GTalt03 Land at Henley Road/Hampton Road, Hampton-on-the-Hill (amber)
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64316
Received: 02/05/2014
Respondent: Mr David Bryan
Green belt and NPPF requires exceptional reasons.
Recently been subject of application for use by Gypsy family and rejected the decision confirmed on appeal.
Dangerous access generating more traffic movements than previous agricultural use.
Imposing position on entrance route to Warwick.
Infrastructure of schooling, health and local road congestion further impaired
High voltage electricity cables crossing site leading to possible danger to residents children.
I wish to register my objection to the proposal to choose the Oaklands Farm Site as one of the permanent G and T sites in the district for the following reasons:
1. The site is in green belt and National Planning Policy requires exceptional reasons for such a location to be developed in such a way. This has been reinforced recently by statements from government ministers. No exceptional reasons have been offered.
2. The site would, I believe require a Compulsory Purchase Order. The use of these to provide these sites has also been thought inappropriate by government ministers.
3. The site has a history of planning applications to carry out the type of activities that the site would be used for as a Gypsy and Traveller site. Almost all of these have been being refused by the same Planning Department that is proposing the sites use as a Gypsy and Traveller site. The previously developed land argument was not applicable in these cases.
4. The site is on a very busy and demonstrably dangerous road. The access to and from the site would add to the problems on the road. This extra danger would be to the residents as well as the general travelling public.
5. The road frequently floods, without the addition of run-off from the hard standings that would be needed.
6. The site is very close to the canal, leading to danger to the children of the residents
7. The amenity of the flight of locks on the canal would be impaired by the siting of the site here.
8. The already heavily strained local infrastructure of schooling, health and local road congestion will already be further impaired by the allocation of extra housing at Hampton Magna and at Hatton Park. To add to the strain in this area would be irresponsible.
9. The addition of this potentially semi industrial site to the northern access route to Warwick would affect the tourist potential of the town.
Similarly, I would like to object to the alternate site at the junction of Hampton Road and Henley Road, Hampton on the Hill for these reasons:
1. The site is in the green belt and National Planning Policy requires exceptional reasons for such a location to be developed in such a way. This has been reinforced recently by statements from government ministers. No exceptional reasons have been offered.
2. The site has recently been the subject of an application for its use by a Gypsy family and this application was rejected by the District Council, a decision confirmed on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.
3. One of the reasons that the inspector put great weight on was the dangerous access considering that its use by a single family would generate significantly more traffic movements than its previous use in agriculture, particularly given the nature of the road. This would be very greatly amplified with the number of families using the site increased to five.
4. Another point in the original decision was that the site had an imposing position on the entrance route to Warwick.
5. The already heavily strained local infrastructure of schooling, health and local road congestion will already be further impaired by the allocation of extra housing at Hampton Magna and at Hatton Park. To add to the strain in this area would be irresponsible.
6. There are high voltage electricity cables crossing the site leading to possible danger to residents children.
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64333
Received: 05/05/2014
Respondent: Mr N E Cother
In Green Belt and subject to two refusals of PP for similar use. Subsequent appeals dismissed. WDC took out an Injunction to prevent any development.
Conditions that applied then still valid/relevant.
Inconceivable that it should be given consideration.
Hampton on the Hill not identified within either adopted LP or draft 'Village Housing Options' consultation as sustainable location for any new residential development. As such it is also not suitable as sustainable location for Traveller site.
I wish to register a very strong objection to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in your consultation document 'Local Plan - Sites for Gypsies and Travellers dated March 2014.
The site is within the Green Belt and in the last five years has been the subject of two planning REFUSALS by the WDC Planning Committee in 2009 and 2011. On each occasion the Parish Council and Ward Councillors, Alan Rhead (2009) and Clare Sawdon (2011) supported local residents in their objections by speaking for them at the Planning Committee meetings. The site has also been DISMISSED by the planning Inspectorate at an appeal hearing in 2009 and following that in 2010 the WDC took out an Injunction to prevent any development.
The conditions that applied then are still valid and relevant today.
It is therefore inconceivable that it should be given any consideration by the very authority that REFUSED those applications.
Furthermore, Hampton on the Hill is not identified within either the adopted WDC Local Plan (2006) or within the draft 'Village Housing Options' consultation as a sustainable location for any new residential development. As such it is also not suitable as a sustainable location for a Traveller site.
I therefore request that the site GTalt03 be reclassified as a red site and removed from any consideration in this consultation
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64345
Received: 23/04/2014
Respondent: Hampton-on-the-Hill Residents Association
This site is in the Green Belt and the very special circumstances for its use as a G and T have not been made.
It will have a severe impact on the landscape as it can not be adequately screened.
There will be an adverse impact on neighbours
The access arrangements to this site cannot be made safely
The site is adjacent to the allotments - there is fear that vandalism of the allotments will take place
A portion of this site has been refused previously for a single G and T dwelling / pitch.
Hampton on the Hill is a settled community this site will not be able to be successfully integrated/ co-exhist.
The landowner is only keen to release the site to create personal profit - this is his only objective.
Further consideration of this site is wrong - it should be re-classified.
I wish to very strongly OBJECT to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in this consultation document.
My reasons are.
1. It is situated in the Green Belt and there are no special circumstances to allow the development to happen.
2. Because of it's prominent position it will have a severe impact on the landscape. It cannot be adequately screened.
3. There will be an impact on land contamination with septic tanks, noise from the many pitches with generators, dogs and children who will disturb near neighbours.
4. Access to the site is not safe. With the many movements onto and off the Henley Road it will prove hazardous to the swift moving traffic along there. The Hampton Road has been considered to not be a viable option (according to WCC Highways).
5. The site is adjacent to the allotments on the Hampton Road. The twenty two holders there fear that their plots will be vandalised.
6. A portion of the site for a single dwelling (pitch) was the subject of two REJECTIONS by yourselves in 2009 - reference W 09/0157 and 2011 - reference W 10/1221. The first REJECTION was appealed and at a Hearing by the Planning Inspectorate - reference APP/T3725/A/09/2107108 - it was DISMISSED. To now consider the whole site as a possible site for up to 15 pitches against this background seems to ignore your own decisions and that of the Planning Inspectorate and can be deemed irresponsible.
7. When the earlier applications were being considered, the applicant - Mr Myles Maloney - made it very clear that he needed the site because he could not co-exist with other Gypsies and Travellers. To now offer it for their use is a contradiction of his position and can be considered a cynical act. In offering the site for 'their' use he will no doubt also move onto it and achieve what he failed to do by his earlier applications and consider he has achieved his long term aims to live on the site.
8. The needs of the settled community must be taken into account. The population of Hampton-on-the-Hill is some 200 residents, many are retired - with 30 single ladies - and chose to live in the village for a quiet and peaceful life. To add some 40 Gypsies & Travellers would create an imbalance in the local community and create concern about noise and safety. As a Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator, I have contact with many of these residents and I am aware of their fears. To jeopardise their lives in this way would be quite irrational and irresponsible.
