Ombudsman raps Travellers site scheme - Yorkshire

From the Press

A CONTROVERSIAL scheme to create a new Gypsy and Traveller site close to a Selby village has been criticised by the Local Government Ombudsman.

More than 50 residents of Burn, including Travellers from an existing site, attended a planning meeting last month at which plans for a new 15-pitch site at Burn Airfield were refused in a vote of seven to four against the scheme, following months of opposition and campaigning by locals.

In the run-up to the meeting, one resident, who called herself Mrs X, appealed to the Local Government Ombudsman claiming the council had not followed proper procedure when selecting Burn as a location for the new site.

A report released by the LGO this week agreed, stated: “There is evidence of fault in how the council selected a site in a village for a Gypsy and Travellers’ site.

“The council’s decision-making was not transparent. As a result, the council’s decision looks to be arbitrary.”

The report also said: “It may also be difficult for the council to submit a further planning application for the site given the planning committee’s reasons for refusing the application.”

Graham Rawlings, of action group Burn Against New Site, said: “If Selby District Council does decide to resubmit an application, we intend to pursue this matter again.”

He added that, following comments made in the planning meeting and advice from the Ombudsman, village residents would be meeting shortly to discuss making a further complaint.

A spokeswoman for Selby District Council said: “The council has a legal requirement to provide a five-year supply of sites for Traveller pitches.

“Delivering these is, inevitably, a complex and emotive issue. We consider that we did take reasonable steps to consider a range of options for identifying potential sites.

“This report, of course, follows the rejection of the proposed development of new pitches at Burn by the council’s Planning Committee. In light of this decision, we intend to bring forward proposals for how we can meet our legal obligation to provide these sites within the district.”