Consultation on the Preferred Options Sites for Gypsy and Travellers

GTalt03 Henley Road/Hampton Road, Hampton-on-the-Hill

I refer to the above site and wish to object to its inclusion as an amber site in the Preferred Options Consultation Paper and consider that it should be reclassified as a red site for the following reasons:-

The site comprises an undeveloped open aspect grass field forming part of the Arden Green Belt.

Communities and Local Government Planning policy for traveller sites

States in Policy E "Inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development" It goes on to state "Green Belt boundaries should be altered only in exceptional circumstances"

There are other non- Green Belt sites that meet the required number of pitches. WDC need to provide 25 pitches within 5 years and a further 6 pitches by 2027. The current Preferred Option locations comprise 5 sites outside the Green Belt except GT19 which is previously developed land. These are stated as meeting requirements for 31 pitches although elsewhere in
Appendix 1 of the Report on the outcomes of Public Consultation Options 2013 the Council states on Pages 28 & 29

"There is a need for 31 pitches
on sites within the district.
These will be tested by site
assessment. Each site could
take up to 15 pitches, but
since the consultation has
taken place, this number has
now been reduced to a
recommended 5 on each site.
Sites of 5 pitches for example
equates to 5 sites in the first
five years and perhaps another
site of six in the next ten
years."

This suggests that WDC will require a further site in addition to the 5 identified.
At present there are 2 other sites in the "Green" category neither of which are in the Green Belt. Based on 5 pitches per site this gives a total of 35 pitches.
Therefore, there cannot be any justification for altering the Green Belt boundary. WDC have commented on Page 24 of Appendix 1 of the Report

"At this early stage of the
preparation of the Plan, it was
considered that including all
sites whatever their location,
would give the opportunity for
the public to voice their
opinions. Since there are some
sites within the Green Belt that
have already had some
development, this may make
them more acceptable than
open Green Belt land. Other
Green Belt sites have been
promoted by landowners and
were therefore included in the
consultation regardless of their
designation"


WDC accept on Page 23 that compulsory purchase must be considered to deliver non-Green Belt sites in preference to Green Belt sites.

"There is undoubtedly more
pressure on the south of the
district due to the Green Belt
elsewhere where development
can only take place in
exceptional circumstances. The
Government has made it clear,
that lack of non Green Belt
land does not provide these
exceptional circumstances and
that Council's must consider
compulsory purchase of non
Green Belt sites in advance of
Green Belt sites. This very
much restricts the area in
which this Council can locate
Gypsy and Traveller sites"


The fact that the Henley Road site has been promoted by the landowner and is therefore potentially deliverable is irrelevant and the Council should if necessary use its Compulsory Purchase Powers to progress other suitable sites. In this connection, the Council at its Executive meeting on 12th February 2014 agreed recommendation 2.3
WDC Executive meeting 12 February 2014 Agenda Item No: 10
2. RECOMMENDATION
2.3 That the Executive commits in principle to invoke its use of Compulsory
Purchase Powers to ensure delivery in the event that an insufficient number of
sites set out in PO1 and PO2 come forward with the support of the landowners,
to ensure that pitch required numbers are delivered



Written statement to Parliament by Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis

Organisation:
Department for Communities and Local Government
Delivered on:
17 January 2014
Page history:
Published 17 January 2014
Policy:
Making the planning system work more efficiently and effectively
Topic:
Planning and building
Minister:
Brandon Lewis MP

"In my written statement of 1 July 2013, official report, column 41 WS, I noted the government's intentions with regard to the importance of the protection of the green belt.
The government's planning policy is clear that both temporary and permanent traveller sites are inappropriate development in the green belt and that planning decisions should protect green belt land from such inappropriate development. I also noted the Secretary of State's policy position that unmet need, 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.
The Secretary of State wishes to re-emphasise this policy point to both local planning authorities and planning inspectors as a material consideration in their planning decisions.
That statement revised the appeals recovery criteria by stating that, for a period of 6 months, the Secretary of State would consider for recovery appeals involving traveller sites in the green belt, after which the position would be reviewed.
The Secretary of State remains concerned about the extent to which planning appeal decisions are meeting the government's clear policy intentions, particularly as to whether sufficient weight is being given to the importance of green belt protection. Therefore, he intends to continue to consider for recovery appeals involving traveller sites in the green belt.
Moreover, ministers are considering the case for further improvements to both planning policy and practice guidance to strengthen green belt protection in this regard. We also want to consider the case for changes to the planning definition of 'travellers' to reflect whether it should only refer to those who actually travel and have a mobile or transitory lifestyle. We are open to representations on these matters and will be launching a consultation in due course."


There has also been a significant recent policy directive from the HCA

The Homes & Communities Agency statement on Traveller Pitch Funding

Green Belt
Further to the written Ministerial statement by Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis published on 7 January 2014 and in line with the new AHP 15-18 Prospectus published on 27 January 2014, we do not expect to receive new Traveller Pitch Funding bids to develop sites on Green Belt land or other land with special environmental protections. Please refer to DCLG's Planning Policy for traveller sites for more information. Any Traveller Pitch Funding allocations that have already been agreed with the HCA will not be affected

The Secretary of State's policy position on unmet need is clarification of latest policy. The HCA statement clearly confirms the Government position that Traveller Pitches should not be developed on Green Belt land.

There can be no "exceptional circumstances" which could justify an alteration to the Green Belt boundary of this undeveloped land. In the event that the Council is unable to provide sufficient provision from the current green coded sites by utilising Compulsory Purchase Powers if necessary, then it should continue to seek alternative non Green Belt options in lieu of the site GTalt03 Henley Road/Hampton Road, Hampton-on-the-Hill .

In conclusion, and in the light of the above comments, site GTalt03 Henley Road/Hampton Road, Hampton-on-the-Hill should be reclassified as a red site