9. There is an Injunction - dated May 2010 - on the entire site, preventing any development. To grant planning approval to overturn the Injunction would be to go against your own decisions and to subject the local residents to the very issues they have opposed since 2009. It would destabilise the community.
10. Mr Maloney has been trying to sell the site since 2011. At auction in March 2013 - John Shepherd, Hockley Heath - he was offered but would not accept a bid that was above the market value at that time. He has also turned down offers from local residents. He has told me that he wishes to retain ownership until 'the law changes' to allow him to develop the site at a profit. From this it can be seen that to now offer the land as a possible site, while deriving some income, would help him to achieve that objective . In the consultation document you state "The landowner is very keen to the promote site for this use and making it available and deliverable". I trust from the foregoing that you may realise he has one objective in mind and is using this consultation as a means to that end.
For all these reasons it would be quite wrong and irresponsible to further consider GT alt 03 as a possible site and it must be re-classified as a RED site.
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64455
Received: 30/04/2014
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Andrew & Elizabeth Buckley
Site is in the Green Belt. Government guidance has confirmed that unmet need for traveller sites is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the 'very special circumstances' threshold to justify development within the green belt.
Previous Planning Inspector refused occupation of site by a single family on grounds of unacceptable impact on highway safety if accessed from Henley Road.
Hampton-on-the-Hill not identified in District Local Plan (2006) or draft Village Housing Options consultation as a sustainable location for new residential development therefore cannot be considered sustainable for a traveller site.
Land is elevated and cannot be screened without the screening becoming intrusive.
The site is crossed by a 33kV power line.
Site occupants would be exposed to high levels of noise and poor air quality due to proximity of A4189.
surface water flooding within the site would pose a risk to caravans.
On this basis site should be re-classified as a 'red' site.
Sites for Gypsies and Travellers - Preferred Options for Sites
Site GTalt03 Henley Road / Hampton Road
We wish to make our objections known regarding the above application. This objection is consistent with us having previously objected to all applications for development on this site, all of which were refused and even resulted in an injunction being taken out to prevent further development. For this reason, it seems wholly inappropriate to reconsider an application by the very authoritative body responsible for its original refusals, namely Warwick District Council. No circumstances have changed since the original refusal was made.
In addition to our overall objection, significant other reasons should be considered.
The suggested site is in an area of Green Belt - The Government's 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' (2012) states that traveller sites should only be approved within the green belt if 'very special circumstances' can be demonstrated. Subsequent Government guidance has confirmed that unmet need for traveller sites is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the 'very special circumstances' threshold to justify development within the green belt.
Access - The Planning Inspector who refused application W09/0157 concluded that occupation of the site by just a single family would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety if accessed from Henley Road. In the light of this, how can the site be considered as even potentially suitable for 15 pitches?
Sustainability - Hampton-on-the-Hill is not identified within either the adopted Warwick District Local Plan (2006) or within the draft Village Housing Options consultation as a sustainable location for any new residential development. If the Council considers that it is not a sustainable location for new market housing, then it cannot be considered as sustainable for a traveller site.
Visual impact - The land lies in an elevated position on an important gateway approach to Warwick. The hedgerow to Henley Road is insufficient to prevent significant views into the site. The only way to partially screen the site would be to have extensive close-boarded boundary fencing which would have a highly urbanising effect in this prominent location.
Power lines - The site is crossed by a 33kV power line. We understand that this would need to be attended to as it proposes a significant risk in the development of a site of this nature.
Noise - The detailed assessment of the site carried out by the District Council's own consultant highlights that there is the potential for occupants to be exposed to high levels of noise and poor air quality due to the proximity to the A4189.
Surface water flooding - We understand a WDC report also states that surface water flooding within parts of the site would pose a risk to caravans which are considered to be particularly sensitive to flooding risk.
On the basis of the points identified above, we ask that this site should therefore be re-classified as a 'red' site which is unsuitable for further consideration.
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64463
Received: 01/05/2014
Respondent: Mr Roderick Milne
Site should be a Red site not Amber site.
1. Green Belt
Site is within the Green Belt which should be developed only in exceptional circumstances. There are other, non-green belt sites which can help the Council meet its requirement for 31 pitches by 2027, which makes this site even less suitable for inclusion as an Amber site. The government has made it clear that the lack of non-green belt sites is not an exceptional circumstance and that allocating travellers sites in the Green Belt to overcome a lack of sites elsewhere is not sufficient reason to outweigh the harm to the countryside. The Council should use CPO powers to secure non-green belt land.
2. Funding
The Homes and Communities Agency in 2014 made it clear that they do not expect to receive new Traveller Pitch Funding bids to develop sites on Green Belt land or other land with special environmental protections.
If the Council cannot provide sufficient sites from the current green coded sites, even by using Compulsory Purchase powers, then it should nevertheless continue to seek alternative non Green Belt options in lieu of the site.
Consultation on the Preferred Options Sites for Gypsy and Travellers
GTalt03 Henley Road/Hampton Road, Hampton-on-the-Hill
I refer to the above site and wish to object to its inclusion as an amber site in the Preferred Options Consultation Paper and consider that it should be reclassified as a red site for the following reasons:-
The site comprises an undeveloped open aspect grass field forming part of the Arden Green Belt.
Communities and Local Government Planning policy for traveller sites
States in Policy E "Inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development" It goes on to state "Green Belt boundaries should be altered only in exceptional circumstances"
There are other non- Green Belt sites that meet the required number of pitches. WDC need to provide 25 pitches within 5 years and a further 6 pitches by 2027. The current Preferred Option locations comprise 5 sites outside the Green Belt except GT19 which is previously developed land. These are stated as meeting requirements for 31 pitches although elsewhere in
Appendix 1 of the Report on the outcomes of Public Consultation Options 2013 the Council states on Pages 28 & 29
"There is a need for 31 pitches
on sites within the district.
These will be tested by site
assessment. Each site could
take up to 15 pitches, but
since the consultation has
taken place, this number has
now been reduced to a
recommended 5 on each site.
Sites of 5 pitches for example
equates to 5 sites in the first
five years and perhaps another
site of six in the next ten
years."
This suggests that WDC will require a further site in addition to the 5 identified.
At present there are 2 other sites in the "Green" category neither of which are in the Green Belt. Based on 5 pitches per site this gives a total of 35 pitches.
Therefore, there cannot be any justification for altering the Green Belt boundary. WDC have commented on Page 24 of Appendix 1 of the Report
"At this early stage of the
preparation of the Plan, it was
considered that including all
sites whatever their location,
would give the opportunity for
the public to voice their
opinions. Since there are some
sites within the Green Belt that
have already had some
development, this may make
them more acceptable than
open Green Belt land. Other
Green Belt sites have been
promoted by landowners and
were therefore included in the
consultation regardless of their
designation"
WDC accept on Page 23 that compulsory purchase must be considered to deliver non-Green Belt sites in preference to Green Belt sites.
