Hundreds gather to protest plans to build travellers' site near Heighington

9:34pm Wednesday 6th March 2013 in Darlington By Joanna Morris

SCORES OF protesters packed a public meeting to fight plans to build a travellers’ site close to a picturesque village.

Residents of Heighington, near Darlington, held the meeting tonight (Wednesday, March 6) to discuss controversial proposals to convert nearby fields.

Plans submitted to Darlington Borough Council in early February show how two fields on Walworth Road could be transformed to allow for the building of two mobile homes, two touring caravans, two amenity buildings, a septic tank and an access road.

There was standing room only at the meeting which was attended by around 200 people, including ward councillor Gerald Lee and Darlington Borough Council’s Principle Planning Officer, Dave Coates.

One local resident, who did not wish to be named, said: “We do not want this site at the end of our village. The roads are dangerous with a lot of traffic already and our facilities are overrun, the school is over-subscribed.

“People are concerned about the effect on the environment. Gypsies create an impact wherever they go. There are also concerns about crime as crime levels rise quite considerably in areas where they are.”

Mr Coates advised the crowd on how they could object to the proposals and responded to concerns about future policing of the site, increased traffic to the area and the potential impact on green field land.

Related links

He also stressed that any objections raised purely on the basis of residents not wanting travellers in the area would have to be ignored by the council.

“The council can only take into account objections based on generic material planning concerns," he said. "For people who don’t want Gypsies, that is an understandable feeling, which as a resident I can understand, but the planning process does not allow for that.

"We cannot make judgements about individuals be they black, white or Gypsy, we have to be quite specific when objecting. Setting out reasons to object on the grounds that you do not want Gypsies there will not carry any weight.”

More than 200 objections have already been lodged in response to the planning application.

What do you think? Leave a comment below about the plans.

Comments (27)

12:03am Thu 7 Mar 13

stevegg says...

NIMBYism at its finest! Let them be someone elses problem.
NIMBYism at its finest! Let them be someone elses problem. stevegg

1:03am Thu 7 Mar 13

steapuk says...

Gotta love the way people are prepared to chase away a friend they haven't even made yet just because his house has wheels. Yet the existing community will consist of fraudsters, poedophiles, rapists and thieves but all are accepted because their houses are made from bricks.

I'm guessing this family own the land too so they're not exactly hard up.
Gotta love the way people are prepared to chase away a friend they haven't even made yet just because his house has wheels. Yet the existing community will consist of fraudsters, poedophiles, rapists and thieves but all are accepted because their houses are made from bricks. I'm guessing this family own the land too so they're not exactly hard up. steapuk

7:33am Thu 7 Mar 13

Haighy says...

steapuk says...

"Gotta love the way people are prepared to chase away a friend they haven't even made yet just because his house has wheels. Yet the existing community will consist of fraudsters, poedophiles, rapists and thieves but all are accepted because their houses are made from bricks.

I'm guessing this family own the land too so they're not exactly hard up."

Steapuk have you got evidence? If you have I suggest you take it to the police or is this an unfounded assumption! I`m objecting to this development (which is my right) based on the fact it is green field land outside a beautiful village,who is applying is irrelevant! Incidentally there is a traveller family living in the village in a house.They are much respected and liked members of the community with by what I`ve witnessed have impeccable morals, so that statement is wrong! The only problem I have as regards the application being by a traveller is the fact that the planning office seem to have a policy for traveller planning that is differant to mine! When asked, a planning officer confirmed that as a house holder I would never be granted permission on green field land, I would call that positive discrimination, which surely is as bad as negative discrimination! Not that I would ever want to build a house on green field!
steapuk says... "Gotta love the way people are prepared to chase away a friend they haven't even made yet just because his house has wheels. Yet the existing community will consist of fraudsters, poedophiles, rapists and thieves but all are accepted because their houses are made from bricks. I'm guessing this family own the land too so they're not exactly hard up." Steapuk have you got evidence? If you have I suggest you take it to the police or is this an unfounded assumption! I`m objecting to this development (which is my right) based on the fact it is green field land outside a beautiful village,who is applying is irrelevant! Incidentally there is a traveller family living in the village in a house.They are much respected and liked members of the community with by what I`ve witnessed have impeccable morals, so that statement is wrong! The only problem I have as regards the application being by a traveller is the fact that the planning office seem to have a policy for traveller planning that is differant to mine! When asked, a planning officer confirmed that as a house holder I would never be granted permission on green field land, I would call that positive discrimination, which surely is as bad as negative discrimination! Not that I would ever want to build a house on green field! Haighy

