Object

Representation ID: 64552

Received: 07/04/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Mildenstein

Agent: Hancock Town Planning

Very strong OBJECTION to the identification site GTalt03 as a potential 'alternative' site to accommodate 15 gypsy and traveller pitches on following grounds:

Planning policy background:

The Preferred Options Consultation acknowledges the advice in the Government's 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' (2012) that traveller sites are inappropriate development within the Green Belt and should not be approved except in 'very special circumstances'.

The Consultation document does not, however, refer to two very important recent clarifications of Government policy:

1-Written Statement of 1st July 2013 by Brandon Lewis
2-Ministerial Statement of 17 January 2014

The Government's clear and unequivocal planning policy is that there must be wholly exceptional circumstances to justify identifying traveller sites within the Green Belt. Applying this approach to the potential Green Belt site GTalt03, the
fundamental question is therefore "what are the very special circumstances which could possibly justify allocation of this prominent site for 15 pitches?"

Relevant issues are considered below.

Planning history
Planning application W09/0157 for "the change of use of land to caravan site for occupation by gypsy family with associated operational development" on the eastern part of the site was refused at appeal in November 2009.

A copy of the appeal decision is attached at Appendix A.

Following refusal of this application, the District Council subsequently took out an injunction to prevent any occupation whatsoever of the land by touring caravans I mobile homes. It is therefore untenable for the same Council to be currently considering promoting the site for a much larger development.
Sustainability:
The Consultation notes that the site is 1.1 miles from the nearest medical centre and 1.5 miles from the primary school.

However, there is nothing unusual for Green Belt land to be within 1 - 1.5 miles of such facilities.

If such levels of proximity constituted 'very special circumstances' then land within a 1.5 miles of all large Green Belt settlements (such as Kenilworth and Lapworth) would theoretically be suitable for 'inappropriate' development.

This is clearly not the intention of Government policy.

We also highlight that Hampton-on-the-Hill is not identified within either the adopted Warwick District Local Plan (2006) or within the District Council's draft Village Housing Options consultation as a sustainable location for any new residential development.

If the Council accepts that the village is not a sustainable location for new market housing, then it should not be considered as a sustainable location for a traveller site.

Access:

There is confusion regarding the site access arrangements which the District Council is suggesting might be acceptable.

The Consultation Document states that access could be taken from Hampton Road. However, because the land rises several metres from Hampton Road into the site, it is likely that any access along this road frontage would have to be highly engineered, with adjacent retaining walls extending some distance into the site. This would be highly intrusive within the landscape.

However, we understand that the reference to access from Hampton Road may be an error and that the potential access could be from Henley Road at a point several metres east of the Hampton Lodge entrance.

If this is the case, then an access within this vicinity would be close to the brow of a hill. This would result in reduced visibility, both for users of the access and vehicles approaching along the A4189.

The safety risks of this reduced visibility would be exacerbated by the slow speed of touring caravan movements.

We also note that the Council's detailed supporting site appraisal recommends that a speed survey be carried out in order to assess the acceptability from Henley Road.

To the best of our knowledge, this has not been undertaken.

The issue of access was a reason for refusal of application W09/0157,

The Inspector concluded that: the development would have a harmful impact on the Green Belt and highway safety, and I am satisfied that these impacts can only be avoided by the
dismissal of the appeal. H (paragraph 16)

In the light of the Inspector's conclusion in relation to just one traveller pitch, we cannot see how the site be considered as even potentially suitable for 15 pitches.

Visual impact:
Site GTalt03 lies in an elevated position, with the land being at a higher level than the surrounding roads.

Long distance views are available over large tracts of countryside. The site is also on an important gateway approach to Warwick.

The development of a 15 pitch traveller site would therefore be very prominent and contrast sharply with, and detract from, the view towards Warwick where the local landmark of St Mary's Church can clearly be seen on the horizon.

Refers to photograph showing the frontage screening to Henley Road which contains many gaps and is insufficient to prevent significant views into the site.

The only way to prevent this would be by the erection of a close-boarded 1.8 m high fence - something which would have a highly urbanising effect in this prominent location.

In addition, the western end of the site adjoins a public footpath beyond which lies the Hampton on the Hill village allotments. T

The development of a 15 pitch traveller site immediately adjacent to the allotments would be highly intrusive and detrimental on the amenity of allotment holders.

The presence of high voltage power line:
The site is crossed by a high voltage 33kV power line which would either have to be diverted at great expense (and requiring a minimum 12 month notice period) or require a minimum separation distance between development and the line.

Either way, this is a significant constraint [and costs] to development. Refers to relevant HSE Guidance Note (Appendix B)

In the event that the site was to be developed as a traveller site, Western Power confirms that it requires unrestricted and unfettered 24 hour access to the line.

Surface water flooding:
It is noted that the detailed assessment of the site in the supporting Sustainability Appraisal undertaken by WDCs consultant, Enfusion, states: "It has been noted that surface water flooding occurs along the edge of the site and
along Hampton Road and as a result this would pose a risk to caravans which are considered to be particularly sensitive development to flooding. "

This significant constraint is not mentioned in the site-specific
Summary of Alternative Sites.

Surface water flooding issues have been quoted the Site Summary Table as contributing towards the reasons for a 'red' unsuitable classification for other others sites including GTalt04, GTalt13 and GTalt18.

Noise:
The Enfusion report also states:

"The south-east boundary of the site is adjacent to a main A road with potential for high levels of noise, poor air quality and possibly light pollution to have minor negative effects on the development; the site also has an electricity transmission lines crosses [sic] it North East to South West and the site is Iocated on Green Belt land. In addition, as a result, there could be negative effects on health.

It is recommended that a noise assessment is carried out to identify possible noise impacts and suggest appropriate mitigation"

Again, unlike other sites such as GTalt09, no mention is in the Sites Summary Table to noise being a significant constraint, a consideration which is consistent with a 'red'
classification.

Availability of school places:
The detailed appraisal of site GTalt03 states that:

"The Priority area school would be Budbrooke Primary School which is full or close to capacity so children looking for places could struggle"

Given that the District Council's draft Village Options Consultation is proposing an additional 100 dwellings at Hampton Magna, there must therefore be significant doubt as to the availability of local schooling should the site be developed for gypsy provision.


Conclusion:

There are therefore no factors which could possibly constitute the very special circumstances necessary to support of the potential allocation of the Henley Road I Hampton Road site. In fact, quite the opposite - the site is subject to severe site specific constraints and should therefore be re-c1assified as a 'red' site which is unsuitable for further consideration.