"There is undoubtedly more
pressure on the south of the
district due to the Green Belt
elsewhere where development
can only take place in
exceptional circumstances. The
Government has made it clear,
that lack of non Green Belt
land does not provide these
exceptional circumstances and
that Council's must consider
compulsory purchase of non
Green Belt sites in advance of
Green Belt sites. This very
much restricts the area in
which this Council can locate
Gypsy and Traveller sites"
The fact that the Henley Road site has been promoted by the landowner and is therefore potentially deliverable is irrelevant and the Council should if necessary use its Compulsory Purchase Powers to progress other suitable sites. In this connection, the Council at its Executive meeting on 12th February 2014 agreed recommendation 2.3
WDC Executive meeting 12 February 2014 Agenda Item No: 10
2. RECOMMENDATION
2.3 That the Executive commits in principle to invoke its use of Compulsory
Purchase Powers to ensure delivery in the event that an insufficient number of
sites set out in PO1 and PO2 come forward with the support of the landowners,
to ensure that pitch required numbers are delivered
Written statement to Parliament by Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis
Organisation:
Department for Communities and Local Government
Delivered on:
17 January 2014
Page history:
Published 17 January 2014
Policy:
Making the planning system work more efficiently and effectively
Topic:
Planning and building
Minister:
Brandon Lewis MP
"In my written statement of 1 July 2013, official report, column 41 WS, I noted the government's intentions with regard to the importance of the protection of the green belt.
The government's planning policy is clear that 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. I also noted the Secretary of State's policy position that unmet need, 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 in the green belt.
The Secretary of State wishes to re-emphasise this policy point to both local planning authorities and planning inspectors as a material consideration in their planning decisions.
That statement revised the appeals recovery criteria by stating that, for a period of 6 months, the Secretary of State would consider for recovery appeals involving traveller sites in the green belt, after which the position would be reviewed.
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.
Moreover, ministers are considering the case for further improvements to both planning policy and practice guidance to strengthen green belt protection in this regard. We also want to consider 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. We are open to representations on these matters and will be launching a consultation in due course."
There has also been a significant recent policy directive from the HCA
The Homes & Communities Agency statement on Traveller Pitch Funding
Green Belt
Further to the written Ministerial statement by Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis published on 7 January 2014 and in line with the new AHP 15-18 Prospectus published on 27 January 2014, we do not expect to receive new Traveller Pitch Funding bids to develop sites on Green Belt land or other land with special environmental protections. Please refer to DCLG's Planning Policy for traveller sites for more information. Any Traveller Pitch Funding allocations that have already been agreed with the HCA will not be affected
The Secretary of State's policy position on unmet need is clarification of latest policy. The HCA statement clearly confirms the Government position that Traveller Pitches should not be developed on Green Belt land.
There can be no "exceptional circumstances" which could justify an alteration to the Green Belt boundary of this undeveloped land. In the event that the Council is unable to provide sufficient provision from the current green coded sites by utilising Compulsory Purchase Powers if necessary, then it should continue to seek alternative non Green Belt options in lieu of the site GTalt03 Henley Road/Hampton Road, Hampton-on-the-Hill .
In conclusion, and in the light of the above comments, site GTalt03 Henley Road/Hampton Road, Hampton-on-the-Hill should be reclassified as a red site
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64465
Received: 02/05/2014
Respondent: Mrs Yuhong Meads
Consultation document omits vital information such as recent planning application refusals for part of the site and focuses entirely on the landowner's willingness to offer the land. Inconsistency by Council as description for GT13 clearly states past planning objections and is classified as RED.
Consultation document notes landowner is eager to promote the site and therefore could be misleading that the site is an easy solution.
Hampton Road is a narrow country lane. The access to the site is inadequate and on site parking, turning and servicing is very poor and unsafe.
It is essential to preserve the rural character and green belt area.
Site occupies a prominent position and cannot be adequately screened to mitigate all view points. It will have a great impact on the landscape character.
Fifteen pitches on the site could amount to a 30% increase in local population numbers and would cause much imbalance between the existing settled community and the travellers' community.
Further development in the area will place undue pressure on local infrastructure (particularly the road network) and services.
Parts of this site have been refused planning permission in the past because of the Green Belt location.
Re: Local Plan - Sites for Gypsies and Travellers - March 2014
I am writing to OBJECT strongly to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in the above consultation document as a possible site for Gypsies and Travellers. The main reasons for my objections are as follows:
1. The inclusion and classification of GTalt03 in the document is wrong:
* The description regarding GTalt03 in the consultation document appears biased. It omits vital information such as recent planning application refusals for part of the site and focuses entirely on the landowner's willingness to offer the land. We therefore see inconsistency, for instance, when comparing the descriptions for GT13 and GTalt03, where the former clearly states past planning objections and is classified as RED.
* The statement for GTalt03 in the consultation document that the landowner is eager to promote the site stands out and appears a promotional statement rather than statement of fact that one would expect from a consultation. It could therefore be misleading to readers that the site is an easy solution therefore attracting supporting votes from those who object to other sites. Since the landowner does not live locally, the offer of GTalt03 could only be for speculative motives and financial gains. Once again we see the officers compiling the document have taken side with a single view without giving due consideration to other stakeholders' views.
2. Criteria 3 - Safe Access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site: Hampton Road is a narrow country lane and there is a sharp turn and blind spots at the Hampton Road/Henley Road junction. The access to the site from Hampton Road is inadequate and the provision for parking, turning and servicing the site is very poor and unsafe.
3. Criteria 6 - Avoid areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment: It is essential to preserve the rural character and green belt area of Hampton-on-the-Hill. This area has already been significantly affected by the development of surrounding road and motorway networks, the railway link at Warwick Parkway. The residents have long suffered increased traffic from these developments and noise and air pollution. The local authority has a duty to consider carefully the implementation of a Gypsy and Travellers' site and not to impact this area further.
4. Criteria 7 - Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area: GTalt03 occupies a prominent and high level position therefore it cannot be adequately screened to mitigate all view points. It will have a great impact on the landscape character of this green belt village and the visual amenity of the surrounding area and cause land contamination, noise and other disturbances.
5. Criteria 8 - Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community: Hampton on the Hill is a small rural hamlet with a population of about two hundred. According to West Midlands Regional Assembly's Interim Statement on Gypsy & Traveller Policy, 'Family size among Gypsies & Travellers is larger on average than among the settled community. There are indications that Gypsies & Travellers marry young, and generations are relatively short. Household formation rates are likely to be higher than in the population as a whole.' The prospect of fifteen pitches on the site could amount to an additional 60 people - a 30% increase which would cause much imbalance between the existing settled community and the travellers' community.
6. Criteria 9 - Avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services: Hampton on the Hill is served by one narrow through road across the whole village and majority of the houses in the village are located alongside this main road. Any further increase in traffic volume caused by additional population from the proposed travellers' site will place further pressure on an infrastructure that is already unsuitable for the amount of traffic passing through the village nowadays.
