Summer site for travellers to open within a week

Summer site for travellers to open within a week

MOVING ON: The new site at Piddlehinton

Peter Finney

David Mannings

First published in News
Last updated
Dorset Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Trainee Reporter

A SUMMER-ONLY site for travellers in Dorset is set to open within a week.

It will give authorities more powers when dealing with travelling groups as they will now be able to direct them to the site at Piddlehinton.

The announcement comes days after a group of travellers set up an unauthorised camp on Weymouth’s park and ride site at Mount Pleasant.

The group has now left and ‘hasn’t settled anywhere else in Dorset,’ the county council said.

The authority came in for criticism last week over how it dealt with the situation, allowing the group to stay for a week.

County councillor for Westham David Harris said it was ‘frustrating’ and added ‘if I parked there for a week without a ticket I’d expect a heavy fine.’ DCC said it had received no reports of litter in the wake of the travellers at Mount Pleasant.

The council’s planning committee gave permission for the temporary transit site at Piddlehin-ton last month.

It said the site, which is close to the business park, would only be given the go-ahead if CCTV cameras were bought and installed and the site will be operational once 24-hour security is provided.

The cameras are being put up at the entrance to the business park to give reassurance to firms.

The site was used during the 2012 Olympic sailing events and will have pitches for 25 caravans with access to toilet facilities and fresh water.

The site will be open between March and August each year.

Cabinet Member for Environment Peter Finney said: “It’s a real step forward that we’re able to open this site and provide somewhere for gypsies and travellers to make temporary stops.

“We are the first authority in wider Dorset to provide a site like this.”

He added: “This is an emotive issue on both sides but, as we saw during the Olympics, having a designated site allows us to manage any issues which arise more quickly and efficiently.”

Without a transit site, councils need to seek a court order to move people on from unauthorised camps, which can take some time.

County councillor David Man-nings, who represents Lodmoor, said the temporary traveller site was very good news.

He said: “The police are able to move them on now.

“We hope we won’t get them staying here anymore.

“It’s got 24-hour security. By next week it should all be okay.

“Myself and another councillor were insistent on it to make sure it’s secure for residents.”

Meanwhile, county councillor David Harris who represents Westham, said: “What happened here in Weymouth was a little bit of a stimulus and they are making progress.

“I’m looking forward to when the site opens officially.”

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:52am Wed 11 Jun 14

islandman says...

CCTV to ensure no unwanted visitors to their site, possibly free skip for their rubbish, I have to pay £40 for garden waste removal, that seems about right.
CCTV to ensure no unwanted visitors to their site, possibly free skip for their rubbish, I have to pay £40 for garden waste removal, that seems about right. islandman
  • Score: 11

7:13am Wed 11 Jun 14

MrTomSmith says...

Shakes in disbelief, well David Mannings when I am voting in Lodmoor the chances of you getting my vote is zero and I am going to remind everyone that you think these sites are a good idea as well. Don't worry I won't forget.
Shakes in disbelief, well David Mannings when I am voting in Lodmoor the chances of you getting my vote is zero and I am going to remind everyone that you think these sites are a good idea as well. Don't worry I won't forget. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 1

8:05am Wed 11 Jun 14

arlbergbahn says...

If they mean that they can legitimately direct them to these sites rather than turn a blind eye to them occupying car parks for weeks, surely it is a good idea?
If they mean that they can legitimately direct them to these sites rather than turn a blind eye to them occupying car parks for weeks, surely it is a good idea? arlbergbahn
  • Score: 13

8:50am Wed 11 Jun 14

Rocksalt says...

