On Friday of last week I attended a public meeting called be Kirby Cane and Ellingham Parish Council to allow residents to have their say about the proposal to allow a travellers site to be put in Church Road close to the entrance to the village of the A143.
The meeting was very well attended, I’m told there were 253 residents present, that figure is a significant number and the comments by them and the vote taken at the end of the meeting should be listened to by the officers and members of the District Council.
A Resident’s Group has been formed to co-ordinate the campaign for refusal. Should readers of the Blog wish to get in touch with them they should speak to Richard Lees on 0845 8738098 or contact him bt e-mail on rjlees@artlees.com.
The Parish Council themselves are opposed to the site, which is a reserve site for the one proposed at Earsham. For my part I think this is ill conceived, it fails to tick several of the criteria boxes:
1 Such as, proximity to the existing residential area,
2 Close proximity to a dangerous junction on the A143, where traffic from the Beccles direction comes down the hill, frequently in excess of the current speed limit.
3 On this site a planning application for housing was refused by the District Council in 2007 “because of its adverse impact on neighbouring properties”. Surely that is sufficient reason alone for refusal.
One point in the meeting gave me cause for concern. That being the Comment by Tony Fielder that a petition in the village would have no more weight than a single letter of objection. Where is democracy going?
Personally, I am opposed to this location, and urge the residents to object and tell the District Council by letter or e-mail why they object. If you want a few notes of suitable words please have a word with Richard. For my part I think a petition would be a good idea, in order to give it weight the petition must have the names and addresses of everyone who signs it, this way each resident can be considered individually.
One of the purposes of this Blog is to give residents an opportunity of writing to me about the proposal. Of course, I do not represent you on the District Council, that job is done by my colleague Cllr Tony Game, but I can assure you I will make all information available to Tony, and also to the Officers at Long Stratton.
Please post your comment now!
We have now received the latest information from South Norfolk District Council. They have started a new consultation on permanent traveller sites and I’m pleased to say that the Kirby Cane proposed site has been down graded. there are three proposals for sites along the A143, two of these are at Earsham and one at Brockdish. Whilst I agree that we must all remain vigilant in case of any changes, it does seem very unlikely that the Kirby Cane site will be proposed. Congratulations to you all who sent in letters of comment and objection, and particularly to Richard Lees who co-ordinated the village comments. It also shows credit on our District Council who listened to the residents. Tony
We have just returned from a lovely holiday in the Sth of France to the news of the proposed travellers site in Kirby Cane, I am absolutely disgusted with Sth Nfk Council for even considering such a proposal. This is such a small village and the site would effect every home, we will never be able to sell any property here. Surely we have some legal rights, this cannot be possible in a demacratic country like ours. Where are our rights, who will buy our homes; the council? Perhaps they should buy up every home in the village and put the travellers in them, lets see how many would pay their council tax.
By: Mr & Mrs Hancy on September 26, 2008
at 5:11 pm
As a family we always find it interesting that in a democracy that supposedly supports peoples rights to individuality and freedom of choice that the main concern tends to revolve around the possibility of negative impact on house prices, the perceived lowering of ‘the tone of the neighbourhood’, and the fact that others lifestyle choices are not the same as our own… as our son said when reading the leaflets posted through our door on this matter – “Wow, I thought the Aryan ideal was dead.”
Yes there are practical issues with the proposed site – amongst them being the access on the A143 – but please people remember the ‘them vs us’ mentality helps no one.
If this site is truly unsuitable let’s keep the emotive rhetoric to a miniumum and focus on something more constructive than how much cash it will do us out of.
A good start would be proposing alternative, more suitable sites!
Thank you Mrs Fisher, you are quite right, we must all consider the well-being of each other, the right of all of us to enjoy a happy contented life, but this right brings with it responsibilities, the responsibility of making sure that none of our actions, whoever we are, members of the travelling community or members of the settled community, should have an adverse affect on the others way of life. In this connection I think South Norfolk DC have got it wrong. This site does now allow the two communities to have their own space. There is an adverse effect on the near residents, which would undoubtedly be detrimental to their hopes and aspirations of a quiet life. There is not enough space on this site for the travellers, the Government says that they need .8 hectares, this site only has .55, more than a 25% reduction. Undoubtedly, there must be more suitable sites than this one. They, (The DC), must continue the search.
Tony Tomkinson.
By: Mrs Fisher on October 17, 2008
at 4:16 pm
We accept the need for permanent Gypsy & Travellers Sites and understand that people’s choice of lifestyles can be different but the site proposed in Kirby Cane will not be beneficial to either the settled community or the travelling community.
The site is situatd too close to residential amenities which would not encourage the two communities to integrate with each other. It could lead to friction from both parties. This site (unlike all the others proposed by SNC) is the only one situated in a settled community, without allowing space for the two communities to breathe.
The way that Gypsys & Travellers are perceived in our society means that house prices in the village will be affected, some to a great extent.
With reference to the above comment, you have to realise that our home is 6m away from the proposed site and the value of it would be severely affected. It could wipe out the last 20 year of hardwork which is now invested in the value of our house. There appears to be no compensation available to any homeowners if the site goes ahead.
A site, say, 1/2 mile from the proposed one would allow space for the two different communities to integrate with each other and time to allow both to respect each others way of life.
By: Chris & Karen East on October 18, 2008
at 11:39 am
I have serious concerns about the South Norfolk Gypsy & Traveller DPD – possibly too many to include in this blog (although I will be putting them in writing to the council) – not just because I shall be adversely affected by these proposals, but also because of the potentially wider effect on the populace in South Norfolk.
Firstly, the document is biased towards the travelling community which is NOT in accordance with government guidelines, as defined in ODPM Circular 01/2006, PLANNING FOR GYPSY AND TRAVELLER CARAVAN SITES 2nd February 2006, Paragraph 12 a) which state the main intentions are:
“to create and support sustainable, respectful, and inclusive communities”…”where there is mutual respect and consideration between all communities for the rights and responsibilities of each community and individual; and where there is respect between individuals and communities towards the environments in which they live and work”
During the Issues and Options Consultation, our parishioners advised that sites should not be close to dwellings – indeed on a visit to the Costessey site by some of our parishioners, the travellers themselves agreed that sites should not be close to dwellings – yet we find the proposal for the reserve site at Kirby Cane is very close to dwellings!
Consider this too: when sites were considered in 2005, many of the sites considered had the “Advantages” that they were not close to dwellings, whilst others had “Disadvantages” that they were close to dwellings; yet this criterion has changed in 2008! The current checklist and the policies proposed within the DPD, could have a significant impact on all site applications by removing grounds for objection on residential amenities. For example: the site at Kirby Cane (which is close to dwellings) has had planning permission refused on three occasions: once for a lorry park, once for a caravan, and (more recently) for two bungalows. If the council are now saying that travellers can have up to 24 caravans on the site, when it has been refused to others already, is that fair? Is that balanced?
I think not. This DPD is not in accordance with government guidelines for it does not consider the “rights and responsibilities of each community and individual” and will only lead to friction and disharmony.
By: Iain wright on October 23, 2008
at 7:08 pm