A Night of Fireworks
The Village Speaks Out - On Tuesday 13th July
John Chalmers in his PC Report above reckons that that meeting was possible the fullest in the history of the PC. The meeting held in the Village Hall on the following Tuesday was certainly the largest village meeting ever. They just kept coming in. Eventually the two front entrances were blocked solid. So they came in the back door -an extra 5, 10, 15, 20 -they just kept coming in and I revised my estimate upwards from 250 to about 280 people.
The organisers were magnificent and had even installed speakers outside the Hall for those unable to get in. They also arranged excellent press coverage, with photo, in the Newmarket Freebie. Unfortunately no-one in Lower End or the High Street received a copy. David Greenfield was Chairman and he was superb in handling such a large and very worried crowd. Dimbleby, you will need to be careful.
Everyone was there. Firefighter, midwife, archaeologist, farmer, lord and lady of the manor, academic, teacher, consultants, the young, the retired, long tern residents, mothers, builders, and, in the olden days, we would have had the butcher, the baker and the candle stick maker..
The Chairman introduced the meeting by saying that the Coalition Government intends to replace the LDF (Local Development Framework) and the RSS (Regional Spatial Strategy) and its targets and many wondered why ECDC had soldiered on with the report rather than waiting to hear what the changes may be. One person thought it was like "A dead man walking."
Early on it was revealed that the proposed six pitches could hold 2-3 caravans and that the site was intended for extended families. So we could have a settlement of 18 caravans and up to about 50 people. What particularly surprised people was that David Brown (our CCC representative and also ECDC representative for Burwell) had not been consulted about the development. And neither had Allen Alderson who first learned about it when he opened the post on the previous Saturday. How can this have happened? The consultation period ran between 15 May and 26 June 2006. Thereafter various committees would have met and decisions taken. Yet our representatives knew nothing about this. This is especially weird because both, especially Allen Alderson, have been dealing regularly with traveller problems on our behalf. Anyone who bothered to attend PC meetings would know how much concern they cause. In fact this item is so regular that it is not newsworthy for the Crier report.
At a very early stage of the meeting it must have been agreed that someone should present the other side. This was made by a once civil servant who for a long time had worked on planning for gypsy and traveller issues and requirements. He thought the proposed site should be given a "cautious welcome" , thought there was often "an irrational objection to traveller proposals" , and that "it is prejudice" . He spoke for some time and then the crowd became restive until some forgot their manners and interrupted. The Chairman restored order but as the statement continued in the same vein the patience of the crowd reached breaking point. It was a prepared speech, I made careful notes, and was surprised that the message was no more than (in my words) "you are a prejudiced ignorant lot" who ought to be more sympathetic. Just before the meeting closed one person thought it necessary to hear the other point of view so that it could be opposed more successfully, and the traveller advocate was invited to speak again. Nothing was added except he said that it would be "hard to find objections on planning grounds" . What a missed opportunity. Here was someone who should have been able to speak about the effect of the arrival of 800 Irish travellers in 2003, who could have given us a detailed account of the Cottenham site (featured in the Saturday 17 July issue of the Daily Telegraph), or could have explained the cultural cohesion linking Travelling Showpeople, Gypsies and Travellers which makes them across Cambridgeshire "the largest single ethnic minority." Or he could have told the meeting the benefits of having a traveller site in the village. That would have been useful.
All the people who spoke were succinct and to the point. They spoke from experience and the experience was not good. These are not reported because the object of meeting was to work on the important objections that the planners will accept. In human and social terms all the objections raised are acceptable -except to the planners. The Committee has circulated everyone with details of the meeting and a website where there are videos, further details, advice and a request that EVERYONE (there is no age limit) does something and responds to the Questionnaire, whether for or against, by 16th August. Is this Swaffham Prior's first step in the Big Society?