arlbergbahn wrote:
If they mean that they can legitimately direct them to these sites rather than turn a blind eye to them occupying car parks for weeks, surely it is a good idea?
I agree, it's a pragmatic solution given the starting point. That said, I would still expect a small charge to be made for the water and toilets etc for a sum similar to what people would pay on any camp site.
[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote: If they mean that they can legitimately direct them to these sites rather than turn a blind eye to them occupying car parks for weeks, surely it is a good idea?[/p][/quote]I agree, it's a pragmatic solution given the starting point. That said, I would still expect a small charge to be made for the water and toilets etc for a sum similar to what people would pay on any camp site. Rocksalt
  • Score: 18

9:21am Wed 11 Jun 14

marabout says...

islandman wrote:
CCTV to ensure no unwanted visitors to their site, possibly free skip for their rubbish, I have to pay £40 for garden waste removal, that seems about right.
You don't have to pay £40 for garden waste removal.


You choose to pay £40 for garden waste removal.
[quote][p][bold]islandman[/bold] wrote: CCTV to ensure no unwanted visitors to their site, possibly free skip for their rubbish, I have to pay £40 for garden waste removal, that seems about right.[/p][/quote]You don't have to pay £40 for garden waste removal. You choose to pay £40 for garden waste removal. marabout
  • Score: 10

9:27am Wed 11 Jun 14

MrTomSmith says...

arlbergbahn wrote:
If they mean that they can legitimately direct them to these sites rather than turn a blind eye to them occupying car parks for weeks, surely it is a good idea?
"sites" it is site, which holds just 25 caravans. I suppose if you look at it in a positive way and say well that is 25 less caravans safe and secure and being well looked after then we are really on to a winner. But I think Its going to cost lots of money, and make no difference whatsoever.
Get tough keep moving them on, in no uncertain terms, and they will go somewhere else. NIMBY thank you.
[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote: If they mean that they can legitimately direct them to these sites rather than turn a blind eye to them occupying car parks for weeks, surely it is a good idea?[/p][/quote]"sites" it is site, which holds just 25 caravans. I suppose if you look at it in a positive way and say well that is 25 less caravans safe and secure and being well looked after then we are really on to a winner. But I think Its going to cost lots of money, and make no difference whatsoever. Get tough keep moving them on, in no uncertain terms, and they will go somewhere else. NIMBY thank you. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 3

9:37am Wed 11 Jun 14

arlbergbahn says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
arlbergbahn wrote:
If they mean that they can legitimately direct them to these sites rather than turn a blind eye to them occupying car parks for weeks, surely it is a good idea?
"sites" it is site, which holds just 25 caravans. I suppose if you look at it in a positive way and say well that is 25 less caravans safe and secure and being well looked after then we are really on to a winner. But I think Its going to cost lots of money, and make no difference whatsoever.
Get tough keep moving them on, in no uncertain terms, and they will go somewhere else. NIMBY thank you.
Just keep shoving it on so it's somebody else's problem.
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote: If they mean that they can legitimately direct them to these sites rather than turn a blind eye to them occupying car parks for weeks, surely it is a good idea?[/p][/quote]"sites" it is site, which holds just 25 caravans. I suppose if you look at it in a positive way and say well that is 25 less caravans safe and secure and being well looked after then we are really on to a winner. But I think Its going to cost lots of money, and make no difference whatsoever. Get tough keep moving them on, in no uncertain terms, and they will go somewhere else. NIMBY thank you.[/p][/quote]Just keep shoving it on so it's somebody else's problem. arlbergbahn
  • Score: 6

10:07am Wed 11 Jun 14

MrTomSmith says...

