Preferred Options for Sites

Object

Representation ID: 64502

Received: 31/03/2014

Respondent: Anthony Aspbury ssociates

Objects to GT04 on following grounds:

* Some of the issues raised in previous objection to dated 15th July 2013 in respect of proposed Sites GT03 and GT04 in the Gypsy and Traveller Site Options paper have not been included (or have been only selectively referenced) in the February 2014 Executive Report that preceded the Preferred Options Sites consultation document.
GT04 would deliver residential development that is unsuitable for, incompatible with and inappropriate in its proposed location.
'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' (March 2012):
* The overarching aim of CLG's 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' (March 2012) is to "ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers".
* The guidance clearly states that the objective is to "increase the number of traveller sites in appropriate locations"
* GT04 is in a wholly inappropriate location for any residential occupation (irrespective of whether it is for permanent housing or traveller accommodation), for all the reasons set out below.
* Permitting the permanent siting of pitches in this location would NOT deliver fair or equal treatment to Travellers residing at the site.
* As detailed in our earlier objection, the allocation of Site GT04 as a Gypsy and Traveller site is in direct conflict with Paragraphs 3.3 and 3.6 to 3.12 of guidance contained within the Government's good practice guide: 'Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites' on selecting appropriate locations for sites.

Paragraph 3.6 states that "sites should not be identified for Gypsy and Traveller use in locations that are inappropriate for ordinary residential dwellings, unless exceptional circumstances apply. These circumstances would be where the location is unsuitable for housing, for practical and technical reasons which would not adversely affect the health and safety of Gypsy and Traveller residents or the sustainability o/the site."

* It is clear that the definition of 'exceptional circumstances' does not apply in this case

National Planning Practice Guidance:

* The PPGS provides useful planning guidance and is a material consideration in the assessment of planning applications.

* The proposed use of Site GT04 as a Gypsy and Traveller site is inconsistent with the guidance set out in the 'Noise' and 'Air Quality' sections of the PPGS (see below)


WDC Assessment Criteria:

Site GT04 is wholly inappropriate, unsuitable, and unsustainable, having particular regard to the following:

a) Impact on the landscape character:

Site GT04 lies in open countryside situated between the settlements of Bishops Tachbrook and Harbury and is currently utilised as the Leamington Football Club home ground. The immediate and surrounding rural landscape is largely open in nature and, despite the existing boundary planting, there are sight lines into and out of the site from both distant and close views. As the site is not set within an existing residential or agricultural built form context, it is considered that the proposed use would have an adverse impact upon the character of the landscape, appearing as an incongruous feature in the countryside. Furthermore, as a result of the evident physical disconnect of the site from the edge of the built-up areas of the nearest settlements, it is our view that the remote location of the site will likely impede successful integration of the resident Gypsy and Traveller population within the local community.

b) Impact of land contamination, noise and other disturbance:

The nearest development to Site GT04 includes Leamington Hall Farm adjacent to the northern boundary of the site, our c1ienfs poultry farmholding at Barnwell Farm on the opposite side of Harbury Lane to the south, and a mixed-trade industrial area to the west (the closest operator being Harbury Lane Breakers and Dismantlers Ltd).

Odour impacts:

WDC should give full and careful consideration, in its assessment of the suitability of the site, to the environmental conditions that are generated by the operation of existing intensive poultry units at Barnwell Farm.
The background to the 1996 planning permission (Ref. W/96/1095) and commentary on the materials submitted in support of the application was detailed in letter of 13th July 2013. However, the importance of the results of the odour assessment is set out below, as the Council appears not to have assigned sufficient weight to the poultry farm odour impacts upon the residential amenity of potential occupiers of the proposed site.
* The air quality assessment submitted as part of the 1996 application examined the impact of odour emissions from the poultry units on the air quality. Diagrams [submitted as part of the representation at Figure 1] indicate the odours plume and downwind directional dispersal from the centre of the site for the whole year, as well as for August (when the potential for odour complaints are highest).
* The diagrams clearly illustrate that prevailing winds in the locality blow from the south/southwest, dispersing odour emissions from the poultry farm in a north/north-easterly direction towards and across Site GT04, thereby generating undesirable conditions for residential occupation in that location.

* Also highlighted that the southern boundary of Site GT04 is less than 200 metres from the nearest poultry unit at Barnwell Farm, therefore the impacts upon residential amenity and potential for odour complaints from the occupiers of the site is greatly increased.

* The third bullet point of Paragraph 5 of the NPPGS in the 'Air Quality' guidance clearly states that LPAs should consider whether the development would "expose people to existing sources of air pollutants. This could be by building new homes, workplaces or other development in places with poor air quality."

* As the 1996 air quality assessment demonstrates, the odour emissions generated by the existing poultry units affects the air quality of the areas surrounding the site, with considerable effects upon the areas to the north-east of Barwell Farm where Site GT04 is proposed. Accordingly, it is considered that this area is not suitable for residential occupation.

Noise impacts:

Harbury Lane Breakers and Dismantlers Ltd is a large reclamation and scrap vehicle breakers yard located only 400 metres west of Site GT04.

* The yard is likely due to nature of its operational activities to generate noise (and potentially dust) pollution which will result in adverse effects on the residential amenity for the occupiers of the site. It should also be noted that the breaking yard operates seven days a week, further reinforcing the unsuitability of the site for residential occupation.

* In addition to the breaking yard, the intensive poultry business at Barnwell Farm operates 'phased' cyclical processing which generates a high number of traffic movements (166 in total) per cycle. A summary of the traffic movements were included in earlier objection.

* However, it is worth reiterating that traffic movements for each cycle is unrestricted and can take place at any time of the day or night, 7 days a week. As previously noted, the majority of movements take place during the night, which may give rise to residential amenity noise concerns at GT04 due to the site's proximity to Barnwell Farm.

* In addition to the vehicular noise, automated feed, heating and ventilation systems are in operation 24 hours a day which further increase potential noise disturbance.

The seventh bullet point of NPPG Paragraph 6 in the 'Noise' guidance states that LPAs should have regard to "the potential effect on an existing business of a new residential development being located close to it should be carefully considered as the existing noise levels from the business may be regarded as unacceptable by the new residents and subject to enforcement action."

Impact on Existing Buisnesses:

* Bullet point 3 of Paragraph 123 in the overarching National Planning Policy Framework ('The Framework') highlights that "existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established. II

* Locating sensitive land uses (particularly residential) close to industrial uses and intensive livestock operations can give rise to conflict between those uses. Harbury Lane Breakers and Barnwell Farm are long-established enterprises that contribute positively to the rural economy and local community.

* However, the introduction of an inappropriate and incongruous use such as that proposed - on the nearby Site GT04, is likely to generate odour and noise amenity conflicts which may impact upon the operation and future viability of those existing business.