9:00am Thu 7 Mar 13

D. Hop says...

Quote from article - " "For people who don’t want Gypsies, that is an understandable feeling, which as a resident I can understand, but the planning process does not allow for that."
So the problem is recognised, but ignored because it cannot be tackled as part of the planning process. It suggests something needs to change.
Quote from article - " "For people who don’t want Gypsies, that is an understandable feeling, which as a resident I can understand, but the planning process does not allow for that." So the problem is recognised, but ignored because it cannot be tackled as part of the planning process. It suggests something needs to change. D. Hop

9:35am Thu 7 Mar 13

Haighy says...

23.
Local planning authorities should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. Local planning authorities should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure.

That is section 23 of the government planning policy for traveller sites.Upon appeal permission was granted at Brafferton so if devlopment in open countryside is strictly limited, is this not enough in this area (Brafferton being only about 3 miles away). If the Heighington planning is granted my suspisions would be that this a money saving excercise on Darlington councils part, in that private individuals are meeting government targets by developing plots with their own money
23. Local planning authorities should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. Local planning authorities should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure. That is section 23 of the government planning policy for traveller sites.Upon appeal permission was granted at Brafferton so if devlopment in open countryside is strictly limited, is this not enough in this area (Brafferton being only about 3 miles away). If the Heighington planning is granted my suspisions would be that this a money saving excercise on Darlington councils part, in that private individuals are meeting government targets by developing plots with their own money Haighy

10:11am Thu 7 Mar 13

charliedarlo says...

Whenever there is an application to build a traveller site in the town, you get this sort of reaction. It borders on racism.

Would you get the same level of objection to developing a small development of executive housing? Answer: no.

Most of the objectors have probably never taken the opportunity to get to know people from the travelling community. Yes they have their own culture and way of life, but that doesn't mean they can't live in the community. The vast majority of them are decent, hardworking people.
Whenever there is an application to build a traveller site in the town, you get this sort of reaction. It borders on racism. Would you get the same level of objection to developing a small development of executive housing? Answer: no. Most of the objectors have probably never taken the opportunity to get to know people from the travelling community. Yes they have their own culture and way of life, but that doesn't mean they can't live in the community. The vast majority of them are decent, hardworking people. charliedarlo

11:03am Thu 7 Mar 13

Haighy says...

charliedarlo wrote:
Whenever there is an application to build a traveller site in the town, you get this sort of reaction. It borders on racism. Would you get the same level of objection to developing a small development of executive housing? Answer: no. Most of the objectors have probably never taken the opportunity to get to know people from the travelling community. Yes they have their own culture and way of life, but that doesn't mean they can't live in the community. The vast majority of them are decent, hardworking people.
Can you please highlight who has posted a comment that is bordering on racist. I think you would find the villagers of Heighington would/have protested just as strongly to a housing development. Most of the objectors do know and respect a traveller that lives in the village as I posted earlier on. Maybe if you took the opportunity to get to know the residents of any area and then you may understand why they react in such a manner, as it is all an unknown.
[quote][p][bold]charliedarlo[/bold] wrote: Whenever there is an application to build a traveller site in the town, you get this sort of reaction. It borders on racism. Would you get the same level of objection to developing a small development of executive housing? Answer: no. Most of the objectors have probably never taken the opportunity to get to know people from the travelling community. Yes they have their own culture and way of life, but that doesn't mean they can't live in the community. The vast majority of them are decent, hardworking people.[/p][/quote]Can you please highlight who has posted a comment that is bordering on racist. I think you would find the villagers of Heighington would/have protested just as strongly to a housing development. Most of the objectors do know and respect a traveller that lives in the village as I posted earlier on. Maybe if you took the opportunity to get to know the residents of any area and then you may understand why they react in such a manner, as it is all an unknown. Haighy

11:37am Thu 7 Mar 13

Employed Tax Payer, Central Darlo says...

A bunch of villagers who live in a nice village and don't want it extended in any way, be it executive homes or traveller sites. Surely that's fair enough?
A bunch of villagers who live in a nice village and don't want it extended in any way, be it executive homes or traveller sites. Surely that's fair enough? Employed Tax Payer, Central Darlo

1:03pm Thu 7 Mar 13

behonest says...

charliedarlo wrote:
Whenever there is an application to build a traveller site in the town, you get this sort of reaction. It borders on racism.

