BASE HEADER
Gwrthwynebu
Preferred Options for Sites
ID sylw: 64360
Derbyniwyd: 30/04/2014
Ymatebydd: Mr & Mrs Doug & Rita Smith
This site will not have access to decent public transport services , the bus service to Hatton Park is not acceptable/ poor.
The is a Local Plan proposal for 70/90 houses to be built at Hatton Park, this plus a G and T site will increase traffic on this busy/ dangerous raod (Birmingham Road).
Double standards are being applied by the Council - two development proposals have been refused for this site already - clearly it has been established that there are insufficient special circumstances for this land to be developed in the Greenbelt.
Taxpayers money should not be used for CPO/ compensatory matters in relation to the aquisition of this land.Thre are more important causes that need this money.
This site was rejected as a Local Plan housing site due to its close proximity to the canal - surely this also applies to the potential travellers site?
If the recent Kenilworth Horse fair is indicative of how the traveller community integrates with the existing community then there is little chance of this being a successful proposition (for all concerned).
I object to the proposed site at GT19 as follows:-
How would these people be served by public transport in this area when as local residents we do not enjoy a reliable or efficient bus service. We have lived on Hatton Park for 14 years and have not found the service in any way acceptable.
As part of the plan to build 70-90 houses on the site adjacent to Hatton Park, this will certainly create an increase volume of traffic on the busy A4177 road which has had 2 fatal accidents within the last 5 years. The road is also prone to flooding. By introducing caravans and large vehicles to the proposed GT19 site this will only add to the problem.
I feel that the WDC are expressing double standards when the current landowner has had at least two applications rejected on the grounds that his site is in the green belt. What then are the exceptional circumstances that are required by central government to develop on green belt land?
It is evident that if this proposal is implemented the remaining land will reduce in value and there is a possibility that the tax payer will be liable for compensation. Why, as a tax and council tax payer should my hard earned money be used in this way?
If, as proposed by WDC to use tax payers money to compulsory purchase site GT19 how can this be justified as good use of public funds? There are more important causes within this local community where valuable funds should be spent for the benefit of local residents who contribute their taxes accordingly.
If the argument by the Council for the rejection of site 2 as a new development for houses because of the close proximity to the canal, surely the same criteria should be applied for the gypsy and traveller site?
To conclude, what I witnessed on Sunday 27th April at the horse fair in Kenilworth is an example of how the gypsy and traveller community tried to integrate with the locas, then as far as I'm concerned they showed no respect whatsoever. They had no regard for the local residents and parked on grass verges churning the ground on both sides of the busy Leamington Road and in turn causing traffic chaos. Any clearing up process and making good the grass verges are no doubt the responsibility of the local council to whom we all pay our council tax. Would the gypsy/travellers be asked to contribute to this?