BASE HEADER

6. Criteria

Yn dangos sylwadau a ffurflenni 1 i 11 o 11

Cefnogi

Preferred Options for Sites

ID sylw: 63912

Derbyniwyd: 18/03/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Daniel Sellers

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

I fully agree with the Gypsy & Traveller Site Allocations / criteria in the current consultation document.

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options for Sites

ID sylw: 63932

Derbyniwyd: 25/04/2014

Ymatebydd: John Murphy

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

The criteria sound utopian - just a shame it can never apply to the settled community to such an extent. Impact on settled communities should carry considerable weight whilst ensuring that selected sites really are the best choses for G&Ts.
There is also much evidence that the criteria have not been fairly, objectively or consistently across all the sites. There is a distinct feeling that the criteria have been USED to support sites chosen for other perhaps more political reasons.

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options for Sites

ID sylw: 64019

Derbyniwyd: 29/04/2014

Ymatebydd: Miss Amanda FAWCETT

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

I feel the criteria should be weighted according to importance - if they have been weighted it is not transparent. I also find that the criteria do not appear to have been applied equally across all sites considered - eg NOISE implications - sometimes it is stressed - at other times it seems to be all but ignored...

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options for Sites

ID sylw: 64098

Derbyniwyd: 03/05/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Chris Murphy

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Whilst on the surface these criteria seem quite sensible they do not seem to be sensibly weighted and they do not appear to have been fairly and evenly applied or interpreted over the various sites - both in this and the previous consultation.

Sylw

Preferred Options for Sites

ID sylw: 64415

Derbyniwyd: 03/05/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Graham Beard

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Council should consider integrating traveller sites as part of the proposed new housing sites south of Leamington and Warwick. A small site could also be integrated within the proposal at Lillington. This would negate the need to put these sites in specially areas away from the rest of the towns and villages

Sylw

Preferred Options for Sites

ID sylw: 64868

Derbyniwyd: 05/05/2014

Ymatebydd: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Understand the need for the process but disappointed with lack of detail and justification for sites and the amount of erroneous information - both last year and in the current document. There is a lack of consistency and it is noted that the Council use one site characteristic in support of a site but use that exact same characteristic against another site eg noise, prominence in the landscape. The SA's assessments appear to be minimally objective.

Concerned about Council's willingness to rely on CPO powers which will render most sites financially unviable and undeliverable in the timetable required.

The cost implications of each site need to be considered as part of the process.

Limiting the number of pitches per site increases the number of sites and if this is done for site management reasons it reinforces local residents concerns about such sites. With 5 -15 pitches the norm, the Council should be able to accommodate 31 pitches on 2-3 sites.

Sites chosen seem to be focused on Barford and will blight one of the best villages in the country.

Siskin Drive and Gateway area sites should continue to be vigorously explored.

Note that as part of the duty to co-operate Stratford DC have a site at Blackhill.

Atodiadau:

Sylw

Preferred Options for Sites

ID sylw: 64938

Derbyniwyd: 02/05/2014

Ymatebydd: Barwood Strategic Land II Limited

Asiant : HOW Planning LLP

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Consideration of the scale of sites in the context of the nearest settled community should also be included as a criteria as the preferred sites are concentrated within close proximity to each other. The Council need to consider the cumulative effect of the sites on the nearest settled community.

Atodiadau:

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options for Sites

ID sylw: 64944

Derbyniwyd: 02/05/2014

Ymatebydd: Barwood Strategic Land II Limited

Asiant : HOW Planning LLP

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

The Council appears to have ignored its own sustainability Appraisal and evidence base: assessments for GT15 and GTalt01 identify more negative than positive effects and therefore allocating these as preferred site will result in unsustainable development. Similarly, GT02 has more positive than negative effects and would be a more sustainable form of development than GT15 or GTalt01 but is not a preferred site. GTalt03 also has more positive than negative effects and so should be removed from the Green Belt and promoted as a Preferred Site ie 'Green' rather than a Potentially Suitable Site ie 'Amber'.

