Burgh le Marsh traveller site plans rejected

Plans for a gypsy and traveller transit site next to the Burgh le Marsh bypass have been rejected by East Lindsey District Council (ELDC)'s planning committee.
Traveller site plans for Burgh-le-Marsh have been rejected. ANL-161124-081336001Traveller site plans for Burgh-le-Marsh have been rejected. ANL-161124-081336001
Traveller site plans for Burgh-le-Marsh have been rejected. ANL-161124-081336001

The proposed site, on a triangular area of land to the north of the A158, had been recommended for approval by ELDC’s planning officers and would have involved 18 pitches, parking and toilets.

However, when the application was brought before councillors on November 17, it was described as being unfit for purpose.

The transit site - which is more than four miles from Skegness - was deemed too far away from local facilities.

This was described by Chairman Coun Neil Cooper as a ‘disconnect’ which would make the site unsustainable.

Coun Cooper also noted that the site would have an effect on the local landscape, and would be a development in the open countryside.

Other councillors added that access and egress to the site would be difficult and unsafe due to the speed of traffic on the bypass.

Coun Alan Vassar, who represents the adjacent ward of Willoughby and Sloothby, spoke out against the proposal on the grounds of 
road safety.

Coun Vassar said: “It is alongside a very busy and exceptionally noisy road”, on which many vehicles 
travel at more than 60 mph.

“It is an accident waiting to happen”.

Coun Vassar added that the site overall was ‘not the standard that we should be looking for’, and that it was not ‘sustainable, safe, and easy to maintain’ as is required by the ‘Gypsy and Travellers Site: Good Practice Guide’ written by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

He continued: “I believe that accepting this application would be tantamount to treating the travelling population as third-class citizens, and this is the opposite view 
that our society should be taking.”

Ultimately, the planning committee voted against the proposal.