7. A section of GTalt03 measuring 0.1 hectare has been the subject of two planning application REFUSALS by the Warwick District Council and a DISMISSAL by the Planning Inspectorate in recent years for reasons of inappropriate development in the Green Belt and Highways Safety. GTalt03 is 1.66 hectares and sixteen times larger. The reasons given for these REFUSALS and the DISMISSAL are relevant and valid today to GTalt03 and even more so with the increased site size and greater numbers of people.
Based on the above reasons, I believe that site GTalt03 should be reclassified as a Red site and removed from any further consideration in this consultation.
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64471
Received: 05/05/2014
Respondent: Emma Meads
Consultation document omits vital information such as recent planning application refusals for part of the site and focuses entirely on the landowner's willingness to offer the land. Inconsistency by Council as description for GT13 clearly states past planning objections and is classified as RED.
Consultation document notes landowner is eager to promote the site and therefore could be misleading that the site is an easy solution.
Hampton Road is a narrow country lane. The access to the site is inadequate and on site parking, turning and servicing is very poor and unsafe.
It is essential to preserve the rural character and green belt area.
Site occupies a prominent position and cannot be adequately screened to mitigate all view points. It will have a great impact on the landscape character.
Fifteen pitches on the site could amount to a 30% increase in local population numbers and would cause much imbalance between the existing settled community and the travellers' community.
Further development in the area will place undue pressure on local infrastructure (particularly the road network) and services.
Parts of this site have been refused planning permission in the past because of the Green Belt location.
I am writing to OBJECT strongly to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in the above consultation document as a possible site for Gypsies and Travellers. The main reasons for my objections are as follows:
1. The inclusion and classification of GTalt03 in the document is wrong:
* The description regarding GTalt03 in the consultation document appears biased. It omits vital information such as recent planning application refusals for part of the site and focuses entirely on the landowner's willingness to offer the land. We therefore see inconsistency, for instance, when comparing the descriptions for GT13 and GTalt03, where the former clearly states past planning objections and is classified as RED.
* The statement for GTalt03 in the consultation document that the landowner is eager to promote the site stands out and appears a promotional statement rather than statement of fact that one would expect from a consultation. It could therefore be misleading to readers that the site is an easy solution therefore attracting supporting votes from those who object to other sites. Since the landowner does not live locally, the offer of GTalt03 could only be for speculative motives and financial gains. Once again we see the officers compiling the document have taken side with a single view without giving due consideration to other stakeholders' views.
* I am a young resident moving to Warwick District Council recently. I like the area because of its history and its beautiful countryside. I hope WDC, when considering its strategy for future development and local housing needs (for both non-travellers and travellers) will endeavour to protect the countryside and the greenbelt areas, and not to urbanise all the surrounding areas around towns.
2. Criteria 3 - Safe Access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site: Hampton Road is a narrow country lane and there is a sharp turn and blind spots at the Hampton Road/Henley Road junction. The access to the site from Hampton Road is inadequate and the provision for parking, turning and servicing the site is very poor and unsafe.
3. Criteria 6 - Avoid areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment: It is essential to preserve the rural character and green belt area of Hampton-on-the-Hill. This area has already been significantly affected by the development of surrounding road and motorway networks, the railway link at Warwick Parkway. The residents have long suffered increased traffic from these developments and noise and air pollution. The local authority has a duty to consider carefully the implementation of a Gypsy and Travellers' site and not to impact this area further.
4. Criteria 7 - Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area: GTalt03 occupies a prominent and high level position therefore it cannot be adequately screened to mitigate all view points. It will have a great impact on the landscape character of this green belt village and the visual amenity of the surrounding area and cause land contamination, noise and other disturbances.
5. Criteria 8 - Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community: Hampton on the Hill is a small rural hamlet with a population of about two hundred. According to West Midlands Regional Assembly's Interim Statement on Gypsy & Traveller Policy, 'Family size among Gypsies & Travellers is larger on average than among the settled community. There are indications that Gypsies & Travellers marry young, and generations are relatively short. Household formation rates are likely to be higher than in the population as a whole.' The prospect of fifteen pitches on the site could amount to an additional 60 people - a 30% increase which would cause much imbalance between the existing settled community and the travellers' community.
6. Criteria 9 - Avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services: Hampton on the Hill is served by one narrow through road across the whole village and majority of the houses in the village are located alongside this main road. Any further increase in traffic volume caused by additional population from the proposed travellers' site will place further pressure on an infrastructure that is already unsuitable for the amount of traffic passing through the village nowadays.
7. A section of GTalt03 measuring 0.1 hectare has been the subject of two planning application REFUSALS by the Warwick District Council and a DISMISSAL by the Planning Inspectorate in recent years for reasons of inappropriate development in the Green Belt and Highways Safety. GTalt03 is 1.66 hectares and sixteen times larger. The reasons given for these REFUSALS and the DISMISSAL are relevant and valid today to GTalt03 and even more so with the increased site size and greater numbers of people.
Based on the above reasons, I believe that site GTalt03 should be reclassified as a Red site and removed from any further consideration in this consultation.
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64476
Received: 04/05/2014
Respondent: Budbrooke Consolidated Charities
This site is within the green belt and there are no exceptional circumstances for the site to be used.
The site is very obvious from the main road, and visible through 'gappy hedges' from the outside looking in but would also affect the privacy of any occupants as they would be over looked from the road.
The road, although subject to a 50mph restriction, is very fast and would be unsuitable for turning on and off the site by large vehicles with trailers. A change of use of the land for gypsy caravan use was rejected in 2009 and one of the reasons was highway safety. Since 2009, there have been no highway improvements but the volume of traffic has increased.
The site is not flat and it overlooks and slopes down towards Warwick.
There are no amenities near the site.
There are few services on site- no access to electricity, gas or sewage.
Across the site is a high voltage, low level electricity supply line on poles rather than pylons. This is a potential hazard to any unsupervised children.
Moving the access point towards the brow of the hill is inappropriate and would make the whole site would more conspicuous.
Rush hour and school run traffic runs alongside the site making it hazardous to children living on site
Where an application has been refused for development it should not be used for a gypsy and traveller site.
The additional hard standing will increase the risk of flooding in the area, there is already substantial runoff from the hill and becomes hazardous in winter.
To maintain the site access and egress for maintenance/fire service access within 45 metres of a dwelling on the site should be a consideration given the combustibility of the dwellings and LPG storage and usage would be necessary.
The pond on the adjacent site is seasonal and unsuitable for the provision of water for fire fighting purposes.
Budbrooke School is in Special Measures and all development has been halted.
Budbrooke Surgery has been closed to new patients for a number of years.
Gypsy and Travellers Consultation Officer
Objection from the trustees of Budbrooke Consolidated Charities to
Hampton on the Hill Site GTalt03
Budbrooke Consolidated Charities own the field adjacent to this site. It is slightly smaller and has agricultural usage. It is tenanted and generates a small income. There is no challenge on the basis of loss of income or prejudicial impact on the property.
The Charities objection is built on inappropriate green belt development and the general unsuitability of the site.
