After the first consultation we were told that new sites would be identified. It seems that both the "new" Wymondham sites are non-starters. Why was the Stanfield Oil Depot selected by the Planners as a potential site when it appears to have a "protected railway line" status? The Spinks Lane site is not even up for consideration! This new consultation process also looks unsound.
Mo Pu Lady
posted 2/27/09 4:23 PM
I agree. Totally unsound of mind and body!!!!!!!
‹(•¿•)›
posted 3/2/09 9:47 AM
The SUTON site which only has a few houses and business units has better ---Access to social and community facilities--- than the sites that are close to WYMONDHAM town according to the authorities short listing?>?>?>? SPOONER ROW only has a village hall and they reckon thats as good as whats in WYMONDHAM town?>?>?>?>?> - Drive out and u will c for yourself that we have nothing
Suton Resident
posted 3/2/09 1:22 PM
It almost seems as if the working party found what the council wanted it to find Perhaps the whole thing should be referred to the Ombudsman
Mo Pu Lady
posted 3/2/09 2:56 PM
Good idea Suton Resident!
Karen
posted 3/3/09 12:12 AM
Didn't the original consultation get referred to the Ombudsman when the 2 Town Councillors resigned due to SNC not consulting us properly. Maybe the Ombudsman's referral got cancelled when SNC withdrew the first consultation and started again?
Suton Resident
posted 3/3/09 1:21 PM
Not sure but I think it would carry greater weight now considering the voting system is as was stated before selective descrimination against the minority
Suton Resident
posted 3/4/09 3:18 PM
Yesterday the East of England Regional Assembly and Go-East ruled that private schemes can be put towards the target If the private scheme at Carleton Rode is approved why does South Norfolk Council still insist they wont count this as part of the scheme
Resident
posted 3/4/09 3:27 PM
Have you noticed S.Norfolk DC have made NO criteria for Local Amenities eg no buses/bus stop, no train station, no local shops, nearest shops 3 miles always, no doctors, no high school etc. You would have thought this would have been an important criteria to include. UNSOUND shortlist criteria and CONSTRUCTIVE DISCRIMINATION on a small community. Everyone knows the Stanfield Oil Depot is a red-herring as it was excluded the first time round because of the risk to occupiers.
__________________
Stand up and be counted
Date:
An unfair selection process and unnecessary - what is the rush!?
The Gypsy and Travellers Proposals are part of the Greater Norwich Development Partnership's plans (for the whole area) and as part of these plans the proposed gypsy sites should be adopted with it. The adoption date is late 2010. Yet South Norfolk Council are trying to rush through their plans on gypsy sites with a piecemeal approach before the Greater plan for the area is properly formulated. Just because there is money available from the Government for gypsy sites, is not a justified reason for doing this in a haphazard manner.
It would be more economical and socially cohesive for gypsy housing to be incorporated into new housing developments. I read somewhere that a new social house costs about £60K to build, yet the gypsy pitches at Harford Bridges (according to the council) work out at £200K each (over 3 times as much!). Just because Government money is available (which is our taxes!) doesn't mean we should not get value for money. The council should work in our interest and wait for the GNDP's policy to be formulated and implemented.
