Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Nothing chosen

Having read the report I have a number of comments and specific concerns: The report states: "Non-strategic Policies General site design and layout Policy TR8: General site design and layout Access, Parking and Storage Provide safe vehicle and pedestrian access to and from the site to the public highway; In the case of plots for travelling showpeople, adequate space should be provided for the storage and maintenance of equipment; Unless necessary for the use of a travelling showpeople site, no vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on site." Concerns: Water Lane has no pedestrian foot path, is not street lit and is already used by farm and equine vehicles. There are limited passable places and additional traffic would be unsafe. The proposed site therefore cannot provide the required safe access to a public highway. In addition, should a 3.5 tonne vehicle be necessary (as stated above) this would not be a suitable vehicle to travel on this narrow country lane. There is only one access to the proposed site which is via Water Lane and it is not suitable for heavy vehicles and is certainty not a safe road for pedestrians. The report states: "Other site facilities Where appropriate, consideration should be given to the suitable provision of land for communal children's play space and for paddocks, field shelters, secure tack rooms, manure disposal and other equine uses on or adjacent to sites. Also, provision of a central rubbish and recycling point that is easy for all residents to access, and that can be easily accessed by refuse collection vehicles." Clearly refuse removal is important and necessary. There have already been times of disruption where bins were not collected in the village due to lack of resources, so additional residents will further impact the service in place. Will residents of the proposed site be paying the same Council Tax as other residents to ensure a service can be provided for all residents? All residents in any village need to contribute towards the services provided for all. If there are to be additional residents, the current services cannot cope and equal contribution towards funding would only be right, proper and fair. The report states: "Highways access and parking Highway layout should be designed with consideration of the movement of touring caravans or the delivery of static caravans in mind. Sufficient space and turning/manoeuvring area should be created to allow residents to easily take caravans on and off their pitches. Highways should be wide enough that a large static caravan can be delivered by a large goods vehicle to all pitches. Walking access and accessible walkways should be provided. Sites should allow an area for parking of vehicles, including ones used for work." Specifically, the access to this site CANNOT provide movement of touring caravans, it cannot cope with delivery of static caravans and cannot accommodate large goods vehicles. There is no scope to provide safe accessible walkways from the site to a highway as the only access is via a small, winding, unlit country lane. In addition, the lane floods every time there is heavy rain. This has been the case for years, but the flooding has worsened since the development on Barty Farm. The water diverts to higher up the road and the flooding covers both sides of the road and the pedestrian footpath so it is totally unsuitable for pedestrians when flooded. IMPORTANTLY – there was a proposal to have a footpath from the Barty development into Water Lane but it was deemed unsafe access for pedestrians and was not approved by the council. With regards roads and traffic, the village already suffers when operation Brock or Stack is employed as traffic diverts through the village (even though signage tries to avoid this) and there are often traffic jams when the motorway is closed. Additional vehicles will only add to this problem. In addition to the points raised above my concerns are around: ~ Water Lane NOT providing the safe access required. ~ Strain on already under-resources services ~ The report does not tell us the number of people proposed to be located on The Lodge site off Water Lane ~ The report does not confirm if the residents of the site would be required to pay the same as other local residents for the same services ~ The village residents already find it difficult to get to see a GP and additional residents would further increase the strain on this service ~ The catchment area for primary schools has reduced so it is increasingly difficult to secure school places in the most local primary schools. If new residents require school places this will further increase the strain on the school offering locally. ~ The narrow country lane which is the sole access to the proposed site is already used by farm and equine vehicles. It is only a narrow country lane with minimal passing spaces, it is not street lit and large vehicles cannot pass each other. Essentially, I agree that everyone needs to be provided for. This said, the report comments that “Having no permanent accommodation can have adverse effects on quality of life”. The report lists provisions needed for this community of people and then in same sentence states that it is important “… to enable Gypsies…..to live a nomadic way of life should they wish” Either somebody wants to benefit from the provisions of a “static” life or they wish to live a nomadic life – surely one can’t live both.