Update: Skelsmergh 'shanty town' residents vow to stay put after judge rules eco-lodges must go (From The Westmorland Gazette)

REALLY? This is a shocking decision!

"All they want is somewhere they can afford, somewhere they can call home in the community where they live", Our local MP was quoted as saying a couple of weeks ago.
Where does he stand on this issue? His fellow LibDems on SLDC have certainly spent a great deal of time and council tax payers money making sure that these people don't have somewhere they can afford, or was it just a power thing.
We know that SLDC can't pass wind without his approval, so where does he stand?

onelocal wrote:
"All they want is somewhere they can afford, somewhere they can call home in the community where they live", Our local MP was quoted as saying a couple of weeks ago.
Where does he stand on this issue? His fellow LibDems on SLDC have certainly spent a great deal of time and council tax payers money making sure that these people don't have somewhere they can afford, or was it just a power thing.
We know that SLDC can't pass wind without his approval, so where does he stand?

Have you asked him? For once we might be in agreement. This is a bad decision by the council.

onelocal wrote:
"All they want is somewhere they can afford, somewhere they can call home in the community where they live", Our local MP was quoted as saying a couple of weeks ago.
Where does he stand on this issue? His fellow LibDems on SLDC have certainly spent a great deal of time and council tax payers money making sure that these people don't have somewhere they can afford, or was it just a power thing.
We know that SLDC can't pass wind without his approval, so where does he stand?

Have you asked him? For once we might be in agreement. This is a bad decision by the council.

Disgraceful, where do they expect these people to go? Well, obviously Judge Peter Hughes doesn't give a **** what happens to the residents, just as long as the law is being obeyed. I hope he can live with himself knowing he is effectively throwing people onto the streets. What a tosser.

@Onelocal - that's a cheap point. This story doesnt mention Tim and if it did helvellyn55 would be in here saying 'Why is Tim commenting?' This is nothing to do with him.

I think the only people at fault are the council and the judge. The judge said people would be ‘adversely affected’ - that is awful and he should hang his head in shame!

Pete Renwick wrote:
@Onelocal - that's a cheap point. This story doesnt mention Tim and if it did helvellyn55 would be in here saying 'Why is Tim commenting?' This is nothing to do with him.

I think the only people at fault are the council and the judge. The judge said people would be ‘adversely affected’ - that is awful and he should hang his head in shame!

Not a cheap point at all. Our local MP involves himself in pretty much all local issues. He is very closely involved in what the local council do, to the extent that his staff actively support the councillors' election campaigns. I have no problem with that.
He has made his views on poverty, homelessness and community well known through the pages of this newspaper and the national press.
I just wondered what his views on this long running unfortunate issue are and whether he supports the local councillors, who should also hang their heads in shame.
I suspect you are being more sensitive on this than our MP.

onelocal wrote:

Pete Renwick wrote:
@Onelocal - that's a cheap point. This story doesnt mention Tim and if it did helvellyn55 would be in here saying 'Why is Tim commenting?' This is nothing to do with him.

I think the only people at fault are the council and the judge. The judge said people would be ‘adversely affected’ - that is awful and he should hang his head in shame!

Not a cheap point at all. Our local MP involves himself in pretty much all local issues. He is very closely involved in what the local council do, to the extent that his staff actively support the councillors' election campaigns. I have no problem with that.
He has made his views on poverty, homelessness and community well known through the pages of this newspaper and the national press.
I just wondered what his views on this long running unfortunate issue are and whether he supports the local councillors, who should also hang their heads in shame.
I suspect you are being more sensitive on this than our MP.

Have you asked him? Drop him an email then.

But for my 2p worth...this is the council's fault.

This is a very depressing outcome to the case. My thoughts are with those being evicted. I personally know some of the residents there and I think it's a very bad decision by the council to take this action.

The story is just ridiculous. Simply ridiculous. Hard working people are being turfed out of their homes just because of not having planning permission on their small country dwellings. Actually no, hard working people WITH young children. If I were the council, I wouldn't bother. Yes, they have to uphold laws and regulations but surely there are much more time-worthy cases to be fought?

