Get Nigel′s Regular Updates
Nigel gives his full support to villagers over illegal traveller site in the Green Belt.
Nigel has written (see text below) to Selby District Council saying that a traveller site which was set up illegally should not be given three years temporary approval.
Villagers report problems of large dogs being allowed to run loose, noise from the site and heavy vehicles bringing scrap metal to and from the site on the edge of the village.
"The site was set up illegally five or so years ago and is simply unacceptable that anybody who breaks the law in this way should be given permission to continue living on the site for another three years. Selby District Council need to take decicive action and draw a line under the situation as soon as possible."
Selby District Council will be considering the planning application at the Planning meeting to take place this afternoon at 4pm. Wednesday 11 July.
Text from letter to the Council -
"Over the course of the last few months I have had a number of residents from Sutton bring to my attention the various problems associated with the use of the Sycamore site. This application is therefore of serious concern to me and I therefore consider it important that my views are made known to the committee.
My concern is that this case goes back many years, has involved an appeal and the grant of temporary approval which has now expired. The matter must be brought to a close and the proposed 3 year temporary approval will simply extend the problem and reduce the probability of a final and conclusive resolution.
The planning officers report starts out by saying :- The proposal constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt wherein there is a presumption against such development except in very special circumstances. The proposal is therefore a departure from the development plan. Furthermore the harm caused by reason of inappropriateness in addition to other harms to the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt, would not be outweighed by the educational benefits to the Smith family or the fact that there are no alternative sites available.
The natural conclusion is that the application should be refused.
The Planning Inspector who heard the Appeal case in 2009 decided that 12 month temporary permission be granted and this expired in November 2011. The inspector made it clear that a permanent consent in this location was not appropriate due to the harm to the green belt and was not convinced that the reasons put forward by the applicant constituted very special circumstances which outweighed the harm to the green belt.
Local residents report ongoing problems with the site and these should be taken as further reasons for not granting 3 year temporary approval.
The time to draw a close to this ongoing problem which has impaired the quality of life for the residents of Sutton is now and I ask that this application be decided accordingly. "