Preferred Options for Sites
Search representations
Results for Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council search
New search
New search
Preferred Options for Sites
GT11 Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road (amber)
Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council
Representation Summary:
This is an ideal site. Site flooding is possibly overstated, this is a large site.
Much of the site is well away from the A46 so noise shouldn't be an issue. There are many houses closer to the A46.
Impact on the racecourse will be minimal.
All other aspects are very positive.
Costs/mitigation/compensation would be medium - low.
Full text:
WDC Local Plan Gypsies & Travellers Preferred Options Consultation
The JPC accepts that allocations must be made for the G&T community within the WDC New Local Plan - rather than relying on sites coming forward through the conventional planning process and we also understand the importance of G&T issues in the Local Plan process, however the JPC believes that any such allocation must be made on a fully democratic and objective basis.
When the June 2013 consultation was staged we were unimpressed with the level of detail provided and very disappointed at the lack of local knowledge and erroneous justifications for selected sites. It can be no surprise that local communities erupted in response to such ill thought-out blight on our district.
Given the levels of residents' responses it is surprising that the Preferred Options consultation has now followed with a similar level of erroneous information and even less quantifiable justification for the Preferred Option choices.
We find the presentation of material confusing at best given that much of the important evidence is buried on the website as "Further Evidence" and "Background" and much that is there is either erroneous and/or conflicting with the March 2014 PO document. At another level we and the vast majority of our residents who have commented found the "Drop-In Sessions" with just a couple of posters and scattered booklets to be a singularly poor way to disseminate information especially as the staff provided had minimal technical knowledge of the subject matter and made it clear that they would not be collating comment made on the day.
We are also concerned at WDC's apparent willingness to rely on the Compulsory Purchase approach given the associated costs and delays which will render most sites non-viable financially and non-deliverable in the terms required. Furthermore success of the CPO process has yet to be established as evidenced by the 2012 Mid Suffolk DC case when the Inspector found insufficient evidence to support CPO on the grounds of "public interest".
We would question WDC's election to limit site sizes to a maximum of 10 pitches, with some considerably less, as this means that site provision must then blight more communities and settlements than is reasonably necessary. If site size limitation is in order to facilitate management and policing this surely gives credence to many residents' concerns about crime and disorder in or near such sites.
Reduction in site size (or more specifically pitch numbers on individual sites) loses economies of scale in terms of establishment costs, management costs and land take whilst directly impacting a greater number of the general population.
National guidance suggests sites of 5-15 to be preferable and this would suggest that our required 31 pitches could reasonably be accommodated in two or at most three sites.
The JPC would suggest that any or all proposed sites could be best accommodated and assimilated in areas which are not current settlements and that they should be properly planned, at a very early stage, into much larger schemes preferably incorporating residential and employment development.
We find the cursory dismissal of such an approach (Page 12, end of section 5) totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
The JPC also believes that the Siskin Drive and Gateway area should be vigorously explored to create a site with a mechanism to accommodate the G&T community within an evolving area where they could best integrate with their surroundings.
Whilst reviewing WDC's commentaries on sites in the original and the current consultation we have found that they are erratic and inconsistent. Criteria are sometimes used to support a choice/site and at other times the same criteria are used in a converse manner. The way in which the supporting Sustainability and Sites Assessments have been used to arrive at the Preferred Options is opaque in the extreme and certainly the interpretation of the Sustainability Assessments based on colour coding appears to be minimally objective.
Examples of inconsistencies relate to noise impacts, site prominence in the landscape, flooding, agricultural land value/viability, proximity of services and pedestrian access/safety. Latterly, especially with the "GTalt" sites, there seems to be an inordinate reference to "surface flooding".
The paperwork provided and the public consultations staged also seem to take no or little account of the cost implications inherent in the various Preferred Option choices and we believe this should be a significant factor when making a final selection given the inherent importance of economic viability.
In consideration of the above the JPC has conducted an objective assessment of all the sites which have come forward under these consultations, as well as our lay skills permit, and concludes that not all of the selected Preferred Options are indeed the best sites of those presented.
The findings are presented in spreadsheet format showing support where we believe it to be appropriate. Where we draw different conclusions we offer rebuttal and further comments as seems appropriate and helpful.
The spreadsheet details are as follows:
* Column 1 - Site identification number and PO indication and JPC support or otherwise
* Column 2 - Précis of WDC comments
* Column 3 - JPC commentary
* Column 4 - Sites which JPC consider could reasonably be progressed (where sites cannot be integrated into "larger schemes").
Inevitably the JPC has been much exercised by contact from residents concerning sites proposed within our JPC parishes and we must comment that these sites seem to have been singularly poorly selected. This situation is not helped by the fact that they seem to have come forward accompanied by blatantly incorrect supporting information, viz:
* Repeated reference to Barford doctors' surgery - when the last part-time surgery closed over 30 years ago
* Inclusion of the Barford Bypass flood compensation pond area as site GT16
* Inclusion of Barford Community Orchard and Riverside Walk in GTalt12
* Inclusion of spillage/reed ponds within GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the maps for GT12 And GT16 in June 2013
* Confusion over the map of GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the map of GTalt12 in March 2014
On a purely local basis it seems bizarre and is certainly unacceptable to blight Barford, recently judged amongst the best 10 places in the Midlands (and number 57 nationally) to live, with the Preferred Options selection of such obviously poor sites. Should the Barford sites persist we are sure that residents will support the landowner in challenging Compulsory Purchase, increasing costs and delay to all concerned and further impacting deliverability.
We are also reminded that there is a duty to co-operate across boundaries and would draw your attention to the site which Stratford DC have at Blackhill, immediately adjacent to Sherbourne parish.
We hope that you will take this letter and the associated spreadsheet in the constructive manner in which it is intended, in order to assist in achieving the best possible solution for both the settled and travelling communities.
Preferred Options for Sites
GT12 Land north of Westham Lane, Barford (green)
Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council
Representation Summary:
This is a very poor site - definitely not a "best fit" site and should be 'Red'.
