Object

Representation ID: 65462

Received: 05/05/2014

Respondent: andrew russell-wilks

Objects to GTalt12 for the following reasons:

1-National Policy:
A new traveller site north of Westham Lane Barford is neither suitable nor compliant with:

*NPPF- DCLG March 2012.

*Planning Policy for Travellers Site DCLG March 2012- Referred to as the 'PPTS 2012'

*Designing Gypsy and Traveller sites: Good Practice Guide. DCLG. May 2008-Referred to as the 'Good Practice Guide'.

Para 1 of PPTS 2012 states: This document sets out the government's Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. It should be read in conjunction with the National Planning Policy Framework.

As WDC does not have an up-to-date Local Plan it is this document and the 'Framework' against which Warwick District Council's proposed policies for gypsies and traveller sites must be judged.

The Good Practice Guide is also a material consideration as parts of that document deal with site selection criteria.

Para 11 of the Framework sets out that planning law requires applications for Planning Permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. WDC does not have an up to date Development Plan and therefore the proposals must be considered against the Framework and PPTS 2012.

2-GTalt 12 is not a deliverable and available site:

Para 9 of the PPPTS 2012 states that Local Planning Authorities should in producing their Local Plan:

a) identify an update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years' worth of sites against their locally set targets'.

The footnotes 7 and 8 state that: 'To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that development will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable.

The site at GTALT12 fails this fundamental test of being 'deliverable'.

The freehold owner of site GTALT12, [has stated] that he has no intention of willingly selling the site or developing in his own right a site for travellers. On this ground alone the site should not be considered for a new traveller site.

Additionally, any new traveller site may need access over Westham Lane part of which is a narrow unadopted private road. There are no public rights of way over most of its length so rights may need to be acquired from some 6 different parties who have private rights of way.

WDC's Consultation Document states with regard to GT 12 that 'The landowner is not willing to sell this site, so compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward'.

A threat of a CPO does not make a site available and deliverable now because:

The CPO process is uncertain and subject to a public inquiry. The timescales for a CPO are variable but it is not realistic to expect it to take any less than three to four years. This means the site is not available now.

The local authority must be able to demonstrate that forcefully acquiring the land is necessary and that there is a 'compelling case in the public interest' - the legal test for a CPO.

No compelling case for the forceful state acquisition of a land from a private landowner and then onward sale to a private third party landlord for the benefit of just 8 families.

Weighed against this benefit for just 8 families are the dis-benefits to the land owner and other parties affected by the new development.

Successful CPO's relate to a specific site that is needed for a specific and unique purpose. This is not the case with a new traveller site.

The land to the north of Westham Lane is not the only land in the district that could satisfy the need for an 8 pitch traveller site -there are many many options [as described elsewhere in the representation]

A CPO land acquisition strategy is high risk for the Council. Understand there have been no successful CPO cases in England for a new traveller site.

Only one local authority has attempted to secure a traveller site using a CPO process. On the 17th April 2012 the Secretary of State accepted his Inspector's recommendation not to confirm the Mid Suffolk District Council CPO order for land at Combs Lane Finbrough. Ref LDN023/W3520/006/0002/001.

A CPO process could also be very expensive exercise for the District Council bringing viability into question.

The only comparable case able to identify where costings are available is for a new ten pitch site in Brecon where the project cost was £1.75M confirmed in a letter dated 31 Oct 2013 from the Welsh Minister of Finance to the Chair of the Welsh Government Finance Committee - extract below:

It would be a very risky and possibly expensive strategy for the council to rely on CPO's to deliver its traveller sites. The inspector at an EIP could consider such a strategy unsound as it does not guarantee delivery now.

3-Viability:

Another important factor that the council seems not to have considered in relation to deliverability is viability.

The council do not appear to have produced any evidence that a site north of Westham Lane would be viable as required by the PPTS and NPPF.

[The representation includes an appraisal] which shows a
Funding / viability gap:of -£149,932

Doesn't claim the above to be totally accurate but it does show a very strong likelihood that the scheme will not be viable and thus fail the viability test set out in the policy guidance. If it were a viable proposition presumably the land owner would be interested in securing the allocation as it would result in an uplift in value.

A key consideration of any CPO inspector will be answering the question [will be the source of funding] for site purchase and servicing. It is unlikely that the private sector will fund the scheme.

WDC have not indicated that they or the Homes and Community Agency have allocated any funding for the project. Indeed in public meetings the council officers have stated that the council does not intend to develop the site itself and that it expects the private sector to do so. Without a public sector funding commitment an inspector and the Secretary of State will not confirm the CPO; even supposing that the Inspector at the Examination in Public accepted the council's position and found the plan sound.

4-GTalt12 would not be safe site and would result in unacceptable living conditions for the residents:

A traveller site on to the north of Westham Lane would not only be in a location that would result in unacceptable living conditions for the new residents but it would also be unsafe. And is contrary to the criteria set out in Para 11 of the PPTS 2012

A location next to the Barford bypass a busy 60 MPH unrestricted road with 14,000 vehicles passing everyday would fail this noise test. This issue of noise was given by the council as one of the reasons reason for rejecting other possible sites (GT01, 07, 09, and 10,17,18,20, alt 04, alt 09, alt 17, alt 23, and alt 24).