Would you get the same level of objection to developing a small development of executive housing? Answer: no.

Most of the objectors have probably never taken the opportunity to get to know people from the travelling community. Yes they have their own culture and way of life, but that doesn't mean they can't live in the community. The vast majority of them are decent, hardworking people.
No, it just means that the majority of people in settled communities don't want a site full of travellers next to them. Nothing wrong with that, why should they be forced to accept it?

And why should they take 'the opportunity' to get to know travellers? If they don't want to, or are not interested, then there is nothing wrong with that too. In the same way that most travellers are not interested in getting to know settled communities either.

Keep throwing the term 'racist' around by all means, it all helps to make the term meaningless.
[quote][p][bold]charliedarlo[/bold] wrote: Whenever there is an application to build a traveller site in the town, you get this sort of reaction. It borders on racism. Would you get the same level of objection to developing a small development of executive housing? Answer: no. Most of the objectors have probably never taken the opportunity to get to know people from the travelling community. Yes they have their own culture and way of life, but that doesn't mean they can't live in the community. The vast majority of them are decent, hardworking people.[/p][/quote]No, it just means that the majority of people in settled communities don't want a site full of travellers next to them. Nothing wrong with that, why should they be forced to accept it? And why should they take 'the opportunity' to get to know travellers? If they don't want to, or are not interested, then there is nothing wrong with that too. In the same way that most travellers are not interested in getting to know settled communities either. Keep throwing the term 'racist' around by all means, it all helps to make the term meaningless. behonest

1:21pm Thu 7 Mar 13

D. Hop says...

Some people have had the opportunity, and have formed an opinion based on their findings. There's no smoke without fire.
Some people have had the opportunity, and have formed an opinion based on their findings. There's no smoke without fire. D. Hop

4:22pm Thu 7 Mar 13

freelance says...

THE PROPOSED SITE IS ABOUT ONE MILE AWAY FROM HEIGHINGTON.

HEIGHINGTON in the nineteenth century was a settlement around a village green.
Prior to WW2 a little resential development took place around the village on GREEN FIELDS.
Post WW2 development on GREEN FIELDS took place mainly to the west of the village.
This western development is now more than 50% of Heighington.

It is doubtful if any of us living on land are on anything other than what was originally a GREEN FIELD
THE PROPOSED SITE IS ABOUT ONE MILE AWAY FROM HEIGHINGTON. HEIGHINGTON in the nineteenth century was a settlement around a village green. Prior to WW2 a little resential development took place around the village on GREEN FIELDS. Post WW2 development on GREEN FIELDS took place mainly to the west of the village. This western development is now more than 50% of Heighington. It is doubtful if any of us living on land are on anything other than what was originally a GREEN FIELD freelance

5:11pm Thu 7 Mar 13

steapuk says...

Haighy wrote:
steapuk says...

"Gotta love the way people are prepared to chase away a friend they haven't even made yet just because his house has wheels. Yet the existing community will consist of fraudsters, poedophiles, rapists and thieves but all are accepted because their houses are made from bricks.

I'm guessing this family own the land too so they're not exactly hard up."

Steapuk have you got evidence? If you have I suggest you take it to the police or is this an unfounded assumption! I`m objecting to this development (which is my right) based on the fact it is green field land outside a beautiful village,who is applying is irrelevant! Incidentally there is a traveller family living in the village in a house.They are much respected and liked members of the community with by what I`ve witnessed have impeccable morals, so that statement is wrong! The only problem I have as regards the application being by a traveller is the fact that the planning office seem to have a policy for traveller planning that is differant to mine! When asked, a planning officer confirmed that as a house holder I would never be granted permission on green field land, I would call that positive discrimination, which surely is as bad as negative discrimination! Not that I would ever want to build a house on green field!
Well done you missed my point entirely. I was referring to the way both parties were being described in the article. As for evidence all you need to do is read the papers over the next few years. Every community has a both good and bad. It doesn't matter where you originate from or what your house is made from.

I'm all for planning regs but there didn't ever have to be a gypsy v locals reference or argument. Anyone who honestly believes hand on heart that this was only ever about planning and green belt is so naive they must live in cloud cuckoo land not the village.

