Object

Representation ID: 64817

Received: 06/05/2014

Respondent: mr geoffrey butcher

Not all the land is available and cannot thereofre be delivered.
Land should not be CPO'd to provide for permanent G&T sites. (See statement from Brandon Lewis in Hansard 25th April 2013) and CPO would be illegal.
GT04 would have a fundamental impact on adjacent equetrian business which would cease to be viable.
Previous applications for a workers dwelling in this area have been resisted due to impact on character. The proposal for a G&T site is inconsistent with this.
GT04 is inconsistent with the NPPF and PPFTS - lack of accessibility to shops and services; no pavement; poor access to schools and GP services; lack of proximity to local community; disproportionate impact on local communities; lack of access to local transport (bus services); and poor availability of infrastructure.
The area is prone to flooding and the soil make run-off drainage system inappropriate.
The site is located close to te busy junction with the Fosseway - a high risk travel route. If school transport is provided children will be at risk.
Odours from the nearby chicken farm would be an issue and could be a serious environmental health concern. In addition to breakers yard generates noise and pollution.
The proposal would result in the loss of good quality farmland.
The proposal would impact on the setting of Chesterton Mill.
The proposal would add to traffic on roads that are already busy and dangerous.
The proposal would impact on tourism - especially Mallory Court.
The proposal would impact on wildlife.
The GTAA is unreliable and the suggested level of need has not been adequately demonstrated (poor statistical analysis; contradictions; numerical errors; assumptions. The approach used by the researchers has been rejected by other Councils. The methodology does not rflect the NPPF or the PPFTS.
Capacity of existing sites within neighbouring areas has not been considered.
25 pitches is in excess of the total number of G&T residents living in the District at present. This is illogical.
The sources of funds to develop the sites has not been proven and the sites cannot therefore be said to be deliverable.
Duty to Cooperate has not been fulfilled and there have been no substative recorded conversations with neighbouring authorities
WD C has not weighed up the costs of CPO against the use of brownfield sites owned by the Council.
There has been little consultation.
GT04 represents ostive discrimination against the existing settled community. gypsy and Travellers do not stay oin one place long, so why is there such a strong preference for permanent sites? The provision of sites to enable the G&T communities to live close to their families differs fro the settled community. There is no justification for taking the wishes of those living in bricks and mortar in to account.