The story is just ridiculous. Simply ridiculous. Hard working people are being turfed out of their homes just because of not having planning permission on their small country dwellings. Actually no, hard working people WITH young children. If I were the council, I wouldn't bother. Yes, they have to uphold laws and regulations but surely there are much more time-worthy cases to be fought?

maybe some of the powers that be on the council, especially those with second homes worth in excess of x ammount could give one of their homes up or sell it at an affordable price to one of the evicted tennants. i doubt it though- let them eat cake

This is downright appalling. I support these fine folk entirely - back in my day, we stood together and fought against those who threatened our homes, our livelihoods. It disgusts me that these so-called councils, who are supposed to protect and support citizens, are turning innocent people out of their homes. Good on em, for standing up to these scoundrels. I personally have a close friend who lives there - a fine Mr Buxton, been close since we were young lads - and it's downright frustrating to think that this honourable gentleman and his lovely family, and everyone else there, may be so cold-heartedly evicted. Codswallop, I say. F*** the council.

I went out and looked at this site in the summer and found it to be almost a model for attractive low key rural development. Sure there were problems but none that could not be overcome with goodwill and imagination.

Compare this with your average unthinking speculative development.

South Lakeland District Council should be ashamed.

Did I miss something, wasn't a law broken here.

Is everyone complaining here happy for planning rules not to be followed, would that be a good thing?

Being one of ‘those’ people from the ‘shanty town’, I would like to say how refreshing and heart-warming it is to read such positive comments and give a gargantuan round of applause to those with the human decency, now sadly lacking amongst many, that did so! SLDC may feel victorious about winning but it’s a shame it wasn’t won on the grounds of professionalism, competence or ethics, as it couldn’t be further from the truth! We won the last case due to their incompetence but what isn’t common knowledge is that when SLDC took us back to court under a different guise, their case was so poor with much legality being ignored that they had a resounding telling-off by the presiding Judge who proceeded to give them further directions on what they should have done, resulting in another court hearing. The legal ‘omissions’ by SLDC were many, and in other cases had been instantly thrown out on one point alone. We were then given another date to resubmit our defence, likewise for SLDC, which we did. However, attending court yesterday, 3rd October 2012, we found that the time had been altered, the Judge who was meant to be hearing the case, the one to give directives to SLDC, had been changed last minute and this time there was a barrister to hold the hand of the solicitor whilst knowing we had no legal representative. This was nothing to what came next; the judge declared he had not received our defence at which point SLDC piped up that nor had they. Our defence had ‘mysteriously’ disappeared; we explained to the Judge that we had receipts to prove that they had been submitted, just not with us in the court room. This crucial point was obviously irrelevant as the Judge continued anyway, us now having no defence whatsoever, no mention of an adjournment to enable us to track down our ‘missing’ defence so that we could simply defend ourselves, and SLDC won. The seriousness of being in breach of this injunction is imprisonment, disregarding this entirely and true to form, SLDC asked for the Judge to allow only 2 weeks for all families to be evicted, obviously being a ‘humane’ Judge - he gave 2 months. I, for one, would most certainly not call this justice! The right to a fair trial?, The right to defend yourself? Facing SLDC, forget it! I wouldn’t go as far as calling them corrupt… but if the cap fits! Lets hope its not a cold year for those of us with children!!

Lakeuk is correct, a law has been broken and the court has put that right. That is what happens in a law abiding, civilised country. We cannot pick and chose which laws we like and which we dont, not if we expect others to abide by the law of the land.
Further more, the residents have chosen to use the law for their own purpose- looking to exploit loop holes and expose techinal legal errors made by SLDC, but they complain when the same legal process rules against them.
Finally, will those who are outraged accept it when a traveller site opens up next to them or their neighbours erects a garage or fence without obtaining planning permission?

Lakeuk wrote:
Did I miss something, wasn't a law broken here. Is everyone complaining here happy for planning rules not to be followed, would that be a good thing?

Ok so planning laws were broken..... but how long have these dwellings been up? 20+ years? How many years have the residents been paying council tax? SLDC have been happy to take money from these people, why, if these dwellings should not have been there in the first place.
This is nothing but victimisation. Shame on SLDC and the legal system.
On another note, I am disgusted with the way the so called reporters from this esteemed rag keep on using the phrase "shanty town". It's degrading and totally uncalled for.

Lakeuk wrote:
Did I miss something, wasn't a law broken here.

Is everyone complaining here happy for planning rules not to be followed, would that be a good thing?

If you care to do your research, I think you'll find no law was broken. There's a little thing called retrospective planning. In future, before making a negative comment, get clued up on what you're commenting on.