The media have a lot to answer for.
[quote][p][bold]Haighy[/bold] wrote: steapuk says... "Gotta love the way people are prepared to chase away a friend they haven't even made yet just because his house has wheels. Yet the existing community will consist of fraudsters, poedophiles, rapists and thieves but all are accepted because their houses are made from bricks. I'm guessing this family own the land too so they're not exactly hard up." Steapuk have you got evidence? If you have I suggest you take it to the police or is this an unfounded assumption! I`m objecting to this development (which is my right) based on the fact it is green field land outside a beautiful village,who is applying is irrelevant! Incidentally there is a traveller family living in the village in a house.They are much respected and liked members of the community with by what I`ve witnessed have impeccable morals, so that statement is wrong! The only problem I have as regards the application being by a traveller is the fact that the planning office seem to have a policy for traveller planning that is differant to mine! When asked, a planning officer confirmed that as a house holder I would never be granted permission on green field land, I would call that positive discrimination, which surely is as bad as negative discrimination! Not that I would ever want to build a house on green field![/p][/quote]Well done you missed my point entirely. I was referring to the way both parties were being described in the article. As for evidence all you need to do is read the papers over the next few years. Every community has a both good and bad. It doesn't matter where you originate from or what your house is made from. I'm all for planning regs but there didn't ever have to be a gypsy v locals reference or argument. Anyone who honestly believes hand on heart that this was only ever about planning and green belt is so naive they must live in cloud cuckoo land not the village. The media have a lot to answer for. steapuk

5:14pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Apples&pears says...

Too many village idiots I thinks
Too many village idiots I thinks Apples&pears

6:22pm Thu 7 Mar 13

greenfinger says...

too many trashy ****'s kicking about me thinks.
too many trashy ****'s kicking about me thinks. greenfinger

11:29am Fri 8 Mar 13

clarky2697 says...

Apples&pears wrote:
Too many village idiots I thinks
Apples&pears
If you feel the need to post a crass statement,ask a friend to help you.The term is Too many village idiots me thinks! Fool hahaha
Too many town idiots me thinks !!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Apples&pears[/bold] wrote: Too many village idiots I thinks[/p][/quote]Apples&pears If you feel the need to post a crass statement,ask a friend to help you.The term is Too many village idiots me thinks! Fool hahaha Too many town idiots me thinks !!!!!! clarky2697

7:17pm Fri 8 Mar 13

hemmi1 says...

they will do as they have in brafferton move in tap into water suplies etc build fences let horses and kids run loose pinch any thing not bolted down throw energy drink cans all over the place dump matresses and gas bottles in hedgbacks then apply for planning permision after that has been rejected just stay put because they know this council will never enforce any action against them
sometimes i cant help thinking they get inside info from pikes in the council
they will do as they have in brafferton move in tap into water suplies etc build fences let horses and kids run loose pinch any thing not bolted down throw energy drink cans all over the place dump matresses and gas bottles in hedgbacks then apply for planning permision after that has been rejected just stay put because they know this council will never enforce any action against them sometimes i cant help thinking they get inside info from pikes in the council hemmi1

8:22pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Haighy says...

steapuk wrote:
Haighy wrote:
steapuk says...

"Gotta love the way people are prepared to chase away a friend they haven't even made yet just because his house has wheels. Yet the existing community will consist of fraudsters, poedophiles, rapists and thieves but all are accepted because their houses are made from bricks.

I'm guessing this family own the land too so they're not exactly hard up."

Steapuk have you got evidence? If you have I suggest you take it to the police or is this an unfounded assumption! I`m objecting to this development (which is my right) based on the fact it is green field land outside a beautiful village,who is applying is irrelevant! Incidentally there is a traveller family living in the village in a house.They are much respected and liked members of the community with by what I`ve witnessed have impeccable morals, so that statement is wrong! The only problem I have as regards the application being by a traveller is the fact that the planning office seem to have a policy for traveller planning that is differant to mine! When asked, a planning officer confirmed that as a house holder I would never be granted permission on green field land, I would call that positive discrimination, which surely is as bad as negative discrimination! Not that I would ever want to build a house on green field!
Well done you missed my point entirely. I was referring to the way both parties were being described in the article. As for evidence all you need to do is read the papers over the next few years. Every community has a both good and bad. It doesn't matter where you originate from or what your house is made from.

I'm all for planning regs but there didn't ever have to be a gypsy v locals reference or argument. Anyone who honestly believes hand on heart that this was only ever about planning and green belt is so naive they must live in cloud cuckoo land not the village.

