BASE HEADER

We are writing on behalf of the residents of Hampton-on-the-Hill (HOTHRA) to OBJECT very strongly to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in this consultation document as a possible site for Gypsies and Travellers. The principal reasons being that a section of it has been the subject of two planning application REFUSALS by the Warwick District Council (WDC) and a DISMISSAL by the Planning Inspectorate for a site measuring 0.1 hectare whereas site GTalt03 is 1.66 hectares; sixteen times larger. The reasons given for these REFUSALS and the DISMISSAL are relevant to GTalt03 and even more valid with the increased site size and greater numbers of people.
In each case Budbrooke Parish Council (BPC) has been fully supportive of the local residents in objecting to the applications and helped with the funding of a Highways Specialist (David Tucker Associates) and Planning Consultant (Stoneleigh Planning) to thoroughly investigate all the issues involved.
In 2009 the landowner (Mr Maloney) applied for planning approval for 'change of use of land to a caravan site for the occupation by a gypsy family.....; Application W 09/0157. The Case Officer (Penny Butler) presented the case to the Planning Committee (PC) because of '.....the high level of public interest in the case'. At the PC meeting our Budbrooke Ward Councillor - Mr Alan Rhead - spoke on behalf of the residents and stated that there were no very special circumstances to allow the development in the Green Belt and that the interests of the settled community and their human rights needed to be respected.
The Planning Committee REFUSED the application in their meeting on 17 June 2009
The landowner then appealed that decision and it was referred to the Planning Inspectorate. Bristol. Appeal Ref: APP/T3725/A/09/2107108. There was a hearing on 3 November 2009 followed by a site visit on the same day. (WDC was represented by Dave Edmonds - Appeals Officer).
The Inspector DISMISSED the Appeal on 27 November 2009.
The principal reasons being - inappropriate development in the Green Belt and Highways Safety.
The WDC then issued an Injunction Order (Claim No. OBM30254) on Miles Maloney and Persons Unknown on 27 May 2010. It applies to the whole site of 1.66 hectares and forbids '....the siting of touring caravans/mobile homes and/or using the Land for residential development including the occupation of caravans/mobile homes for residential purposes .......'. It goes on to state that 'The Defendants be forbidden from undertaking any development on the Land including the laying of hardcore and creation of hardstanding and/or access roads, the erection of fencing, breaking new pedestrian/vehicular entry points onto the land and the construction of ancillary buildings'.
The same landowner made a further application on 17 December 2010 - Application number W10/1221. This time for the 'proposed conversion of a barn into a dwelling......'. Once again the Case Officer (Penny Butler) referred the case to the PC this time at the request of Councillor Sawdon who spoke on behalf of the residents and stated that the application was inappropriate development in the Green Belt and Highways Safety.
The Planning Committee REFUSED the application in their meeting on 22 February 2011
These REFUSALS and the DISMISSAL concerned a single dwelling in 0.1 hectare. The current consultation is for fifteen pitches in 1.66 hectares. The increased numbers of people and their vehicle movements on and off the Henley Road will greatly increase the highways safety issues.
The statement on page 60 of the consultation document refers to "Access is achievable along the Hampton Road with the required visibility splays". We have consulted the WCC Highways engineer who looked at that access as a possibility at the request of the WDC. He has told us that Hampton Road access 'is not a viable option' and considers that only access from the Henley Road is advised. Apart from the WCC Highways opinion, it should be remembered that the Henley Road has a speed restriction of 50 mph whereas the Hampton Road adjacent to the site is derestricted.
The statement goes on that "The landowner is very keen to promote site for this use making it available and deliverable". This is a surprising statement since it should be remembered that during the earlier applications the landowner was known to shun his fellow travellers ".....they do not get on with other Irish Travellers... and would not wish to be associated .........." (WDC Key Issues, 17 June 2009). Also, he claimed that he was unable to co-exist with fellow Gypsies and Travellers, hence his need for a separate site (source - the Warwickshire Gypsy and Traveller Support Service). For him to now offer the land for their use seems a contradiction of his position and could be regarded as a cynical act.
It should also be remembered that he has been trying unsuccessfully to sell the land since early 2013 in spite of having received offers in excess of the market value (at auction in John Shepherd Offices, Hockley Heath - 19 March 2013). This, together with his inability to co-exist with his kind must raise doubts about the sustainability of his offer.
The prospect of fifteen pitches on the site will cause much unrest within the village of Hampton-on-the- Hill with a population of some two hundred, many of whom are retired including thirty single people living alone. Fifteen pitches could amount to an additional forty people - a twenty percent increase - which would give an imbalance to the settled community in the Village. Their interests and that of the wider settled community must have their human rights respected.
In the consultation document, site GT13 - Kites Nest Lane, Beausale - has been given a Red classification with the accompanying comment - "Unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller site has been the subject of retrospective planning applications and two subsequent appeals, both dismissed".
The same principle should also apply in the case of GTalt03 which is considerably larger than the site which has been the subject of three rejections. and which also carries an Injunction for the whole site. Similarly, the site should be given a Red classification.
The circumstances that led to the two REFUSALS, the INJUNCTION and the DISMISSAL in 2009, 2010 and 2011 are relevant and valid today. Particularly so for a site sixteen times the size which will have a greater impact on the landscape character; the visual amenity of the surrounding area, land contamination, noise and other disturbances. Given its prominent position it cannot be adequately screened to mitigate these points.
We therefore request that site GTalt03 be reclassified as a Red site and removed from any further consideration in this consultation.