This site is within the green belt and there are no exceptional circumstances for the site to be used; it is very obvious from the main road, Hampton on the Hill being adjacent to the main Henley Road and the lane entering Hampton on the Hill village. It is visible through 'gappy hedges' from the outside looking in but would also affect the privacy of any occupants as they would be over looked from the road. The road, although subject to a 50mph restriction, is very fast and would be unsuitable for turning on and off the site by large vehicles with trailers attached.
In 2009 the following planning application was refused: W/09/0157 for Change of use of land to caravan site for occupation by gypsy family with associated operational development (utility room, septic tank, hard and soft landscaping and widen dropped kerbs) - Land at junction Hampton Road and Henley Road (A4189) Hampton on the Hill, Warwick
A key element for the refusal was on site access. The Highway Control Engineer
"I would now ask for a further condition to be imposed, in that no caravans/dwellings other than the caravans/dwellings as stated in the application shall be placed within the development."
The Highways Officer advised The Charities that they would be unlikely to get approval for making a new gated entrance to its field [which is the other side of a hedge to GTalt03] for occasional agricultural access, far less frequent that a Gypsy and Traveller site would generate. Clearly there is a contradiction in the advice given which would suggest that the district council applications are treated differently to those of other individuals and organisations. This is highly irregular and dubious.
Since 2009, there has been no improvement to the highway. Traffic has increased due to commuters from Chase Meadow development using the road to reach the A46/M40 Junction 15 [rather than navigating through Chase Meadow] and Warwick Parkway station.
In addition:
* The summary of preferred sites also states that the site here is flat; this is not the case as it overlooks and slopes down towards the town of Warwick, as outlined in the detailed report on W/09/0157
* There are no amenities near the site
* There are few services on site- no access to electricity, gas or sewage
* Running across the site there is a high voltage, low level electricity supply line on poles rather than pylons. This is a potential hazard to any unsupervised children. There have been arguments about residential accommodation being sited adjacent to them.
* A suggestion that if the access point was moved towards the brow of the hill is inappropriate, the whole site would become more conspicuous, and is also very contentious.
* The Warwick Parkway /Budbrooke School rush hour and school run traffic runs alongside the site making it hazardous to children living on site
* The FAQ states that if land is considered suitable for houses it is suitable for gypsies and travellers. So, where an application has been refused for development it should not be used for a gypsy and traveller site
* The additional hard standing will increase the risk of flooding in the area, there is already substantial runoff from the hill and in winter is a particular hazard when it freezes
* To maintain the site access and egress for maintenance/fire service access within 45 metres of a dwelling on the site should be a consideration given the combustibility of the dwellings and LPG storage and usage would be necessary
* The pond on the adjacent site is seasonal and unsuitable for the provision of water for fire fighting purposes
* The current access to the site is unsuitable for this purpose
* Budbrooke School is in Special Measures and all development has been halted
* Budbrooke Surgery has been closed to new patients for a number of years
The current status of the Local plan means that policies that applied at the time of the original refusal remain current; hence arguments in the proposal for GTAlt03 in respect to Very Special Circumstances cannot be justified as they contradict current policies.
Although the proposed site at Budbrooke Lodge, GT11, may be subject to flooding, it would be suitable with very little additional work. The new culvert on Stratford road at Fisher's Bridge will have substantially improved matters
The scheme involves widening the water course and demolishing and replacing the existing culverts beneath the A429 Stratford Road and Leafield Farm Access Road. The objective of the scheme is to reduce the risk of flooding on Stratford Road and nearby properties.
Warwickshire County Council Transport Projects 24th April 2013.
In all other considerations GT11 would be a far more suitable gypsy and traveller site being closer to amenities, mains services and is not in the green belt. It is also nearer to bus stops
[no.68]. Newburgh Primary School has been extended and Aylesford School has announced its intention to build an infant/junior school on site.
The counter arguments cited in the Plan seem to take account of individual and organisation 'personal' concerns [impact on the racecourse and Budbrooke Lodge, which is a private residence] when these are not relevant planning considerations.
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64478
Received: 05/05/2014
Respondent: Mr L Molloy
Object to site GTalt03 for the following reasons:
1. GREEN BELT and PREVIOUSLY UNDEVELOPED SITE
The site is identified as Green Belt in the Draft Local Plan. As such it has not been allocated for housing allocation nor is it within the boundaries of the village growth envelope for Hampton-on-the-Hill. Classification as Green Belt that has previously been undeveloped ought to be deemed as 'inappropriate development' for the purposes of accommodation of Gypsies and Travellers and the site classified as 'red'. DCLG March 2012 'Planning policy for traveller sites' Policy E: Traveller sites in Green Belt states:
"Inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development."
For the purposes of the planning process, the fact that the site is owned by persons identified as GypsylTraveller does not detract from the legal assumption that the classification of the site is 'inappropriate development'.
In addition the site in the last five years has been the subject of two planning REFUSALS by the WDC Planning Committee in 2009 and 2011. The site has also been DISMISSED by the Planning Inspectorate at an appeal hearing in 2009 and following that in 2010 the WDC took out an Injunction to prevent any development on the site. The conditions that applied then are still valid and relevant today
WDC's intention not to own or manage sites and its preference for sites to be provided and run by Gypsies and Travellers does not override the site's classification as Green Belt; such preferences/unofficial criteria are not contained in the Government's 'Planning policy for traveller sites' or the National Planning Policy Framework.
Note that the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) for Warwick District, undertaken by Salford University in 2012, identified a need for 31 permanent pitches to be provided over a 15 year period, 25 within the first five years and in addition 6-8 transit pitches over the full 15 years.
WDC has already identified sufficient 'green' sites to meet this identified need without consideration of site GTalt03.
2. Co-Existence with the Local Community
It has been suggested that GTalt03 has the capacity of 15 pitches; this equivalent to 4560 individuals (excluding visitors and/or transient gypsy/travellers) on the site, can be accommodated by a village of approximately 200 individuals.
Such a change to the local community, representing an increase in population of 2530%, would be disproportionate and the site would dominate the local community.
The development of the 1.66ha site will also substantially change the character of the area. Given the physical and aesthetic nature of the proposal and the fact that the site is highly and clearly visible from both the Henley Road and the Hampton Road - such a development will permanently and substantially change the characteristics of the village.
The impact of the site would be accentuated by the ground which is not level being between 1-2m higher than the Hampton Road; making the site eye level to people entering and leaving the village.
The site does not lend itself to the integration and inclusion of the gypsy/traveller into
community.
3. Access
Highways Safety has been recorded on two separate occasions as reasons for refusing planning on the site: once on appeal on 27 November 2009 by the Planning Inspectorate (APPfT3725/Al09/2107108) and on a separate application for planning on 17 December
2010 (W10/1221).
In both circumstances the refusal related to a single dwelling, not the current proposal for 15 pitches which could conceivably house a minimum of 30 adults (plus visitors and/or transient gypsy/travellers) owning anywhere between 15- 30 vehicles which it would be reasonable to assume would create an additional 30- 60 vehicle movements through any access road on a daily basis.