The media have a lot to answer for.
Steapuk I totally agree the press are trying to fuel animosity between the village and the travelling comunity, let’s not let them get a cheap story! The headline was totally over the top, they wouldn’t have printed Bank manager protest on the front page so why the need for Gypsy protest?
As to the fact about being naive, a housing development of a field near Snackgate Lane which was proposed by a former parish councillor was vehemently opposed as was a similiar developement on a field to the rear of Beech Crescent.
I still don’t understand how your first post was referring to the report, but maybe my train of thought is different to yours!
[quote][p][bold]steapuk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haighy[/bold] wrote: steapuk says... "Gotta love the way people are prepared to chase away a friend they haven't even made yet just because his house has wheels. Yet the existing community will consist of fraudsters, poedophiles, rapists and thieves but all are accepted because their houses are made from bricks. I'm guessing this family own the land too so they're not exactly hard up." Steapuk have you got evidence? If you have I suggest you take it to the police or is this an unfounded assumption! I`m objecting to this development (which is my right) based on the fact it is green field land outside a beautiful village,who is applying is irrelevant! Incidentally there is a traveller family living in the village in a house.They are much respected and liked members of the community with by what I`ve witnessed have impeccable morals, so that statement is wrong! The only problem I have as regards the application being by a traveller is the fact that the planning office seem to have a policy for traveller planning that is differant to mine! When asked, a planning officer confirmed that as a house holder I would never be granted permission on green field land, I would call that positive discrimination, which surely is as bad as negative discrimination! Not that I would ever want to build a house on green field![/p][/quote]Well done you missed my point entirely. I was referring to the way both parties were being described in the article. As for evidence all you need to do is read the papers over the next few years. Every community has a both good and bad. It doesn't matter where you originate from or what your house is made from. I'm all for planning regs but there didn't ever have to be a gypsy v locals reference or argument. Anyone who honestly believes hand on heart that this was only ever about planning and green belt is so naive they must live in cloud cuckoo land not the village. The media have a lot to answer for.[/p][/quote]Steapuk I totally agree the press are trying to fuel animosity between the village and the travelling comunity, let’s not let them get a cheap story! The headline was totally over the top, they wouldn’t have printed Bank manager protest on the front page so why the need for Gypsy protest? As to the fact about being naive, a housing development of a field near Snackgate Lane which was proposed by a former parish councillor was vehemently opposed as was a similiar developement on a field to the rear of Beech Crescent. I still don’t understand how your first post was referring to the report, but maybe my train of thought is different to yours! Haighy

10:46am Sat 9 Mar 13

clarky2697 says...

Apples&pears have you not got a reply there must be a friend that can help you
Apples&pears have you not got a reply there must be a friend that can help you clarky2697

9:56am Sun 10 Mar 13

Apples&pears says...

10:46am Sat 9 Mar 13
clarky2697 says...

Apples&pears have you not got a reply there must be a friend that can help you

Yep & it's summit like yawwwwwwwn
10:46am Sat 9 Mar 13 clarky2697 says... Apples&pears have you not got a reply there must be a friend that can help you Yep & it's summit like yawwwwwwwn Apples&pears

5:53pm Tue 12 Mar 13

Copley23 says...

Scrap Section 23, it's complete and utter southern, urban, outdated bunkum.

If I were a planner, I would hate to have to implement this worthless piece of rubbish.........kudo
s to Dave Coates for trying to clarify it for the lay person.
Scrap Section 23, it's complete and utter southern, urban, outdated bunkum. If I were a planner, I would hate to have to implement this worthless piece of rubbish.........kudo s to Dave Coates for trying to clarify it for the lay person. Copley23

6:40am Wed 13 Mar 13

Jonn says...

Maybe the villagers have become fond of the lead on their roofs and would like it to stay there.
Maybe the villagers have become fond of the lead on their roofs and would like it to stay there. Jonn

6:53am Wed 13 Mar 13

hottopic says...

There seems to be a general assumption that crime increases in an area where a site is built.... whilst I am not saying this is true or false. Surely if someone could investigate this with relative ease using statistics and any evidence supporting this assumption can be used by the villages.
There seems to be a general assumption that crime increases in an area where a site is built.... whilst I am not saying this is true or false. Surely if someone could investigate this with relative ease using statistics and any evidence supporting this assumption can be used by the villages. hottopic

8:32am Wed 13 Mar 13

Copley23 says...

hottopic wrote:
There seems to be a general assumption that crime increases in an area where a site is built.... whilst I am not saying this is true or false. Surely if someone could investigate this with relative ease using statistics and any evidence supporting this assumption can be used by the villages.
They know this already hottopic, it's part of the process.......but not a reason to refuse planning....in planning eyes, everything can be managed or met half way, that's the point of the planning process, to arbitrate almost. The assumption is with planning that it WILL go ahead unless something momentous is uncovered (poisoned land, unsafe earthworks etc etc). Even the wonderful 'great crested newts' that we hope are found there would just be relocated.

