Planning policy development plan

Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers - Question 12

Representation ID: 9727

OBJECT Mr Paul Gibbons

Summary:

Summary by Officer

The two large sites adjacent to the existing County Council site known as "Corbriggs" in the Parish of Temple Normanton should be allocated in the Local Plan (GT2 & GT3). This could also be site TN/1603T in Table 3.1 of the Sustainability Appraisal.

Old Potato Store
North Wingfield
Temperance Hill

As I understand it two of these three sites already belong to gypsies. The intention is to occupy them for their own use. These should be Allocated in the Local Plan.

There are two general points:
The only main services needed is mains water standpipe. The main services are paid for by the applicant and are not a charge on public funds - so it does not matter to the Planning Authority.

Air quality in the area has improved with the closure of heavy industries i.e. Wingerworth Coke Ovens; Coalite, Bolsover; Clay Cross Biwater.

More details about Rep ID: 9727

Representation ID: 9722

OBJECT Cllr Barry Lewis

Summary:

Inspector's question identified by Officer

What is not made clear in this consultation and I therefore pose, as a question that needs a clear answer, is what a 'Pitch' actually constitutes? In other words, how many caravans and how many vehicles can constitute a single pitch?

What consultation has been done, prior to launching this one, with the traveller and gypsy community to ascertain the suitability of these sites?

I would like to make the point, one doubtless made by many others, that this consultation was poorly advertised to start with and seemed to elicit a desire or hope that this would slip under the radar of the public. I am sure the Authority will no doubt deny this but in an age of proactive communications and social media no Local Authority should launch such a potentially contentious consultation in such a low-key way.

More details about Rep ID: 9722

Representation ID: 9669

OBJECT Sheelagh Judge

Summary:

Summary by Officer.

The Sustainability Assessment of GT/09 is flawed. Site is next to or within a level 4 settlement and should have been discounted for detailed site assessment as part of the updated LAA methodology. The Topic Paper updated the LAA methodology to widen the scope of sources of available land to bring in new sites. GT/09 was not screened in accordance with this agreed criteria (para 4.19). The Site Selection Approach 2018 did not seek to amend this criteria but sought to identify publicly owned land for site screening and to focus upon family-sized sites. The council was erroneous in their late inclusion of site GT/09 for the detailed assessment stage and GT/09 should have been discounted.

Have NEDDC policies been applied consistently and in accordance with their legal duty to do so and in particular whether the decision to include GT/09 for further detailed assessment is contrary to their own policy - SS1.

More details about Rep ID: 9669

Representation ID: 9667

OBJECT NEDDC Conservative Group represented by Mr Alex Dale

Summary:

Summary by Officer.

The Council has failed to provide adequate information in relation to various aspects of their site selection processes within the Topic Paper. For example, the initial list of 385 sites has not been provided, nor have they adequately explained how they were sifted down to 38. Moreover, the process of sifting the 840 sites down to 8 has not been explained. We believe that this information should be in the public domain so that local residents can assess whether reasonable alternatives have been given proper consideration.

We are extremely disappointed with the way in which this consultation has been approached by the Council.

More details about Rep ID: 9667

Representation ID: 9622

SUPPORT Historic England (Rosamund Worrall)

Summary:


Historic England is aware that the Council is no longer considering taking forward site GT/06 Greenway, Wingerworth at this time. Notwithstanding this, I can advise that Historic England has no concerns to raise in relation to its remit for the historic environment and the four sites set out in the consultation document.

More details about Rep ID: 9622

Representation ID: 9610

OBJECT Stretton Parish Council represented by Charlotte Stainton

Summary:

Summary by Officer.

The site selection process is not soundly based. There was no consultation with residents prior to January 2019 and consultation included only people on the Local Plan database. No letters were sent to the immediate neighbours to the sites. There is no evidence that the location of the proposed allocations is supported by the Gypsy and Traveller community.
Landscape Impact did not feature in the Step 2 Site Screening. Potentially suitable NEDDC/ DCC owned site excluded for unsound reasons. The conclusions do not accord with conclusions reached in the Council's evidence.
The Site Selection methodology has not been consistently applied to all the sites considered over the years. Site GT/09 should have been discounted at step one. The site selection process is not robust as the Council has failed to consider key evidence.

More details about Rep ID: 9610

Representation ID: 9555

OBJECT rob mallender

Summary:

Access to the site is limited and the type of vehicles accessing the land will make access roads congested.
the site is already congested with buildings taken over in an unsafe manner with cars being broken down on site. this will then escalate and the local authority do not have the controls in place to monitor this. The site is in a quiet area of the village and local residents are mainly elderly in the bungalows which overlook the site. Horses are already grazing in local fields and on the local park.

More details about Rep ID: 9555

Representation ID: 9472

SUPPORT National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups (Mr Alan Roger Yarwood)

Summary:

We generally support the approach taken to meeting the needs of Travellers.

However, it is clear that the sites proposed at Wingerworth and Wooley Moor will result in strong local opposition and may be difficult to deliver. Even if these sites can be delivered, there will remain a shortfall. Accordingly, we believe that the criteria based policy to deal with sites which come forward for approval should be as flexible as possible.

With regard to the other two sites put forward for allocation, at Calow and North Wingfield, we support these, although we believe that the site at North Wingfield is likely to provide only two pitches. On the other hand, we consider that the site at Calow could be extended to the south to create a site for three pitches in total. There is a willing owner. We dispute the doubts raised about the adequacy of the access.

More details about Rep ID: 9472

Representation ID: 9327

SUPPORT High Speed Two (HS2) Limited (Mr Reiss Graham)

Summary:

Thank you for consulting HS2 Ltd on the above consultation.
Having reviewed the plans and documents associated with the Local Plan, I can confirm that HS2 Ltd raise no objection to the proposals.

More details about Rep ID: 9327

Representation ID: 9223

SUPPORT The Coal Authority (Mrs Melanie Lindsley)

Summary:

Thank you for your notification of 4 January 2019 seeking the views of the Coal Authority on the above consultation.

I have reviewed the information made available on the LPA website and can confirm that we have no specific comments to make.

More details about Rep ID: 9223

Representation ID: 9222

OBJECT Sue Fletcher

Summary:

I fail to understand the reasoning around declining the building of new houses in the area and you want travellers to take up residence.

More details about Rep ID: 9222

Representation ID: 9185

SUPPORT Environment Agency (Mr Joe Drewry)

Summary:

Officers have summarised the representation.

CAL/2301T, NW/2301T, GT/06 - These sites are situated on a secondary aquifer. If the site is located next to a main sewer we would recommend that the development connects up to this. If this is not the case the foul drainage will need to be connected to a Package Treatment Plant (PTP) in line with the hierarchy information highlighted in the Planning Practice Guidance, Section: Water Supply, wastewater and water quality, paragraph 20.

GT/09 - This site is situated on a primary aquifer. The site appears to be situated near to an existing combined sewer and foul drainage should be connected to this if feasible. If this is not the case the foul drainage will need to be connected to a Package Treatment Plant (PTP) in line with the hierarchy information highlighted in the Planning Practice Guidance, Section: Water Supply, wastewater and water quality, paragraph 20.

More details about Rep ID: 9185

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult