BASE HEADER
Gwrthwynebu
Preferred Options for Sites
ID sylw: 64340
Derbyniwyd: 21/04/2014
Ymatebydd: Sarah Smith
The site is located within High Flood Risk Zone 3.
The proposed site is narrow and 0.3 acres.
Access to the road network is not safe. There was a fatal traffic accident immediately outside the proposed site in 2010.
Site is located within the Green Belt and adjacent to the Grand Union Canal, the Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site and the Hatton Flights. The occupation/ development of this site will impact on the visual amenity and historic importance of the Grand Union Canal.
Council documents have been inconsistent and one-sided in their treatment of this site eg there is no proof that reducing the site area will retain the viability of the existing business; there is no credible solution for dealing with the access yet a shared access for GTalt22 is a clear negative factor; reference to 'urban feel' is clearly subjective; proximity to Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site not mentioned; site is not readily available.
Landowner is unwilling to sell. This is seen as a negative for other sites.
Possible flood risk from the adjacent canal and fields to the north of Birmingham Road.
Council's own plans show that this land has a high sensitivity to housing development.
Council recently rejected the proposed development of a similar site further west along the Birmingham Road.
Reference to "previously developed land" is misleading. The previous use was for agricultural purposes.
Site is in the Green Belt and the NPPF requires "exceptional" circumstances to alter Green Belt boundaries, and the Council has failed to demonstrate any "exceptional" circumstances. To be promoting a Green Belt site at this stage is totally unacceptable because the need can be clearly met from non Green Belt sites.
To whom it may concern
Regarding the consultation on the Preferred Options Sites for Gypsy and Travellers, I refer you to my below comments:
2. History: How we got to this point
2.4 -OBJECTION
The assessment from Salford University contains no adequate "demonstration of the need for 31 pitches", the public was not consulted in its production and as the
sole basis of the Council's policy, it is unreliable and unsound.
2.8 - OBJECT
The sentence "extending the number of pitches on a site would be subject to a planning application and sites would then be assessed for any constraints and restrictions" seems to leave open the possibility of adding the number of pitches at a later date through the planning process not only a possibility but also exposes this entire process to abuse and manipulation and offering local residents no certainty.
Please confirm that the pitch numbers stated in this document will not be exceeded in future.