This clearly poses a serious risk to both the occupants of the site and other road users.
We note that WDC has suggested that "(a)ccess is achievable along the Hampton Road with the required visibility splays".
Given the narrowness of the road, the steep incline onto the site, and the possible numbers of vehicle movements we would suggest that this is not a viable option and that Highways Safety aspects of this proposal have not been sufficiently considering.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64480
Received: 30/04/2014
Respondent: J & E Thomlinson & Kiddle
Object.
Site is undeveloped and in the Green Belt. It is not within an area of expansion for the village so should be classed as a Red site. The government has made it clear that traveller sites are not appropriate green belt development and a lack of alternative sites is not justification for allocating a Green Belt site, regardless of who owns the land or would manage the site.
The council has identified sufficient 'Green' sites to meet the GTAA requirements.
The site does not lend itself to integration as it would accommodate 45-60 people, representing a 25-30% increase in the size of the village. Also the visual impact of the development will be significant as the change in ground levels will make the site prominent from the village and change the character of the area.
Site is close to busy roads and electricity pylons, making it particularly unsafe for children living there.
Additional educational funding is not guaranteed to cover this expansion in places, especially given the investment already needed to cover for the new housing allocations.
Two previous proposals for a single house on the site have been refused and an appeal was dismissed because of highway safety concerns. It is therefore not realistic for the council to suggest visibility can be achieved, especially given the 60mph limit and narrowness of the road.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64496
Received: 05/05/2014
Respondent: Mr Matt Molloy
Object to site GTalt03 for the following reasons:
1. GREEN BELT and PREVIOUSLY UNDEVELOPED SITE
The site is identified as Green Belt in the Draft Local Plan. As such it has not been allocated for housing allocation nor is it within the boundaries of the village growth envelope for Hampton-on-the-Hill. Classification as Green Belt that has previously been undeveloped ought to be deemed as 'inappropriate development' for the purposes of accommodation of Gypsies and Travellers and the site classified as 'red'. DCLG March 2012 'Planning policy for traveller sites' Policy E: Traveller sites in Green Belt states:
"Inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development."
For the purposes of the planning process, the fact that the site is owned by persons identified as GypsylTraveller does not detract from the legal assumption that the classification of the site is 'inappropriate development'.
In addition the site in the last five years has been the subject of two planning REFUSALS by the WDC Planning Committee in 2009 and 2011. The site has also been DISMISSED by the Planning Inspectorate at an appeal hearing in 2009 and following that in 2010 the WDC took out an Injunction to prevent any development on the site. The conditions that applied then are still valid and relevant today
WDC's intention not to own or manage sites and its preference for sites to be provided and run by Gypsies and Travellers does not override the site's classification as Green Belt; such preferences/unofficial criteria are not contained in the Government's 'Planning policy for traveller sites' or the National Planning Policy Framework.
Note that the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) for Warwick District, undertaken by Salford University in 2012, identified a need for 31 permanent pitches to be provided over a 15 year period, 25 within the first five years and in addition 6-8 transit pitches over the full 15 years.
WDC has already identified sufficient 'green' sites to meet this identified need without consideration of site GTalt03.
2. Co-Existence with the Local Community
It has been suggested that GTalt03 has the capacity of 15 pitches; this equivalent to 4560 individuals (excluding visitors and/or transient gypsy/travellers) on the site, can be accommodated by a village of approximately 200 individuals.
Such a change to the local community, representing an increase in population of 2530%, would be disproportionate and the site would dominate the local community.
The development of the 1.66ha site will also substantially change the character of the area. Given the physical and aesthetic nature of the proposal and the fact that the site is highly and clearly visible from both the Henley Road and the Hampton Road - such a development will permanently and substantially change the characteristics of the village.
The impact of the site would be accentuated by the ground which is not level being between 1-2m higher than the Hampton Road; making the site eye level to people entering and leaving the village.
The site does not lend itself to the integration and inclusion of the gypsy/traveller into
community.
3. Access
Highways Safety has been recorded on two separate occasions as reasons for refusing planning on the site: once on appeal on 27 November 2009 by the Planning Inspectorate (APPfT3725/Al09/2107108) and on a separate application for planning on 17 December
2010 (W10/1221).
In both circumstances the refusal related to a single dwelling, not the current proposal for 15 pitches which could conceivably house a minimum of 30 adults (plus visitors and/or transient gypsy/travellers) owning anywhere between 15- 30 vehicles which it would be reasonable to assume would create an additional 30- 60 vehicle movements through any access road on a daily basis.
This clearly poses a serious risk to both the occupants of the site and other road users.
We note that WDC has suggested that "(a)ccess is achievable along the Hampton Road with the required visibility splays".
Given the narrowness of the road, the steep incline onto the site, and the possible numbers of vehicle movements we would suggest that this is not a viable option and that Highways Safety aspects of this proposal have not been sufficiently considering.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64505
Received: 03/05/2014
Respondent: Mr Brian Slack
This document seems to ignore sites if they are allocated for other uses. However, the process should not be 'bolted on' to find easy-win, unallocated sites but part of a wider integrated process that considers housing/employment sites too.
This site has not previously been identified in Local Plan as a sustainable location for residential development. This together with its Green Belt status (which the government advises against developing and where traveller/gypsy development is classed as 'inappropriate') should be enough to class the site as 'Red' and not suitable for development.
Planning applications and appeals on the site have been continually rejected and the owners prevented from undertaking works on the site.
Use of the site for gypsies and travellers will greatly increase highway safety concerns with regard to access, visibility and road speeds. This has previously been a reason to refuse planning permission for a single dwelling on the site. The nature and volume of traffic in the area makes use of this site for gypsies and travellers dangerous particularly given the combined vehicle lengths of vans with trailers/caravans and the potential for such vehicle combinations to travel in convoy. Also there is no safe alternative access to the site. The proximity of busy roads is also a health and safety issue for gypsies and travellers living on the site, particularly traffic noise. The proximity of electricity lines would also be a concern.
The fact that the land owner is a gypsy should have no bearing on the site's classification. It should be classed as not suitable for development.
The undulating nature of the site would make any development highly visible from nearby roads. The characteristics of a gypsy and travellers site would be particularly unsympathetic to the local rural environment.
The site does not lend itself to integration as it would accommodate 45-60 people, representing a 25-30% increase in the size of the village, which would give an imbalance to the settled community.
For all of these reasons the site should be classed as 'Red'.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64552
Received: 07/04/2014
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Mildenstein
Agent: Hancock Town Planning
Very strong OBJECTION to the identification site GTalt03 as a potential 'alternative' site to accommodate 15 gypsy and traveller pitches on following grounds:
Planning policy background:
The Preferred Options Consultation acknowledges the advice in the Government's 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' (2012) that traveller sites are inappropriate development within the Green Belt and should not be approved except in 'very special circumstances'.
