There is an article on page 33 of the EDP today. The Planning Inspector has Health and Safety issues regarding the suitability of this site (and the other chosen one at Earsham), and they are calling for the DPD to be withdrawn. This could mean that original/other sites could now be back in the running, so we have to remain vigilant. I think a decision may be made next Tuesday.
Oh no, I hope we don't have to go through all that misery again with the District Council. Their whole system for selecting the sites and their nonsense site scoring criteria should have been scrapped from the start and they should put our taxes to better use.
The independent inspector has recommended that the DPD be withdrawn and is urging the council to go back to the drawing board to find more suitable sites other than the two at Stanfield and Earsham. He regards it as a flawed process and a flawed choice of sites. Derek Blake of SN cabinet is still confident that the government with approve the two sites, because he said they have the community support after including the local community every step of the way. Apparently SN id the first council in the country to reach this stage. I think this may have something to do with why is seemed so important that this went through as SN obviously wanted to be the first!!!!!!!!!! Some reason. The full report from Adam Gretton is on page 16 of todays EDP, but I cannot find a link to put on here. I daresay it will be on the W & A Mercury today. Looks like it's all going back to square one and we'll have to go through everything all over again!
Of course SN wanted to be the first, its quite clear that some individuals are using this to further their careers ("look at me aren't I good"). As for the independent inspector finding the process being flawed, well what a surprise, we said that all along.
If we have to go through all that nightmare again there will be hell to pay. And what about the transit sites, they haven't even started on the process of selecting them yet!!
Lets hope that this council and its harebrained schemes are voted out soon.
I remember that at the public meetings one of the "Tony's" emphasised that SNC were trail-blazers on this and wanted to provide a 'model' that others councils could follow. We knew it was a flawed from the start.
A district council was urged to go back to the drawing board yesterday after a planning inspector raised “serious concerns” about plans for two Gipsy and traveller sites.
South Norfolk Council submitted proposals for permanent pitches in Wymondham and Earsham, near Bungay, earlier this year following a three-year search and scrutiny of more than 80 sites.
But the local authority was yesterday urged to withdraw its Gipsy and traveller development plan document (DPD) following con-cerns from an independent inspector about the selection and deliverability of the proposed locations in Stanfield Road, Wymondham, and Old Harleston Road, Earsham.
A report from inspector Simon Emerson has prompted opposition members to call for the Tory administration to restart its search for more suitable sites.
The council wants to create 16 additional pitches by 2011. But in a letter to the council, Mr Emerson said he had “serious concerns” over whether he would find the DPD sound, and urged the council to give “careful consideration” to the contin-uation of the examination process.
The planning inspectorate has raised particular concerns about the Wymondham plans, which are next to the Goff Petroleum fuel storage depot. The oil supplier began a public exhibition yesterday to expand its Stanfield Road depot on to the same plot as the proposed Gipsy and traveller site.
“It would be poor planning to introduce a use which might curtail potential acceptable expansion of the adjoining business, unless there were good reasons to outweigh that potential adverse impact.
“I attach considerable importance to finding suitable sites for Gipsies and travellers, but I have seen little evidence to satisfy me that it should be this particular site so close to a land use which is incompatible with residential use,” said Mr Emerson.
The inspector added that he recognised the “considerable time and effort” expended by the council, but also recognised the “importance of finding additional lawful and suitable sites for Gipsies and travellers”.
Murray Gray, leader of the South Norfolk Liberal Democrat group, called for the formation of a new Gipsy and traveller working group to look for alternative sites in the district.
“I'm urging the council to withdraw the DPD before any more time and money is taken up on what I have always regarded as a flawed process resulting in a flawed choice of sites,” he said.
But Derek Blake, South Norfolk cabinet member for planning, housing and the built environment, said he was still confident that the government would approve the two sites.
“Our proposals have public support because we involved our community every step of the way.
“Having their support has made our plan more deliverable and justified.
“We are the first council in the country to reach this stage. Other councils across England, yet to even start this process, are closely watching our progress and making decisions about whether to follow, hence the importance of this proceeding,” he said.
With reference to the above EDP article, Derek Blake says,
"Other councils across England, yet to even start this process, are closely watching our progress and making decisions about whether to follow, hence the importance of this proceeding".
That's because other councils in England are letting SNC do all the donkey work at great expense to us council tax payers and when or if this council get it right (unlikely) can save their tax council payers lots of money and by just copying.
Did anyone go to the exhibition in Wymondham yesterday where it showed how 3,000 new houses would “benefit” Wymondham. What particularly interested me was that a large area close to the Police HQ (by the A11) was earmarked for industrial development.Right in the middle of this area was Spinks Lane: this was one of the four chosen sites recently put forward by SNC as a possible G&T site. Everyone during lasts year's consultation period, could see that this was clearly the best site for gipsies and travellers to live (it met the Council’s criteria very well) but the Council’s own Working Party gave it low marks.We all thought/and said it was a “red-herring” but they insisted we were wrong. It’s now evident that Spinks Lane was clearly destined for other uses and should never and been put forward as the Council had no intention of using the land for this purpose.
As I understand it the examination has been suspended for three weeks for further reports from HSE and for the council to consider the Inspections concerns further . It looks possible the DPD will get withdrawn and the process started again
Thanks for that information. If the DPD gets withdrawn, I hope they will go back and look at more realistic suitable sites (throughout Norfolk) which are also fairer to the settled community rather than just pick inappropriate sites and give them nonsensically scores like they did to us.
