BASE HEADER
Sylw
Preferred Options for Sites
ID sylw: 64974
Derbyniwyd: 21/04/2014
Ymatebydd: John Smith
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
Why are no photographs of these sites provided, unlike for the preferred sites in section 9? This is arguably prejudicial.
Testun llawn:
Further to your below email and the Consultation on the Preferred Options Sites for Gypsy and Travel...
Further to your below email and the Consultation on the Preferred Options Sites for Gypsy and Travellers deadline of Monday 5th May, I refer you to my below comments and objections.
2. History: How we got to this point
2.4 -OBJECT
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.
2.7 -OBJECT
No adequate rationale has been given for the Council not owning or managing the sites. The Council is presenting conjecture as fact which is unsound.
There is no explanation, crucial at this stage, of who the Council would sell sites to. Will the sites be widely available? What guarantees are there that the Council will fulfil its obligations to achieve best value?
The Council needs to retain accountability for managing and controlling the sites and securing all relevant planning consents. This could possibly be achieved through a registered social landlord.
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.
2.10 - COMMENT
The GTAA was actually published in November 2012, so this does not bode well for the professionalism or competence of the Council's approach.
2.13 - COMMENT
The public deserves more information on why conversations with neighbouring authorities over several years have not yielded any results.
3. Warwick District - Context
3.5 - OBJECT
The NPPF requires "exceptional" circumstances, not special. This paragraph is inaccurate and disingenuous. The Council has failed to demonstrate any "exceptional" circumstances and should not be promoting any green belt site above any non green belt site.
I was assured by you in your email of 30 July 2013 that "Warwick District Council will not promote green belt sites if there is sufficient land available outside the green belt to meet the evidenced need."
3.6 - OBJECT
The NPPF requires "exceptional" circumstances, not special. This paragraph is inaccurate and disingenuous. The Council has failed to demonstrate any "exceptional" circumstances and should not be promoting any green belt site above any non green belt site.
I was assured by you in your email of 30 July 2013 that "Warwick District Council will not promote green belt sites if there is sufficient land available outside the green belt to meet the evidenced need."
6. Criteria
6.3 - COMMENT
A fundamental flaw in this draft policy is that there is no explanation of why some 'green' sites are in Preferred Sites and others are Alternative Sites. You should be more transparent.
7. Sites Summary Table
GT19 - OBJECT
Against the Council's own criteria in section 6.1, GT19 fails on the following points.
1 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
2 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding FAIL - the site is located within High Flood Risk Zone 3.
3 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site FAIL - the proposed site is narrow and 0.3 acres.
Access to the road network is not safe - Birmingham Road is 2-way and heavily congested, particularly during peak times. There was a fatal traffic accident immediately outside the proposed site in 2010.
4 Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance
5 Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)
6 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment FAIL - GT19 is located within the Green Belt and adjacent to the Grand Union Canal, the Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site and the famous Hatton Flights running locally between Warwick and Hatton.
As stated on numerous websites including Hatton Parish Council, the Canal & River Trust and Enjoy Warwick, (to name but a few), Hatton is home to one of the most picturesque spots on the Grand Union Canal.
The famous Hatton Flights, otherwise known as "The Stairway to Heaven" contains 21 locks in less than two miles, raising or dropping the Grand Union Canal by 146.5 feet. They are an excellent example of original and recent canal engineering providing two hundred years of waterways history at a key location on the Grand Union canal.
As part of a Heritage Lottery Funded Working Boats Project, a pair of restored working boats that once worked this route are moored on the Hatton Flights. A recent Heritage Lottery funded project has also made some of the local history available to visitors through information panels, leaflets, a family wildlife trail along the Hatton Flights, education packs and picnic benches.
The occupation/ development of this site will impact on the visual amenity and historic importance of the Grand Union Canal.
7 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area. Site development will accord with national guidance on site design and facility provision FAIL - GT19 is located within the Green Belt. It is also adjacent to the Grand Union Canal, the Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site and the famous Hatton Flights running locally between Warwick and Hatton. The occupation/ development of this site will impact on the visual amenity of the Grand Union Canal.
8 Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community
9 Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
10 Reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work-from the same location thereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability
In addition, the commentary and treatment for this site is very one-sided. Firstly this is true as a standalone because factors mentioned in the full site assessment are omitted from the policy document. Secondly there is great inconsistency in the commentary on factors across different sites, which seriously undermines the soundness and confidence in the Council's approach.
For example (referring to the commentary on page 22):
"Site area reduced to avoid other existing uses and retain viability of remaining unit" There is no proof or even indication that this will be the case
"Possible use of existing access points" There is no credible solution for allowing large vehicles to turn into a constrained site off a busy road.
How does this compare with the commentary for site GTalt22, which is "Access would have to be shared with Camping and Caravan Club access", which is presented as a negative?