Yes correct.
Yes correct. MrTomSmith
  • Score: -1

10:08am Wed 11 Jun 14

bargain price says...

it sounds get them out of my weymouth I don't care were as long as it's not in my way. I feel for people at Piddlehinton
it sounds get them out of my weymouth I don't care were as long as it's not in my way. I feel for people at Piddlehinton bargain price
  • Score: 7

10:56am Wed 11 Jun 14

elloello1980 says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Yes correct.
and that is one of many reasons why the only power you hold to change anything, is the right to one vote (and the pointless comments on this site) :)
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Yes correct.[/p][/quote]and that is one of many reasons why the only power you hold to change anything, is the right to one vote (and the pointless comments on this site) :) elloello1980
  • Score: -6

12:13pm Wed 11 Jun 14

MrTomSmith says...

bargain price wrote:
it sounds get them out of my weymouth I don't care were as long as it's not in my way. I feel for people at Piddlehinton
Yes it does sound like that, because it is that. But I do feel very sorry for the people of Piddlehinton as well, that is a possible you know. I wouldn't wish this on any community, so it just goes to prove this is not the answer.
[quote][p][bold]bargain price[/bold] wrote: it sounds get them out of my weymouth I don't care were as long as it's not in my way. I feel for people at Piddlehinton[/p][/quote]Yes it does sound like that, because it is that. But I do feel very sorry for the people of Piddlehinton as well, that is a possible you know. I wouldn't wish this on any community, so it just goes to prove this is not the answer. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 7

12:19pm Wed 11 Jun 14

MrTomSmith says...

elloello1980 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Yes correct.
and that is one of many reasons why the only power you hold to change anything, is the right to one vote (and the pointless comments on this site) :)
Yes same as yours. But pointless having the comments section if we can't comment without a sensible debate. I am more than aware that pushing the problem on, is not the answer. But I don't think building this very small temporary site is going to make any difference whatsoever. Well yes it will, sorry it will move 25 caravans. Thats so much heartache and expense for very little payback. Getting tough is the only thing I can come up with. Thats my view anyway, speak to you all when the next problem comes along you want me to solve.
[quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Yes correct.[/p][/quote]and that is one of many reasons why the only power you hold to change anything, is the right to one vote (and the pointless comments on this site) :)[/p][/quote]Yes same as yours. But pointless having the comments section if we can't comment without a sensible debate. I am more than aware that pushing the problem on, is not the answer. But I don't think building this very small temporary site is going to make any difference whatsoever. Well yes it will, sorry it will move 25 caravans. Thats so much heartache and expense for very little payback. Getting tough is the only thing I can come up with. Thats my view anyway, speak to you all when the next problem comes along you want me to solve. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 3

12:28pm Wed 11 Jun 14

elloello1980 says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Yes correct.
and that is one of many reasons why the only power you hold to change anything, is the right to one vote (and the pointless comments on this site) :)
Yes same as yours. But pointless having the comments section if we can't comment without a sensible debate. I am more than aware that pushing the problem on, is not the answer. But I don't think building this very small temporary site is going to make any difference whatsoever. Well yes it will, sorry it will move 25 caravans. Thats so much heartache and expense for very little payback. Getting tough is the only thing I can come up with. Thats my view anyway, speak to you all when the next problem comes along you want me to solve.
I agree, we need to get tough. I take my hat off to the "travellers" for being the type to put the middle finger up to the gov. Imagine the power of the nation all doing that...

I'm fortunate enough to not live by here, but I do feel for residents around these sites.

Our council need to look at Poole. Just say no, we are not accepting it under such terms. if these sites were to generate revenue to cover the costs (including security, which I back), then I'm sure taxpayers would be less hateful towards these groups
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Yes correct.[/p][/quote]and that is one of many reasons why the only power you hold to change anything, is the right to one vote (and the pointless comments on this site) :)[/p][/quote]Yes same as yours. But pointless having the comments section if we can't comment without a sensible debate. I am more than aware that pushing the problem on, is not the answer. But I don't think building this very small temporary site is going to make any difference whatsoever. Well yes it will, sorry it will move 25 caravans. Thats so much heartache and expense for very little payback. Getting tough is the only thing I can come up with. Thats my view anyway, speak to you all when the next problem comes along you want me to solve.[/p][/quote]I agree, we need to get tough. I take my hat off to the "travellers" for being the type to put the middle finger up to the gov. Imagine the power of the nation all doing that... I'm fortunate enough to not live by here, but I do feel for residents around these sites. Our council need to look at Poole. Just say no, we are not accepting it under such terms. if these sites were to generate revenue to cover the costs (including security, which I back), then I'm sure taxpayers would be less hateful towards these groups elloello1980
  • Score: -7