The best thing the folk of Heighington can do is find themselves a rogue planner who will tell them how to get round this....but it's going to have to be a **** good reason.

Personally, I think it's positive discrimination, always have done. The travelling community are the only group in this country that we make so many exceptions for within the housing framework......

So it NEEDS to go to appeal to try and set a legal example......

Good luck to them. Finding out there is a planning application for 15 affordable homes that the folk of Heighington and their families can share in is one thing, but to find out that the application only supports travellers is altogether another.

Discrimination, though and through.
[quote][p][bold]hottopic[/bold] wrote: There seems to be a general assumption that crime increases in an area where a site is built.... whilst I am not saying this is true or false. Surely if someone could investigate this with relative ease using statistics and any evidence supporting this assumption can be used by the villages.[/p][/quote]They know this already hottopic, it's part of the process.......but not a reason to refuse planning....in planning eyes, everything can be managed or met half way, that's the point of the planning process, to arbitrate almost. The assumption is with planning that it WILL go ahead unless something momentous is uncovered (poisoned land, unsafe earthworks etc etc). Even the wonderful 'great crested newts' that we hope are found there would just be relocated. The best thing the folk of Heighington can do is find themselves a rogue planner who will tell them how to get round this....but it's going to have to be a **** good reason. Personally, I think it's positive discrimination, always have done. The travelling community are the only group in this country that we make so many exceptions for within the housing framework...... So it NEEDS to go to appeal to try and set a legal example...... Good luck to them. Finding out there is a planning application for 15 affordable homes that the folk of Heighington and their families can share in is one thing, but to find out that the application only supports travellers is altogether another. Discrimination, though and through. Copley23

2:18pm Wed 13 Mar 13

simon cowells pants says...

Keep the pikeys out simple, why give to a community in general that only ever takes? obviously for takes read steals, the avarage Gypo would steal your tears if he knew he could sell them on.
Keep the pikeys out simple, why give to a community in general that only ever takes? obviously for takes read steals, the avarage Gypo would steal your tears if he knew he could sell them on. simon cowells pants

5:37pm Wed 13 Mar 13

argo2013 says...

What if the gypsies hold a protest about living next to Darlington people!!!
What if the gypsies hold a protest about living next to Darlington people!!! argo2013

7:19pm Wed 13 Mar 13

dicko1 says...

I,m only an occasional visiter to Bishop and I,ve seen Gypsy kids riding horses all about Woodhouse Estate, down in the pedestrian precinct in Newgate Street,been held up in queues of traffic behind Sulkies and traps, mostly driven by kids who shouldn't be on the road. Closing off Watling road so as to hold Sulkie races.If I lived in Heighnton I would do all in my power to keep them out.If they settle like the family in Heighnton I,m sure they would be made welcome,but they usually all want to stay together in large squads and thats when people start to feel intimidated.
I,m only an occasional visiter to Bishop and I,ve seen Gypsy kids riding horses all about Woodhouse Estate, down in the pedestrian precinct in Newgate Street,been held up in queues of traffic behind Sulkies and traps, mostly driven by kids who shouldn't be on the road. Closing off Watling road so as to hold Sulkie races.If I lived in Heighnton I would do all in my power to keep them out.If they settle like the family in Heighnton I,m sure they would be made welcome,but they usually all want to stay together in large squads and thats when people start to feel intimidated. dicko1

9:06pm Wed 13 Mar 13

outragedofmiltonkeynes says...

argo2013 wrote:
What if the gypsies hold a protest about living next to Darlington people!!!
Then i think the good people of Darlington would be only to glad to be rid of them. They are scum of the lowest order and if you disagree then you clearly have no experience of them.
[quote][p][bold]argo2013[/bold] wrote: What if the gypsies hold a protest about living next to Darlington people!!![/p][/quote]Then i think the good people of Darlington would be only to glad to be rid of them. They are scum of the lowest order and if you disagree then you clearly have no experience of them. outragedofmiltonkeynes

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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