Planning for sustainable development
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr John Benton and others
Sir: What would Esther Oxford say if we arrived at her house without appointment, climbed over her garden fence and wandered into her kitchen? Or of we interviewed her most objectionable neighbours about her personal habits? This is how she treated the Tinkers Bubble community in her article "Not so hippy, not so happy" (5 September).
Having arrived on a day when all but two of us were out, she suggested that we had "dispersed". She insulted many of the people of Norton whom she has never met by stating that they shared the prejudices of a vociferous minority. And she insulted members of the Trust that she has never met by calling us workshy, "grubby paupers".
Above all she failed to mention that allegations of "tribal drumming", "endangering deer", "traffic congestion", "fire risk", "controversial shit-pit" and so on were carefully examined at the planning inquiry in Norton village hall - and dismissed. The DoE inspector, who visited the site, concluded that "there was no significant nuisance now", that "the development would cause no harm to amenity", and was even an example of "sustainable development". He recommended that permission be granted because our low-impact agricultural experiment would cause no harm and could not be carried out without us living on our land.
The Environment Secretary, John Gummer, did not disagree with the inspector on questions of nuisance or amenity. He refused our planning appeal on the grounds that our "merely subsistence" lifestyle constituted only a "personal preference", while any benefit to the rural economy would be "negligible". How odd that when Esther Oxford arrived two of us were away selling our first crop of organic apples!
Our aim is to build a better quality of life and a sustainable rural economy based on the efficient use of local resources. Does this constitute poverty?
Yours sincerely,
John Benton; Chris Black; Andrew Chant; Louise Chant; Simon Fairlie; Theo Hopkins; Lee Hughes; Graham Kirk; George Monbiot; Emma Must; Steve Offord; Penny Ross; Oliver Tickell; Carl War; Michael Zair
Tinkers Bubble Trust,
Little Norton,
Somerset
7 September
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments