When one puts oneself forward to represent the views and opinions of others, particularly when it comes to planning matters, on occasions some difficult decisions have to be taken. Thankfully, in my 11+ years as the SSDC District Councillor for Neroche ward, which covers the villages of Ashill, Donyatt, Broadway and Horton, I have probably been faced with this situation only a handful of times. Something of a challenge, and not always one to be relished; I am mindful of the quote ‘You cannot please all of the people all of the time..’, but at least I can try.
One such occasion occurred earlier this week when the application for a gypsy/traveller site was brought before Area West for decision.
By the narrowest of margins the decision was made to go against the planning officer’s recommendation for approval, and to refuse the application. I believe it was the right decision but not for the reasons one might expect.
When applications for such sites are submitted emotions run high. Rightly, or wrongly, there continues to be a stigma attached to such applications, mainly brought about by fear, and the anti-social behaviour that is sometimes associated with the residents of such sites. In spite of such behaviour, what we must always be careful of is tarring everyone with the same brush. In the case of this particular applicant, he is well regarded by those local residents who have known him for osme years. Unlike some other applicants, in any planning context, he did everything by the book, and did not choose to occupy the site in advance of any decision being made.
In my capacity as District Councillor it is my responsibility, and indeed a duty, to represent all parties involved should they seek my advice; to offer unbiased, objective assistance, but above all, to remain open minded until all evidence has been produced. This can sometimes be difficult for people to understand.
In this particular case, at the public Area West Committee meeting, held in Crewkerne, there were many objectors present. In the main, and certainly those from the community I represent, conducted themselves in an appropriate way, sticking to the facts and the evidence they had gained; thankfully with the absence of the distasteful jeering, heckling mentality that one sometimes witnesses. On the other hand, one particular speaker, who announced himself as a prospective parliamentary candidate for next year’s general election, did himself and his party no favours at all by attempting to highjack the meeting for political purposes, and in the process revealed his ignorance of how local government works. Not a very promising sign for some wanting to represent a wider community. His remarks, in as much as he was permitted to air them, amounted to blatant racism in an attempt to stir up the assembled crowd. Fortunately for all of us, his comments were greeted with universal disgust. Had he been allowed to continue, I believe that he would have put the democratic process in jeopardy. Interestingly, I am familiar with several of his County Councillor colleagues, and I do not believe that they would ever behave in such a way.
However, although it pains me to say so, I believe the point he was trying to make, in connection with the current legislation that permits gypsy/traveller sites to be treated as exceptions to normal planning rules, is right. Yes, I do believe there is room for everyone in our society, and that we should all be treated equally, but whether it be to do with racial, ethnic, religious or gender equality. In fact, I hold a formal Equality & Diversity qualification. I do not though, subscribe to the view that in order to achieve equality we should have in place legislation that to all intents and purposes by its very nature discriminates against the majority. This only serves to increase division and encourages animosity. I consider that the only way to achieve this is through education and exposure to different experiences, not by the big stick approach.
In the case of this application, I felt strongly that this was just not the right site. I’m a bit of traditionalist and I am of the opinion that there is a need to protect our heritage. I feel that the impact of the site on a Grade2* listed property would be detrimental, particularly as there was a recommendation to raise the pitches some height above ground level as a protection against flooding, which in itself seems extraordinary. The application was not helped either by the continued failure of statutory consultees to apply themselves to providing appropriate accurate timely information. The person I feel most sorry for is the poor planning officer, who is only trying to apply the rules that exist, whether or not he personally agrees with them. One good thing has however come out of all this. The boorish naysayers who maintained that ‘This is all a fix, a done deal’ were once again proved wrong by the power of democracy. I’d like to be there when they eat their hats.
No comments:
Post a Comment