The Consultation document does not, however, refer to two very important recent clarifications of Government policy:
1-Written Statement of 1st July 2013 by Brandon Lewis
2-Ministerial Statement of 17 January 2014
The Government's clear and unequivocal planning policy is that there must be wholly exceptional circumstances to justify identifying traveller sites within the Green Belt. Applying this approach to the potential Green Belt site GTalt03, the
fundamental question is therefore "what are the very special circumstances which could possibly justify allocation of this prominent site for 15 pitches?"
Relevant issues are considered below.
Planning history
Planning application W09/0157 for "the change of use of land to caravan site for occupation by gypsy family with associated operational development" on the eastern part of the site was refused at appeal in November 2009.
A copy of the appeal decision is attached at Appendix A.
Following refusal of this application, the District Council subsequently took out an injunction to prevent any occupation whatsoever of the land by touring caravans I mobile homes. It is therefore untenable for the same Council to be currently considering promoting the site for a much larger development.
Sustainability:
The Consultation notes that the site is 1.1 miles from the nearest medical centre and 1.5 miles from the primary school.
However, there is nothing unusual for Green Belt land to be within 1 - 1.5 miles of such facilities.
If such levels of proximity constituted 'very special circumstances' then land within a 1.5 miles of all large Green Belt settlements (such as Kenilworth and Lapworth) would theoretically be suitable for 'inappropriate' development.
This is clearly not the intention of Government policy.
We also highlight that Hampton-on-the-Hill is not identified within either the adopted Warwick District Local Plan (2006) or within the District Council's draft Village Housing Options consultation as a sustainable location for any new residential development.
If the Council accepts that the village is not a sustainable location for new market housing, then it should not be considered as a sustainable location for a traveller site.
Access:
There is confusion regarding the site access arrangements which the District Council is suggesting might be acceptable.
The Consultation Document states that access could be taken from Hampton Road. However, because the land rises several metres from Hampton Road into the site, it is likely that any access along this road frontage would have to be highly engineered, with adjacent retaining walls extending some distance into the site. This would be highly intrusive within the landscape.
However, we understand that the reference to access from Hampton Road may be an error and that the potential access could be from Henley Road at a point several metres east of the Hampton Lodge entrance.
If this is the case, then an access within this vicinity would be close to the brow of a hill. This would result in reduced visibility, both for users of the access and vehicles approaching along the A4189.
The safety risks of this reduced visibility would be exacerbated by the slow speed of touring caravan movements.
We also note that the Council's detailed supporting site appraisal recommends that a speed survey be carried out in order to assess the acceptability from Henley Road.
To the best of our knowledge, this has not been undertaken.
The issue of access was a reason for refusal of application W09/0157,
The Inspector concluded that: the development would have a harmful impact on the Green Belt and highway safety, and I am satisfied that these impacts can only be avoided by the
dismissal of the appeal. H (paragraph 16)
In the light of the Inspector's conclusion in relation to just one traveller pitch, we cannot see how the site be considered as even potentially suitable for 15 pitches.
Visual impact:
Site GTalt03 lies in an elevated position, with the land being at a higher level than the surrounding roads.
Long distance views are available over large tracts of countryside. The site is also on an important gateway approach to Warwick.
The development of a 15 pitch traveller site would therefore be very prominent and contrast sharply with, and detract from, the view towards Warwick where the local landmark of St Mary's Church can clearly be seen on the horizon.
Refers to photograph showing the frontage screening to Henley Road which contains many gaps and is insufficient to prevent significant views into the site.
The only way to prevent this would be by the erection of a close-boarded 1.8 m high fence - something which would have a highly urbanising effect in this prominent location.
In addition, the western end of the site adjoins a public footpath beyond which lies the Hampton on the Hill village allotments. T
The development of a 15 pitch traveller site immediately adjacent to the allotments would be highly intrusive and detrimental on the amenity of allotment holders.
The presence of high voltage power line:
The site is crossed by a high voltage 33kV power line which would either have to be diverted at great expense (and requiring a minimum 12 month notice period) or require a minimum separation distance between development and the line.
Either way, this is a significant constraint [and costs] to development. Refers to relevant HSE Guidance Note (Appendix B)
In the event that the site was to be developed as a traveller site, Western Power confirms that it requires unrestricted and unfettered 24 hour access to the line.
Surface water flooding:
It is noted that the detailed assessment of the site in the supporting Sustainability Appraisal undertaken by WDCs consultant, Enfusion, states: "It has been noted that surface water flooding occurs along the edge of the site and
along Hampton Road and as a result this would pose a risk to caravans which are considered to be particularly sensitive development to flooding. "
This significant constraint is not mentioned in the site-specific
Summary of Alternative Sites.
Surface water flooding issues have been quoted the Site Summary Table as contributing towards the reasons for a 'red' unsuitable classification for other others sites including GTalt04, GTalt13 and GTalt18.
Noise:
The Enfusion report also states:
"The south-east boundary of the site is adjacent to a main A road with potential for high levels of noise, poor air quality and possibly light pollution to have minor negative effects on the development; the site also has an electricity transmission lines crosses [sic] it North East to South West and the site is Iocated on Green Belt land. In addition, as a result, there could be negative effects on health.
It is recommended that a noise assessment is carried out to identify possible noise impacts and suggest appropriate mitigation"
Again, unlike other sites such as GTalt09, no mention is in the Sites Summary Table to noise being a significant constraint, a consideration which is consistent with a 'red'
classification.
Availability of school places:
The detailed appraisal of site GTalt03 states that:
"The Priority area school would be Budbrooke Primary School which is full or close to capacity so children looking for places could struggle"
Given that the District Council's draft Village Options Consultation is proposing an additional 100 dwellings at Hampton Magna, there must therefore be significant doubt as to the availability of local schooling should the site be developed for gypsy provision.
Conclusion:
There are therefore no factors which could possibly constitute the very special circumstances necessary to support of the potential allocation of the Henley Road I Hampton Road site. In fact, quite the opposite - the site is subject to severe site specific constraints and should therefore be re-c1assified as a 'red' site which is unsuitable for further consideration.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64581
Received: 25/04/2014
Respondent: Mr John Sharp
Protests in the strongest manner, three planning applications have already been rejected on this site, the reasons for this are still valid
Access is very dangerous and there is a high voltage power line running across the site
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64582
Received: 10/04/2014
Respondent: Mrs Mary Jones
Strongly objects, site is in the green belt and has been refused planning permission twice in the last five years, it was also dismissed by the planning inspectorate. Reasons are still valid and Hampton on the Hill is not identified in the option for housing so is not a suitable location for a gypsy and traveller site
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64583
Received: 10/04/2014
Respondent: Mrs Joy French
Strong objection to the inclusion of GTalt 03 in the consultation, it is within the green belt and has been the subject of two planning refusals and also dismissed by the planning inspectorate. The reasons are still valid. Hampton on the Hill is not identified for housing in the Local Plan therefore it is not suitable for a gypsy and traveller site.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64665
Received: 05/05/2014
Respondent: Mrs Kathryn Wilkinson
Site within greenbelt.
Subject of 2 planning refusals by WDC Planning Committee in 2009 and 2011.