Dangerous 60mph road access from Westham Lane.
Approx 20% of site is the Barford Bypass spillage/reed ponds and the Flood Compensation/Bridge access track, making mitigation works difficult/impossible.
Noise sensitive site immediately adjacent to A429, with noise mitigation likely to be ineffective and expensive
A429 separates from settlement and precludes integration. Pedestrian access would be dangerous.
Loss of Grade 2 land will render agricultural holding unviable and landowner will resist CPO
Impact on landscape on high profile site on main tourist route
Impact views through/across site even with screening, indeed screening could be a visual intrusion.
this site fails almost every requirement of Policy NE4 Landscape in the Draft Local Plan
This site should also be evaluated in light of CT6 Caravans & camping sites - policies and explanations - which stress the conflict of this type of development in sensitive rural locations.
This site would not be allocated for any other development, including residential by the landowner
Additional houses proposed in the Local Plan means there is already going to be a dramatic impact on local school.
Costs/mitigation/compensation would be high - very high.
Full text:
WDC Local Plan Gypsies & Travellers Preferred Options Consultation
The JPC accepts that allocations must be made for the G&T community within the WDC New Local Plan - rather than relying on sites coming forward through the conventional planning process and we also understand the importance of G&T issues in the Local Plan process, however the JPC believes that any such allocation must be made on a fully democratic and objective basis.
When the June 2013 consultation was staged we were unimpressed with the level of detail provided and very disappointed at the lack of local knowledge and erroneous justifications for selected sites. It can be no surprise that local communities erupted in response to such ill thought-out blight on our district.
Given the levels of residents' responses it is surprising that the Preferred Options consultation has now followed with a similar level of erroneous information and even less quantifiable justification for the Preferred Option choices.
We find the presentation of material confusing at best given that much of the important evidence is buried on the website as "Further Evidence" and "Background" and much that is there is either erroneous and/or conflicting with the March 2014 PO document. At another level we and the vast majority of our residents who have commented found the "Drop-In Sessions" with just a couple of posters and scattered booklets to be a singularly poor way to disseminate information especially as the staff provided had minimal technical knowledge of the subject matter and made it clear that they would not be collating comment made on the day.
We are also concerned at WDC's apparent willingness to rely on the Compulsory Purchase approach given the associated costs and delays which will render most sites non-viable financially and non-deliverable in the terms required. Furthermore success of the CPO process has yet to be established as evidenced by the 2012 Mid Suffolk DC case when the Inspector found insufficient evidence to support CPO on the grounds of "public interest".
We would question WDC's election to limit site sizes to a maximum of 10 pitches, with some considerably less, as this means that site provision must then blight more communities and settlements than is reasonably necessary. If site size limitation is in order to facilitate management and policing this surely gives credence to many residents' concerns about crime and disorder in or near such sites.
Reduction in site size (or more specifically pitch numbers on individual sites) loses economies of scale in terms of establishment costs, management costs and land take whilst directly impacting a greater number of the general population.
National guidance suggests sites of 5-15 to be preferable and this would suggest that our required 31 pitches could reasonably be accommodated in two or at most three sites.
The JPC would suggest that any or all proposed sites could be best accommodated and assimilated in areas which are not current settlements and that they should be properly planned, at a very early stage, into much larger schemes preferably incorporating residential and employment development.
We find the cursory dismissal of such an approach (Page 12, end of section 5) totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
The JPC also believes that the Siskin Drive and Gateway area should be vigorously explored to create a site with a mechanism to accommodate the G&T community within an evolving area where they could best integrate with their surroundings.
Whilst reviewing WDC's commentaries on sites in the original and the current consultation we have found that they are erratic and inconsistent. Criteria are sometimes used to support a choice/site and at other times the same criteria are used in a converse manner. The way in which the supporting Sustainability and Sites Assessments have been used to arrive at the Preferred Options is opaque in the extreme and certainly the interpretation of the Sustainability Assessments based on colour coding appears to be minimally objective.
Examples of inconsistencies relate to noise impacts, site prominence in the landscape, flooding, agricultural land value/viability, proximity of services and pedestrian access/safety. Latterly, especially with the "GTalt" sites, there seems to be an inordinate reference to "surface flooding".
The paperwork provided and the public consultations staged also seem to take no or little account of the cost implications inherent in the various Preferred Option choices and we believe this should be a significant factor when making a final selection given the inherent importance of economic viability.
In consideration of the above the JPC has conducted an objective assessment of all the sites which have come forward under these consultations, as well as our lay skills permit, and concludes that not all of the selected Preferred Options are indeed the best sites of those presented.
The findings are presented in spreadsheet format showing support where we believe it to be appropriate. Where we draw different conclusions we offer rebuttal and further comments as seems appropriate and helpful.
The spreadsheet details are as follows:
* Column 1 - Site identification number and PO indication and JPC support or otherwise
* Column 2 - Précis of WDC comments
* Column 3 - JPC commentary
* Column 4 - Sites which JPC consider could reasonably be progressed (where sites cannot be integrated into "larger schemes").
Inevitably the JPC has been much exercised by contact from residents concerning sites proposed within our JPC parishes and we must comment that these sites seem to have been singularly poorly selected. This situation is not helped by the fact that they seem to have come forward accompanied by blatantly incorrect supporting information, viz:
* Repeated reference to Barford doctors' surgery - when the last part-time surgery closed over 30 years ago
* Inclusion of the Barford Bypass flood compensation pond area as site GT16
* Inclusion of Barford Community Orchard and Riverside Walk in GTalt12
* Inclusion of spillage/reed ponds within GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the maps for GT12 And GT16 in June 2013
* Confusion over the map of GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the map of GTalt12 in March 2014
On a purely local basis it seems bizarre and is certainly unacceptable to blight Barford, recently judged amongst the best 10 places in the Midlands (and number 57 nationally) to live, with the Preferred Options selection of such obviously poor sites. Should the Barford sites persist we are sure that residents will support the landowner in challenging Compulsory Purchase, increasing costs and delay to all concerned and further impacting deliverability.