"Services available on site as currently used by Caravan and Camping Club" This is spun as a factor supporting GT19 as a Preferred Site. How does this compare with the commentary for site GTalt22, which is "As a Camping and Caravan Club site, this use would not be suitable"?
The following key points have not been mentioned in the commentary within Section 7 which is a major omission on the part of the Council and once again misrepresents the actual situation at GT19:
1) The landowner is not willing to sell the site, so compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward. It seems that other sites are not preferred because of this, why has GT19 therefore been proposed as a preferred site?
2) Possible flood risk from the adjacent canal and fields to the north of Birmingham Road, which flood regularly.
3) Part of the site is within high flood risk Zone 3. The proposed site is 0.3 acres in size. With part being within a high flood risk Zone- why does it therefore remain a preferred option?
4) Ecological factors being adjacent to the canal, and the Council's own plans show that this land has a high sensitivity to housing development.
5) Access to the road network is not safe - Birmingham Road is 2-way and heavily congested, particularly during peak times. There was a fatal traffic accident immediately outside the proposed site in 2010.
6). GT19 is adjacent to the Grand Union Canal, the Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site and the famous Hatton Flights running locally between Warwick and Hatton. The occupation/ development of this site will impact on the visual amenity of the Grand Union Canal.
7) The Council recently rejected the proposed development of a similar site owned by Mr Arkwright further west along the Birmingham Road. The Council's reasoning's were sound and should be reiterated on this site.
8) Reference to the site being located within the Green Belt have been included - however the reference that it has been "previously developed land" is misleading. The previous use of the land was for agricultural purposes.
8. Preferred Options for Consultation
PO1: Meeting the Requirement for Permanent Pitches - OBJECT
A fundamental flaw in this draft policy is that there is no explanation of why some 'green' sites are in Preferred Sites and others are Alternative Sites.
There is also great inconsistency in the commentary for some sites being deemed suitable and others unsuitable.
For example:
GT19 - "Services available on site as currently used by Caravan and Camping Club " has been presented as a positive factor.
By comparison:
GTalt22 - "As a Caravan and Camping Club site, this use would not be suitable"
GT19 - Within the Detailed Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessments it has been noted that "the site is adjacent to the Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site." This comment has not been included within Section 7 and the site remains a preferred option.
By comparison:
There are numerous other sites including GTalt20 and GTalt23 where the sites have proximity to a LWS in the form of a canal. This information has been included within the commentaries in Section 7.
You are not fully representing the situation by omitting this information.
GT19 - there is no mention that Mr Butler, the current owner of GT19, is not prepared to sell the land to the Council. A fact which he has told all Hatton Park Residents - and was confirmed by Clare Sawdon in the recent Hatton Park Action Group meeting of March 2014.
By comparison:
Sites GT02, GT05, GT06, GT08 and GTalt12, all in the alternative sites list, all say "the land owner is not willing to sell the site, so compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward."
You are not fully or fairly representing the situation by omitting this information.
GT19 - part of the site is within high flood risk Zone 3. The site is 0.3 acres in size - with part being within a high flood risk Zone- why does it therefore remain a preferred site?
By comparison:
Sites GTalt20 and GTalt23 have close proximity to a canal and are subject to flooding/surface flooding, but are not located within high flood risk zones - but are deemed inappropriate sites.
Many other sites are noted as being located within high flood risk zone 3 - but all are deemed inappropriate sites.
The above issues seriously undermine the soundness and confidence in the Council's approach to deeming a site their "preferred" option.
9. Summary of Preferred Option Sites
GT19 (p.42) - OBJECT
Against the Council's own criteria in section 6.1, GT19 fails on the following points.
1 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
2 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding FAIL - the site is located within High Flood Risk Zone 3.
3 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site FAIL - the proposed site is narrow and 0.3 acres.
Access to the road network is not safe - Birmingham Road is 2-way and heavily congested, particularly during peak times. There was a fatal traffic accident immediately outside the proposed site in 2010.
4 Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance
5 Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)
6 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment FAIL - GT19 is located within the Green Belt and adjacent to the Grand Union Canal, the Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site and the famous Hatton Flights running locally between Warwick and Hatton.
As stated on numerous websites including Hatton Parish Council, the Canal & River Trust and Enjoy Warwick, (to name but a few), Hatton is home to one of the most picturesque spots on the Grand Union Canal.
The famous Hatton Flights, otherwise known as "The Stairway to Heaven" contains 21 locks in less than two miles, raising or dropping the Grand Union Canal by 146.5 feet. They are an excellent example of original and recent canal engineering providing two hundred years of waterways history at a key location on the Grand Union canal.
As part of a Heritage Lottery Funded Working Boats Project, a pair of restored working boats that once worked this route are moored on the Hatton Flights. A recent Heritage Lottery funded project has also made some of the local history available to visitors through information panels, leaflets, a family wildlife trail along the Hatton Flights, education packs and picnic benches.
