Council committee rejects plans for Gypsy site at Fairhill - Bedfordshire

From Bedfordshire On Sunday

THE planning committee of Bedford Borough Council has rejected an application for a 14 pitch Gypsy and Traveller site at Fairhill in Bedford.

At a meeting tonight (Monday, June 3) the decision over whether to grant or refuse planning permission for the site which was proposed for land south of the A6 Paula Radcliffe Way was divided at the vote with 4 votes for and 4 against.

Making the deciding vote, Chairwoman Anita Gerard voted to refuse the application.

A number of issues were raised at the meeting held at Bedford Corn Exchange including concerns over the fact no equality assessment had been carried out for thr Gypsy and Traveller community. Officers stated it was not a necessary planning requirement for this kind of assessment to be carried out.

Campaigner against the proposed site, Bedford resident Ian Nicholls, also referred to the fact that Fairhill was not mentioned on a list of suitable sites produced by the Borough Council last year.

Ward councillor for the area, Louise King, addressed the committee about her concerns that Fairhill may be of important archaelogical interest. She said: 'The site is of high archaeological potential spanning thousands of years.

'Will a further assessment of the site be done if planning permission is given? There needs to be a thorough investigation to make sure nothing of major significance is lost.I hope the committee will take this into consideration.'

Planning officer, Iain Blackley, replied: 'I can’t give a detailed answer. The archaeologist in this case didn’t look at it in detail as the site was not felt to be of interest, there is a site of interest opposite this area and if members wished to, they could impose a condition that a survey be carried out before work began.'

Also objecting to the application was former MP for Bedford and Kempston, Patrick Hall.

Raising issues over when Fairhill was actually chosen as a potential site, he said: 'I understand the decision to stop work on the Gypsy and Traveller assessment was taken by the mayor in September last year and that came into effect in October. The dates of the Fairhill survey started in November and the application was submitted in March.

'What I’m afraid I don’t understand is why the answer was to identify Fairhill as a site when the decision had just been made to stop the need to search for further sites.

'I think the council have just said, actually none of that works and have started a search for sites on an ad hoc basis, I didn’t know that was the case and neither did the public, why go through all the process of making a list of sites and then deciding instead to do it on ad hoc basis?

'Fairhill is simply an add on to a proper process which was subject to due consideration by the public and council, a process which included over £60k spent on the Meadow Lane site, it is perplexing.

'I don’t really understand this and I wonder what is really going on.'

Officers also stated it would be wrong of the committee to decide whether or not to grant planning permission based on whether there was a current need for pitches -something which was disputed by objectors as it was one of the reasons a separate application for a Gypsy site at Bromham was refused just two weeks ago.

Speaking on this issue, ward councillor, Colleen Atkins, asked: 'The Bromham application says there are sufficient pitches to meet the assessed level of need and these have either been provided, granted planning permission and are deliverable is this correct?'

Officers replied that yes, this was the council's 'current' position but there was a risk that Meadow Lane would not be deliverable within the next five years.

When it came to the vote, councillors Shan Hunt, Will Hunt, Mohammed Masud and chairwoman Anita Gerard voted to refuse permission.

Councillors Tom Wootton, Stephen Moon, Mark Smith and Phil Merryman voted in favour.

With the vote tied, Cllr Gerard had the deciding vote and refused the application - going against officers' recommendations.

She said: 'I asked for a site visit as I wanted to look at it, whatever it says in the report about the reasons why it is a suitable site, when I was there I could hear constant noise of the road from one side, trains from another, there will be another bypass on a third side, noise from Sainsbury’s and on those rare quiet moments there was the constant hum from the electricity substation.

'I don’t think we should put people on the site.'