Also, no one has mentioned that by following what the judge has ruled, laws will have to be broken. If I'm not mistaken, there is protected wildlife in and around the site that will be disturbed and have there habitats destroyed. Yes, just caravans and buildings have to be demolished but don't bats make homes in buildings? And it's not exactly unlikely for debris from demolition to find its way into the nearby river, polluting it and endangering the protected crayfish. It's a bit ironic that to uphold laws, you break others.

Charliesharp1970 wrote:

Lakeuk wrote:
Did I miss something, wasn't a law broken here.

Is everyone complaining here happy for planning rules not to be followed, would that be a good thing?

If you care to do your research, I think you'll find no law was broken. There's a little thing called retrospective planning. In future, before making a negative comment, get clued up on what you're commenting on.

Also, no one has mentioned that by following what the judge has ruled, laws will have to be broken. If I'm not mistaken, there is protected wildlife in and around the site that will be disturbed and have there habitats destroyed. Yes, just caravans and buildings have to be demolished but don't bats make homes in buildings? And it's not exactly unlikely for debris from demolition to find its way into the nearby river, polluting it and endangering the protected crayfish. It's a bit ironic that to uphold laws, you break others.

If you carefully place some toxic waste in a river and then I spill it whilst trying to clean it up is that my fault or yours?
And if you did that 20 years ago does that mean you should be allowed to get away with it?

craggy wrote:

Charliesharp1970 wrote:

Lakeuk wrote:
Did I miss something, wasn't a law broken here.

Is everyone complaining here happy for planning rules not to be followed, would that be a good thing?

If you care to do your research, I think you'll find no law was broken. There's a little thing called retrospective planning. In future, before making a negative comment, get clued up on what you're commenting on.

Also, no one has mentioned that by following what the judge has ruled, laws will have to be broken. If I'm not mistaken, there is protected wildlife in and around the site that will be disturbed and have there habitats destroyed. Yes, just caravans and buildings have to be demolished but don't bats make homes in buildings? And it's not exactly unlikely for debris from demolition to find its way into the nearby river, polluting it and endangering the protected crayfish. It's a bit ironic that to uphold laws, you break others.

If you carefully place some toxic waste in a river and then I spill it whilst trying to clean it up is that my fault or yours?
And if you did that 20 years ago does that mean you should be allowed to get away with it?

I had much trouble trying to understand what you're actually trying to say. Is this a for instance or are you suggesting that Home house has done this? I don't understand what you're implying. Please explain what you mean.

Also I notice you didn't bring me up on the other points I raised eg; Destroying habitats and retrospective planning. Is this because I'm right and you're simply being petty?

Sounds a lovely place to live. I'd love it! Seriously though as long as they are paying their fair share of taxes then surely it's best to leave them alone.
Having said that if they are forced to leave please can they not expect to be rehomed somewhere rural and quiet. That isn't the councils responsibility. You get what you're given or find and pay for somewhere yourself.

i feel sorry for the folk who live there, but end of day no planning permission was allowed ,if you let mr steele get away with it then. anybody will be putting up sheds and here there and everywhere and renting them out ,another thing do to folk live there pay any council tax , dos the council empty bins . if so why has it taken so long to sort this out

lakesman wrote:
i feel sorry for the folk who live there, but end of day no planning permission was allowed ,if you let mr steele get away with it then. anybody will be putting up sheds and here there and everywhere and renting them out ,another thing do to folk live there pay any council tax , dos the council empty bins . if so why has it taken so long to sort this out

That is an interesting question and the answer is yes we all pay council tax, as have many previous residents over many years, as the council knows full well! I would also like to know why SLDC has taken so long to initiate any eviction proceedings? Particularly when planning permission was granted to 4 homes years ago, and they were on the grounds of 'grandfather rights'. Curiouser and curiouser!

"If Mr Steele does not comply with the order, an application will be made for contempt of court" an SLDC spokesman added.
I guess you only realize you have power when you start to abuse it. I would have hoped that those LibDem members who wear their religion on their sleeves for the rest of the year, would have taken a more charitable approach.
There is absolutely no reason retrospective planning with conditions couldn't have been granted.
But this became a "we will show them who is in charge, we will be obeyed" issue. Much like many other decisions the SLDC majority are implementing these days.

onelocal wrote:
"If Mr Steele does not comply with the order, an application will be made for contempt of court" an SLDC spokesman added.
I guess you only realize you have power when you start to abuse it. I would have hoped that those LibDem members who wear their religion on their sleeves for the rest of the year, would have taken a more charitable approach.
There is absolutely no reason retrospective planning with conditions couldn't have been granted.
But this became a "we will show them who is in charge, we will be obeyed" issue. Much like many other decisions the SLDC majority are implementing these days.