12:29pm Wed 11 Jun 14

elloello1980 says...

elloello1980 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Yes correct.
and that is one of many reasons why the only power you hold to change anything, is the right to one vote (and the pointless comments on this site) :)
Yes same as yours. But pointless having the comments section if we can't comment without a sensible debate. I am more than aware that pushing the problem on, is not the answer. But I don't think building this very small temporary site is going to make any difference whatsoever. Well yes it will, sorry it will move 25 caravans. Thats so much heartache and expense for very little payback. Getting tough is the only thing I can come up with. Thats my view anyway, speak to you all when the next problem comes along you want me to solve.
I agree, we need to get tough. I take my hat off to the "travellers" for being the type to put the middle finger up to the gov. Imagine the power of the nation all doing that...

I'm fortunate enough to not live by here, but I do feel for residents around these sites.

Our council need to look at Poole. Just say no, we are not accepting it under such terms. if these sites were to generate revenue to cover the costs (including security, which I back), then I'm sure taxpayers would be less hateful towards these groups
*I'm fortunate enough to not live by there (as in this site)
[quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Yes correct.[/p][/quote]and that is one of many reasons why the only power you hold to change anything, is the right to one vote (and the pointless comments on this site) :)[/p][/quote]Yes same as yours. But pointless having the comments section if we can't comment without a sensible debate. I am more than aware that pushing the problem on, is not the answer. But I don't think building this very small temporary site is going to make any difference whatsoever. Well yes it will, sorry it will move 25 caravans. Thats so much heartache and expense for very little payback. Getting tough is the only thing I can come up with. Thats my view anyway, speak to you all when the next problem comes along you want me to solve.[/p][/quote]I agree, we need to get tough. I take my hat off to the "travellers" for being the type to put the middle finger up to the gov. Imagine the power of the nation all doing that... I'm fortunate enough to not live by here, but I do feel for residents around these sites. Our council need to look at Poole. Just say no, we are not accepting it under such terms. if these sites were to generate revenue to cover the costs (including security, which I back), then I'm sure taxpayers would be less hateful towards these groups[/p][/quote]*I'm fortunate enough to not live by there (as in this site) elloello1980
  • Score: -6

12:40pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Under35andout says...

they just started trouble and now they have to police it
they just started trouble and now they have to police it Under35andout
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Under35andout says...

“We hope we won’t get them staying here anymore.
ever heard the phrase do what we likies
they will use that space up
they will come back to town cause its easier to walk to mc donalds and the cinema
police will end up not even going into the site
its just like the asda roundabout might as well bring that up
i dont care im leaving soon
“We hope we won’t get them staying here anymore. ever heard the phrase do what we likies they will use that space up they will come back to town cause its easier to walk to mc donalds and the cinema police will end up not even going into the site its just like the asda roundabout might as well bring that up i dont care im leaving soon Under35andout
  • Score: -3

2:09pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Newground says...

Can anyone stay on this proposed new site?

Do you have to be a registered 'traveller'? A special licence?

Or can Mr and Mrs Miggins just turn up?
Can anyone stay on this proposed new site? Do you have to be a registered 'traveller'? A special licence? Or can Mr and Mrs Miggins just turn up? Newground
  • Score: 7

3:52pm Wed 11 Jun 14

elloello1980 says...

elloello1980 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Yes correct.
and that is one of many reasons why the only power you hold to change anything, is the right to one vote (and the pointless comments on this site) :)
Yes same as yours. But pointless having the comments section if we can't comment without a sensible debate. I am more than aware that pushing the problem on, is not the answer. But I don't think building this very small temporary site is going to make any difference whatsoever. Well yes it will, sorry it will move 25 caravans. Thats so much heartache and expense for very little payback. Getting tough is the only thing I can come up with. Thats my view anyway, speak to you all when the next problem comes along you want me to solve.
I agree, we need to get tough. I take my hat off to the "travellers" for being the type to put the middle finger up to the gov. Imagine the power of the nation all doing that...