We are also reminded that there is a duty to co-operate across boundaries and would draw your attention to the site which Stratford DC have at Blackhill, immediately adjacent to Sherbourne parish.
We hope that you will take this letter and the associated spreadsheet in the constructive manner in which it is intended, in order to assist in achieving the best possible solution for both the settled and travelling communities.
Preferred Options for Sites
GT15 Land east of Europa Way (green)
Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council
Representation Summary:
This is a poor site, and should be 'Amber'.
The site is prone to flooding.
Adjacent to a 50mph VERY busy road. Development here would be dangerous.
Potential noise from the road.
No consideration of pedestrian safety.
The site is not well screened.
Will not integrate will with any community
Might be available and possible to acquire as owned by WCC but costs/mitigation/compensation are still likely to be medium.
Full text:
WDC Local Plan Gypsies & Travellers Preferred Options Consultation
The JPC accepts that allocations must be made for the G&T community within the WDC New Local Plan - rather than relying on sites coming forward through the conventional planning process and we also understand the importance of G&T issues in the Local Plan process, however the JPC believes that any such allocation must be made on a fully democratic and objective basis.
When the June 2013 consultation was staged we were unimpressed with the level of detail provided and very disappointed at the lack of local knowledge and erroneous justifications for selected sites. It can be no surprise that local communities erupted in response to such ill thought-out blight on our district.
Given the levels of residents' responses it is surprising that the Preferred Options consultation has now followed with a similar level of erroneous information and even less quantifiable justification for the Preferred Option choices.
We find the presentation of material confusing at best given that much of the important evidence is buried on the website as "Further Evidence" and "Background" and much that is there is either erroneous and/or conflicting with the March 2014 PO document. At another level we and the vast majority of our residents who have commented found the "Drop-In Sessions" with just a couple of posters and scattered booklets to be a singularly poor way to disseminate information especially as the staff provided had minimal technical knowledge of the subject matter and made it clear that they would not be collating comment made on the day.
We are also concerned at WDC's apparent willingness to rely on the Compulsory Purchase approach given the associated costs and delays which will render most sites non-viable financially and non-deliverable in the terms required. Furthermore success of the CPO process has yet to be established as evidenced by the 2012 Mid Suffolk DC case when the Inspector found insufficient evidence to support CPO on the grounds of "public interest".
We would question WDC's election to limit site sizes to a maximum of 10 pitches, with some considerably less, as this means that site provision must then blight more communities and settlements than is reasonably necessary. If site size limitation is in order to facilitate management and policing this surely gives credence to many residents' concerns about crime and disorder in or near such sites.
Reduction in site size (or more specifically pitch numbers on individual sites) loses economies of scale in terms of establishment costs, management costs and land take whilst directly impacting a greater number of the general population.
National guidance suggests sites of 5-15 to be preferable and this would suggest that our required 31 pitches could reasonably be accommodated in two or at most three sites.
The JPC would suggest that any or all proposed sites could be best accommodated and assimilated in areas which are not current settlements and that they should be properly planned, at a very early stage, into much larger schemes preferably incorporating residential and employment development.
We find the cursory dismissal of such an approach (Page 12, end of section 5) totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
The JPC also believes that the Siskin Drive and Gateway area should be vigorously explored to create a site with a mechanism to accommodate the G&T community within an evolving area where they could best integrate with their surroundings.
Whilst reviewing WDC's commentaries on sites in the original and the current consultation we have found that they are erratic and inconsistent. Criteria are sometimes used to support a choice/site and at other times the same criteria are used in a converse manner. The way in which the supporting Sustainability and Sites Assessments have been used to arrive at the Preferred Options is opaque in the extreme and certainly the interpretation of the Sustainability Assessments based on colour coding appears to be minimally objective.
Examples of inconsistencies relate to noise impacts, site prominence in the landscape, flooding, agricultural land value/viability, proximity of services and pedestrian access/safety. Latterly, especially with the "GTalt" sites, there seems to be an inordinate reference to "surface flooding".
The paperwork provided and the public consultations staged also seem to take no or little account of the cost implications inherent in the various Preferred Option choices and we believe this should be a significant factor when making a final selection given the inherent importance of economic viability.
In consideration of the above the JPC has conducted an objective assessment of all the sites which have come forward under these consultations, as well as our lay skills permit, and concludes that not all of the selected Preferred Options are indeed the best sites of those presented.
The findings are presented in spreadsheet format showing support where we believe it to be appropriate. Where we draw different conclusions we offer rebuttal and further comments as seems appropriate and helpful.
The spreadsheet details are as follows:
* Column 1 - Site identification number and PO indication and JPC support or otherwise
* Column 2 - Précis of WDC comments
* Column 3 - JPC commentary
* Column 4 - Sites which JPC consider could reasonably be progressed (where sites cannot be integrated into "larger schemes").
Inevitably the JPC has been much exercised by contact from residents concerning sites proposed within our JPC parishes and we must comment that these sites seem to have been singularly poorly selected. This situation is not helped by the fact that they seem to have come forward accompanied by blatantly incorrect supporting information, viz:
* Repeated reference to Barford doctors' surgery - when the last part-time surgery closed over 30 years ago
* Inclusion of the Barford Bypass flood compensation pond area as site GT16
* Inclusion of Barford Community Orchard and Riverside Walk in GTalt12
* Inclusion of spillage/reed ponds within GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the maps for GT12 And GT16 in June 2013
* Confusion over the map of GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the map of GTalt12 in March 2014
On a purely local basis it seems bizarre and is certainly unacceptable to blight Barford, recently judged amongst the best 10 places in the Midlands (and number 57 nationally) to live, with the Preferred Options selection of such obviously poor sites. Should the Barford sites persist we are sure that residents will support the landowner in challenging Compulsory Purchase, increasing costs and delay to all concerned and further impacting deliverability.
