Object

Preferred Options for Sites

Representation ID: 64345

Received: 23/04/2014

Respondent: Hampton-on-the-Hill Residents Association

Representation Summary:

This site is in the Green Belt and the very special circumstances for its use as a G and T have not been made.
It will have a severe impact on the landscape as it can not be adequately screened.
There will be an adverse impact on neighbours
The access arrangements to this site cannot be made safely
The site is adjacent to the allotments - there is fear that vandalism of the allotments will take place
A portion of this site has been refused previously for a single G and T dwelling / pitch.
Hampton on the Hill is a settled community this site will not be able to be successfully integrated/ co-exhist.
The landowner is only keen to release the site to create personal profit - this is his only objective.
Further consideration of this site is wrong - it should be re-classified.

Full text:

I wish to very strongly OBJECT to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in this consultation document.

My reasons are.
1. It is situated in the Green Belt and there are no special circumstances to allow the development to happen.
2. Because of it's prominent position it will have a severe impact on the landscape. It cannot be adequately screened.
3. There will be an impact on land contamination with septic tanks, noise from the many pitches with generators, dogs and children who will disturb near neighbours.
4. Access to the site is not safe. With the many movements onto and off the Henley Road it will prove hazardous to the swift moving traffic along there. The Hampton Road has been considered to not be a viable option (according to WCC Highways).
5. The site is adjacent to the allotments on the Hampton Road. The twenty two holders there fear that their plots will be vandalised.
6. A portion of the site for a single dwelling (pitch) was the subject of two REJECTIONS by yourselves in 2009 - reference W 09/0157 and 2011 - reference W 10/1221. The first REJECTION was appealed and at a Hearing by the Planning Inspectorate - reference APP/T3725/A/09/2107108 - it was DISMISSED. To now consider the whole site as a possible site for up to 15 pitches against this background seems to ignore your own decisions and that of the Planning Inspectorate and can be deemed irresponsible.
7. When the earlier applications were being considered, the applicant - Mr Myles Maloney - made it very clear that he needed the site because he could not co-exist with other Gypsies and Travellers. To now offer it for their use is a contradiction of his position and can be considered a cynical act. In offering the site for 'their' use he will no doubt also move onto it and achieve what he failed to do by his earlier applications and consider he has achieved his long term aims to live on the site.
8. The needs of the settled community must be taken into account. The population of Hampton-on-the-Hill is some 200 residents, many are retired - with 30 single ladies - and chose to live in the village for a quiet and peaceful life. To add some 40 Gypsies & Travellers would create an imbalance in the local community and create concern about noise and safety. As a Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator, I have contact with many of these residents and I am aware of their fears. To jeopardise their lives in this way would be quite irrational and irresponsible.
9. There is an Injunction - dated May 2010 - on the entire site, preventing any development. To grant planning approval to overturn the Injunction would be to go against your own decisions and to subject the local residents to the very issues they have opposed since 2009. It would destabilise the community.
10. Mr Maloney has been trying to sell the site since 2011. At auction in March 2013 - John Shepherd, Hockley Heath - he was offered but would not accept a bid that was above the market value at that time. He has also turned down offers from local residents. He has told me that he wishes to retain ownership until 'the law changes' to allow him to develop the site at a profit. From this it can be seen that to now offer the land as a possible site, while deriving some income, would help him to achieve that objective . In the consultation document you state "The landowner is very keen to the promote site for this use and making it available and deliverable". I trust from the foregoing that you may realise he has one objective in mind and is using this consultation as a means to that end.

For all these reasons it would be quite wrong and irresponsible to further consider GT alt 03 as a possible site and it must be re-classified as a RED site.