Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 65041
Received: 02/05/2014
Respondent: Mr Andy Wikes
Makes the following comments regarding traveller and Gypsy site references GT19 & GTalt03:
Sites in the Green Belt should only be considered at all in policy terms if no other viable options are available and this does not appear to be the case. The Government's own guidance issued in March 2012 re traveller sites (accompanies the National Planning Policy Framework) reconfirms that in plan making and decision taking (re traveller sites) Local Authorities should specifically avoid inappropriate development in Green Belts.
The process to date seems to readily dismiss non-Green Belt sites because they are previously or currently allocated for other uses. Whilst these circumstances may bring practical implications / conflicting expectations they should not be ruled out so quickly as the exercise should not be limited only to currently unallocated sites it should be integral to planning the area as a whole.
The developments would be inappropriate, not just in policy terms but they would also 'harm' the Green Belt by reducing the degree of 'openness' referred to in the appraisals, as any development would clearly be prominent and visually intrusive.
In the appraisal, the Council has noted GTalt03 as an open, green belt site and has not argued that there are is any exceptional case to allow development against the context of green belt policies.
Having consulted professionals and researched this process I would like to make the following comments regarding traveller and Gypsy site references GT19 & GTalt03:
Sites in the Green Belt should only be considered at all in policy terms if no other viable options are available and this does not appear to be the case. The Government's own guidance issued in March 2012 re traveller sites (accompanies the National Planning Policy Framework) reconfirms that in plan making and decision taking (re traveller sites) Local Authorities should specifically avoid inappropriate development in Green Belts.
The process to date seems to readily dismiss non-Green Belt sites because they are previously or currently allocated for other uses. Whilst these circumstances may bring practical implications / conflicting expectations they should not be ruled out so quickly as the exercise should not be limited only to currently unallocated sites it should be integral to planning the area as a whole.
The developments would be inappropriate, not just in policy terms but they would also 'harm' the Green Belt by reducing the degree of 'openness' referred to in the appraisals, as any development would clearly be prominent and visually intrusive.
In the appraisal, the Council has noted GTalt03 as an open, green belt site and has not argued that there are is any exceptional case to allow development against the context of green belt policies.