H7 Meeting the Accommodation Needs of Gypsies and Travellers

Whilst the policy is generally supported, there is an implication that planning applications will only be supported if monitoring shows a shortfall in pitches. This would be unacceptable.

a) Multiple incorrect descriptions and interpretations of Dept. of Communities and Local Government planning guidance

b) The report states that WDC has consulted with adjoining Districts - recent Freedom of Information requests, provides clear evidence that this has not happened as required.

c) The report contains materially incorrect or absent descriptions of what a 'site' and 'pitch' actually comprises.

d) The report ignores relevant points made in Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA)

e)IThe report is misleading as to why specific sites have been included or excluded

f) The report fails to inform /remind the Council of the decision to build a transit site and its likely impact

It is a wholly inappropriate type of development for the semi-rural location/area.

H7:

The recent consultation by WDC Planners has been concluded and findings summarised in a report to the WDC Council. This contains many grey areas if not misleading or unsubstatiated opinion. These have been carefully analysed and produced - see attachment.



Para:
' The Council will produce a Development Plan.... '

The data used by Salford University to establish 31-pitches is flawed as the wrong data base was used.

Whitnash Town Council advise: WDC havenot taken into consideration the figures for population growth over the period, which says it will be down 26% from the previous forcast. Therefore the housing required is reduced, making Salfords figures even more suspect.

Salfords needs assessment did not include the indigenous population, locla faarmers, landowners, businesses.

Para: ' Monitoring may show that ... '

There is already an erroneous over-provision of sites needed over the plan period
>>>>

Gypsies and Travellers as an ethnic minority are being afforded positive discrimination by being singled out for special treatment; other enthnic groups do not get this special treatment.

1) The process followed by WDC has not complied with NPPF and DCLG guidelines.
2) Specifically there is strong evidence that Council Officers misled Councillors in a report to Council in Feb 2014.
3) It is demonstrable that WDC failed to meet their statutory obligation to co-operate with and consult neighbouring authorities. This is shown by responses to Freedom of Information requests I made in May 2014.
4) The assessment of the need for sites is based on a GTAA which is significantly and demonstrably flawed and in no way provides the required "robust" base of evidence to support the need.

Carefully planned this is a positive suggestion

see attached