As I was sitting in the Council Chamber at Babergh yesterday listening to the Development Committee at work it suddenly dawned on me that I am becoming a local government anorak. As I write this I can hear my sons, and possibly some of you, saying ‘How sad is that!’ After all, I could have been at home enjoying the newspaper or reading a book . The fact is however that watching the Committee make decisions on planning matters becomes quite fascinating as one learns more and more about the subject.
I was at the meeting to speak against a proposed development in Great Waldingfield. The site is pictured above. The Parish Council had opposed the scheme which is yet another application for a new house in Folly Road. Sadly I was unable to persuade the Committee that it was not a good idea to shoehorn yet another property onto a tiny triangle of land where there is hardly room to turn a car, let alone build a house. In fairness, were the Committee to have refused to allow the development the decision would almost certainly have been overturned on appeal. The ruination of our villages continues however.
Other ward members were also unsuccessful in their protestations to the Committee with the exception of Bryn Hurren from Boxford who made a good case for a house extension which apparently was unacceptable because it overlooked another nearby. The ‘overlooked neighbours’ had actually written in support of the young family in question who really needed to extend their property. The officer however thought that the extension broke the rules. Fortunately the Committee took the route of common sense and allowed the scheme to go ahead.
The most interesting case concerned a mobile home for which retrospective planning permission was being sought. This is in the open countryside near Newton and under most circumstances would not be allowed. However, the applicant was a bona fide gypsy whose rights are protected by special legislation. In view of the fact that Babergh is going to be obliged shortly to find a number of pitches for travellers and gypsies, and the applicant had claims under human rights legislation, the pragmatic approach was taken and permission to stay was granted. I think that this was the right thing to do in this instance but the decision was not universally welcomed or thought to be fair. The case illustrates the difficulties that are caused by legislation which is in essence positive discrimination in favour of certain parts of the community. That resentment is caused by this is almost inevitable. My gut feeling is that in general such legislation is better avoided.