Site dismissed by Planning Inspectors at an appeal in 2009.
WDC took out injunction in 2010 to prevent any development.
Hampton on the Hill not identified within adopted WDC Local Plan (2006) or draft Village Housing Options consultation at a sustainable location for new residential development.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64694
Received: 05/05/2014
Respondent: Mr John Wilkinson
Site in green belt.
Subject to 2 planning refusals by WDC Planning Committee in 2009 and 2011.
Site dismissed by Planning Inspectors at an appeal in 2009.
WDC took out injunction in 2010 to prevent any development.
Hampton on the Hill not identified within either WDC Local Plan or the draft Village Housing Options consultation as suitable location for travellers site.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64703
Received: 10/04/2014
Respondent: Mr Leonard Wesson
Site within green belt.
Site has been subject to 2 planning refusals in 2009 and 2011.
Site dismissed by Planning Inspectorate in 2009 at appeal hearing.
WDC took out injunction in 2010 to prevent any development.
Site not identified within either WDC local plan (2006) or within draft 'Village Housing Options' consultation as sustainable location.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64789
Received: 05/05/2014
Respondent: Alison Thorburn
This site is in the green belt and has been refused permission on two occasions and by the Planning Inspectorate. The circumstances that applied then, still apply now. Hampton on the Hill is not identified as a location that is suitable for new residential development.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64790
Received: 05/05/2014
Respondent: Barbara Archer
This site is in the green belt and has been refused permission on two occasions and by the Planning Inspectorate. The circumstances that applied then, still apply now. Hampton on the Hill is not identified as a location that is suitable for new residential development. This site is not a sustainable location for a G&T site.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64791
Received: 05/05/2014
Respondent: Mr Anthony Archer
This site is in the green belt and has been refused permission on two occasions and by the Planning Inspectorate. The circumstances that applied then, still apply now. Hampton on the Hill is not identified as a location that is suitable for new residential development. This site is not a sustainable location for a G&T site.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64792
Received: 24/04/2014
Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Prout-Richardson
Permission has already been refused twice and this site should not therefore be considered further. To do so is a waste of public money.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64794
Received: 11/04/2014
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Powell
Site within green belt.
Site has been subject to 2 planning refusals in 2009 and 2011.
Site dismissed by Planning Inspectorate in 2009 at appeal hearing in 2009.
WDC took out injunction in 2010 to prevent any development.
Site not identified within either WDC local plan (2006) or within draft 'Village Housing Options' consultation as sustainable location.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64795
Received: 14/04/2014
Respondent: Mrs J A Mundy
Site within green belt.
Site has been subject to 2 planning refusals in 2009 and 2011.
Site dismissed by Planning Inspectorate in 2009 at appeal hearing in 2009.
WDC took out injunction in 2010 to prevent any development.
Site not identified within either WDC local plan (2006) or within draft 'Village Housing Options' consultation as sustainable location.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64809
Received: 16/04/2014
Respondent: Mavis Dale
The site is in the green belt and there are no exceptional circumstances to justify it. Government guidance indicates that unmet need is unliely to justify green belt sites.
A previous application here has been refused and dismissed on appeal. Part of the reason was access.
There would be a significant visual impact as the site is elevated and is at the entrance to the village. Any development and/or screening would have a significant impact on the open views.
If the access was from henley Road it would be on to a busy road and would be a hazard with fast moving vehicles.
Hampton on the Hill is not a sustainable location for housing and the same should apply for a G&T site.
Local schools and GPO surgeries are at capacity.
A power line crosses the site which would be a constraint.
Traffic noise and air quality would be a concern.
The site is subject to surfce water flooding.
Allocating this site would be a significant precedent.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64810
Received: 01/05/2014
Respondent: Mrs L White
The Government's 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' (2012) states that traveller sites should only be approved within Green Belt if 'very special circumstances' can be demonstrated. Subsequent Government guidance has confirmed that unmet need for traveller sites is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the 'very special circumstances' threshold to justify devlopment within the Green Belt.
The land is very heavily constrained, as follows:
Planning History: A previous application for just one traveller pitch at the site was dismissed at appeal, application ref: W09/0157. The District Council also subsequenty took out an injunction to prevent any occupation whatsoever of the land by touring caravans/mobile homes. It is untenable for the same Council to be currenty considering promoting the site for a much larger development.
Access: Whilst the consultation document refers to access being possible from Hampton Road, we understand this is an error and consideration is being given to potential access from Henley Road. However, the Planning Inspector who refused application W09/0157 concluded that occupation of the site by just a single family would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety if accessed from Henley Road. In light of this, how can the site be considered as even potentially suitable for 15 pitches?
Sustainability: Hampton-on-the-Hill is not identified within either the adopted Warwick District Local Plan (2006) or within the draft Village Housing Options consultation as a sustainable location for any new residential development. If the Council considers that it is not a sustainable location for new market housing, then it cannot be considered as sustainable for a travller site.
Visual Impact: The land lies in an elevated position on an important gateway approach to Warwick. The hedgerow to Henley Road is insufficient to prevent significant views into the site. The only way to partially screen the site would be to have extensive close-boarded boundary fencing which would have a highly urbanising effect in this prominent location.
Power Lines: The site is crossed by a 33 kV power line which would have to be diverted at great expense or require a minimum separation distance between caravans and the line; either way, a significant retsraint to development.
Noise: The assessment carried out by the District Council's consultant highlights that there is the potential for occupants to be exposed to high levels of noise and poor air quality due to the proximity to the A4189.
Surface Water Flooding: The same consultant report also states that surface water flooding within parts of the site would pose a risk to caravans which are considered to be particularly sensitive to flooding risk.
Landowner Support: The fact that the landowner is 'very keen' to secure development on his land cannot possibly constitute a 'very special circumstance'. If it did, any owner of land within the Green Belt would have an open door for successfully securing development on their land.
There are therfore no factors which could possibly constiute the very special circumstances necessary to support to this allocation and the site should therefore be re-classified as a 'red' site which is unsuitable fro further consideration.
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64826
Received: 17/04/2014
Respondent: Mr William Bond
The site is green belt
Previous applications here have been refused and nothing has changed since then. It does not make sense to continue consideration of this site.
The owner is keen to promote the site for his own benefit
see attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64837
Received: 07/04/2014
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Julian & Gaynor Marcus
Number of people: 2
Site is in greenbelt.
Two planning applications refused by WDC Planning Committee in 2009 and 2011.
Site already dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate at an appeal hearing in 2009.
WDC took out an injunction in 2010 to prevent any development.
Hampton on the Hill not indentified within adopted WDC Local Plan (2006) or within draft Village Housing Options consultation as suitable location for new residential development.
See attached
Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64839
Received: 05/05/2014
Respondent: Mrs Hilary Wilson
SeThis site is in the green belt and has been refused permission on two occasions and by the Planning Inspectorate. The circumstances that applied then, still apply now. Hampton on the Hill is not identified as a location that is suitable for new residential development. This site is not a sustainable location for a G&T site.
See attached