Permanent travellers sites could save cash, says council: Here's what YOU have to say

After councillors argued that finding necessary travellers sites across the Wakefield district could say money in the long run, readers took to Facebook to have their say.

By The Newsroom
Thursday, 6th December 2018, 10:08 am
Updated Thursday, 6th December 2018, 11:15 am

As we reported earlier this week, a new report put before Wakefield Council’s cabinet outlined the need for permanent pitches has leapt from 28 to 65, to be delivered over in the next five years.

The number needed by 2032 has also risen from 64 to 116 in the up-to-date assessment.

READ: Permanent travellers sites could save cash, council arguesCoun Denise Jeffery, deputy leader of the council says illegal encampments are “costing a fortune” to clear up, and earmarking new legal sites could help alleviate the problem. However, she admits the news is certain to worry residents.

Sign up to our daily Wakefield Express Today newsletter

And residents left their views on our Facebook page and the pages of local resident and community groups.

Christopher Hudson said: "We need schools, doctors, care for the elderly, social workers, affordable housing, a first class market area and sports stadium before any traveller sites!"

Feckley Felles agreed saying: Well said Christopher. There are far more important matters that need to be dealt with first."

Brenda Clapham said: "Yes, I agree 100%. After all We Pay Rates."

Richard Blackburn commented: "Are they travellers? Why would a traveller need a permanent site? Get a house like the rest of civilisation or keep travelling."

Hayley Tansley: "Isn’t the whole idea of being a traveller, the fact that they are nomadic in nature?"

Martin Figg said: " Contradicts the term Travellers surely. Why do they need a permanent place? If they want to set up home somewhere sell your caravans etc and get a house."

Alan Clark added: "The Clue is in the title, TRAVELLERS, let them travel it's their choice, stop trying to get them a permanent site when they want to live as TRAVELLERS...Do something for the people who vote for you or we will vote you out."

Becky Speight commented: "Out of all places to stop why would they choose Wakefield?"

Michael Briggs said: "Nobody helped me buy my home. Why should we pay for someone to live near us so they can devalue our properties? Is the council going to pay us compensation for this... I think not! Why don't they club together and buy their own land. I'm sick and tired of councils making their own bad decisions."

Chris Turner said: "Who’s gunna pay for the upkeep? Tax payers or tax dodgers?"

Carl Anderson added: " Not much chance of us getting a comunity stadium then but will probably see a few more traveller camps pop up."

Janet Davis said: "No problem of they pay council tax and utilities and look after their surroundings."

Vicky Baldwin commented: "The council need to be going round estates an do people for flytipping. One street, three people dumped sofa, washer and fridge freezer out side their home. I'm sure it's classed as flytipping. Streets look awful."

Rosie Pew said: "It will give people a legal place to live. Ensure they also pay council tax too."

Residents went on to comment on our story shared on the Stanley Residents Group on Facebook page:

Amanda Kettlewood said: "What I don't understand is travellers travel, right? So why do they need a permanent place? Isn't that why you rent or buy a house?"

Linda Anne added: "And when their extended family and friends come to visit they will pitch up where? I despair of politics and would like to know exactly who agreed a traveller site quota on our behalf? "

Nicola Sinclair said: "Here’s hoping the council step up to supply these sites in agreement with local communities."

Nina Brook commented: "Don’t see why they don’t extend Heath Common one if there is such a desperate need for more space."

And Ian Hoggan added: "Would like to see proposed site locations, and how many are near the affluent areas of Wakefield."