We are also reminded that there is a duty to co-operate across boundaries and would draw your attention to the site which Stratford DC have at Blackhill, immediately adjacent to Sherbourne parish.
We hope that you will take this letter and the associated spreadsheet in the constructive manner in which it is intended, in order to assist in achieving the best possible solution for both the settled and travelling communities.
Preferred Options for Sites
GT19 Land at Birmingham Road, Budbrooke (green)
Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council
Representation Summary:
This is a good site but small so only suitable for 5 pitches.
Landowner is said to be willing to co-operate.
Given its location and surroundings it will have minimal Green Belt impact.
Caravans already on site hence lower costs of implementation, despite small site.
Costs/mitigation/compensation would be low - medium.
Full text:
WDC Local Plan Gypsies & Travellers Preferred Options Consultation
The JPC accepts that allocations must be made for the G&T community within the WDC New Local Plan - rather than relying on sites coming forward through the conventional planning process and we also understand the importance of G&T issues in the Local Plan process, however the JPC believes that any such allocation must be made on a fully democratic and objective basis.
When the June 2013 consultation was staged we were unimpressed with the level of detail provided and very disappointed at the lack of local knowledge and erroneous justifications for selected sites. It can be no surprise that local communities erupted in response to such ill thought-out blight on our district.
Given the levels of residents' responses it is surprising that the Preferred Options consultation has now followed with a similar level of erroneous information and even less quantifiable justification for the Preferred Option choices.
We find the presentation of material confusing at best given that much of the important evidence is buried on the website as "Further Evidence" and "Background" and much that is there is either erroneous and/or conflicting with the March 2014 PO document. At another level we and the vast majority of our residents who have commented found the "Drop-In Sessions" with just a couple of posters and scattered booklets to be a singularly poor way to disseminate information especially as the staff provided had minimal technical knowledge of the subject matter and made it clear that they would not be collating comment made on the day.
We are also concerned at WDC's apparent willingness to rely on the Compulsory Purchase approach given the associated costs and delays which will render most sites non-viable financially and non-deliverable in the terms required. Furthermore success of the CPO process has yet to be established as evidenced by the 2012 Mid Suffolk DC case when the Inspector found insufficient evidence to support CPO on the grounds of "public interest".
We would question WDC's election to limit site sizes to a maximum of 10 pitches, with some considerably less, as this means that site provision must then blight more communities and settlements than is reasonably necessary. If site size limitation is in order to facilitate management and policing this surely gives credence to many residents' concerns about crime and disorder in or near such sites.
Reduction in site size (or more specifically pitch numbers on individual sites) loses economies of scale in terms of establishment costs, management costs and land take whilst directly impacting a greater number of the general population.
National guidance suggests sites of 5-15 to be preferable and this would suggest that our required 31 pitches could reasonably be accommodated in two or at most three sites.
The JPC would suggest that any or all proposed sites could be best accommodated and assimilated in areas which are not current settlements and that they should be properly planned, at a very early stage, into much larger schemes preferably incorporating residential and employment development.
We find the cursory dismissal of such an approach (Page 12, end of section 5) totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
The JPC also believes that the Siskin Drive and Gateway area should be vigorously explored to create a site with a mechanism to accommodate the G&T community within an evolving area where they could best integrate with their surroundings.
Whilst reviewing WDC's commentaries on sites in the original and the current consultation we have found that they are erratic and inconsistent. Criteria are sometimes used to support a choice/site and at other times the same criteria are used in a converse manner. The way in which the supporting Sustainability and Sites Assessments have been used to arrive at the Preferred Options is opaque in the extreme and certainly the interpretation of the Sustainability Assessments based on colour coding appears to be minimally objective.
Examples of inconsistencies relate to noise impacts, site prominence in the landscape, flooding, agricultural land value/viability, proximity of services and pedestrian access/safety. Latterly, especially with the "GTalt" sites, there seems to be an inordinate reference to "surface flooding".
The paperwork provided and the public consultations staged also seem to take no or little account of the cost implications inherent in the various Preferred Option choices and we believe this should be a significant factor when making a final selection given the inherent importance of economic viability.
In consideration of the above the JPC has conducted an objective assessment of all the sites which have come forward under these consultations, as well as our lay skills permit, and concludes that not all of the selected Preferred Options are indeed the best sites of those presented.
The findings are presented in spreadsheet format showing support where we believe it to be appropriate. Where we draw different conclusions we offer rebuttal and further comments as seems appropriate and helpful.
The spreadsheet details are as follows:
* Column 1 - Site identification number and PO indication and JPC support or otherwise
* Column 2 - Précis of WDC comments
* Column 3 - JPC commentary
* Column 4 - Sites which JPC consider could reasonably be progressed (where sites cannot be integrated into "larger schemes").
Inevitably the JPC has been much exercised by contact from residents concerning sites proposed within our JPC parishes and we must comment that these sites seem to have been singularly poorly selected. This situation is not helped by the fact that they seem to have come forward accompanied by blatantly incorrect supporting information, viz:
* Repeated reference to Barford doctors' surgery - when the last part-time surgery closed over 30 years ago
* Inclusion of the Barford Bypass flood compensation pond area as site GT16
* Inclusion of Barford Community Orchard and Riverside Walk in GTalt12
* Inclusion of spillage/reed ponds within GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the maps for GT12 And GT16 in June 2013
* Confusion over the map of GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the map of GTalt12 in March 2014
On a purely local basis it seems bizarre and is certainly unacceptable to blight Barford, recently judged amongst the best 10 places in the Midlands (and number 57 nationally) to live, with the Preferred Options selection of such obviously poor sites. Should the Barford sites persist we are sure that residents will support the landowner in challenging Compulsory Purchase, increasing costs and delay to all concerned and further impacting deliverability.