The Council's document acknowledges that caravans are more vulnerable to noise issues than standard housing.

On several of the rejected sites the potential noise source is much further away than would be the case on the site at Westham Lane. Criterion 4 in the Councils site selection methodology is 'avoiding areas where there is a potential for noise and disturbance'.

Understand that compensation -Part 1 Claims under the Land Compensation Act 1973 - was paid to some of the householders on the west side of Barford as a result of the Barford bypass being built. The bypass is much further away from these households than the proposed caravans, which are more susceptible to road noise. There would not be enough room on the site proposed to increase the size of the existing low noise bund.

2008 Good Practice Guide:

The 2008 Good Practice Guide is applicable and relevant to the Council's proposal to locate a site for eight pitches within GTALT12.. It is anticipated that good planning by the Council will follow the advice set out in the Good Practice Guide.

Chapter 3 of the Good Practice Guide sets out the criteria for Site location/selection -permanent sites. Para 3.3 states that It is essential that the location of a site will provide a safe environment for the residents...all prospective site locations should be considered carefully before any decision is taken to proceed to ensure that the health and safety of prospective residents are not at risk.

It is not only a good practice guidance but common sense that a new traveller site be located in a safe location. Site GT 12 would not be a safe location for a new site because:

Highway Safety:
* All vehicles entering and leaving the site would have to use the Barford Bypass a 60MPH unrestricted road.

* Notifiable accident statistics provided by the Warwickshire Road Safety Partnership show there have been 12 notifiable accidents since it opened including three 'severe' and one fatality in 2013. These 12 notifiable accidents resulted in 29 people being injured or killed.

* know of three other incidents involving car crashes that do not appear in the statistics as presumably the people involved decided not to report the accidents.

* All accidents occurred on one of the three 'T' junctions to the bypass. Fuller information in the Appendix 1 attached.

* Adding more traffic to the bypass and its junctions especially some slow moving vehicles towing caravans will not ensure the safety of the new residents or the wider travelling public.

* In some respects GTALT12 is a suitable location for a new traveller site due to its proximity to Barford's school and retail facilities. However in order to access these facilities all new residents would have to cross the 60 MPH bypass which has no footpaths on its frontage with GTALT12.

* This would not be safe to cross especially for children attending the village primary school

Water hazards:

* There would be drowning dangers from locating a new traveller site within GTALT12 as it is very close to the River Avon and the site actually includes deep drainage ponds adjacent to the bypass. In 2012 a Barford man and his child were drowned in the river. The new residents and especially their children would be subject to this risk.

Visual and Acoustic Privacy:

Para 3.5 of the Good Practice Guide emphasises the need for visual and acoustic privacy. As the new site is proposed directly adjacent the Barford bypass then clearly there are going to be problems for the new residents in terms of noise and poor amenity.

Location:
Para 3.6 of the Good Practice Guide states that sites should not be identified for gypsy and traveller use in locations that are inappropriate for ordinary residential dwellings unless exceptional circumstances apply.

GTALT12 is not a suitable location for new housing development. It is detached from the village and in open countryside and the planning authority have a long record of refusing planning applications in Westham Lane for even a single new dwelling let alone eight new residences.

There is no reason why a gypsy and traveller use should be discriminated against and be located away from facilities in open countryside.

Infrastructure:

Paras 3.13 to 3.15 of the Good Practice Guide set out that it is essential that sites are provided with access to mains water, electricity supply, drainage and sanitation.

It goes on to say that sewage for permanent sites should normally be through mains systems.

GTalt 12 is clearly unsuitable when judged against these requirements

* West of the new Barford bypass there are no mains foul sewers, no mains storm water facilities, no gas and no public water mains. (Public water mains terminate in Wellesbourne Road in Barford).
* Clearly a septic tank system could be used as is employed by the other residents in the Westham hamlet but the additional hydraulic load on the water table and potential pollution of the River Avon would need to be investigated thoroughly.
* Costs of providing mains water, gas and electricity would be high and bring in to doubt the financial viability of the site.

5-Economic Effects

There is a strong emphasis in the NPPF on supporting the economy and encouraging prosperity and supporting businesses. Section 3 of the Framework is about supporting a prosperous rural economy.

The proposal to locate a traveller site within GTALT12 would have the following local economic effects:

* Impact on own and other local holiday accommodation businesses -as selling point is the quite tranquil rural location. It is difficult to precisely quantify but it is reasonable to assume that a traveller site nearby will have a detrimental effect on these businesses.

* [Potential impact on two local farms ]:
[Whilst] difficult to precisely quantify the effects on these two businesses but the loss of 1.8 hectares of Grade 2 land cannot be considered to be a good [for the farm on which the site is proposed]

The near presence of new residents with a higher than average number of children who if they are like our children like 'to wander and explore' can only have a negative effect.