Well said.

I agree onelocal.
i think the planning laws in this country are pathetic,you should be allowed to dwell on agricultural land if you wish to, and have the freedom live in a ecologicaly freindly way.It strikes me that sldc has never considered the sustainable way thease people live,
I would sell my town house and move into the country if there were any afordable homes in cumbria,get a grip sldc.
cumbrian folk are proud of thier heratage, and are sick and tired of bieing kicked, will some one start a petition ,may be we can change the law?

colandvanfull wrote:
I agree onelocal.
i think the planning laws in this country are pathetic,you should be allowed to dwell on agricultural land if you wish to, and have the freedom live in a ecologicaly freindly way.It strikes me that sldc has never considered the sustainable way thease people live,
I would sell my town house and move into the country if there were any afordable homes in cumbria,get a grip sldc.
cumbrian folk are proud of thier heratage, and are sick and tired of bieing kicked, will some one start a petition ,may be we can change the law?

I completely agree with you. Because there is such a huge shortage of affordable homes nationwide, increasing daily, something has to give. This is all the more apparent in South Lakes due to so many second home owners. When will common sense kick in?

May I ask why 9 of the lodges are unoccupied? Have some people moved out because they fear eviction or are those lodges empty for a different reason?

It is disgraceful that SLDC are still spending public money persecuting this quiet community of householders just because they didn't get planning permission to build a few small eco-houses on private land. Edward Steele has created a model that the Council should be adopting to create the much needed affordable housing for local people, not allowing volume builders to eat up land to build highly visible, uniform housing that no-one is happy about. Why make the Skelsmergh residents homeless and then have to rehouse them, when they are perfectly happy with where they live?

SLDC are being far too harsh about this - it seems less about a breach of planning permission, which can always be bent when needed, than about targetting people who don't have the money to move elsewhere. Shameful conduct on SLDC's part, especially as it sounds as if they have played dirty and not allowed the residents a fair hearing in front of their regular judge for continuity of the case.

I am currently stuck in a chain where I have bought a house from someone who, through no fault of her own, now needs Council housing. The completion date has been moved back three times because there isn't anything available for her and her children, so where will the housing for the Skelsmergh residents come from?

This raises two different issues. Firstly, there is the inflexibility of the planning system with respect to low impact affordable / eco rural accommodation. With the increasing cost of homes, numbers of second homes and relatively low wages in the rural economy the planning system should allow these sorts of developments to occur. It is a pity that society is often very judgemental about how people choose to live. If SLDC (or any council) had sensible policies in relation to this sort of development, it would not necessarily mean that every field would have a shed or caravan in it, although there would undoubtedly be a lot more.

However, such eco developments should be carried out in a properly planned way, so the issues surrounding development whether multimillion pound eco “grand designs” mansion on the shore of Windermere or hacked up and bodged together caravans or yurts etc. on a secluded site are properly considered. Yes, it is possible to apply for planning permission retrospectively - and in this case I think it was and some caravans / lodges were retained under "firedup"’s “grandfather rights” if the retrospective application is turned down people should accept that and leave the land with good grace. If I understand this right the law that has been broken is not complying with the enforcement notice requiring the caravans and lodges to be removed.

The issues that have to be considered on this site include sewage – which is currently being discharged with next to no treatment into the River Sprint, (with its salmon and native crayfish and other wildlife and flood protection (pushing soil around to result in “home made” flood defences is not a safe solution). Of course a risk that if the lodges are not demolished carefully there will be pollution for a couple of weeks, but better than forever and a day…

The other issue is one of safety and of adequate housing. Too many people have been treated by dirt by landlords and provide with damp, dangerous or otherwise unacceptable accommodation. I am not suggesting for a minute that these lodges are, but there are laws about the standards of buildings for good reason. Would it be the Council of Mr Steele’s fault if a family, young child and all die of carbon monoxide because the stove gave off fumes without them realising?

There are no easy answers and rights and wrongs on both sides.

I have to agree with most of this - with good will on all sides? Would it not be better to spend the money likely to be involved in enforcement, restoration and further legal action on some sort of rational attempt to deal with the real situation on the ground?

As a former LibDem Chair of a Planning Committee, it seems to me that the way to deal with this matter - without creating a precedent - is to grant permission on a mix of agricultural & allied occupations conditions for the residents who qualify, and personal permissions for the remainder.

This would mean that as the residents moved on over time, the permissions would lapse & the lodges could be progressively removed, without the need to take away anyone's home.

This is the way we used to handle similar problems in Canterbury.

Can't really see any real harm with this development, by sorting out a few issues highlighted in the comments above.
I get it a feeling not in my back yard etc .
If planners and certain people off Skelsmergh have a closer look at their Parish there is a development / random buildings at the top off Skelsmergh where farm buildings have cavities walls and sky lights? Didn't see any plans for them!
Why just pick on one group?
SLDC planners get a grip. One rule for one another for some one else?

Billy Hughes wrote:
This raises two different issues. Firstly, there is the inflexibility of the planning system with respect to low impact affordable / eco rural accommodation. With the increasing cost of homes, numbers of second homes and relatively low wages in the rural economy the planning system should allow these sorts of developments to occur. It is a pity that society is often very judgemental about how people choose to live. If SLDC (or any council) had sensible policies in relation to this sort of development, it would not necessarily mean that every field would have a shed or caravan in it, although there would undoubtedly be a lot more.

However, such eco developments should be carried out in a properly planned way, so the issues surrounding development whether multimillion pound eco “grand designs” mansion on the shore of Windermere or hacked up and bodged together caravans or yurts etc. on a secluded site are properly considered. Yes, it is possible to apply for planning permission retrospectively - and in this case I think it was and some caravans / lodges were retained under "firedup"’s “grandfather rights” if the retrospective application is turned down people should accept that and leave the land with good grace. If I understand this right the law that has been broken is not complying with the enforcement notice requiring the caravans and lodges to be removed.

The issues that have to be considered on this site include sewage – which is currently being discharged with next to no treatment into the River Sprint, (with its salmon and native crayfish and other wildlife and flood protection (pushing soil around to result in “home made” flood defences is not a safe solution). Of course a risk that if the lodges are not demolished carefully there will be pollution for a couple of weeks, but better than forever and a day…

The other issue is one of safety and of adequate housing. Too many people have been treated by dirt by landlords and provide with damp, dangerous or otherwise unacceptable accommodation. I am not suggesting for a minute that these lodges are, but there are laws about the standards of buildings for good reason. Would it be the Council of Mr Steele’s fault if a family, young child and all die of carbon monoxide because the stove gave off fumes without them realising?

There are no easy answers and rights and wrongs on both sides.

If you have such great concerns for the River sprint and have strong evidence to back up your allegations, I suggest you report it to an environmental agency who would be very interested to know. Even though they have already done a report of their own, which lasted over two days in which an ecologist stayed in a tent next to the river sprint to do a thorough report. And their findings were that the site had no impact whatsoever on the river sprint and its wildlife, including the protected white claw crayfish. But what do they know? I'm sure you have damning evidence.

And IF you are "not suggesting for a minute that these lodges are" then why refer to it? What's the relevance of it to your argument? Your last paragraph is completely absurd and, I imagine, incredibly insulting to Mr Steele.

yes charlie, i think billy's coment was a bit strong towards the end, i dont mr steel would ever endanger the residents, in fact he must think a great deal of them to stand up to the system,
and as thease buildings have been slowly established over 20 or more years i think there has been a considerabe amount of PLANNING carried out on the estate,
just not with the knowlege planning authority,
the title of this article gives a clue to the type of development here
I still can't understand why planners are so against when the rest of the world is screaming about needing to live life in an ecologicalway and reducing our carbon foot print .

yes charlie, i think billy's coment was a bit strong towards the end, i dont mr steel would ever endanger the residents, in fact he must think a great deal of them to stand up to the system,
and as thease buildings have been slowly established over 20 or more years i think there has been a considerabe amount of PLANNING carried out on the estate,
just not with the knowlege planning authority,
the title of this article gives a clue to the type of development here
I still can't understand why planners are so against when the rest of the world is screaming about needing to live life in an ecologicalway and reducing our carbon foot print .