Atodiadau:

Sylw

Preferred Options for Sites

ID sylw: 64971

Derbyniwyd: 21/04/2014

Ymatebydd: John Smith

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

There is no explanation of why some 'green' sites are in Preferred Sites and others are Alternative Sites. Greater transparency is required.

Sylw

Preferred Options for Sites

ID sylw: 65032

Derbyniwyd: 21/04/2014

Ymatebydd: Sarah Smith

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:


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.
Please therefore provide me with further information on this point

Sylw

Preferred Options for Sites

ID sylw: 65062

Derbyniwyd: 04/05/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Raymond Bullen

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Criteria for selection of sites.

The selection of sites for permanent pitches should be in line with the DCLG Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites , Good Practice Guide dated May 2008 and which is still current.
Chapter 3 examines Location of sites.

The Guide strongly states

3. 7 Where possible, sites should be developed near to housing for the settled community as part of mainstream residential developments. As one way of helping to address shortages of site provision local authorities and registered social landlords can consider the feasibility and scope for providing a site for Gypsies and Travellers within their negotiations to provide affordable housing as part of significant new build developments. Even where smaller scale developments are planned they could consider including a small scale site of three to four pitches which are known to work well for single extended families.

None of the preferred option sites meet the criteria of 3.7. This is understandable since it is clear that the majority of the public do not want the travelling community anywhere and the District Council does not really want to provide them. This is due to the reputation that the travellers have for abusing other people's property, leaving dirt and damage behind and assumed increased minor crime. Sometimes those fears are real.

As a result, the travelling community as a whole prefer to live as a separate community, in large groups away from urban locations, so sustaining the mistrust between them and the settled community. As well as this, the larger the group, the bigger the perceived threat. It would seem advisable therefore, to dilute any possible effect to the minimum by keeping the number of pitches on a site as low as possible with a range of sites with a different number of pitches to provide sufficient flexibility to meet the needs of the tenants.
Small groups of single sites:

Paragraph 3.7 [of the Guide] indicate that some benefit could be gained if, in new affordable housing schemes, a housing association included a small number of single plot sites.

It is suggested that Council consider, on the 2 affordable housing sites recently included in the publication draft of the local plan, Orbit/Deeley at Sydenham and Riverside House redevelopment sites, that, within each of those developments, 3 separate single plots are slipped in between the normal affordable housing.

Each plot would have a normal access to the street, a small bungalow amenity building and space for caravans and vehicle parking designed to fit in with the normal housing.

They could look to be a natural part of the housing development, similar to a normal house where the owner parks their caravan in their garden next to a bungalow. As a permanent site:

* it could be offered to those who are not tied to a large group, who might choose to value getting involved in a wider community and could get close to, but not next door to other members of their family group in much the same way that the settled community does.
* For the children of those families it would give them a wider educational opportunity to reach their potential, rather than being obliged to be constrained to traditional traveller's ways.
* For the potential wage earner it would give a wider choice of employment opportunities. For the settled community neighbours, the chances of problems are reduced by the dissipation of the number of sites.

The Guidance gives an example in Annex 3b, Small Scale site in urban locations, with a plot about 10m by 20m (200m2) as compared with the 500m2 per pitch suggested for a set of pitches with internal roads. Services and drainage would cost less, being part of a larger development, so this arrangement is probably the least expensive cost per pitch to provide.
The operational management method for Gypsies & Traveller Permanent sites.
WDCs proposed operating model is ownership and operation by an individual traveller landlord. This is unlikely to be a trouble free arrangement and cannot be relied on to permanently meet the established need, nor maintain a well-run site.
It should be operated by an independent body that can offer pitches fairly to gypsy traveller applicants, with fair rents and resources to maintain the facility and set the way that non-compliance with fair rules can terminate the tenure
WDC shows no appetite to run such sites, so interest should be invited from interested housing associations to purchase the site, finance, build, maintain and manage it.
This model could also include implementation of ways of encouraging a greater sense of community with shared interests of the settled and travelling residents.

Atodiadau: