Whilst we appreciate that this site is only proposed as an alternative, should the preferred sites not be deliverable, we still consider that the site is entirely unsuitable for such a use and should be removed from the alternative sites list.

The council should instead focus on whether the preferred sites are deliverable.

The rationale for producing the Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocation document is that the Council is required by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Housing Act 2004 to meet the accommodation needs of the population within their area. This includes the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community and that of Travelling Show People.

The allocation of sites is intended to enable the Council to identify a supply of specific deliverable and developable sites, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Government's Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. Site GT05 is neither deliverable nor developable.

Undeliverable

According to the Government's Planning policy for traveller sites, to be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that development will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable.

Firstly, the site is not available. The consultation document and Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment document both state that the site is not available without compulsory purchase. The landowner is objecting to the proposed allocation and will not make the site available for such purpose.

The site is therefore not deliverable without compulsory purchase. There is no indication in the consultation document or supporting evidence base that the council intends to use compulsory purchase powers or have the funds available. There is therefore no evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the site could be delivered within the first five years.

This site was on the list of original sites considered, however, during the Options Consultation, a number of other potential sites were drawn to the Council's attention, on the basis that they were genuinely available. We urge the council to look to those sites which have been put forward for this purpose, ahead of those which are unavailable meaning the council would have to resort to compulsory purchase powers.

Secondly, the site is not in a suitable location which will be discussed in detail below.

Given that the site is unavailable, in an unsuitable location and there is no prospect that the site will come forward within five years, it cannot be considered deliverable.

Undevelopable:

According to the Government's Planning policy for traveller sites, to be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for traveller site development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged. Given that the site is not available without the use of compulsory purchase powers, and no indication is given in the consultation document or supporting evidence to suggest that the Council have the funds available, the site cannot be considered developable.

As above, the site is not available without compulsory purchase powers, and with no evidence to suggest that the Council have the funds or intentions to do so, there is no realistic prospect of the site being available and viably developed.

Unsuitable

The site is entirely unsuitable for the proposed allocation and land use and be discounted from further consideration. The detailed justification for this is outlined below:

Landscape impact:

The Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment document identifies that the site is open in part from Banbury Road, but that it could be screened.

However, development of this site would have a significant impact on landscape character due to the height and prominence of the site. It is extremely visible from Mallory Road when entering the village and as a consequence would entirely change the visual aspect of the village from this approach.

The findings of the Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment are directly contradictory to the Landscape Character Assessment and Green Belt and Greenfield Review undertaken in support of the New Local Plan.

This concluded that development of this site would have a significant impact on the physical form of the village and landscape character.

The Green Belt and Greenfield Review concludes that the parcel of land of which the site forms part (parcel BT4) plays an important role in preserving the open setting of the village from the south.

It identifies the parcel as being part of a generally a very open landscape which is slightly elevated towards the village centre. It is highly visible along the B4087, past breaks in the tree line which would impact negatively on the visual amenity of the. Development would result in a very significant loss of agricultural land. Development would have a potentially significant impact on the
character and identity of Bishop's Tachbrook and reduce the open setting and gateway to the village from the south and therefore have a negative impact on the open setting of a village.

Landscape Character Assessment undertaken in support of the New Local Plan similarly concluded that:

"The existing settlement edge is very prominent in this zone and any further development would exacerbate this and erode the rural character of the zone and the setting of the listed building. Development on the higher ground would be particularly visible and should be avoided."

As a result of these significant negative landscape impacts, the site should be discounted from further consideration.

Sustainability/Connectivity:

There is little potential to connect this proposed new development to the existing village; it would be physically detached from the existing settlement with little opportunity to integrate.

The majority of the existing village services (doctor's surgery, shops, church, sports club, pub) are located within the historic core to the east of the village which is remote from the proposed site. Whilst the primary school is closer to the site, this can only be accessed via the main road. Whilst the number 77 bus passes the site, there is no bus stop and there is no evidence to suggest that occupiers of the site would make use of public transport.

Access to services would be via the A452 or Mallory Road. As a result of the remoteness of the site and poor connectivity, new residents would use local services in the village and would rely on the private car for the majority of journeys.

Highway Safety:

The Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment document identifies significant access constraints. It does not recommend access either via the existing Tachbrook Hill Farm access not recommended as sited opposite an existing junction or from Mallory Road.

Access would therefore have to be taken from the A452 and it is not recommended any closer to motorway junction meaning it must be to the northwest of Tachbrook Hill Farm access. Potential forward visibility issues are identified in this location due to existing vertical alignment of road, plus the need for traffic calming features.

There are therefore potentially significant and unsurmountable highways issues which ought to be fully understood prior to any allocation of the site.

Environmental Constraints:

The Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment document identifies a number of environmental constraints which should have resulted in this site being discounted from further assessment at the options stage. Instead the site area has been reduced, however, this has not overcome all of the considerable constraints identified.

It is within a sand and gravel safeguarded area; allocation for a Gypsy and Traveller site would undermine this safeguarding and seriously constrain the ability to access this important resource.

It also identifies that a high pressure gas main crosses land to the south of the farmstead, meaning only the land to the north of the buildings could be developable. Whilst this may be the case it is still not desirable to locate a new residential use in such close proximity as it would prevent future expansion of the site, should this be necessary.

It also identifies potential noise issues form the M40 and A452.

The Sustainability Appraisal which supports the consultation document also identifies that the effects on air, water & soil quality are considered to be major negative in the long term. It identifies loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land, proximity to a main A road with potential for high levels of noise, poor air quality and possibly light pollution. It recommends that a noise assessment is carried out to identify possible noise impacts and suggest appropriate mitigation; no allocation or reserve allocation should be made unless and until this has been carried out and demonstrated that development of the site is suitable.

Allocation of this site would therefore be directly contradictory to the Government's Planning policy for traveller sites. This states at paragraph 11 that
Local planning authorities should ensure that their policies:

"provide for proper consideration of the effect of local environmental quality (such as noise and air quality) on the health and well-being of any travellers that may locate there or on others as a result of new development "

Therefore the site should be should be discounted from further consideration.


Infrastructure:

The Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment document identifies capacity issues with Bishops Tachbrook Primary School which is usually over-subscribed. The Government's Planning policy for traveller sites states at paragraph 11 that Local Authorities should avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services.

The Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment document concludes that the site would be unlikely to be able to connect to public foul mains sewer and would need a non-mains solution. Nearest waterbody for discharge of treated sewage is Tach Brook which is failing in its objectives under Water Framework Directive due to high levels of phosphates and therefore the site is not suitable in terms of potential impact on water environment.

Having reached this conclusion there is no justification for including the site as an alternative site and it should have been discounted from the assessment at the Options stage.

Flooding:

Despite being in flood zone 1, the site ground conditions are very wet meaning infiltration drainage techniques will not be suitable. Development of this site would exacerbate existing surface water flooding issues of residential properties in the vicinity.

Heritage:

Development of this site would have a negative impact on the setting of the Grade 2 listed barn and Historic Farmstead at Tachbrook Hill Farm, as highlighted in the Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment document and the Sustainability Appraisal.

Site assessment:

The Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessments document, on the detailed site assessment page, does not conclude that the site is suitable. There is no entry in the box 17. Suitable size. The site area reduced from the previous Options Consultation to avoid noise from major roads, high pressure gas main on southern part of site and farm complex, however, no specifics are given suggesting that the outcome of the assessment was that it was unsuitable..

The Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessments document identifies a considerable number of constraints which result in the site being unsuitable. It should therefore have been discounted from further assessment.

This is contrary to the Table of Sites in Summary at the end of the Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessments document which identifies it as "Green".

Detailed assessment of the site suggest that this site is only "Green" on the basis that it is not in the green belt. Whilst sites that have negative constraints which either cannot be overcome, or would require significant changes to overcome have been categorised as red or amber, a green categorisation suggests that the site should be suitable. These are sites where the majority of the criteria can be met and where the site is not in the green belt or is previously developed land or has the support of the landowner. In this instance, the site is neither previously developed nor available; it is a greenfield site which the landowner does not wish to see developed for this purpose and is no more suitable than a comparable green belt site, simply because it lacks the green belt policy designation.

Conclusion:

For the reasons outlined above allocation of this site would have a significant detrimental effect on the landscape, highway safety, and the setting of a listed building. It would place considerable pressure on local infrastructure including the primary school and potentially exacerbate surface water flooding. Significant potential environmental constraints have been identified and it would not represent sustainable development due to poor connectivity to the existing village.

Consequently the site is unsuitable for the proposed allocation. In addition to being unsuitable the site is also unavailable meaning it cannot be considered to be deliverable or developable and should therefore be removed from further consideration.