors'.

Reply Posted by WAB-Nicky on Friday May 6 2011 at 09:14
New plans have been submitted to @barnsleycouncil:twitter regarding West Road, Pogmoor. Details here http://www.wearebarnsley.com/2011/05/06/new-plan-for-pogmoor-the-land-that-time-forgot/

Reply Posted by Nicky on Friday May 6 2011 at 09:16

Reply Posted by Michael Clay on Wednesday January 11 2012 at 17:13
What problem are travellers? from every walk of life there are a few bad apples but to tar everyone with the same brush is the last form of so called acceptable racisim.

If they where to build houses there, and a few rough families moved in them, what would you do then? move? or put up with it.  As soon as the word gypsy is mentioned its always doom and gloom.

Reply Posted by Wild Bill on Thursday December 22 2016 at 15:03
They should pay there way and buy there own land like the rest of the population. If i say paying my mortgage is against my culture will the bank give me the house? No