I wonder how much of our council tax has been wasted on this process so far?
Fresh doubts were cast over the delivery of two new gipsy and traveller sites in south Norfolk last week after a district council's plans were put on ice.
A planning inspector raised “serious concerns” about the suitability of South Norfolk Council's proposals for permanent pitches in Wymondham and Earsham, near Bungay, last month.
The local authority confirmed that its gipsy and traveller development plan document (DPD) examination had been suspended for three weeks following a series of questions posed by the Planning Inspectorate.
The suspension of the process will give South Norfolk Council officers more time to seek the advice of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and hold discussions with Goff Petroleum over plans for an eight pitch site next to the oil company's fuel storage depot in Stanfield Road, Wymondham.
The district council has been urged to consider its “next steps”, which also includes plans to house gipsy and travellers between a pig farm and scaffolding firm in Old Harleston Road at Earsham.
The concerns come after inspector Simon Emerson said he had doubts about the compatibility of a residential development next to the Goff Petroleum fuel depot on the edge of Wymondham, which is planning to expand. He added that there would be “no purpose” in pursuing a public examination if it was undermined by HSE advice.
Following a meeting with council officers on Monday , Mr Emerson added that both the Wymondham and Earsham sites had “unwilling landowners” and it was “questionable” whether there was justification to compulsory purchase the two areas of land.
Questions have also been raised about the authority's site selection criteria, which has whittled down more than 80 locations over the last three years.
Opposition councillors last month called on the Tory administration to go back to the drawing board.
But Derek Blake, cabinet member for planning, housing and the built environment, said the council remained “positive” that its proposals were achievable.
“We believe the inspector has misinterpreted government policy in insisting sites are placed inside or very close to existing communities. That goes particularly against the views of thousands of residents and if consultation is to have any meaning, we must listen to our community.”
“The inspector is concerned about the deliverability of our proposals, and in our view is this change of siting was implemented, the proposals would certainly not be deliverable. We ask residents to bear with us while we take stock and consider the appropriate way forward,” he said.
A six weeks extension? well that will be after the election date so with any luck we will have a new district council in place and the whole process binned. Anything major like this should be put to the community it affects first AND INVOLVE THAT COMMUNITY AT ALL STAGES and not just try and force it on them with a DPD that doesn't make sense. I am glad the Independent Inspector saw the DPD for what it was.
I voted for this council last time - I definitely won't be doing so again!
It has been eight weeks since the DPD was withdrawn with the Council looking at its options. Does anyone know what the current situation is? Are they going to start all over again to look for alternative sites?
A long search for new gipsy and traveller sites in south Norfolk will go back to the drawing board after failing to overcome the concerns of an independent inspector.
Plans were submitted for permanent pitches in Wymondham and Earsham, near Bungay, earlier this year after a more than four year hunt.
But after whittling down more than 80 potential locations across the district and several rounds of public consultation, proposals for sites in Stanfield Road, Wymondham, and Old Harleston Road, Earsham, appeared dead in the water .
South Norfolk Councillors are set to rubberstamp a recommendation next week to ask the government to withdraw its gipsy and traveller development plan document (DPD) after a planning inspector raised “grave” concerns about the district council's site selection criteria.
The news will leave the local authority with no new permanent sites after being asked to create 28 additional pitches by 2011 under the Regional Spatial Strategy.
Council officers and leaders said they would look to address the demand from the gipsy and traveller community by creating more transit sites, working with registered social landlords to develop new encampments, and granting planning permission for private sites.
Planning inspector Simon Emerson, who had suspended South Norfolk's DPD process, said he was not satisfied with the way the council took account of residents' views. He also raised serious concerns about the health and safety implications of placing gipsy and travellers next to the Goff Petroleum fuel storage depot at Stanfield Road, Wymondham.
As a result, the district council is set to make the formal decision on Monday to rip up its plans for Wymondham and Earsham before incurring the £40,000 cost of a full public inspection.
Leader John Fuller said the situation was “enormously frustrating” and accused the planning inspector of ignoring the views of South Norfolk residents. He added that the inspector's views sent a negative message to other local authorities looking at creating their own gipsy and traveller pitches. However, central government funding cuts were also a factor.
“To avoid the costs falling on council tax payers, we are going to have to consider a less expensive option, which is looking to provide transit sites rather than more expensive permanent sites.”
“When an illegal encampment sets up by the side of the road, people phone the council and expect us to take action. We were taking action, but the unintended consequences of the inspector's remarks means that we are effectively being prevented from doing so,” he said.
There are currently 24 gipsy and travellers on the waiting list for a new home in south Norfolk.
Murray Gray, leader of the South Norfolk Liberal Democrat group, said: “The independent planning inspector who reviewed the submitted document is highly experienced and listed over 20 concerns with it. Rather than blaming him for what's gone wrong, the council ought to take responsibility for submitting a sub-standard and unsound document, and try to learn some lessons for the future.”
I heard on the local news tonight that the new Government will no longer require Councils to provide pitches for travellers any more. There is still financial help from the Government if they want to develop authorised sites but this time they will need to consult the local communities first.
They are asking us to save money and South Norfolk Council has made cutbacks, does anyone know how much the council has spent on this (DPD) so far?
