Rubbish has been left strewn across an area of open space in Lichfield after a group of travellers moved on.
The group had set up on the site off Roman Way in Boley Park last week.
But they left after Lichfield District Council began proceedings to have them evicted from the land.
However, the site has been left littered with rubbish, including paddling pools, garden furniture and bags of waste.
Wow there’s a surprise never saw that coming ? But I feel confident the local plod will have issued littering and fly tipping fines ? But wait can they issue tickets from Morrisons car park?
If a rubbish receptacle had been provided, this wouldn’t have happened.
As a comparison on a Devon beach this morning; where rubbish receptacles were provided, one whole skip was filled by local volunteers. No wonder these people don’t want non residents on their beaches.
Norah – If they hasn’t set up an illegal camp this wouldn’t have happened. Absence of bins is not an excuse for people leaving rubbish lying round, be it people on a beach of travellers illegally occupying land. If people can transport things to the site they can transport them away again.
I think now is the time to say enough is enough, Why not now plant trees on the verge at spacings that will not allow caravans to enter?…Its the toiletting that worries me!.As when they “camped” illegally last year just 300 yards down the road, the mess they left is/was unacceptable. Its now time to act and secure all areas where a caravan can park illegally. The cost should not come into it..as I am sure City Tax payers would shoulder this without fuss…..
I notice the ‘visitors” to Roman Way have left and at 1.45pm the rubbish they left behind is still there, The whole area will need sanitising as they toilette just about anywhere, making it a ‘no go” area now for our kids, Why not plant trees now so that caravans cannot get onto the park? We have to stop these travellers from using Lichfield as a dumping ground!
Norah your not on the same planet as the rest of us ? Are they not capable of putting rubbish in a pile ?…. No there not they have no thoughts or concerns for anyone and that’s their way of life. Crush the caravans and impound their vehicles they won’t come back again.
@Trevor Buckle because the trees take years to mature and these individuals have side lines involving chainsaw work, so they could clear a route in a minute or so.
The physical prevention options are grassed soil bunds, metal trip rail not wooden, or ditches that are less popular for health and safety reasons. All of these will still have a weak point at the access gate.
You would imagine the councillor responsible would be asking for an audit of known sites in LDC to cost up some defensive measures perhaps paid for from the healthy reserves?
I would leave my rubbish too is I was constantly being kicked from place to place
Mike – they get kicked from place to place because they keep setting up where they know they are not allowed to. They choose to trespass and camp in parks and they choose to leave a mess instead of take their rubbish away and dispose of it. They don’t have to do this. There are legal sites they can use. They could simply stay in Ireland where they are obviously from because a lot of the vehicles have Irish plates and they have Irish accents. . No one is forcing them to behave as they do. They’re not victims. Their behaviour is a deliberate choice.
@ Mike – thats the attitude… do you not think local people would be a little more accepting if they cleaned up after themselves and did not use the area as toilet? if came to the area, behaved and left ‘camp’ spotless, residents would be more accepting and welcoming when they next arrived
They’re in Beacon Park car park now.
Born in the common by a building site
Where the ground was rutted by the trail of wheels
The local Christian said to me
“You’ll lower the price of property”
You’d better get born in some place else
So move along, get along, move along, get along
Go, move, shift
Yet again these “itinerant” travelers leave behind a mess for us the taxpayers to pay for.
They obviously live in the “free” world, no tax, no rates, and most probably very little
of those things that the rest of us have to pay for!
Around the roads of “greater” Burntwood there are a number of roadside signs warning of a High Court writ against car cruising that covers quite a big area.
Why cannot a similar writ be sort from this court to deal with this repeat problem, it is no good having one to cover a small area/site. A local authorities area as a whole would need to be covered.
Yes there would be a financial cost, but how much does it cost to constantly follow these travelers?
I break a padlock and park my caravan and £40k SUV on the common
I let my children and dogs run wild
I harass local businesses and residents
I defecate on the ground
The locals said to me get along, move along, get along, move along
Why don’t they want me around?
Why doesn’t the District Council look to provide transit locations where travellers could be directed to?
Funds have previously been made available as a levelling up opportunity.
https://www.travellerstimes.org.uk/news/2022/03/government-set-give-councils-ps10-million-build-more-traveller-sites
Carton of peas…. do you honestly, seriously believe that these people are interested in being “directed” to anywhere or anything? They go exactly where they please and leave rubbish (and worse) behind. What makes you think they would desist from their behaviour even at a transit location?
I’d like to say thank you to whoever cleared the rubbish from the site so quickly. I passed there at 1730 yesterday and the rubbish the travellers left behind was gone.
@Carton of Peas. They can camp where they do in the winter. These are not homeless people.
They are itinerants who want to move from area to area, doing work to poor standard for cash, whilst avoiding paying National Insurance and Taxes, and acting illegally in many other ways.
No surprise at the mess left.
Disappointed the Police and Crime bill was watered down and has failed us.
Time for an area wide High Court injunction.