We are also reminded that there is a duty to co-operate across boundaries and would draw your attention to the site which Stratford DC have at Blackhill, immediately adjacent to Sherbourne parish.
We hope that you will take this letter and the associated spreadsheet in the constructive manner in which it is intended, in order to assist in achieving the best possible solution for both the settled and travelling communities.
Preferred Options for Sites
GTalt01 Brookside Willows, Banbury Road (green)
Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council
Representation Summary:
Not a good choice.
Site is near completion for 65 holiday caravan pitches.
Site cannot integrate despite edge of urban area location.
Landowner is not willing to cooperate.
Loss of valuable amenity for the tourist trade may render it impractical and unviable.
Costs/mitigation/compensation would be high.
Full text:
WDC Local Plan Gypsies & Travellers Preferred Options Consultation
The JPC accepts that allocations must be made for the G&T community within the WDC New Local Plan - rather than relying on sites coming forward through the conventional planning process and we also understand the importance of G&T issues in the Local Plan process, however the JPC believes that any such allocation must be made on a fully democratic and objective basis.
When the June 2013 consultation was staged we were unimpressed with the level of detail provided and very disappointed at the lack of local knowledge and erroneous justifications for selected sites. It can be no surprise that local communities erupted in response to such ill thought-out blight on our district.
Given the levels of residents' responses it is surprising that the Preferred Options consultation has now followed with a similar level of erroneous information and even less quantifiable justification for the Preferred Option choices.
We find the presentation of material confusing at best given that much of the important evidence is buried on the website as "Further Evidence" and "Background" and much that is there is either erroneous and/or conflicting with the March 2014 PO document. At another level we and the vast majority of our residents who have commented found the "Drop-In Sessions" with just a couple of posters and scattered booklets to be a singularly poor way to disseminate information especially as the staff provided had minimal technical knowledge of the subject matter and made it clear that they would not be collating comment made on the day.
We are also concerned at WDC's apparent willingness to rely on the Compulsory Purchase approach given the associated costs and delays which will render most sites non-viable financially and non-deliverable in the terms required. Furthermore success of the CPO process has yet to be established as evidenced by the 2012 Mid Suffolk DC case when the Inspector found insufficient evidence to support CPO on the grounds of "public interest".
We would question WDC's election to limit site sizes to a maximum of 10 pitches, with some considerably less, as this means that site provision must then blight more communities and settlements than is reasonably necessary. If site size limitation is in order to facilitate management and policing this surely gives credence to many residents' concerns about crime and disorder in or near such sites.
Reduction in site size (or more specifically pitch numbers on individual sites) loses economies of scale in terms of establishment costs, management costs and land take whilst directly impacting a greater number of the general population.
National guidance suggests sites of 5-15 to be preferable and this would suggest that our required 31 pitches could reasonably be accommodated in two or at most three sites.
The JPC would suggest that any or all proposed sites could be best accommodated and assimilated in areas which are not current settlements and that they should be properly planned, at a very early stage, into much larger schemes preferably incorporating residential and employment development.
We find the cursory dismissal of such an approach (Page 12, end of section 5) totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
The JPC also believes that the Siskin Drive and Gateway area should be vigorously explored to create a site with a mechanism to accommodate the G&T community within an evolving area where they could best integrate with their surroundings.
Whilst reviewing WDC's commentaries on sites in the original and the current consultation we have found that they are erratic and inconsistent. Criteria are sometimes used to support a choice/site and at other times the same criteria are used in a converse manner. The way in which the supporting Sustainability and Sites Assessments have been used to arrive at the Preferred Options is opaque in the extreme and certainly the interpretation of the Sustainability Assessments based on colour coding appears to be minimally objective.
Examples of inconsistencies relate to noise impacts, site prominence in the landscape, flooding, agricultural land value/viability, proximity of services and pedestrian access/safety. Latterly, especially with the "GTalt" sites, there seems to be an inordinate reference to "surface flooding".
The paperwork provided and the public consultations staged also seem to take no or little account of the cost implications inherent in the various Preferred Option choices and we believe this should be a significant factor when making a final selection given the inherent importance of economic viability.
In consideration of the above the JPC has conducted an objective assessment of all the sites which have come forward under these consultations, as well as our lay skills permit, and concludes that not all of the selected Preferred Options are indeed the best sites of those presented.
The findings are presented in spreadsheet format showing support where we believe it to be appropriate. Where we draw different conclusions we offer rebuttal and further comments as seems appropriate and helpful.
The spreadsheet details are as follows:
* Column 1 - Site identification number and PO indication and JPC support or otherwise
* Column 2 - Précis of WDC comments
* Column 3 - JPC commentary
* Column 4 - Sites which JPC consider could reasonably be progressed (where sites cannot be integrated into "larger schemes").
Inevitably the JPC has been much exercised by contact from residents concerning sites proposed within our JPC parishes and we must comment that these sites seem to have been singularly poorly selected. This situation is not helped by the fact that they seem to have come forward accompanied by blatantly incorrect supporting information, viz:
* Repeated reference to Barford doctors' surgery - when the last part-time surgery closed over 30 years ago
* Inclusion of the Barford Bypass flood compensation pond area as site GT16
* Inclusion of Barford Community Orchard and Riverside Walk in GTalt12
* Inclusion of spillage/reed ponds within GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the maps for GT12 And GT16 in June 2013
* Confusion over the map of GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the map of GTalt12 in March 2014
On a purely local basis it seems bizarre and is certainly unacceptable to blight Barford, recently judged amongst the best 10 places in the Midlands (and number 57 nationally) to live, with the Preferred Options selection of such obviously poor sites. Should the Barford sites persist we are sure that residents will support the landowner in challenging Compulsory Purchase, increasing costs and delay to all concerned and further impacting deliverability.
We are also reminded that there is a duty to co-operate across boundaries and would draw your attention to the site which Stratford DC have at Blackhill, immediately adjacent to Sherbourne parish.