The occupation/ development of this site will impact on the visual amenity and historic importance of the Grand Union Canal.
7 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area. Site development will accord with national guidance on site design and facility provision FAIL - GT19 is located within the Green Belt. It is also adjacent to the Grand Union Canal, the Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site and the famous Hatton Flights running locally between Warwick and Hatton. The occupation/ development of this site will impact on the visual amenity of the Grand Union Canal.
8 Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community
9 Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
10 Reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work-from the same location thereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability
In addition, the commentary and treatment for this site is very one-sided. Firstly this is true as a standalone because factors mentioned in the full site assessment are omitted from the policy document. Secondly there is great inconsistency in the commentary on factors across different sites, which seriously undermines the soundness and confidence in the Council's approach.
For example (referring to the commentary on page 22):
"Site area reduced to avoid other existing uses and retain viability of remaining unit" There is no proof or even indication that this will be the case
"Possible use of existing access points" There is no credible solution for allowing large vehicles to turn into a constrained site off a busy road.
How does this compare with the commentary for site GTalt22, which is "Access would have to be shared with Camping and Caravan Club access", which is presented as a negative?
"Services available on site as currently used by Caravan and Camping Club" This is spun as a factor supporting GT19 as a Preferred Site. How does this compare with the commentary for site GTalt22, which is "As a Camping and Caravan Club site, this use would not be suitable"?
"Urban feel" This is subjective.
"A habitat buffer would be required"
Why it is not mentioned that the site is adjacent to Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site?
"Subject to agreement with the landowner, this site could be delivered within 5 years."
As the site is not readily available, why is this a Preferred Site?
The following key points have not been mentioned in the commentary within Section 9 which is a major omission on the part of the Council and once again misrepresents the actual situation at GT19:
1) The landowner is not willing to sell the site, so compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward. It seems that other sites are not preferred because of this, why has GT19 therefore been proposed as a preferred site?
2) Possible flood risk from the adjacent canal and fields to the north of Birmingham Road, which flood regularly.
3) Part of the site is within high flood risk Zone 3. The proposed site is 0.3 acres in size. With part being within a high flood risk Zone- why does it therefore remain a preferred option?
4) Ecological factors being adjacent to the canal, and the Council's own plans show that this land has a high sensitivity to housing development.
5) Access to the road network is not safe - Birmingham Road is 2-way and heavily congested, particularly during peak times. There was a fatal traffic accident immediately outside the proposed site in 2010.
6) GT19 is adjacent to the Grand Union Canal, the Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site and the famous Hatton Flights running locally between Warwick and Hatton. The occupation/ development of this site will impact on the visual amenity of the Grand Union Canal.
7) The Council recently rejected the proposed development of a similar site owned by Mr Arkwright further west along the Birmingham Road. The Council's reasoning's were sound and should be reiterated on this site.
8) Reference to the site being located within the Green Belt have been included - however the reference that it has been "previously developed land" is misleading. The previous use of the land was for agricultural purposes.
10. Summary of Alternative Sites - COMMENT
Why are no photographs of these sites provided, unlike for the preferred sites in section 9? This is arguably prejudicial.
I look forward to receiving your comments on the above and confirmation that my above representation has been received and logged.
Yours faithfully
Dear Mr Smith
This is to confirm that your email has been received and retained as your representation to the consultation on the options for sites for Gypsies and Travellers.
You have made a couple of comments which you would like us to address. Firstly, the sites that are in the 'options' consultation booklet are all there because they have either been promoted to us by landowners, suggested to us by others or are 'areas of search' within which we think it may be possible to identify an area of land that would be suitable for this use. We have not identified which of these are in the green belt (although the map on pages 12/13 gives an overview) because at this stage of the work, we want to draw out comments from others before more work is carried out to assess sites in greater detail with a view to taking the most suitable sites forward into the next consultation. Warwick District Council will not promote green belt sites if there is sufficient land available outside the green belt to meet the evidenced need.
Whilst adjacent local authorities have rejected the invitation to discuss this issue with them in the past, a dialogue has been re-established with Stratford District Council and Rugby Borough Council and we are more hopeful that we can co-operate with these authorities at least in coming to some agreement about sharing sites or council's providing sites within their boundaries for those who have no potential for sites or insufficient sites. Each district has its own need to address and provide for.
The sites that we are looking to establish are for permanent pitches i.e. in a similar way to the settled community in that a family will reside on a permanent basis on their pitch. They will only 'travel' to find work or to visit family, holiday etc.
Your site by site comments are noted.
Yours sincerely
Lorna Coldicott
Please find below my various representations with regard to the proposed site options.
In line with the report I wish to make representations on a number of points as detailed below.
1. Introduction
No comment
2. Background
No comment
3. Who are Gypsies and Travellers?
No comment
4. What are the Issues?
No comment
5. Policy Background
SUPPORT
National policy is correct in advocating that (1) local planning authorities work together to identify sites and (2) that decision-taking protects Green Belt from inappropriate development and makes enforcement more effective.
