Object

Preferred Options for Sites

Representation ID: 64348

Received: 27/04/2014

Respondent: Mr Neil Murray

Representation Summary:

No evidence of Council's due diligence in validating the accuracy of the GTAA report andor the relevance of the established need.

The GTAA ignores the impact of the planned Transit site near Southam which has been agreed since completion of the GTAA

The requirement for pitches is over-stated.

Consultation does not consider the existing capacity of current sites within Warwickshire county and adjacent districts. Further there is no evidence that Council has collaborated or discussed matters with neighbouring councils, as required by government policy

No evidence Council has considered the cost of Compulsory purchase as opposed to development of underutilised brownfield sites.

Little (and passive) publicity of the Consultation process and key milestones. it feels and looks like this is a deliberate underhanded approach.

Full text:

I wish to OBJECT to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller preferred site GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way.


I have listed my comments and concerns below which are:


* WDC utilised the findings in the Salford GTAA report in order to establish need, however there is no evidence of WDC's due diligence in validating the accuracy of the report and /or the relevance of the established need.
* The WDC consultation does not consider as required the existing capacity of current sites within Warwickshire county and adjacent districts.
* The GTAA ignores the impact of the planned Transit site near Southam which has been agreed since completion of the GTAA
* According to the Government's planning policy framework, adjacent DCs are required to collaborate, and yet Warwick DC and Stratford DC are very much out of phase with their consultations so logically they cannot collaborate. Further there is no evidence that WDC has collaborated or discussed with Stratford DC other than a reported "10 minute long but un-minuted meeting" or with Rugby DC
* There is no evidence in WDC's consultation report that as required by NPFF and CLG , that WDC have weighed up the cost to council of Compulsory purchase vs development of underutilised brownfield sites including those that the council already own.
* The WDC proposals will provide for more accommodation than there are G&T residents within WDC boundary the vast majority of whom already live in houses so the requirement is clearly seriously over-stated
* There is clear evidence via Hansard that MP's now want a fair planning policy that should result in the abolition of the G&T planning requirement
* There has been little (and passive) publicity of the Consultation process and key milestones. Had it not been for the local Community group I would not have known about it - it feels and looks like this is a deliberate underhanded approach. On this point I am particularly unimpressed by the council officer at the consultation meeting who considered that handing out leaflets to a member of the residents association for distribution then failing to follow up that the leaflets had been delivered. The excuse that the leaflet drop was to be completed by a volunteer does not constitute absolve the council or its officers from the responsibility of delivering the leaflets or for the need to manage the action. The statement by the officer that the council could not manage a volunteer shows an appalling lack of understanding and judgement. At the very least the officer should have telephoned the volunteer to check on progress and made appropriate plans based on the feedback. In my view this is negligence and deserves disciplinary action for the staff concerned!


Specific to Site GT04:
* The site does not meet the fundamental planning criteria laid out in the NPPF, guidance from Department of Communities and Local Government and WDC's own consultation documents for Gypsy & Traveller sites. GT04 does not comply with planning policy whereby sites should provide access to nearby services and quality of life.
Specifically:
o Accessibility to shops and local services: GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommended 5-10mins walk on a pavement. There are no pavements in the location of the proposed site!
o Proximity to local community: GT04 does not meet the national planning framework guidelines recommendation for sites to be on community periphery to encourage integration.
o Establishing 5-10 pitches at GT04 would be disproportionate to the local community (8 residential properties, with 16 adults and 4 children). This is contradictory to national planning framework guidelines recommendations.
o GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommendations for accessibility to good local transport.
o GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommendations for availability of good infrastructure (roads, pavement, street lighting, broadband, cellphone reception).The infrastructure at GT04 is poor and would require considerable investment to rectify. And this is an expense that WDC should not incur during times of cutbacks in public expenditure and services.
o The area is prone to flooding with Harbury Lane and surrounding fields are often under water. In accordance with planning and building regs, GT04 would be unable to use soak away or runoff based drainage systems since the soil is clay based and will require connection to mains sewerage which does not exist in Harbury Lane.
o Planning policy for G&T requires schools / GP surgeries to be a 5-10 minute walk away, GT04 is at least a 45 minute walk away.
o The nearest GP surgery is three miles away
o The nearest GP surgery is operating at its maximum at capacity.
o The nearest primary, junior and senior schools are already at capacity.
o GT04 is located on Harbury Lane and Fosse Way cross roads that is a high risk travel route with high volumes of traffic and an increasing number of accidents. Speed cameras and warning signs highlight this fact. Children will be at risk if allowed to stand on a busy road to wait for transport to school if indeed such transport exists
o According to aroma maps GT04 is within zone of aerial discharge from Barnwell Chicken farm. This raises serious environmental and health concerns, and was a primary reason that the potential G&T site at Barnwell farm was previously rejected. Simply -Barnwell chicken farm can smell awful and GT04 would not be a good place to live
o GT04 is within 400m of the Harbury Lane Breakers yard, which generates noise and air pollution and which would make GT04 an unpleasant place to live but also an unhealthy one.
o The NPFF requires that the assessment of site suitability should be consistent with other planning requests. However I understand that other residential planning applications within 200m of GT04 have been recently rejected by council planning authorities, referencing rural policy on the grounds that the proposal would have an adverse "impact on the character of the area".
o The costs to create 5 to 10 permanent pitches ranges between £325k to £650k, using government's figures (£65k per pitch). In addition to this, GT04 site may require relocation of Football club. There is no firm evidence that G&T can or will pay these sums of money and WDC have not suggested an alternative if G&T cannot or will not pay. GT04 should not be considered if there is not proof that G&T can and will buy and develop it. Also WDC should not fund the relocation of the Football Club in the event of a compulsory purchase. This does not represent good taxpayer value.
o GT04 is an area of good quality farmland fully utilised for livestock and arable farming.
o GT04 will lack of Integration into the landscape and would spoil the views from Chesterton Windmill, a 17th-century Grade I listed building and a striking landmark in South-East Warwickshire
o The proposed site will have an adverse visual impact from Harbury and The Fosse Way (Roman Road).
o If GT04 were to be developed, the use of a vehicle or public transport to shops and schools is a necessity and not considered eco-friendly and is likely to overwhelm the available parking creating further road safety issues
o The site will have a detrimental impact on tourism and visitors to Warwickshire especially including Mallory Court Hotel and a consequential effect on local employment.
o The site will damage wildlife habitat.