Thank you for allowing me to speak at this meeting.
I must also thank you all for unanimously opposing the recommendation of the officers at the DCC meeting on 14th January 2009.
Bayford PC freely accepts that since 2003, Mr Robb has been a good neighbour. He has joined in with a number of village events.
On the basis of a level playing field, Bayford PC would support an application my Mr Robb for a single larger static caravan on this site.
My thesis, now as then, is that 'nothing material has changed'; either since 2003 or since January of this year.
At the Appeal in August 2003, the inspector, in para 51 allowed only a single static caravan on the site. This was in spite of the fact that even at this date, as stated in para 27 of the report states that 'in 1970 the Secretary of State set a quota of 15 pitches in this district', 'but that none had been provided'.
The DCC meeting of 14th January considered the site inappropriate for multiple occupancy, on account of the lack of facilities and its location next to an extremely busy road.
para 53 of the Appeal concluded 'the site is not sustainable' and 'does not support the appellant's case'.
These facts throw into sharp perspective the recent publications by the Council and EERA. It is wholly inappropriate that this application should be rushed through as a knee-jerk reaction to the recent documents. Any permission for gypsy and traveller sites in EHDC area should be sited after careful planning process, which takes into account the long-term nature of these decisions.
Once approval is given, even on a temporary basis, it is forever.
We are also extremely concerned at the application to move the vehicular access further up Bayford Lane, nearer to the blind corner. Bayford Lane here is very narrow, has steep banks making escape from any dangerous situation impossible. It is also frequently covered in gravel.
I urge you all to maintain your apposition to this application.
Michael Wainwright.
Chairman, Bayford Parish Council.
The committee was aked whether a decision for temporary permission could be made, whether the powers could be delegated to the chairman, the local member and an officer, and whetrher the committee would accept fewer than 5 pitches. They declined all three proposals.