We hope that you will take this letter and the associated spreadsheet in the constructive manner in which it is intended, in order to assist in achieving the best possible solution for both the settled and travelling communities.
Preferred Options for Sites
GTalt02 Wood Yard, Rugby Road, Cubbington (amber)
Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council
Representation Summary:
This could be a good site and should be followed up.
Reasons for rejection are poor and would seem to hinge on Green Belt?
It's a large site and plenty of site would not be prone to flooding.
No more remote from services than other preferred sites.
Visibility splays can be provided.
Would be possible to purchase the whole site, as requested by the owner.
Costs/mitigation/compensation would be medium +.
Full text:
WDC Local Plan Gypsies & Travellers Preferred Options Consultation
The JPC accepts that allocations must be made for the G&T community within the WDC New Local Plan - rather than relying on sites coming forward through the conventional planning process and we also understand the importance of G&T issues in the Local Plan process, however the JPC believes that any such allocation must be made on a fully democratic and objective basis.
When the June 2013 consultation was staged we were unimpressed with the level of detail provided and very disappointed at the lack of local knowledge and erroneous justifications for selected sites. It can be no surprise that local communities erupted in response to such ill thought-out blight on our district.
Given the levels of residents' responses it is surprising that the Preferred Options consultation has now followed with a similar level of erroneous information and even less quantifiable justification for the Preferred Option choices.
We find the presentation of material confusing at best given that much of the important evidence is buried on the website as "Further Evidence" and "Background" and much that is there is either erroneous and/or conflicting with the March 2014 PO document. At another level we and the vast majority of our residents who have commented found the "Drop-In Sessions" with just a couple of posters and scattered booklets to be a singularly poor way to disseminate information especially as the staff provided had minimal technical knowledge of the subject matter and made it clear that they would not be collating comment made on the day.
We are also concerned at WDC's apparent willingness to rely on the Compulsory Purchase approach given the associated costs and delays which will render most sites non-viable financially and non-deliverable in the terms required. Furthermore success of the CPO process has yet to be established as evidenced by the 2012 Mid Suffolk DC case when the Inspector found insufficient evidence to support CPO on the grounds of "public interest".
We would question WDC's election to limit site sizes to a maximum of 10 pitches, with some considerably less, as this means that site provision must then blight more communities and settlements than is reasonably necessary. If site size limitation is in order to facilitate management and policing this surely gives credence to many residents' concerns about crime and disorder in or near such sites.
Reduction in site size (or more specifically pitch numbers on individual sites) loses economies of scale in terms of establishment costs, management costs and land take whilst directly impacting a greater number of the general population.
National guidance suggests sites of 5-15 to be preferable and this would suggest that our required 31 pitches could reasonably be accommodated in two or at most three sites.
The JPC would suggest that any or all proposed sites could be best accommodated and assimilated in areas which are not current settlements and that they should be properly planned, at a very early stage, into much larger schemes preferably incorporating residential and employment development.
We find the cursory dismissal of such an approach (Page 12, end of section 5) totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
The JPC also believes that the Siskin Drive and Gateway area should be vigorously explored to create a site with a mechanism to accommodate the G&T community within an evolving area where they could best integrate with their surroundings.
Whilst reviewing WDC's commentaries on sites in the original and the current consultation we have found that they are erratic and inconsistent. Criteria are sometimes used to support a choice/site and at other times the same criteria are used in a converse manner. The way in which the supporting Sustainability and Sites Assessments have been used to arrive at the Preferred Options is opaque in the extreme and certainly the interpretation of the Sustainability Assessments based on colour coding appears to be minimally objective.
Examples of inconsistencies relate to noise impacts, site prominence in the landscape, flooding, agricultural land value/viability, proximity of services and pedestrian access/safety. Latterly, especially with the "GTalt" sites, there seems to be an inordinate reference to "surface flooding".
The paperwork provided and the public consultations staged also seem to take no or little account of the cost implications inherent in the various Preferred Option choices and we believe this should be a significant factor when making a final selection given the inherent importance of economic viability.
In consideration of the above the JPC has conducted an objective assessment of all the sites which have come forward under these consultations, as well as our lay skills permit, and concludes that not all of the selected Preferred Options are indeed the best sites of those presented.
The findings are presented in spreadsheet format showing support where we believe it to be appropriate. Where we draw different conclusions we offer rebuttal and further comments as seems appropriate and helpful.
The spreadsheet details are as follows:
* Column 1 - Site identification number and PO indication and JPC support or otherwise
* Column 2 - Précis of WDC comments
* Column 3 - JPC commentary
* Column 4 - Sites which JPC consider could reasonably be progressed (where sites cannot be integrated into "larger schemes").
Inevitably the JPC has been much exercised by contact from residents concerning sites proposed within our JPC parishes and we must comment that these sites seem to have been singularly poorly selected. This situation is not helped by the fact that they seem to have come forward accompanied by blatantly incorrect supporting information, viz:
* Repeated reference to Barford doctors' surgery - when the last part-time surgery closed over 30 years ago
* Inclusion of the Barford Bypass flood compensation pond area as site GT16
* Inclusion of Barford Community Orchard and Riverside Walk in GTalt12
* Inclusion of spillage/reed ponds within GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the maps for GT12 And GT16 in June 2013
* Confusion over the map of GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the map of GTalt12 in March 2014
On a purely local basis it seems bizarre and is certainly unacceptable to blight Barford, recently judged amongst the best 10 places in the Midlands (and number 57 nationally) to live, with the Preferred Options selection of such obviously poor sites. Should the Barford sites persist we are sure that residents will support the landowner in challenging Compulsory Purchase, increasing costs and delay to all concerned and further impacting deliverability.
We are also reminded that there is a duty to co-operate across boundaries and would draw your attention to the site which Stratford DC have at Blackhill, immediately adjacent to Sherbourne parish.
We hope that you will take this letter and the associated spreadsheet in the constructive manner in which it is intended, in order to assist in achieving the best possible solution for both the settled and travelling communities.
