Have SNC spent all our hard-earned money on this farce of a document. Basically they have picked the same sites and thrown in one that will be rejected for good measure. Do these people think that we, who pay their wages are stupid. It is about time the community stands up for their rights. Does anyone know if the community are allowed to have a vote of no confidence in the district council members or the party who employ them? I suppose many of us must first of all make a complaint and ask the Ombudsman to investigate. I know this is a so-called directive from central government that these sites have to be found, but SNC are not carrying this out in a sound and fair way. We need someone out there who is knowledgeable about these matters to advise us as to what the best way to approach this. We cannot sit back and let the council treat the local community as though they are 2nd class citizens and just ignore them. A lot of the objections are actually out of concern for the suitability of the sites for the travelling community. We all know that these sites have to be built, but I am sure they wouldn't stick a new housing estate in the middle of green belt where there are no facilities. There will be no amenities for the travellers and most of us know what it is like to live in a rural community with no transport etc within walking distance. We end up being taxi service to the children, that is why most of us choose to live close to amenities when the children are younger and then village life is something to look forward to when we can sit back and relax. Put these sites where the occupants can enjoy the local amenities. The proposed sites provide NONE!
Village Lady
posted 3/5/09 12:01 AM
Suton Resident, If SNC counted the private scheme at Carleton Rode then the sites proposed for Spooner Row and Suton would be considered too close to an existing gipsy site, therefore not allowed. It appears SNC makes up its own rules which contradict the Regional Assembly.
Village Lady
posted 3/5/09 2:33 PM
I quite agree Concerned with all you say. We are being treated like second (or even third) class citizens and what's more we are paying them the luxury to do it! It is not fair on us nor the gipsies, for if I was a gipsy I certainly would not want to live on the impoverished sites which the council has selected (right next to a busy, noisy junction).
Suton Resident
posted 3/5/09 5:13 PM
It seems very single minded when Broadland District Council says a private site will count towards their target and South Norfolk Council say they wont consider it Yet they try to tell us the government decided how many pitches but when they can reduce the number of pitches on the other sites they dont take it
Mo Pu Lady
posted 3/9/09 11:21 AM
Has anyone tried to download the new consultation document from the link the council sent? I can't download it and when I went on the site I could only find the iriginal consultation document. Has anyone else tried? If you have been successful could you please let me know what I've done wrong. If it isn't available yet, then surely they will have to add the extra time to the consultation period!
Karen
posted 3/9/09 10:40 PM
Mu Po Lady, all the links to the relevant documents are on the Spooner Row Home Page and work fine (updated today) but some of the files are unnecessarily large (2 to 2.5 Mb). These will take a long time to download if you have a dial-up connection. Why the Council has decided to disseminate these important documents in files which could have been made much smaller is an indication of how out of touch this Council is with our local community. Most people here either do not have an internet connection at all or have a dial-up connection. Very few people have the benefits of a high-speed broadband connection like the Council.
Karen
posted 3/9/09 11:12 PM
Further to the above posting, the letter sent out from SNC to everybody has an incorrect hyperlink. It doesn't work as they have put in an extra space between the http:// and the www. Another example of a lack of attention to detail.