Additional problems of new dogs being located in the area causing problems for the sheep and cattle.

6-It would fail other planning policy tests.

* The site proposed for GTALT12 would be in direct contravention of Para 23 of the NPPF because it is in open countryside and it is separated from the main existing settlement of Barford, the envelope of which is clearly defined by the bypass.

* The site is clearly in flat open countryside any new development could not be considered to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness.

* If a site of eight pitches is planned within GTALT12 then a significant development of some 1.8 hectares including at least eight or so permanent amenity buildings will certainly not increase the area's openness.

* A new traveller site is a form of residential development and therefore the NPPFs requirements in relation to the delivery of homes are relevant. GTALT12 would not be suitable for normal residential development due to it being located in open countryside and there is no reason why the same planning criteria should not apply to traveller sites.

* A new traveller site within the open countryside that comprises GTALT12 would be in contravention of S11 of the NPFF in respect to protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in bio diversity where possible'

* If GTALT12 were to go ahead with some eight pitches it is clear that the new residents could clearly dominate the nearest settled community which is the Westham hamlet. This issue is exacerbated by the acknowledged fact that traveller's families can be large and extended. This would be contrary to Para 12 of the PPTS 2012 [see also para 4.20 of the Good practice guide]

* An eight pitch site with eight new families some of which may be larger than average would be of a scale which would fundamentally change the character of the open countryside and dominate the hamlet of Westham.

The Good Practice Guide sets out various requirements that GTALT12 would fail to satisfy:

* Safe access to the road network and provision for parking turning and servicing on site. We set out above the accident record of the Barford bypass which cannot be said to be a safe road. The addition of more vehicles and pedestrians would be unsafe. Not only will the new residents be at risk but also other road users.

* Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance. A location adjacent to the Barford bypass would fail this test.

* Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal etc.). As stated above there are no mains infrastructure to the west of the Barford bypass.

* Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area. GTALT12 is in open flat countryside. We cannot see how a new traveller site of 1.8 ha's could be satisfactorily incorporated into the flat open landscape without negative landscape and visual impacts.

* Reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location thereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability. Is the Council proposing a mixed use site including business uses?


Para 3.7 of the Good practice Guide states that where possible sites should be developed near to housing for the settled community as part of mainstream residential development.

It goes on to say that local authorities should consider gypsy and traveller sites as part of significant new build developments.

Recommend that better locations for traveller sites should be within the large new housing developments proposed to the south of Leamington and to the east of Kenilworth.

The development of a traveller site within GTALT12 would be total contrary to the rural area policies of the admittedly out of date WDC Local Plan, Barford Parish Plan and Barford village Design Statement. These policies aim to maintain the rural setting of the village and parish.


Being close to the River Avon there will be ecological issues to take account of that appeared to have been glossed over so far with just a brief, possibly erroneous, reference to 'Includes Spinney Local Wildlife Site'. There is no reference to the River Avon designated LWS and that otters have been recorded along this stretch of river.


Other issues that have not yet been tackled include the local archaeology and the site's location within a minerals safeguarding area.

Government Advice
Refers to a written ministerial statement on 17th Jan 2014 by Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis: relating to
* improvements to both planning policy and practice guidance to strengthen green belt protection in this regard and
* considering 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.

This brings into question the whole issue of whether or not permanent sites are required for travellers and begs the question about prematurity of the Council's proposals until the matter is resolved.

In their search for sites the council should consider sites close to existing settlements in the Green Belt as they have an opportunity now to review the boundaries of the Green Belt. They should also pursue rigorously the option of locating the new traveller sites within the sustainable urban extensions proposed within the emerging local plan; at this stage they have powerful leverage over the land owners and developers promoting those sites.

7-Issues and questions relating to the process and methodology employed by WDC.

What is the public being consulted upon? The consultation appears to relate just to residential sites for travellers. The PPTS 2012 is binding planning policy guidance and directs that Local Planning Authorities should consider wherever possible including traveller sites suitable for mixed residential and business uses having regard to the safety and amenity of the occupants and neighbouring residents.

If the Council follows this policy, as it should, it is likely that the site at Westham Lane could evolve into a mixed use site. There is a hint of this possibility in the consultation document which sets out the criteria against which sites should be assessed.

Criterion 10 reads: Reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location thereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability.

A mixed use traveller site would have a very different and probably more negative impact on its surroundings and neighbours than a purely residential one. If such a mixed use site is proposed then the council should say so in order that the public are aware of what they are being asked to comment upon. The Good Practice Guide (para 4.51) also recommends where possible including a paddock area for the keeping and grazing of ponies. Is this is what is proposed at GTALT12?

It seems the advice in the Good Practice Guide set out in para 10.19 that 'Councils and other developers need to plan for the possibility of such opposition at an early stage in the development and provide accurate information to help overturn negative stereotypes and allay concerns.' has not been followed. It is a shame that Warwick District Council in their consultation exercise have given no real indication of what the new facility might look like making responding on the public consultation difficult.