Preferred Options for Sites
GTalt03 Land at Henley Road/Hampton Road, Hampton-on-the-Hill (amber)
Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council
Representation Summary:
This is an ideal site
Why has it not been taken forward other than the Green Belt issue?
All other aspects are very positive
Costs/mitigation/compensation would be medium - medium +.
Full text:
WDC Local Plan Gypsies & Travellers Preferred Options Consultation
The JPC accepts that allocations must be made for the G&T community within the WDC New Local Plan - rather than relying on sites coming forward through the conventional planning process and we also understand the importance of G&T issues in the Local Plan process, however the JPC believes that any such allocation must be made on a fully democratic and objective basis.
When the June 2013 consultation was staged we were unimpressed with the level of detail provided and very disappointed at the lack of local knowledge and erroneous justifications for selected sites. It can be no surprise that local communities erupted in response to such ill thought-out blight on our district.
Given the levels of residents' responses it is surprising that the Preferred Options consultation has now followed with a similar level of erroneous information and even less quantifiable justification for the Preferred Option choices.
We find the presentation of material confusing at best given that much of the important evidence is buried on the website as "Further Evidence" and "Background" and much that is there is either erroneous and/or conflicting with the March 2014 PO document. At another level we and the vast majority of our residents who have commented found the "Drop-In Sessions" with just a couple of posters and scattered booklets to be a singularly poor way to disseminate information especially as the staff provided had minimal technical knowledge of the subject matter and made it clear that they would not be collating comment made on the day.
We are also concerned at WDC's apparent willingness to rely on the Compulsory Purchase approach given the associated costs and delays which will render most sites non-viable financially and non-deliverable in the terms required. Furthermore success of the CPO process has yet to be established as evidenced by the 2012 Mid Suffolk DC case when the Inspector found insufficient evidence to support CPO on the grounds of "public interest".
We would question WDC's election to limit site sizes to a maximum of 10 pitches, with some considerably less, as this means that site provision must then blight more communities and settlements than is reasonably necessary. If site size limitation is in order to facilitate management and policing this surely gives credence to many residents' concerns about crime and disorder in or near such sites.
Reduction in site size (or more specifically pitch numbers on individual sites) loses economies of scale in terms of establishment costs, management costs and land take whilst directly impacting a greater number of the general population.
National guidance suggests sites of 5-15 to be preferable and this would suggest that our required 31 pitches could reasonably be accommodated in two or at most three sites.
The JPC would suggest that any or all proposed sites could be best accommodated and assimilated in areas which are not current settlements and that they should be properly planned, at a very early stage, into much larger schemes preferably incorporating residential and employment development.
We find the cursory dismissal of such an approach (Page 12, end of section 5) totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
The JPC also believes that the Siskin Drive and Gateway area should be vigorously explored to create a site with a mechanism to accommodate the G&T community within an evolving area where they could best integrate with their surroundings.
Whilst reviewing WDC's commentaries on sites in the original and the current consultation we have found that they are erratic and inconsistent. Criteria are sometimes used to support a choice/site and at other times the same criteria are used in a converse manner. The way in which the supporting Sustainability and Sites Assessments have been used to arrive at the Preferred Options is opaque in the extreme and certainly the interpretation of the Sustainability Assessments based on colour coding appears to be minimally objective.
Examples of inconsistencies relate to noise impacts, site prominence in the landscape, flooding, agricultural land value/viability, proximity of services and pedestrian access/safety. Latterly, especially with the "GTalt" sites, there seems to be an inordinate reference to "surface flooding".
The paperwork provided and the public consultations staged also seem to take no or little account of the cost implications inherent in the various Preferred Option choices and we believe this should be a significant factor when making a final selection given the inherent importance of economic viability.
In consideration of the above the JPC has conducted an objective assessment of all the sites which have come forward under these consultations, as well as our lay skills permit, and concludes that not all of the selected Preferred Options are indeed the best sites of those presented.
The findings are presented in spreadsheet format showing support where we believe it to be appropriate. Where we draw different conclusions we offer rebuttal and further comments as seems appropriate and helpful.
The spreadsheet details are as follows:
* Column 1 - Site identification number and PO indication and JPC support or otherwise
* Column 2 - Précis of WDC comments
* Column 3 - JPC commentary
* Column 4 - Sites which JPC consider could reasonably be progressed (where sites cannot be integrated into "larger schemes").
Inevitably the JPC has been much exercised by contact from residents concerning sites proposed within our JPC parishes and we must comment that these sites seem to have been singularly poorly selected. This situation is not helped by the fact that they seem to have come forward accompanied by blatantly incorrect supporting information, viz:
* Repeated reference to Barford doctors' surgery - when the last part-time surgery closed over 30 years ago
* Inclusion of the Barford Bypass flood compensation pond area as site GT16
* Inclusion of Barford Community Orchard and Riverside Walk in GTalt12
* Inclusion of spillage/reed ponds within GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the maps for GT12 And GT16 in June 2013
* Confusion over the map of GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the map of GTalt12 in March 2014
On a purely local basis it seems bizarre and is certainly unacceptable to blight Barford, recently judged amongst the best 10 places in the Midlands (and number 57 nationally) to live, with the Preferred Options selection of such obviously poor sites. Should the Barford sites persist we are sure that residents will support the landowner in challenging Compulsory Purchase, increasing costs and delay to all concerned and further impacting deliverability.
We are also reminded that there is a duty to co-operate across boundaries and would draw your attention to the site which Stratford DC have at Blackhill, immediately adjacent to Sherbourne parish.
We hope that you will take this letter and the associated spreadsheet in the constructive manner in which it is intended, in order to assist in achieving the best possible solution for both the settled and travelling communities.
Preferred Options for Sites
GTalt12 Land at Barford By-Pass (green)
Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council
Representation Summary:
This is a very poor site, being on the inside of a 60mph busy main road.
