BASE HEADER

I write further to the Council's announcement of the locations which are being considered for gypsy/traveller sites in the District.

I am extremely shocked and disappointed to note that the site at Kite's Nest Lane, Beausale, is amongst those being considered by the Council. I note that the Council's reasoning is that, because the site has been proposed by the owners of the land, it must be considered by the Council. As I am not aware of it, perhaps the Council could point me to the statutory authority that says this to be the case or, at the very least, the policy within which this assertion is made. To the best of my knowledge there is no legal requirement for the Council to do so.

It is completely perverse for this site to be included. I'm sure you don't need me to go into the history of this site; save to say that one planning appeal has already been refused, with the Planning Inspector and Secretary of State making it clear in no uncertain terms that the site was completely unsuitable for any sort of development of this kind. The second inquiry has now come to an end, and again I understand that the appellants simply could not show any evidence that development was possible, nor that there were special or very special circumstances for granting permanent or temporary permission.

The Council has objected to both of these appeals, and I applaud them for that. Surely you agree, therefore, that for this site to even be in the running makes no sense at all? The Council, Planning Inspectorate and DCLG have all deemed the site unsuitable; accordingly it must be the case that any consideration of this site is a waste of time and resources?