Thanks for letting me know about this as I couldn't work out why the link I was clickling on was not working. Well spotted!
mandy
posted 3/10/09 12:50 AM
it is obvious, with all the trouble wymondham has with the illegal site there, that they are not goin to want a permanent site there! so voting is ludicrous...
Mo Pu Lady
posted 3/10/09 4:34 PM
Thanks for the info on the link. I have replied to the new email and suggested that the consultation period is extended by two days to make up for the two lost. I also think we should get SNC to verify how the votes will be judged. Obviously as a minority group we have fewer voices, so surely it cannot be decided by a physical area vote. As Mandy has said. The objection will remain the same, but perhaps our tactics should be broadened. The drop in day is all well and good, but if we are to attend, we should use our time there wisely. Pick up on any variances in information and compare notes afterwards. (We know who we are!!!).KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT!
Suton Resident
posted 3/10/09 5:26 PM
Oh to have a good lawyer in our midst
Mo Pu Lady
posted 3/11/09 8:47 AM
Have we got a good lawyer in our midst? Is there someone who will take on our fight for nothing? Think of the prestige and publicity they would get!!By the way. ITV are screening a programme next week, (think it's Friday) about the almost one million homes in Britain that are standing empty. BBC did a programme last year. It's a pity it has already been compiled for screening as I think (as I have said many times before), that the government should link homelessness, sites for travellers and all these empty homes together and utilise them. It would almost wipe out the problem as there plenty of these empty homes to more than accommodate everyone's needs!There is a small community of travellers parked opposite B & Q in Hall Road, Norwich. Apparently they are awaiting council houses. I cannot believe that with the number of empty homes in this country, Norfolk do not have any! Watch the programme anyway, it should be an eye-opener.
Yes. Tony Fielder was not there. Tony Cooke and Tim Horspole were there. Th Stanfield Oil Depot looks like a red herring and there is no way it will be selected. Lower Spinks Lane is a perfect site but, although it is not on the shortlist, we must ask for it to be included as the scoring for this site is all over the place, inaccurate and wrong. Not so many people there this time, but we must keep fighting....
Last night I learnt that Wymondham is destined for 9, 000 new houses to be built, even if they are to remain empty. What a waste! I wonder if the Lower Spinks Lane site has been destined for part of that planning scheme. That would explain why it has received nonsense scoring and taken out of the running for gypsy sites. It is obviously the best site of gypsy and travellers due to its closeness to Wymondham and Waitrose and other important services.
One other thing that I am not happy about, it one of our older residents (a lady from Spooner Row) was not allowed into the village hall or the lobby area to quietly collect signatures for a petition. What a horrid thing for the District Council to do to an OAP (aged 72)! All respects to her, despite her arthritis and the bitterly cold evening, she stood out there all day until 9pm and collected signatures. Well done to her and thank you for your determination against such abysmal treatment!!!!
The Stanfield site is in the Tiffey Valley, so is prone to flooding. There are ponds with great crested newts that were moved to there when the bypass was built. They say it has a protected railway line status, so you can't develop on it. The site is environmentally sensitive and I have heard that it is of national interest. To cap it all, South Norfolk Council are even arranging for a flora and fauna survey of the area which will basically confirm that it is important for wildlife etc. At the Spooner Row site, SNC have said that the value of the nationally recognised (DEFRA and Natural England) Conservation Walk and Countryside Stewardship Scheme (and presumably also the archaeological value of the Wick Hall site) is questionable. The Stanfield site was simply included as a red herring to make sure either Spooner Row or Suton are selected.
We have to show that the scoring system for Lower Spinks Lane is unsound, and it is obvious if you visit the site that this is the case. South Norfolk Council are trying to ignore this site and introduced desirable factors (that don't make sense) to try and provide a reason why this site should be ignored. Remember this site is still on the shortlist but we need to do more than just say in our representations that the scoring system is unfair as this will no doubt me ignored. Nearly everything else we said last time in our representations was ignored. In my opinion they have other bigger development plans for the Lower Spinks Lane site and they don't want travellers pitches on it!!