Access would require major works and still be dangerous
The site is NOT part owned by WCC (that was true when the community orchard was included in this proposal)
Noise sensitive site immediately adjacent to A429 - mitigation would be ineffective but expensive
Pedestrian access would be dangerous
A429 separates site from settlement and precludes integration
Loss of Grade 2 land will render agricultural holding unviable
Landowner will resist CPO
Impact on landscape on high profile site on main tourist route
Impact views through/across site regardless of any screening
This site would not be allocated for any other development, including residential by the landowner
Proximity to River with steep and high bank and related safety issues
Costs/mitigation/compensation would be high - very high.
Full text:
WDC Local Plan Gypsies & Travellers Preferred Options Consultation
The JPC accepts that allocations must be made for the G&T community within the WDC New Local Plan - rather than relying on sites coming forward through the conventional planning process and we also understand the importance of G&T issues in the Local Plan process, however the JPC believes that any such allocation must be made on a fully democratic and objective basis.
When the June 2013 consultation was staged we were unimpressed with the level of detail provided and very disappointed at the lack of local knowledge and erroneous justifications for selected sites. It can be no surprise that local communities erupted in response to such ill thought-out blight on our district.
Given the levels of residents' responses it is surprising that the Preferred Options consultation has now followed with a similar level of erroneous information and even less quantifiable justification for the Preferred Option choices.
We find the presentation of material confusing at best given that much of the important evidence is buried on the website as "Further Evidence" and "Background" and much that is there is either erroneous and/or conflicting with the March 2014 PO document. At another level we and the vast majority of our residents who have commented found the "Drop-In Sessions" with just a couple of posters and scattered booklets to be a singularly poor way to disseminate information especially as the staff provided had minimal technical knowledge of the subject matter and made it clear that they would not be collating comment made on the day.
We are also concerned at WDC's apparent willingness to rely on the Compulsory Purchase approach given the associated costs and delays which will render most sites non-viable financially and non-deliverable in the terms required. Furthermore success of the CPO process has yet to be established as evidenced by the 2012 Mid Suffolk DC case when the Inspector found insufficient evidence to support CPO on the grounds of "public interest".
We would question WDC's election to limit site sizes to a maximum of 10 pitches, with some considerably less, as this means that site provision must then blight more communities and settlements than is reasonably necessary. If site size limitation is in order to facilitate management and policing this surely gives credence to many residents' concerns about crime and disorder in or near such sites.
Reduction in site size (or more specifically pitch numbers on individual sites) loses economies of scale in terms of establishment costs, management costs and land take whilst directly impacting a greater number of the general population.
National guidance suggests sites of 5-15 to be preferable and this would suggest that our required 31 pitches could reasonably be accommodated in two or at most three sites.
The JPC would suggest that any or all proposed sites could be best accommodated and assimilated in areas which are not current settlements and that they should be properly planned, at a very early stage, into much larger schemes preferably incorporating residential and employment development.
We find the cursory dismissal of such an approach (Page 12, end of section 5) totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
The JPC also believes that the Siskin Drive and Gateway area should be vigorously explored to create a site with a mechanism to accommodate the G&T community within an evolving area where they could best integrate with their surroundings.
Whilst reviewing WDC's commentaries on sites in the original and the current consultation we have found that they are erratic and inconsistent. Criteria are sometimes used to support a choice/site and at other times the same criteria are used in a converse manner. The way in which the supporting Sustainability and Sites Assessments have been used to arrive at the Preferred Options is opaque in the extreme and certainly the interpretation of the Sustainability Assessments based on colour coding appears to be minimally objective.
Examples of inconsistencies relate to noise impacts, site prominence in the landscape, flooding, agricultural land value/viability, proximity of services and pedestrian access/safety. Latterly, especially with the "GTalt" sites, there seems to be an inordinate reference to "surface flooding".
The paperwork provided and the public consultations staged also seem to take no or little account of the cost implications inherent in the various Preferred Option choices and we believe this should be a significant factor when making a final selection given the inherent importance of economic viability.
In consideration of the above the JPC has conducted an objective assessment of all the sites which have come forward under these consultations, as well as our lay skills permit, and concludes that not all of the selected Preferred Options are indeed the best sites of those presented.
The findings are presented in spreadsheet format showing support where we believe it to be appropriate. Where we draw different conclusions we offer rebuttal and further comments as seems appropriate and helpful.
The spreadsheet details are as follows:
* Column 1 - Site identification number and PO indication and JPC support or otherwise
* Column 2 - Précis of WDC comments
* Column 3 - JPC commentary
* Column 4 - Sites which JPC consider could reasonably be progressed (where sites cannot be integrated into "larger schemes").
Inevitably the JPC has been much exercised by contact from residents concerning sites proposed within our JPC parishes and we must comment that these sites seem to have been singularly poorly selected. This situation is not helped by the fact that they seem to have come forward accompanied by blatantly incorrect supporting information, viz:
* Repeated reference to Barford doctors' surgery - when the last part-time surgery closed over 30 years ago
* Inclusion of the Barford Bypass flood compensation pond area as site GT16
* Inclusion of Barford Community Orchard and Riverside Walk in GTalt12
* Inclusion of spillage/reed ponds within GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the maps for GT12 And GT16 in June 2013
* Confusion over the map of GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the map of GTalt12 in March 2014
On a purely local basis it seems bizarre and is certainly unacceptable to blight Barford, recently judged amongst the best 10 places in the Midlands (and number 57 nationally) to live, with the Preferred Options selection of such obviously poor sites. Should the Barford sites persist we are sure that residents will support the landowner in challenging Compulsory Purchase, increasing costs and delay to all concerned and further impacting deliverability.
We are also reminded that there is a duty to co-operate across boundaries and would draw your attention to the site which Stratford DC have at Blackhill, immediately adjacent to Sherbourne parish.
We hope that you will take this letter and the associated spreadsheet in the constructive manner in which it is intended, in order to assist in achieving the best possible solution for both the settled and travelling communities.
For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our
help guide.