I'm fortunate enough to not live by here, but I do feel for residents around these sites.

Our council need to look at Poole. Just say no, we are not accepting it under such terms. if these sites were to generate revenue to cover the costs (including security, which I back), then I'm sure taxpayers would be less hateful towards these groups
oh, mr numerous account holder has been back ;)

first comment going from +4 to -5 in a few minutes (and over 4 hours since I poster).

I wish I had as much free time as you :)
[quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Yes correct.[/p][/quote]and that is one of many reasons why the only power you hold to change anything, is the right to one vote (and the pointless comments on this site) :)[/p][/quote]Yes same as yours. But pointless having the comments section if we can't comment without a sensible debate. I am more than aware that pushing the problem on, is not the answer. But I don't think building this very small temporary site is going to make any difference whatsoever. Well yes it will, sorry it will move 25 caravans. Thats so much heartache and expense for very little payback. Getting tough is the only thing I can come up with. Thats my view anyway, speak to you all when the next problem comes along you want me to solve.[/p][/quote]I agree, we need to get tough. I take my hat off to the "travellers" for being the type to put the middle finger up to the gov. Imagine the power of the nation all doing that... I'm fortunate enough to not live by here, but I do feel for residents around these sites. Our council need to look at Poole. Just say no, we are not accepting it under such terms. if these sites were to generate revenue to cover the costs (including security, which I back), then I'm sure taxpayers would be less hateful towards these groups[/p][/quote]oh, mr numerous account holder has been back ;) first comment going from +4 to -5 in a few minutes (and over 4 hours since I poster). I wish I had as much free time as you :) elloello1980
  • Score: -9

3:54pm Wed 11 Jun 14

shy talk says...

Does this mean that instead of the authorities using the velvet glove when dealing with “Travellers” Now we have a designated site the iron fist can be used to move them on from unauthorised sites? Something tells me, I think not and I would like to be proved wrong.
Does this mean that instead of the authorities using the velvet glove when dealing with “Travellers” Now we have a designated site the iron fist can be used to move them on from unauthorised sites? Something tells me, I think not and I would like to be proved wrong. shy talk
  • Score: 4

4:43pm Wed 11 Jun 14

MaidofDorset says...

Perhaps the council would like to pay foe night-time security on the nearby trading estate. I feel for all the small traders who struggle to survive in the present climate who now have new neighbours.
Perhaps the council would like to pay foe night-time security on the nearby trading estate. I feel for all the small traders who struggle to survive in the present climate who now have new neighbours. MaidofDorset
  • Score: 4

10:10am Fri 13 Jun 14

cj07589 says...

marabout wrote:
islandman wrote:
CCTV to ensure no unwanted visitors to their site, possibly free skip for their rubbish, I have to pay £40 for garden waste removal, that seems about right.
You don't have to pay £40 for garden waste removal.


You choose to pay £40 for garden waste removal.
True, I suppose he could always dump it on a country lane somewhere for someone else to cleanup like the riff raft do. Level playing field yeah right.......
[quote][p][bold]marabout[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]islandman[/bold] wrote: CCTV to ensure no unwanted visitors to their site, possibly free skip for their rubbish, I have to pay £40 for garden waste removal, that seems about right.[/p][/quote]You don't have to pay £40 for garden waste removal. You choose to pay £40 for garden waste removal.[/p][/quote]True, I suppose he could always dump it on a country lane somewhere for someone else to cleanup like the riff raft do. Level playing field yeah right....... cj07589
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree