Gypsies and Travellers Development Plan Provision in Epping Forest District
Answers to the Consultation on Options Questionnaire
4th February 2009
COUNCIL’S APPROACH
One of the Council’s basic indications to consultees is inappropriate, miscast and should be withdrawn. The statement on p5 that “For this reason responses solely of a negative nature may have a limited effect” misleads potential respondents, and may cause them not to respond for want of knowledge of appropriate sites. It may well be the case that the Council do not have a “do nothing” option, and that the Council must therefore put forward positive proposals. It is not the case however, that any party making observations on this document must have a “positive” approach. It is entirely in order for comments to be negative, and the Council must take account of all comments, including those which are entirely negative.
Q.1
No, because:
(i) The first objective should refer to the council’s targets, not the regional target. The second part of this objective should be deleted. Experience of those authorities (e.g. Fenland) where provision of sites has historically been high and the enforcement lax, is that gypsies and travellers gravitate there. The Council should aim to meet its share of the RSS figures, not to reduce the number of unauthorised sites, which may be an incompatible goal.
(ii) The second part of objective 4 – the minimisation of the impact on settled communities – must be made paramount. Finding sites for gypsies is an extremely difficult exercise not because of the other constraints listed, but because of the concerns raised (for whatever reason) by existing residents. The only way the exercise is likely to gain any support is by acknowledging this reality, and if that means sacrificing some of the other objectives, (e.g. minimising the need to travel or protecting sensitive designated areas) so be it. We note that para. 64 of DCLG circular 1/2006 states that ‘sustainability’ includes the promotion of peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community. Given the hostility that can exist, we strongly urge the Council to place avoiding or minimising this as its top priority.
Surely a more appropriate wording is “To minimise the impact of sites.”
(iii) Objective 5 “To make provision in cases that will minimise the need to travel” is too constrained. A more appropriate objective would be
“To make provision in areas that meet sustainability requirements.”
Q.2
No. The allocation of sites will be an extremely difficult task if serious opposition is to be avoided or at least minimised. Subject to what is said below (e.g. regarding urban extensions and specific sites) no sites should be ruled out at this preliminary stage, including sites in the Green Belt and Epping Forest.
Secondly, limiting the search for sites to only a part of the District is artificially limiting. Why not subject the whole District to the sieve maps for accessibility to schools, shops, surgeries and public transport? Any and all areas that perform poorly in relation to a combination of the relevant criteria can then be omitted.
What consideration, if any, has been given to co-operating with neighbouring authorities, in accordance with the advice in Circular 01/2006 para 35(d), if it is considered that the District is unduly constrained by Green Belt designation outside all towns and major villages?
The same paragraph at 35(a) and (b) also suggests that local authority land, and the registers of unused and underused publicly owned land should be utilised for the provision of gypsy sites. Nowhere in the Council’s consultation document is there any indication of such consideration.
A proper assessment of such land, with its ability to provide a substantial number of pitches, predominantly in the urban and therefore sustainable locations, would be likely to result in a considerable reduction in the number of sites proposed in the Green Belt.
Q.3
No. While we do not support the pitch numbers recommended by the East of England Plan Review’s panel (it is too high), we recognise that the phasing of the finally approved figure will be dictated by the RSS and that the Council’s freedom of manoeuvre is therefore limited. However, we do not support the inclusion of any sites required merely as a contingency. Circ. 01/2006 requires that all sites be allocated to meet the need, and that criteria-based policies should be adopted to guide the determination of any applications that may come forward to meet additional need. Site allocations may (depending on their location) blight existing properties. This must be kept to a minimum.
Also, whilst the mathematics of the proposed phasing of the sites would seem logical, the provision of sites within each phase should be broadly in line with the acceptability in planning policy terms, of each site. In other words, no Green Belt sites should be proposed in Phases I or II, until sites without Green Belt designation have been exhausted.
Q.4
Option 1 Assimilation into the local community is far more likely to occur if the sites are small, typically confined to single (possibly extended) families. Large sites encourage the members of the travelling community to keep to themselves and to the consequent ‘ghettoisation’ of their accommodation. It can also result in under occupancy, as Romany and Irish Travellers are not always prepared to live on the same sites. This risk is avoided by having family-sized sites.
Para 54 of Circular 01/2006 clearly advises that sites should respect the scale of, and not dominate the nearest settled community, and that they should avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure.
Since all of the sites proposed are in rural areas, they will be impacting upon small or in some cases very small communities. Proposed sites should neither be located where, or of a size which, is inappropriate for the local community and its infrastructure. Sites should therefore be within the smallest size range.
Q.5
Option 1. The allocation of the sites will be an extremely difficult task if serious opposition is to be avoided or at least minimised. No sites should be ruled out at this preliminary stage. In principle (and we comment later on respect of individual sites) we prefer to see existing unauthorised sites, particularly those that are currently regarded as ‘tolerated’, granted permission as it reduces the need for completely new sites to be identified.
Q.6
Option 3. The allocation of the sites will be an extremely difficult task if serious opposition is to be avoided or at least minimised. No sites should be ruled out at this preliminary stage.
There appears to be inconsistency and conflict in separating out section 3 The Area Suitability Study and 6 The Three Main Potential Strategies.
Site provision should be made where the locations meet the highest number of criteria for such provision (weighted as necessary).
The exception to this maybe the provision of medium sized sites in or close to new urban development of a large enough scale to more easily absorb the social integration issue, e.g. north/north west side Harlow.
Q.7
No. Limiting the search for sites to only a part of the District is artificially limiting. Why not subject the whole District to the sieve maps for accessibility to schools, shops, surgeries and public transport? Any and all areas that perform poorly in relation to a combination of the relevant criteria can then be omitted
Circular 01/2006 does not unfortunately set out an easy-to-follow search sequence as suggested.
What it does do (para 35) as mentioned earlier, is advocate the use of the local authority’s own land, and that of other public bodies. It is suggested that this be the first element in the search sequence.
It does reaffirm, in para 49, that PPG2 “Green Belts” states that inappropriate development in Green Belts should be refused, and that gypsy sites are considered to be inappropriate development in Green Belts. In such circumstances planning permission should only be granted in very exceptional circumstances. It is therefore for the Council to show that all possible sites in the District which do not have a Green Belt designation have been exhausted, before proposing any sites within the Green Belt.
The principal criteria should be the minimisation of potential conflict with the settled community. Whether rightly or wrongly, this is the predominant difficulty faced by any local authority seeking to allocate new gypsy and traveller sites. Pretending that these applications are the same as mainstream planning proposals, and that factors such as minimising the need to travel or having good access to local services should have a significant role, is disingenuous.
Q.8
i)Yes & ii)No
We do not believe that gypsy sites can be regarded in the same way as affordable housing, to be incorporated into urban developments. Land suitable for housing or commercial developments is too expensive, and a close juxtaposition of ‘bricks and mortar’ housing and gypsy sites is a recipe for conflict.
As set out above, the Council’s own land, and that of other public bodies, where it is unused or underused, should be brought forward to provide for gypsy sites, before any land in the Green Belt is allocated for such purposes.
Why does this section impose an arbitrary figure of 20% site provision on large urban sites? When the District is constrained by Green Belt designation, the Council should initially be seeking to make 100% of gypsy site provision on urban land.
The questions in this section are therefore inappropriately phrased.
As set out in the Consultation Document, gypsy sites are inappropriate development within the Green Belt, harmful to the openness of the Green Belt, and harmful to Green Belt policy.
The Council have not shown that there is any such need to meet its gypsy site provision on Green Belt land, or quantified the amount (percentage or actual) if it can be shown that any such need for Green Belt Sites exists.
The only other very exceptional circumstances which might warrant permission being granted to a gypsy site in the Green Belt are the personal/individual circumstances of a particular occupying or prospectively occupying family. Since none of the sites proposed are in that category, there can be no reason for proposing any sites in the Green Belt at this stage.
Q.9
No and No.
For the reasons already expressed, we do not believe that the consultation paper’s assertion (at para. 10.2) that ‘there is potential to integrate gypsies and travellers sites within the overall scheme’ of these proposed urban extensions is realistic.
Q.10
No. For the reasons already stated, we do not believe that it is sensible to expect a gypsy site to be incorporated successfully close to traditional housing. This is particularly the case if the site were to be as large as 15 pitches.
Question’s 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,18g 19g 20 23.As they are optional and we know nothing of the suitability of these site’s or the view’s of the resident’s,we were advised to leave them unanswered.
Q.19
Objections to the sites are made on green belt grounds. The sites are shown as being within the metropolitan green belt on the Epping Forest local plan. The development of land as a gypsy site constitutes inappropriate development which by definition is harmful to the green belt. The Council have not shown that there are no sites on land in the district not allocated as green belt nor are there any personal exceptional circumstances put forward as to why any of these should be allowed contrary to green belt policy
Sites a & b – Both sites 19a and 19b are within the Green Belt. Site 19a is to be designated as appropriate for glasshouses in the Local Plan Alterations.
Their allocation as gypsy sites would effectively be urban extensions of the town.
Site 19a) (Lea Valley Nursery Site) – No
As with many other sites, a red line is shown on the aerial photos showing the boundary of the site, but apart from the frontage, there are virtually no boundaries on the ground, and certainly no good hedgerow boundaries, which are necessary to prevent views of the site, and to provide privacy for existing adjoining and proposed site occupants.
The boundaries on this site are also not clearly defined. It has not been made clear as to whether the proposal is to demolish all existing buildings. If only the rear part of the site is to be used, then no consideration would appear to have been given as to access via a commercially used site. Noted – warehousing has been approved by EFDC for part of the front of this site.
There is also no boundary separating this site from 19b to the north.
The openness of this site, visible from the rising land to the east and north east, make it most unsuitable. There would be demonstrable harm to the openness of the green belt were this site to be allocated.
There is a public footpath running diagonally north eastwards from the town, adjacent to the southern boundary as shown, but presumably within the ownership of the Lea Valley Nursery site.
If the whole site (19a) is to be used, where is the economic argument for demolishing all the existing buildings? If only the rear part of the site is to be used, how is the gypsy site to be accessed through a commercially used site?
There are highway considerations in relation to this site, as access to and egress from is on to busy main roads and the access/egress roads are believed, in all respects, to be inadequate.
Access/egress to Marle Gardens – is opposite main entrance to this site would also be compromised, and more hazardous.
Site adjacent to and overlooked by Wheatsheaf Public House and large noisy outdoor family area/ garden with playground therein
Known water run off from surrounding high ground regularly floods the site and the adjacent Crooked Mile, as acknowledged by Epping Forest District Council
The Council further note that the drainage ditch on said site is already currently operating at maximum capacity.
Any further hardstanding would exacerbate this problem (as required by any permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches).
Site 19b (smallholding off Crooked Mile) – No
This site is very open, but also appears to contain a ménage, and a dilapidated range of corrugate iron buildings
The openness of this site, visible from the rising land to the east and north east, make it most unsuitable. There would be demonstrable harm to the openness of the green belt were this site to be allocated.
Access to this site would presumably be from the (private) access road to the north, which provides access to the industrial concerns to the north and south fronting onto Crooked Mile, and to the allotments on the northern side of the access road. This access road has very poor sight lines onto Crooked Mile, and the additional degree of residential gypsy traffic would be very hazardous.
There are highway considerations in relation to this site, as access to and egress from is on to busy main road and the access/egress road are believed, in all respects, to be inadequate.
Access/egress to this site is opposite main entrance to a busy Lea Valley Park Car Park. The access/egress to this Car Park would also be compromised, and more hazardous.
Access to this site is further limited by:
1) The width of the entrance, which is approximately 3 metres at its narrowest, due to commercial buildings on either side
2) Close proximity of an electricity sub station, which requires unhindered access at all times.
3) Turning radii
4) Overhead power lines adjacent to and extremely close to site – This does not conform to Appendix 4, 21 of the consultation Document ‘The Area Suitability Study’
Site adjacent to and overlooked by Wheatsheaf Public House and large noisy outdoor family area/ garden with playground therein
Known water run off from surrounding high ground regularly floods the site and the adjacent Crooked Mile, as acknowledged by Epping Forest District Council
The Council further note that the drainage ditch on said site is already currently operating at maximum capacity.
Any further hardstanding would exacerbate this problem (as required by any permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches).
Site 19c Former Kingsfield Nursery, Sewardstone – No
The site is within the boundary of the Lea Valley Regional Park.
As well as being in the Green Belt, it is also allocated for glasshouses.
The narrowness of the access between 2 existing dwellings is entirely inappropriate and unacceptable for a gypsy site.
In addition to backing onto the houses fronting Sewardstone Road, the site backs onto houses in Butlers Drive as well. The residential amenities and privacy of the existing residents would be totally compromised.
Furthermore, EFDC have recently rejected planning permission for this site to be used to store lorries, on enviromental grounds, including unacceptable disturbance to residents.
There are highway considerations in relation to this site, as access to and egress from is on to busy main roads and the access/egress roads are believed, in all respects, to be inadequate.
Site 19d Chandlers Farm , Sewardstone – No
The site surrounds 2 houses fronting onto Mott Street, and 1 fronting onto the access drive to the east. In addition, it adjoins the rear of properties fronting onto Sewardstone Road, with no hedgerow or meaningful boundary between the properties and the site. There would be considerable impact on all these properties therefore.
The contours of the land would mean that there is serious risk of flooding occurring on the road indeed there is already incidences of flooding which would be exacerbated by the allocation of this site. This property is currently being used for business purposes and no mention is made as to whether it is the proposal that this business is to continue or indeed whether it could continue if allocated. The Council would appear to have had no regard to its policies in relation to employment in considering the allocation of this site.
Site adjacent to and overlooked by The Plough Public House and large noisy outdoor family area/ garden.
There are highway considerations in relation to this site, as access to and egress from is on to busy main roads and the access/egress roads are believed, in all respects, to be inadequate.
Site 19e Part of Brookfield Nursery, Sewardstone – No
This site is also allocated for glasshouses as well as being in the Green Belt.
The site is immediately behind houses fronting onto Sewardstone Road.
It is devoid of any meaningful screening to its western, northern and southern boundaries, and would not only be highly visible to residents in Sewardstone Road, but from other directions as well.
The general comments in relation to all of the Sewardstone sites apply of course.
There are highway considerations in relation to this site, as access to and egress from is on to busy main roads and the access/egress roads are believed, in all respects, to be inadequate.
Site 19f Netherhouse Farm and adjoining land, Sewardstone – No
The farmhouse is omitted from the site boundary, but clearly is an integral part of the farm. However there is no actual boundary demarcation between the farmhouse and the site. A good strong and high hedgerow would be necessary, but couldn’t be created instantly.
The site is very open and the proposed development would be highly visible from the road, and from dwellings opposite, and therefore detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt. There are also 2 footpaths heading east from Sewardstone Road immediately adjacent to the south of the farmhouse. One goes due east alongside the boundary of the site towards High Beech; the other goes south east and is part of the long distance footpath known as The London Loop. As the land to the east is considerably higher, this means that the site is very visible to the public (footpath users) from these footpaths.
A listed building is contained on this site and the question as to how to address this and the surrounding curtilage has not been covered, but it is certainly a material factor for objection.
There are highway considerations in relation to this site, as access to and egress from is on to busy main roads and the access/egress roads are believed, in all respects, to be inadequate.
Q.21
No. However, we agree with the criteria a,b,d,f,h,i,j and k.
We do not agree with criteria c (this rules out an area too early in the process); and criterion e (this would impose a major constraint on site selection. While we recognise that sites with these accessibility attributes are preferable in accordance with the normal planning principals, requiring that all sites must satisfy this requirement will rule out sites that meet what we regard as the most important factor- the need to avoid conflict.)
Q.22
Yes. For the reasons given in the paper.
Q.24
B. The allocation of sites (depending on their location) may cause blight to existing properties which would be exacerbated the more sites are allocated. Allocations should be made only of the most appropriate sites, and be kept to the minimum required to meet the RSS figures. While we abhor the use of compulsory purchase for this purpose, we regard it as the preferable alternative. The alternative approach of allocating ‘surplus’ sites could result in the less acceptable sites being developed merely because the owners of more appropriate sites are not willing to sell.
Q.25
No. Only the second bullet point should be regarded as the correct measure of the policy. It is well known from those authorities (Fenland being possibly the best example) that where provision is good and enforcement lax, gypsies and travellers gravitate there. Provided the Council is meeting the RSS figures, it should consider its policy as a success. The fact that it may result in an increase in unauthorised sites should not be regarded as a measure of failure – indeed, the contrary may well be the case.