Your objection must be made on "site specific problems", such as
The Government's own guidelines for the selection of Gypsy and Traveller sites can be found in publication 08GTU05266 which was published in May 2008. This document, entitled Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites: Good Practice Guide has an whole Chapter on recommendations for the location of such sites. It makes 23 recommendations, which are summarised below
Just the other side of the road from the proposed access is the main line railway from Bristol to Gloucester
Trains on this line have no reason to expect to stop anywhere near this point and generally travel at speeds estimated to be over 75mph
The railway is as good as level (110/106), most engines are not working hard to accellerate, and so give little warning of their approach.
Within a few yards of the proposed access, there is an old level crossing. This gives little more than a rusty 5 bar gate as protection. It would be quite easy for unsupervised children to stray onto the railway and get seriously hurt or killed.
Similarly, any large dogs straying onto the line may cause disruption to the trains and risk the safety of the passengers if they are hit.
The council have made it clear that the siting of a single caravan on this site is totally unacceptable. They have spent a large amount on prosecuting this case over the last 6 years (see below) eventually resulting in the eviction of the landowner.
The council have also rejected other applications like PK08/2671/O including general reasons like "would encourage the use of private cars and would fail to preserve the countryside for its own sake"
For the council to turn around and allow this site to be developed on the scale proposed would be a complete U-turn in policy. If such glaring inconsistency in planning does emerge, we should insist that all decisions are put on hold and that the council be put on investigation.
On 23rd September 2003, an enforcement notice (CAE/03/0014) was served on the present owner (C Morgan) ordering him to stop using the land for businees or residential use, and to remove anything not directly connected with agricultural use of the land.
On 21st April 2004 an appeal against this order (APP/P0119/C/03/1129929) was dismissed by a planning inspector's decision. This gave the present owner 3 months to comply with the notice.
The owner failed to comply and the council started legal proceedings. These were halted following the request to submit a planning application for conversion of a barn. This application was submitted but was deemed invalid and returned to the applicant in early 2005.
21st August 2004 an outline planning application for the erection of a detached 2 bed bungalow was refused on the following grounds:
The present land owner submitted planning application PK05/0839/F on the 17th March 2005. This application requested full permission for
On 17th April 2005, South Gloucestershire County Council rejected this application on the following grounds
On 19th October 2005, the applicatant appealed against this decision. This appeal requested a hearing (not just an Inquiry which would have been cheaper for both sides)
On 29th November 2005 the owner was required to attend Yate Magistrates Court (summons) to hear prosecution proceedings, at which he was found guilty and ordered to pay costs.
In the case of the second appeal which was determined at a hearing the Gov.Inspector once again rejected the appeal and also awarded costs against the landowner for insisting on the appeal which had "no likelyhood of success"
After continuing to ignore the Enforcement Notice requiring the owner to vacate the site, the Council persued a High Court Injunction which was granted and the owner removed his caravans etc. on the very last day stipulated on the Injunction(14th July08)
Even at this stage the landowner tried to negotiate with the Council to be allowed to stay on the site pending the outcome of this latest planning application
There is no street lighting within at least a mile of this site. This represents a risk to any residents trying to walk anywhere in the dark
Conversely, the introduction of lighting would create light pollution in an area that is currently dark at night. This would disturb the local wildlife.
This is an agricultural area. Owners of livestock have the right to move their animals over land. This adds to the amount of "traffic" on the road. It also increases the amount of dirt on the roads, and increases risks for drivers.
Putting 5 families in rural situations far away from settled communities, the council plans identified in the DPD are basically trying to keep them away from everyone else. or so it seems. They may be on benefit? No buses to speak of, no shops etc. This is discriminatory and is contrary to 7 of the 23 Government guidelines on locating these sites - 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10 (ref 08GTU05266).
A Roman "Small Town" has been identified in land belonging to Hall End Farm just north of this site. It is of sufficient importance to be scheduled as an ancient monument. As a result, the owners of Hall End Farm are not allowed to dig a hole or plant a tree in the scheduled area without the permission of the Secretary of State.
There have been other archaeological digs to the south of the scheduled area, and bordering on to the proposed site, that have unearthed items of interest, but have not resulted in this land being protected so far.
We understand that the roman road, on which this town lay, ran roughly North-South. It is believed that the road would have run behind Homefield and the house called Old Hallen Farm next door.
Normally a roman town would have had a cemetry, near to the road, but outside the town. Since no cemetry has yet been identified this may lie within the boudaries of Homefield. Archaeologists may therefore like the chance to excavate the site before any development work is approved.
We need to protect the sites that are of interest. In particular to prevent the unauthorised use of metal detectors accross the site. If we brought a large number of extra people into the area (all strangers), this would be impossible to police
While there are grants to councils towards the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites, these are nowhere near enough to cover the costs. Based on a similar campaign at Sandiwell, Cheshire, we estimate the cost of development to be around £100,000 per unit. A total of £500,000 (half a million). Most of this will have to be borne by local tax payers
Various arguments around this page point to increased costs, and these will all need to be paid for by local Council Tax Payers
The local authority have a legal duty to educate children as do their parents.