On Point (1) it is therefore extremely worrying that Warwick District Council (WDC) is no longer working with other authorities to consider plans on a cross-authority basis, which it has a duty to do under the 2011 Localism Act. On point (2) WDC makes no distinction between Green Belt and non-Green Belt sites in its policy criteria so again contradicts national policy.
6. Evidence Base
No comment
7. Local Plan Requirements
OBJECT
The policy criteria listed by WDC are sensible.
However they omit crucial aspects of national guidance including (1) that plan-making and decision-taking should protect Green Belt from inappropriate development and (2) sites must be in appropriate locations. Why?
There is also the fact that WDC is no longer working on a cross-authority basis to provide sites. Again, why when much of WDC is covered by Green Belt (80%)? Surely by definition travellers are nomadic and the requirement for pitches should not be restricted to Warwick District?
8. Identification of Potential Sites
OBJECT
Section 8.1 is inadequate. WDC should list all sites within it's ownership and explain why it considers each site to be unacceptable.
Section 8.3, in which WDC is seeking to identify sites itself is a total dereliction of its duty under the 2011 Localism Act. WDC contains a high proportion of Green Belt and the Council should be looking to share supply of sites in appropriate locations with other authorities.
Site listing criteria should distinguish first whether locations are appropriate according to national and local planning policy. This is a planning document and land ownership (and willingness to sell) should not be a concern due to CPO powers.
9. Sites for consideration and comment
10. Table of Sites
GT01 Land adjacent to the Colbalt Centre, Siskin Drive
No Comment
GT02 Land abutting the Fosse Way at its junction with the B425
No comment
GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm
No comment
GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way
No comment
GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm
No comment
GT06 Land at Park Farm, Spinney Farm
No comment
GT07 Land at Stoneleigh Road
No comment
GT08 Depot to the west side of Cubbington Hill Farm
No comment
GT09 Land to the north east of M40
No comment
GT10 Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre
No comment
GT11 Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road
No comment
GT12 Land north and west of Westham Lane (area of search)
No comment
GT13 Kites Nest Lane, Beausale
OBJECT
Kites Nest Lane, Beausale is totally inappropriate as a site for this purpose because:
1. It is a greenfield site in the open countryside within the Green Belt and any use for this purpose (or residential etc) is inappropriate development. The National Planning Policy Framework protects the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
2. Adopting it as a possible site would legitimise the long-running unauthorised applications to impose this illegal use at this site. WDC has rightly objected to such applications (although achieved nothing in removing the illegal settlement) and allowing development through this process would set an extremely damaging precedent in this and other areas that will attract significant public disapproval. National policy supports effective enforcement against unauthorised developments.
3. Access to local services is limited.
4. Its rural location means that this use cannot be integrated in the landscape without harming the character and amenity of the area in terms of aesthetic appearance and noise.
GT14 Warwick Road, Norton Lindsey
No comment
GT15 Land east of Europa Way
No comment
GT16 Land to north of Westham Lane and west of Wellesbourne Road, Barford (small site)
No comment
GT17 Service area west of A46 Old Budbrooke Way
No comment
GT18 Service area east of A46 Old Budbrooke Way
No comment
GT19 Land off Birmingham Road, Budbrooke, Oaklands Farm
OBJECT
Land at Oaklands Farm, Birmingham Road is totally inappropriate as a site for this purpose because:
1. It is in the Green Belt and any use for this purpose (or residential etc) is inappropriate development. The National Planning Policy Framework protects the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
2. Access to the road network is not safe - Birmingham Road is 2-way and heavily congested, particularly during peak times. There was a fatal traffic accident immediately outside the proposed site in 2010.
3. It is adjacent to the Grand Union Canal running locally between Warwick and Hatton offering views of Warwick Castle and St Nicholas Church.
As stated on numerous websites including Hatton Parish Council, the Canal & River Trust and Enjoy Warwick, (to name but a few), Hatton is home to one of the most picturesque spots on the Grand Union Canal.
The famous Hatton Flights, otherwise known as "The Stairway to Heaven" contains 21 locks in less than two miles, raising or dropping the Grand Union Canal by 146.5 feet. They are an excellent example of original and recent canal engineering providing two hundred years of waterways history at a key location on the Grand Union canal.
As part of a Heritage Lottery Funded Working Boats Project, a pair of restored working boats that once worked this route are moored on the Hatton Flights. A recent Heritage Lottery funded project has also made some of the local history available to visitors through information panels, leaflets, a family wildlife trail along the Hatton Flights, education packs and picnic benches.
This is a very popular towpath for boaters, walkers, runners and cyclists alike whose amenity will be greatly impacted by the occupation/development of this site.
Its location will further impact on the visual amenity of the Grand Union Canal.
4. The site may be prone to flooding due to its location next to a water network.
GT20 Land at Junction 15 of M40
No comment
Do you have any other suggestions for land within this district that you think would be suitable for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site?
