Mr Chairnam,
Bayford PC is strongly opposed to this application, and indeed I was quite shocked to read that the officers of the planning department were considering the granting of this application given the history of the site.
The original application was refused by East Herts DC, but following the Appeal in 11 Aug 2003, permission was granted a single mobile home. This was the opinion of the Inspector after a deliberation of several days, and after a considerable amount of public money had been spent. Specific comments were made that no further increase in this development should be allowed.
The Inspector pointed out that a single mobile home would have a similar impact to a bungalow. It is further stated that a gypsy caravan site is inappropriate in the green belt area, unless there were other considerations. Would five bungalows be an appropriate development on this site?
Mr Robb made a case when appealing the previous decision by EHDC that he and his family were under threat of eviction from his present site. It is interesting then to note that Mr Robb and his family have been absent from the site for considerable periods since 2003.
I do not understand what has changed! If at each application the Council were allowed to forget about the entire history of any site, the result would be a house in every field and the destruction of the character of all the villages in this area. Clearly this is not the case. The percentage increase allowed for existing properties is restricted.
The inevitable increase in traffic entering and exiting the site, perhaps up to 15 vehicles in and out several times per day, including, no doubt, lorries and vans, would pose a significant hazard. The proposal to move the entrance would in no way mitigate this danger, since there is only about 20m between the junction with the busy B158 and the blind narrow corner on Bayford Lane. A number of accidents occur on this stretch of Bayford Lane each year, indeed my own daughter’s car was written off here just last year. The verge at this point is less than half a metre wide, which means that vehicles leaving the site would have to block the road.
A ‘private gypsy site’ with 5 pitches would clearly constitute a commercial venture. This is also totally at odds with the current use and character of the area, and would surely require additional permissions and further extenuating circumstances.
I must stress that Bayford PC’s opposition to this proposal is not in any way based on Mr Robb’s ethnic origin or lifestyle. Would I be allowed to build 4 additional houses in my garden? Would I be allowed to increase the size of my house fivefold? I am sure the answer is no. We are merely seeking a level playing field for every parishioner, where all the goal posts are the same distance apart.
Indeed, in our letter in response to this planning application, Bayford PC freely stated that Mr Robb has been a ‘good neighbour’ since the initial problems with the occupation of Rumball’s Hump were resolved. He has turned out for the annual village litter collection and we hope to see him at the next one, March. We would support an application by Mr Robb to increase the size of his mobile home, restricted by the Inspector’s decision, to the newer larger maximum size.
We can see no reason why this appeal should be allowed.
We urge Councillors to refused this application.