If the families are Irish, for example, they will probably want the children to be educated in a Catholic School.
Is it practical to expect local schools to be able to take on children as and when required? Do they have the space? Do they have the funding for these children? Due to the itinerant nature of these families' lifestyles, the children will often have difficulty keeping up or catching up with other pupils and will need the provision of extra resouces like special needs teachers.
The proposal to site additional familes in this area increases the reliance on cars. In all other residential planning areas, the aim is to reduce reliance on cars.
There is no public transport available within 1 mile
There are no schools within safe walking distance. If the families are on benefit, the local authority will have to pay for the children to be transported to/from school. Usually via a taxi.
There are no shops within safe walking distance
There are no doctors, dentists, or any other services within safe walking distance
The Highways Transport Development Control have estimated the potential increase in traffic to be in the order of 9 to 11 movements per pitch. Resulting in an additional 45 to 55 movements (2 way) per day on our local lanes.
It is intersting that the council choose to use the word "pitch" in this correspondence, when we are considering an application for 5 "units". I do not feel it is safe to assume that an estimate made on the basis of a "pitch" equates to the same basis for a "unit"
Even if the two terms did equate, we have to take into account that the planning application is only an illustration, and not a restriction on the use of the land. It would be quite feasible to park another 2 caravans on each "unit", thereby doubling the potential amount of traffic. This would result in 90 to 110 movements (2 way) per day. To us that sounds like a lot of extra traffic
The planning application draws on the use of the New Road towards Rangeworthy to provide the required access. This road is single track with passing places. It has one particularly difficult section for passing where it zig-zags to cross a bridge. It also passes through a residential area where children are used to playing.
Are we really naiive enough to expect the proposed residents to use only this access route?
Limekiln Road towards Yate is single track and has very long streches of road between passing places. The point where this crosses the railway is particularly dangerous as there is a blind zig-zag combined with a hump back bridge.
Hall End Lane towards Wickwar is also single track, it also has very long stretches of road between passing places. The point where this crosses the railway is particularly dangerous as there is a blind zig-zag combined with a hump back bridge. This leads into Frith Lane which has a long section of single track that winds its way between almost vertical earth banks. While there are some points where two small vehicles could pass, there is no potential for two large vehicles to pass along this stretch of road. We would ask you to consider the scenario where 2 caravans meet along this lane. With no potential to pass, one of them is going to have to reverse quite a long way. This will be almost impossible even if the 2 caravans were the only vehicles in the lane. We can only expect chaos.
The proposed access to the site is on a bend in the road. Although traffic approaching from the direction of Rangeworthy would be visible for a fair distance, the same cannot be said for the traffic from Wickwar. We must emphasise that this is a narrow lane with passing places. The road where the access is proposed is narrow, with deep ditches either side. Anyone having to perform an emergency stop, would only be able to avoid collision if they were to brake in time or turn into the ditch.
This should be avoided both for the safety of the drivers, and the safety of children at the site.
There are many people who use the local lanes for walking, jogging, cycling, and horse riding. With the expected increase in traffic, as mentioned above, and the potential for an increased number of animals (e.g. dogs), these road users will be put at increased risk.
This is an agricultural area. Since the local land is water-logged, movement of farm machinery often leaves the lanes muddy. What would be considered normal traffic on a clean main road woudl be considered unsafe on our muddy lanes
There are no public sewers in this area. For those that don't know, septic tanks only collect the solids, they are designed so that in principal, the foul water is allowed to overflow, run off slowly and be filtered as it passes through the ground
The ground around Homefield and its neighbours is frequently water-logged. Any proposals to use septic tanks would only increase this problem, and result in foul water running over the surface.
If the foul water were to run to the south, it would be over the neighbour's land at Old Hallen Farm, and Hobbs Hall End Cottage. I'm sure they wouldn't like to have to paddle in their neighbours' effluent.
If the foul water were to run to the north, it would pond in the side arm of the Ladden Brook. This side arm of the river usually does not flow (except after long periods of heavvy rain). With foul water pooling here, it would cause an unacceptable health risk to the residents of Hall End Cottage, 2 Hall End Cottage, and Captain's Farm. Then, when there is rain, this would simply be washed down to other places along the Ladden Brook.
Septic tanks need emptying. An average septic tank is normally adequate for a family, and requires emptying once a year. This cost is normally paid for by the resident. It has not been made clear how the costs on the proposed site would be managed. In fact it is not clear if there is anyone responsible for emptying the tank. Failure to empty the tank would result in worse pollution than caused by the foul water run-off. We'd have to add solid sewage run-off to the problem.
The provisions identified are considered inadequate and present an environmental threat to the area..