Object

Representation ID: 65609

Received: 02/06/2014

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

This representation by Link Support Services (UK) Ltd on behalf of Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council relates to Alternative Site GT05.


This 'alternative site' is not currently the subject of formal consultation and by definition is (a) considered to meet a fewer number of WDC's assessment criteria at this point in time and is (b) not suitable for public consultation at this point owing to the absence of information which is still awaited - and which needs to be assessed.

However it is likely that:

* the site may be considered further if other sites prove to be unacceptable or unviable and pitch provision cannot be achieved from the remaining 'preferred' list sites

* The continued unresolved status of this site will cause concern and blight to both the land/landowner and local community.

* Link Support Services Ltd therefore been instructed by BTPC to consider this site as a potential traveller site based on available information (including two independent technical reports relating to ecology and Highways) and

(a) gauge local community feeling through the BTPC engagement events

(b) understand the owners perspective on the possible use of the site for these purposes (as this affects availability and deliverability) and

(c) advise BTPC of an appropriate response to WDC in advance of their further potential consideration of the site

A detailed assessment of this 'alternative' site is contained within this report but in summary conclude:

* Site Availability

This site is not available - unless by compulsory purchase (CP) and the acquisition of the site by these or other means is strongly opposed by the owners. CP is an extremely lengthy and costly process without a guaranteed outcome. There is therefore a very uncertain prospect of the site being deliverable. The owners of the land and their agent have verbally communicated their strong opposition to us regarding these potential proposals and are making separate representations to WDC.

* Highways and Access

[The representation refers to a Transport Assessment submitted in support of the representation]

With regards to the creation of vehicular access to the site, an independent Transport report commissioned by BTPC offers the following conclusions:
* The layout of the A452 adjacent to the site and the existing accident record of junctions along the A452 in the vicinity of the site, indicate that a safe access to a travellers site at Hill Farm cannot be achieved and any new junction would worsen an already poor safety record along this section of highway.

* The site is also poorly located in terms of access by non-car modes with pedestrian safe access to the site difficult to achieve.
This site is not suitable for the provision of a travellers' site in terms of highway safety and accessibility and Warwick District Council may wish to remove it from their list of potentially viable alternative traveller sites based on these factors.
* Sustainability
The Transport Report also examined this prospective site in terms of access to local services through sustainable means of transport (and other services further afield) and concludes:
'Overall, the site is not in a sustainable location in terms of access to local amenities and also the use of non-car modes and the majority of trips associated with the Travellers site will be via private car to locations outside of the immediate area'. (Refers to Appendix C 5.4.4)

Although the report notes the presence of a Public Right of Way at Hill Farm to the village it concludes:
'There is a Public Right of Way (W106), which traverses the site between Bishop's Tachbrook and Banbury Road. This route is currently unpaved and unlit, would be potentially impassable during periods of harsh weather and would not therefore provide suitable access and egress as an all year round route to and from the village. This route will also prove to be problematic or unviable for young children, mothers with push chairs and people of all ages with mobility difficulties'
* Existing and Emerging Local Plan Policies

Policy DP6 of the Warwick District Local Plan 1996 - 2011 states that development will only be permitted which provides safe and convenient access and where development can demonstrate that it does not cause harm to highway safety.

Questions whether it is possible for a development 'north west of the site' to achieve this objective without major infrastructure investment.

Policy TR1 of the published draft Local Plan identifies that
'Development proposals will be expected to demonstrate that they:
a) are not detrimental to highway safety;
b) are designed to provide suitable access and circulation for a range of transport modes including pedestrians, cyclists and public transport services; ('V1 page 113)

WDC Highways acknowledges that access via the only other road (Mallory Rd) is 'not recommended'.

The inability to construct safe access is in itself (a) justifiable reason to reject this site from further consideration and (b) a reason why this site could fail the test of 'soundness' at Examination in public by an inspector.

A recent traveller site appeal decision (where all other factors - 'for' and 'against' the site - balanced equally against each other) was dismissed on Highway safety grounds. The Inspector (and Secretary of State) concluded that 'withholding permission for the families to live on the site is necessary to overcome the identified threat to public safety and to minimise the risk of an accident and personal injury' (Appeal decision Nov 2013 APP/ Q4625/A/13/2195328 - Eaves Green Lane Meriden Solihull)

* Potential Landscape and Visual Impact
Given that this site represents part of a rural buffer zone between the Banbury Rd and the village - with clear views across the fields from Mallory Rd, any development at this prominent location (whether with business use or not) would cause an adverse impact on the visual amenity and character of the countryside. This report concludes therefore that the development of this site would be contrary to WDC's Policy DP1, since it would not positively contribute to the character or quality of its environment, and would also be contrary to Policy DP3 by failing to protect and enhance the landscape character of the area.

The base use of the land is agricultural and it is previously undeveloped land (which is a negative factor in terms of government policy).

WDC recently (Feb 2014) refused an application for housing in close by fields (PA W/13/1688). Of particular relevance are the comments on page 11 of the Committee report which states that: The visual impact of development on the site upon the wider landscape was considered independently by Warwickshire County Council in their "Landscape Sensitivity and Ecological & Geological Study", as part of the supporting evidence base for the Council's Village Options. This assessed the landscape sensitivity to housing development as High, stating that the existing settlement edge is very prominent and further development would exacerbate this and erode the rural character of the zone and setting of the Tachbrook Hill Farm Listed Building. Development on higher ground would be particularly visible and should be avoided, and tree belts/hedge lines should be improved......."

Given that the landscape sensitivity to housing is 'high' it is felt that other forms for housing will also adversely affect this this sensitivity.

* Potential Ecological Impact

[The representation refers to a Ecological Report submitted in support of the representation]

An independent ecological report (attached at appendix B) also notes the likely negative effect of creating vehicular access from the Banbury Rd on some of the most ecologically valuable parts of the site (i.e. mature oak trees or the semi-natural woodland along the western boundary which is 'indicative of the historic landscape pre-dating its use for agriculture'.

The dominant Oaks undoubtedly contribute to the visual amenity and countryside character and should be protected. The construction of a vehicle access (wide enough to provide for use by trailers etc.) close to a tree (or trees) may also be undesirable due to the known intolerance to this species, and water and nutrient competition from the adjacent woodland.

* Community Concerns

The identification of this site - even as an 'alternative site' - has caused the greatest level of community concern which is united in its opposition to the development of this prospective site (evident at our facilitated public meeting and separate drop in event). The local community has (with strong justification) concerns about Highways safety - and in some cases knowledge of incidents, accidents and fatalities along this stretch of road. The community also raised with us the point that there are no safe walking routes from the site to the village (being without a formalised footway or street-lighting) and the impact on the countryside.

[Reference is made to a letter submitted by a local resident
regarding the devastating effect on her and her family following a fatal road collision at the site junction (Mallory Rd/ Banbury Rd in 1992]

* Other Concerns

[Other concerns include]:

* Negative impact on the farm owner's business-
causing the loss of productive agricultural land.

* Negative impact on the residential amenity of the current land owners (causing unacceptable loss of outlook and possibly privacy).

* Potential archaeological value of the site (comments awaited).

* Potential impact of traffic noise on site residents.

* Whether the larger area of the site would be used - or acceptable to WDC for traveller related business purposes (storage of building materials or plant and equipment, storage of scrap metal or scrap processing etc.)

* Negative impact on the enjoyment of users of an existing Public Right of Way (W106), which traverses east-to-west through the site between the residential area and Banbury Road. This route is unpaved and unlit.

* Conclusions:

Given the significant known 'negatives', lack of information, uncertainties and community concern surrounding this site recommend that BTPC should:

(a) reject this site as a potential residential traveller site and
(b) make representations to WDC to remove this site from further consideration for the reasons identified above.