No comment
I look forward to receiving your comments and trust that the Council will make a well informed and well researched decision when it comes to sites to be considered in greater detail.
Yours faithfully
John Smith
[dangos mwy]
2. History: How we got to this point
2.4 -OBJECT
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.
2.7 -OBJECT
No adequate rationale has been given for the Council not owning or managing the sites. The Council is presenting conjecture as fact which is unsound.
There is no explanation, crucial at this stage, of who the Council would sell sites to. Will the sites be widely available? What guarantees are there that the Council will fulfil its obligations to achieve best value?
The Council needs to retain accountability for managing and controlling the sites and securing all relevant planning consents. This could possibly be achieved through a registered social landlord.
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.
2.10 - COMMENT
The GTAA was actually published in November 2012, so this does not bode well for the professionalism or competence of the Council's approach.
2.13 - COMMENT
The public deserves more information on why conversations with neighbouring authorities over several years have not yielded any results.
3. Warwick District - Context
3.5 - OBJECT
The NPPF requires "exceptional" circumstances, not special. This paragraph is inaccurate and disingenuous. The Council has failed to demonstrate any "exceptional" circumstances and should not be promoting any green belt site above any non green belt site.
I was assured by you in your email of 30 July 2013 that "Warwick District Council will not promote green belt sites if there is sufficient land available outside the green belt to meet the evidenced need."
3.6 - OBJECT
The NPPF requires "exceptional" circumstances, not special. This paragraph is inaccurate and disingenuous. The Council has failed to demonstrate any "exceptional" circumstances and should not be promoting any green belt site above any non green belt site.
I was assured by you in your email of 30 July 2013 that "Warwick District Council will not promote green belt sites if there is sufficient land available outside the green belt to meet the evidenced need."
6. Criteria
6.3 - COMMENT
A fundamental flaw in this draft policy is that there is no explanation of why some 'green' sites are in Preferred Sites and others are Alternative Sites. You should be more transparent.
7. Sites Summary Table
GT19 - OBJECT
Against the Council's own criteria in section 6.1, GT19 fails on the following points.
1 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
2 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding FAIL - the site is located within High Flood Risk Zone 3.
3 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site FAIL - the proposed site is narrow and 0.3 acres.
Access to the road network is not safe - Birmingham Road is 2-way and heavily congested, particularly during peak times. There was a fatal traffic accident immediately outside the proposed site in 2010.
4 Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance
5 Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)
6 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment FAIL - GT19 is located within the Green Belt and adjacent to the Grand Union Canal, the Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site and the famous Hatton Flights running locally between Warwick and Hatton.
As stated on numerous websites including Hatton Parish Council, the Canal & River Trust and Enjoy Warwick, (to name but a few), Hatton is home to one of the most picturesque spots on the Grand Union Canal.
The famous Hatton Flights, otherwise known as "The Stairway to Heaven" contains 21 locks in less than two miles, raising or dropping the Grand Union Canal by 146.5 feet. They are an excellent example of original and recent canal engineering providing two hundred years of waterways history at a key location on the Grand Union canal.
As part of a Heritage Lottery Funded Working Boats Project, a pair of restored working boats that once worked this route are moored on the Hatton Flights. A recent Heritage Lottery funded project has also made some of the local history available to visitors through information panels, leaflets, a family wildlife trail along the Hatton Flights, education packs and picnic benches.
The occupation/ development of this site will impact on the visual amenity and historic importance of the Grand Union Canal.
7 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area. Site development will accord with national guidance on site design and facility provision FAIL - GT19 is located within the Green Belt. It is also adjacent to the Grand Union Canal, the Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site and the famous Hatton Flights running locally between Warwick and Hatton. The occupation/ development of this site will impact on the visual amenity of the Grand Union Canal.
8 Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community
9 Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
10 Reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work-from the same location thereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability
In addition, the commentary and treatment for this site is very one-sided. Firstly this is true as a standalone because factors mentioned in the full site assessment are omitted from the policy document. Secondly there is great inconsistency in the commentary on factors across different sites, which seriously undermines the soundness and confidence in the Council's approach.
For example (referring to the commentary on page 22):
"Site area reduced to avoid other existing uses and retain viability of remaining unit" There is no proof or even indication that this will be the case
"Possible use of existing access points" There is no credible solution for allowing large vehicles to turn into a constrained site off a busy road.
How does this compare with the commentary for site GTalt22, which is "Access would have to be shared with Camping and Caravan Club access", which is presented as a negative?
"Services available on site as currently used by Caravan and Camping Club" This is spun as a factor supporting GT19 as a Preferred Site. How does this compare with the commentary for site GTalt22, which is "As a Camping and Caravan Club site, this use would not be suitable"?
The following key points have not been mentioned in the commentary within Section 7 which is a major omission on the part of the Council and once again misrepresents the actual situation at GT19:
1) The landowner is not willing to sell the site, so compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward. It seems that other sites are not preferred because of this, why has GT19 therefore been proposed as a preferred site?
2) Possible flood risk from the adjacent canal and fields to the north of Birmingham Road, which flood regularly.
3) Part of the site is within high flood risk Zone 3. The proposed site is 0.3 acres in size. With part being within a high flood risk Zone- why does it therefore remain a preferred option?
4) Ecological factors being adjacent to the canal, and the Council's own plans show that this land has a high sensitivity to housing development.
5) Access to the road network is not safe - Birmingham Road is 2-way and heavily congested, particularly during peak times. There was a fatal traffic accident immediately outside the proposed site in 2010.
6). GT19 is adjacent to the Grand Union Canal, the Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site and the famous Hatton Flights running locally between Warwick and Hatton. The occupation/ development of this site will impact on the visual amenity of the Grand Union Canal.
7) The Council recently rejected the proposed development of a similar site owned by Mr Arkwright further west along the Birmingham Road. The Council's reasoning's were sound and should be reiterated on this site.
8) Reference to the site being located within the Green Belt have been included - however the reference that it has been "previously developed land" is misleading. The previous use of the land was for agricultural purposes.
8. Preferred Options for Consultation
PO1: Meeting the Requirement for Permanent Pitches - OBJECT
A fundamental flaw in this draft policy is that there is no explanation of why some 'green' sites are in Preferred Sites and others are Alternative Sites.
There is also great inconsistency in the commentary for some sites being deemed suitable and others unsuitable.
For example:
GT19 - "Services available on site as currently used by Caravan and Camping Club " has been presented as a positive factor.
By comparison:
GTalt22 - "As a Caravan and Camping Club site, this use would not be suitable"
GT19 - Within the Detailed Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessments it has been noted that "the site is adjacent to the Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site." This comment has not been included within Section 7 and the site remains a preferred option.
By comparison:
There are numerous other sites including GTalt20 and GTalt23 where the sites have proximity to a LWS in the form of a canal. This information has been included within the commentaries in Section 7.
You are not fully representing the situation by omitting this information.
GT19 - there is no mention that Mr Butler, the current owner of GT19, is not prepared to sell the land to the Council. A fact which he has told all Hatton Park Residents - and was confirmed by Clare Sawdon in the recent Hatton Park Action Group meeting of March 2014.
By comparison:
Sites GT02, GT05, GT06, GT08 and GTalt12, all in the alternative sites list, all say "the land owner is not willing to sell the site, so compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward."
You are not fully or fairly representing the situation by omitting this information.
GT19 - part of the site is within high flood risk Zone 3. The site is 0.3 acres in size - with part being within a high flood risk Zone- why does it therefore remain a preferred site?
By comparison:
Sites GTalt20 and GTalt23 have close proximity to a canal and are subject to flooding/surface flooding, but are not located within high flood risk zones - but are deemed inappropriate sites.
Many other sites are noted as being located within high flood risk zone 3 - but all are deemed inappropriate sites.
The above issues seriously undermine the soundness and confidence in the Council's approach to deeming a site their "preferred" option.
9. Summary of Preferred Option Sites
GT19 (p.42) - OBJECT
Against the Council's own criteria in section 6.1, GT19 fails on the following points.
1 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
2 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding FAIL - the site is located within High Flood Risk Zone 3.
3 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site FAIL - the proposed site is narrow and 0.3 acres.
Access to the road network is not safe - Birmingham Road is 2-way and heavily congested, particularly during peak times. There was a fatal traffic accident immediately outside the proposed site in 2010.
4 Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance
5 Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)
6 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment FAIL - GT19 is located within the Green Belt and adjacent to the Grand Union Canal, the Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site and the famous Hatton Flights running locally between Warwick and Hatton.
As stated on numerous websites including Hatton Parish Council, the Canal & River Trust and Enjoy Warwick, (to name but a few), Hatton is home to one of the most picturesque spots on the Grand Union Canal.
The famous Hatton Flights, otherwise known as "The Stairway to Heaven" contains 21 locks in less than two miles, raising or dropping the Grand Union Canal by 146.5 feet. They are an excellent example of original and recent canal engineering providing two hundred years of waterways history at a key location on the Grand Union canal.
As part of a Heritage Lottery Funded Working Boats Project, a pair of restored working boats that once worked this route are moored on the Hatton Flights. A recent Heritage Lottery funded project has also made some of the local history available to visitors through information panels, leaflets, a family wildlife trail along the Hatton Flights, education packs and picnic benches.
The occupation/ development of this site will impact on the visual amenity and historic importance of the Grand Union Canal.
7 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area. Site development will accord with national guidance on site design and facility provision FAIL - GT19 is located within the Green Belt. It is also adjacent to the Grand Union Canal, the Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site and the famous Hatton Flights running locally between Warwick and Hatton. The occupation/ development of this site will impact on the visual amenity of the Grand Union Canal.
