SAWTRY was let down nationally. I am a Sawtry resident who attended each of the parish meetings and the hearing. At the hearing each of the parties made a strong case but James Rankin had his hands tied behind his back. The law is at fault limiting the grounds for objection, most of all moral grounds.
It was accepted that Sawtry was a village of families and as stated “having a God-fearing community with three schools, a population 25 per cent of which is under 19”.
The last thing the children of the village and surrounding villages should learn to accept is ‘anything goes’. How can parents set an example forced into this situation by a lapse in the law? Our standards need raising, and it is up to us to ensure this happens.
The parish council and the HDC committee continually referred to the law whenever any morality point was made, prohibiting comment.
Why at the start of this application did the council not consider saying you cannot omit moral grounds from an application such as a sex shop, starting an appeal for a change in the law and in the meantime simply defer the application. They certainly would have received public backing.
I am not a lawyer but believe in common sense. If there is going to be an appeal to the High Court, how about a change in the 1982 Act to embrace moral grounds. Mr Cameron wants the public to have its say: defer executing this successful application and get the law changed. Wrong conclusion, but inevitable, because here is a case where the law is an ass.