Dear Sirs,

I would like to object to the proposed allocation of site 'G13 Kites Nest Lane Beausale' as a site for gypsies and travellers for the following reasons:

- The development of this site would be inappropriate and harmful development in the Green Belt. It is an urbanising development, clearly incongruous in this area, that would cause substantial harm to the Green Belt's openness and encroach into beautiful countryside.
- There would be harm to the visual amenity of this part of the Green Belt. The experience of walking and cycling the surrounding footpath and bridleway network would be adversely effected as a result of clear views experienced of an urban development through the patchy hedgerows.
- Planning Permission has already been refused by the Secretary of State for development on this site for some of the above reasons. The Council has spent significant time and public money enforcing against the unauthorised occupation of the site. To allocate the site now would, in my view, seriously harm the integrity of the planning system and the Council.
- A recent ministerial statement from local government minister Brandon Lewis set out the Secretary of State's view that "the single issue of unmet demand, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the very special circumstances justifying inappropriate development in the green belt". It is therefore clear that Green Belt protection is of paramount importance to the Government and should be a weighty consideration to justify not allocating this Green Belt site for gypsy/traveller development.
- The Government's aim for traveller sites (See national policy for traveller sites) include that plan making and decision taking should protect Green Belt from inappropriate development.
- Government policy is also to reduce tensions between the settled community and traveller communities in plan making and decision taking. The unauthorised way this site was occupied, and continues to be occupied in breach of planning rules, increases tensions between communities and reduces the sustainability of the site, as acknowledged by the Secretary of State in the 2011 appeal decision.

In conclusion, I hope that the Council will be consistent in resisting the development of this site and afford great importance to protecting this attractive Green Belt location from substantial harm.