8 Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community
9 Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
10 Reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work-from the same location thereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability
In addition, the commentary and treatment for this site is very one-sided. Firstly this is true as a standalone because factors mentioned in the full site assessment are omitted from the policy document. Secondly there is great inconsistency in the commentary on factors across different sites, which seriously undermines the soundness and confidence in the Council's approach.
For example (referring to the commentary on page 22):
"Site area reduced to avoid other existing uses and retain viability of remaining unit" There is no proof or even indication that this will be the case
"Possible use of existing access points" There is no credible solution for allowing large vehicles to turn into a constrained site off a busy road.
How does this compare with the commentary for site GTalt22, which is "Access would have to be shared with Camping and Caravan Club access", which is presented as a negative?
"Services available on site as currently used by Caravan and Camping Club" This is spun as a factor supporting GT19 as a Preferred Site. How does this compare with the commentary for site GTalt22, which is "As a Camping and Caravan Club site, this use would not be suitable"?
"Urban feel" This is subjective.
"A habitat buffer would be required"
Why it is not mentioned that the site is adjacent to Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site?
"Subject to agreement with the landowner, this site could be delivered within 5 years."
As the site is not readily available, why is this a Preferred Site?
The following key points have not been mentioned in the commentary within Section 9 which is a major omission on the part of the Council and once again misrepresents the actual situation at GT19:
1) The landowner is not willing to sell the site, so compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward. It seems that other sites are not preferred because of this, why has GT19 therefore been proposed as a preferred site?
2) Possible flood risk from the adjacent canal and fields to the north of Birmingham Road, which flood regularly.
3) Part of the site is within high flood risk Zone 3. The proposed site is 0.3 acres in size. With part being within a high flood risk Zone- why does it therefore remain a preferred option?
4) Ecological factors being adjacent to the canal, and the Council's own plans show that this land has a high sensitivity to housing development.
5) Access to the road network is not safe - Birmingham Road is 2-way and heavily congested, particularly during peak times. There was a fatal traffic accident immediately outside the proposed site in 2010.
6) GT19 is adjacent to the Grand Union Canal, the Grand Union Canal Local Wildlife Site and the famous Hatton Flights running locally between Warwick and Hatton. The occupation/ development of this site will impact on the visual amenity of the Grand Union Canal.
7) The Council recently rejected the proposed development of a similar site owned by Mr Arkwright further west along the Birmingham Road. The Council's reasoning's were sound and should be reiterated on this site.
8) Reference to the site being located within the Green Belt have been included - however the reference that it has been "previously developed land" is misleading. The previous use of the land was for agricultural purposes.
10. Summary of Alternative Sites - COMMENT
Why are no photographs of these sites provided, unlike for the preferred sites in section 9? This is arguably prejudicial.
I look forward to receiving your comments on the above and confirmation that my above representation has been received and logged.
Yours faithfully
Dear Mr Smith
This is to confirm that your email has been received and retained as your representation to the consultation on the options for sites for Gypsies and Travellers.
You have made a couple of comments which you would like us to address. Firstly, the sites that are in the 'options' consultation booklet are all there because they have either been promoted to us by landowners, suggested to us by others or are 'areas of search' within which we think it may be possible to identify an area of land that would be suitable for this use. We have not identified which of these are in the green belt (although the map on pages 12/13 gives an overview) because at this stage of the work, we want to draw out comments from others before more work is carried out to assess sites in greater detail with a view to taking the most suitable sites forward into the next consultation. Warwick District Council will not promote green belt sites if there is sufficient land available outside the green belt to meet the evidenced need.
Whilst adjacent local authorities have rejected the invitation to discuss this issue with them in the past, a dialogue has been re-established with Stratford District Council and Rugby Borough Council and we are more hopeful that we can co-operate with these authorities at least in coming to some agreement about sharing sites or council's providing sites within their boundaries for those who have no potential for sites or insufficient sites. Each district has its own need to address and provide for.
The sites that we are looking to establish are for permanent pitches i.e. in a similar way to the settled community in that a family will reside on a permanent basis on their pitch. They will only 'travel' to find work or to visit family, holiday etc.
Your site by site comments are noted.
Yours sincerely
Lorna Coldicott
Please find below my various representations with regard to the proposed site options.
In line with the report I wish to make representations on a number of points as detailed below.
1. Introduction
No comment
2. Background
No comment
3. Who are Gypsies and Travellers?
No comment
4. What are the Issues?
No comment
5. Policy Background
SUPPORT
National policy is correct in advocating that (1) local planning authorities work together to identify sites and (2) that decision-taking protects Green Belt from inappropriate development and makes enforcement more effective.
On Point (1) it is therefore extremely worrying that Warwick District Council (WDC) is no longer working with other authorities to consider plans on a cross-authority basis, which it has a duty to do under the 2011 Localism Act. On point (2) WDC makes no distinction between Green Belt and non-Green Belt sites in its policy criteria so again contradicts national policy.
