Bohemia Village Voice

The Ambulance Station in Bohemia Road, which adjoins the rejected site.

By Julian Beecroft (Apr 2007)

Anyone reading this article will probably already know of Hastings Borough Council’s decision to reject a proposal for a Gypsy/Traveller transit site on the green space between Summerfields Leisure Centre and the ambulance station. This decision, taken at the Council meeting on 5th March, was always likely after the publication of a cross-party report that unanimously deemed both the Summerfields site and the one at Sandrock unsuitable for development for this purpose, and by a majority took the same view of the Bexhill Road site.

Readers may be interested to note that, according to the report on the Council cabinet meeting held at the Grove School on 5th March, ‘The Summerfields site has a restrictive covenant that makes the development of this site very difficult.’ The nature of this covenant is explained in the full report of the Council’s Travellers’ Site Members’ Working Group, which was set up to consider the viability of each of the three sites.

With regard to the Summerfields site, the report indicates that when the Council sold to the Health Authority the plot of land that includes the ambulance station and the green space between the station and the leisure centre, they were allowed to retain the green space on condition that ‘the Council would not use any part of the property for any purpose which may be or become a nuisance … or an annoyance or [be] obnoxious to the Health Services or its [sic] successors in title including its tenants and occupiers.’

The report goes on, ‘Furthermore the restriction also includes carrying out any use which tends to diminish or lessen the value to the property of any building erected on any part of it. Clearly a transit site would fall into this category. A further difficulty presents itself in that the covenant was only agreed to in 1996, just over 10 years ago. According to the report, any attempt by the Council to disentangle itself from a legal arrangement so recently concluded would be a complicated, costly and possibly unsuccessful process.

One further point of interest emerges from the report. The council received numerous petitions from residents of the three areas under consideration, but by far the lowest level of objections came from the area surrounding the Summerfields site.

COMMENTS

Barrie Holland writes (April 2007) Dear Sir, This is a copy of the letter I sent to Hastings Borough Council, but I had a reply from them to say I was far too late for them to consider my opinions: ‘In response to your leaflet put through my letterbox regarding the above [Gypsy/Traveller site proposals], I would strongly object to the Summerfields site being the chosen location. It would only be about 300 yards from residential housing areas in Hastings (Holmesdale Gardens, Redmayne Drive, Ellis Close, Oliver Close, Linton Road, Linton Crescent, Hillyglen Crescent, Magdalen Road, Blomfield Road, De Cham Road, etc.), apart from which it would have to be accessed through the leisure centre entrance. ‘It would be far too close to the conserved woodland areas and the public footpath (Briscoe’s Walk) through the lovely lake/waterfall setting between the woodland and the walkway. I imagine that many people would feel intimidated in taking this walk if there was a Gypsy/Travellers site adjacent to the area.  I cannot understand how the introduction of Gypsy/Travellers sites will aid and assist with the regeneration plans. ‘I once lived in the county town of Bedford. I and my family experienced an horrific burglary at home, our shop was broken into and stock stolen, my wife’s car was stolen, my car had its wheels stolen, and my business was broken into and computers stolen. The police put the crimes in every case down to the local ‘Gypsy/Traveller’ inhabitants. Two Gypsies were arrested and charged with our house burglary. The other crimes remained unresolved. ‘I would like to point out that the map produced by TK Associates for the Summerfields site is fairly inaccurate, and construes to give out a mixed message of where the site actually would be in relation to the area. The road shown as ‘London Road’ is in fact ‘Magdalen Road’, The police station is also wrongly stated – it is in fact the Travelodge site. It is a pity that with all the money being paid to TK Associates, they could not even get the location map right.’ Barrie Holland, Magdalen Road. [Letter has been abridged – ed]

David Vane writes (Apr 2007) Dear Sir, With reference to your coverage of the Gypsy campsite issue, were you aware that the Romanies who settled in France in past centuries had travelled through the kingdom of Bohemia to get there? Thus the French referred to them as ‘Bohèmiens’, as in, for example, the poem ‘Bohèmiens en voyage’ by Charles Baudelaire. From there it was only a short step to apply the word to artistic types living in romantic poverty, such as the young people in your serial, Vie de Bohème. Incidentally, I have greatly enjoyed the regular instalments of this old story during my recent convalescence from a serious illness. I do hope you pick it up again soon. David Vane, Chapel Park Road.

Anon writes (Jun 2007) Dear Sir, I wish to make known my thoughts on your recently published article on the gypsy site (page 11, April, issue 46). I am a resident close to the proposed Summer-fields site and I know for a fact all the residents around that area were equally worried and anxious about these proposals to place a gypsy/traveller’s site there.  Your article states that the petitions received were by far the lowest level of objections, as stated in the Council report. I am fed up reading damning reports about the Summerfields site. The area surrounding Sum-merfields is different from the other two sites in that unlike Sandrock Park and Bexhill Road, there is no nucleus of people to gather a load of signatures from, as the residents are scattered between Winterbourne Close, Barnfield Close and Redmayne Drive, all of which do not have one focal point. Sandrock Park does have a community style and therefore they were able to achieve collecting signatures very much easier. I in fact organised one of the petitions for Summerfields and feel very fed up with the constant referral to low numbers at Summerfields. You were of course repeating what the Council had already reported in their report but I do think you should be aware this matter affected us around the Summerfields site very much with a lot of worry and anxiety involved, and we are all very relieved indeed that the Summerfields site has been rejected, as I know are the residents of the other two sites. [Name and address was supplied].