Object

Representation ID: 64822

Received: 09/04/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Neil & Vanessa McBride

Criterion 1, Impact on the Green Belt:

Site GT19 is the only one of the five shortlisted sites within the Green Belt. The Government has consistently stated that Green Belt land should be used only in very exceptional circumstances. Ref written statement to Parliament by Brandon Lewis MP, Local Government Minister: '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...it has become apparent that, in some cases, the Green Belt is not always being given sufficient protection that was the explicit policy intent of ministers... The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that, in considering planning applications, although each case will depend on the facts, he considers that the single issue of unmet demand, 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 on the Green Belt.'
This was reiterated by Brandon Lewis in his January 17th 2014 statement...'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.'

Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) states...'Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development.'

Warwick District Council has not shown that very exceptional cicumstances exist for including GT19 in the list of preferred sites. This contravenes explicit Government policy.

The consultation document merely states that previous development has been permitted on the propsoed site, but it is equally the case that planning permission has also been refused because of its impact on the Green Belt.

The Green Belt argument was used against the Kites Nest site being a Gypsy and Traveller site, less than a mile away, and the sites are similar, and therefore there is an issue of consistency.

Negative impact on the Green Belt should alone be sufficient ground for refusal.

Criterion 2, Availability of the site:

WDC has said that a CPO could be used. This is in direct contravention of ministerial statements. The use of a CPO could set up conditions for a legal challenge. If the GT19 site were approved, it would put the current owner's business at considerable risk, so that there would be an issue of compensation. Expenditure on these challenges and a CPO would not be an appropriate use of the limited financial resources of WDC.

Criterion 3, Proximity to other residential properties:

The Kites Nest inspector found, and the Secretary of State agreed, that the Kites Nest site was situated within the local community of about 10 households, and that the community would be dominated by a 13 or 8 pitch scheme. The same argument applies to the site GT19, which is set within a group of 4 houses to the south, a petrol station to the north, followed by a further 10 houses. The provision of 5 pitches on this site would increase the housing density by 25% and thus substantially change the local dynamics.

The use of the term 'community' is deliberate, it is not the same as 'settlement' (or that term would have been used). There is a close-knit and neighbourly sense of community amongst the occupiers of the 10 or so dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the propsoed GT19 site.

The Kites Nest Inspector accepted the scattered houses do form an identifiable community. It could well be argued approval of site G19 would fly in the face of of the Inspector's comments which have helped WDC in the past.

PPTS Policy B para 11a states that policies should 'promote peaceful and integrated co-existance between the site and the local community' and PPTS Policy C states that authorities should 'ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community.'

Criterion 4, Safe access from the site for vehicles and pedestrians:

Approval of GT19 would locate the pitches between the canal and a fast and busy road (A4177), new housing would increase traffic, and the road has had two fatal accidents in the last 5 years, plus a serious accident on 14th March.

Movement of caravans and large vehicles in and out of the site would increase the liklihood of accidents. The current owner had an application refused on grounds of Green Belt and citing the fact that the site is on a busy and fast main road. To refuse the landowner's application on such grounds and then to ignore those grounds when assessing the GT19 proposal is contradictory.

Criterion 5, Impact on visual amenity including the visibility of the site and surrounding area:

The Inspector involved with the Kites Nest site found that the development would be very prominent through 'gappy hedges' and from public footpaths, and that the existing caravans were an 'extremely jarring element.' The Secretary of State agreed. Site GT19 would be similary visible through gappy hedges.

Screening issues for Site G19 are even more extensive than those for Kites Nest. The site is visible from the road and canal towpath - a tourist attraction due to the many locks.

Criterion 6, Distance to nearby schools:

Budbrooke School is currently struggling with numbers owing to a rising local population. Ferncombe School in Hatton is also full.

Criterion 7, Impact of land contamination, noise and other disturbance.

The 5 pitches without doubt present potential noise and disturbance for families living in close proximity to the site.

There is no criterion listed to address PPTS - heath and wellbeing - we feel strongly that there should be. PPTS Policy B para 11e states that local planning authorities should 'provide for proper consideration of the effect of local environment quality (such as noise and air quality) on the heath and wellbeing of any travellers that may locate there or on others as a result of new development.'

GT 19 is next to a canal which could pose detrimental effects to health and wellbeing of young children.

To install young children so close to a dangerous road may well contravene this policy.

Criterion 8, Impact on heritage assets and setting of heritage assets.

To locate a Gypsy and Traveller Site adjacent to a tourist area, for which the current owner has plans to increase its offer, would not enhance it but would have an adverse effect on the history and heritage of the area.

Conclusion:

We feel very strongly that encouraging tourism, preservation of heritage and possible employment opportunities should take precedence over inappropriate use of WDC funds through expenditure on CPO and potential financial compensation.