6. Evidence Base
No comment
7. Local Plan Requirements
OBJECT
The policy criteria listed by WDC are sensible.
However they omit crucial aspects of national guidance including (1) that plan-making and decision-taking should protect Green Belt from inappropriate development and (2) sites must be in appropriate locations. Why?
There is also the fact that WDC is no longer working on a cross-authority basis to provide sites. Again, why when much of WDC is covered by Green Belt (80%)? Surely by definition travellers are nomadic and the requirement for pitches should not be restricted to Warwick District?
8. Identification of Potential Sites
OBJECT
Section 8.1 is inadequate. WDC should list all sites within it's ownership and explain why it considers each site to be unacceptable.
Section 8.3, in which WDC is seeking to identify sites itself is a total dereliction of its duty under the 2011 Localism Act. WDC contains a high proportion of Green Belt and the Council should be looking to share supply of sites in appropriate locations with other authorities.
Site listing criteria should distinguish first whether locations are appropriate according to national and local planning policy. This is a planning document and land ownership (and willingness to sell) should not be a concern due to CPO powers.
9. Sites for consideration and comment
10. Table of Sites
GT01 Land adjacent to the Colbalt Centre, Siskin Drive
No Comment
GT02 Land abutting the Fosse Way at its junction with the B425
No comment
GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm
No comment
GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way
No comment
GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm
No comment
GT06 Land at Park Farm, Spinney Farm
No comment
GT07 Land at Stoneleigh Road
No comment
GT08 Depot to the west side of Cubbington Hill Farm
No comment
GT09 Land to the north east of M40
No comment
GT10 Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre
No comment
GT11 Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road
No comment
GT12 Land north and west of Westham Lane (area of search)
No comment
GT13 Kites Nest Lane, Beausale
OBJECT
Kites Nest Lane, Beausale is totally inappropriate as a site for this purpose because:
1. It is a greenfield site in the open countryside within the Green Belt and any use for this purpose (or residential etc) is inappropriate development. The National Planning Policy Framework protects the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
2. Adopting it as a possible site would legitimise the long-running unauthorised applications to impose this illegal use at this site. WDC has rightly objected to such applications (although achieved nothing in removing the illegal settlement) and allowing development through this process would set an extremely damaging precedent in this and other areas that will attract significant public disapproval. National policy supports effective enforcement against unauthorised developments.
3. Access to local services is limited.
4. Its rural location means that this use cannot be integrated in the landscape without harming the character and amenity of the area in terms of aesthetic appearance and noise.
GT14 Warwick Road, Norton Lindsey
No comment
GT15 Land east of Europa Way
No comment
GT16 Land to north of Westham Lane and west of Wellesbourne Road, Barford (small site)
No comment
GT17 Service area west of A46 Old Budbrooke Way
No comment
GT18 Service area east of A46 Old Budbrooke Way
No comment
GT19 Land off Birmingham Road, Budbrooke, Oaklands Farm
OBJECT
Land at Oaklands Farm, Birmingham Road is totally inappropriate as a site for this purpose because:
1. It is in the Green Belt and any use for this purpose (or residential etc) is inappropriate development. The National Planning Policy Framework protects the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
2. Access to the road network is not safe - Birmingham Road is 2-way and heavily congested, particularly during peak times. There was a fatal traffic accident immediately outside the proposed site in 2010.
3. It is adjacent to the Grand Union Canal running locally between Warwick and Hatton offering views of Warwick Castle and St Nicholas Church.
As stated on numerous websites including Hatton Parish Council, the Canal & River Trust and Enjoy Warwick, (to name but a few), Hatton is home to one of the most picturesque spots on the Grand Union Canal.
The famous Hatton Flights, otherwise known as "The Stairway to Heaven" contains 21 locks in less than two miles, raising or dropping the Grand Union Canal by 146.5 feet. They are an excellent example of original and recent canal engineering providing two hundred years of waterways history at a key location on the Grand Union canal.
As part of a Heritage Lottery Funded Working Boats Project, a pair of restored working boats that once worked this route are moored on the Hatton Flights. A recent Heritage Lottery funded project has also made some of the local history available to visitors through information panels, leaflets, a family wildlife trail along the Hatton Flights, education packs and picnic benches.
This is a very popular towpath for boaters, walkers, runners and cyclists alike whose amenity will be greatly impacted by the occupation/development of this site.
Its location will further impact on the visual amenity of the Grand Union Canal.
4. The site may be prone to flooding due to its location next to a water network.
GT20 Land at Junction 15 of M40
No comment
Do you have any other suggestions for land within this district that you think would be suitable for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site?
No comment
I look forward to receiving your comments and trust that the Council will make a well informed and well researched decision when it comes to sites to be considered in greater detail.
Yours faithfully
John Smith
