VALP Proposed Submission
Results for Boarstall Parish Meeting searchNew search
VALP Proposed Submission
S6 Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople provision
Representation ID: 350
Respondent: Boarstall Parish Meeting
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to S6 and the inclusion of Oaksview Park, Boarstall as a allocation. Permanent permission has been refused on this site numerous times, the views of the development control committee, PINs, Parish Council and locals have been ignored. There is a oversupply of sites in the vicinity. Its close to the MOD site and prison, other sites have been objected to by them. The site has a dominant and unnatural impact on the open countryside. There are 20 plots on site, not 13. Doesn't meet the criteria.
I believe that S6. Gypsy, traveler and travelling show people provision and more specifically
Table 4. Oaksview Park, Boarstall. to be unsound as indicated above, and therefore should be removed from the plan.
It should be noted that the content of my representation is not intended as a comment regarding objection to planning consent but merely on the inclusion of this site within the VALP
Whilst I acknowledge the need for Gypsy and traveler sites in the district the allocation of this site is ill conceived and therefore not sound
1.1. The site has been occupied for a number of years with temporary or no permission, 5 hearings for planning permission have been heard by the development control committee, all have overwhelmingly found the site unsuitable for permanent occupation. The inspectorate has heard two appeals for the site and again found it as unsuitable for anything but a temporary site until AVDC located a suitable site.
1.2. The plan has identified this site with no reference to the significant number of alternative sites within a 5 mile radius, not only within AVDC but also the Cherwell district. This oversupply in the vicinity has been demonstrated by this sites under occupancy over the years; to the extent that the owners were sub-letting plots to eastern European economic migrants.
1.3. The site has been refused planning permission on so many occasions in the past why do the authors presume it will be awarded permission in the future?
2. I fail to see how the plan has complied with the duty to cooperate as it disregards the views of many.
2.1. It disregards the repeated decisions of its own development control committee
2.2. It disregards the repeated decisions of the planning inspectorate
2.3. It disregards the repeated objections of the parish council
2.4. It disregards the repeated objections from the residents adjacent to the site who have spent many thousands on security to minimize the number of break ins and vandalism from children residing on the site
2.5 The site lies within a few metres of a Ministry Of Defence, live munitions training ground and the close to Bullingdon Prison. The adjacent Cherwell District Council received an application for a site further away from the MOD boundary than this particular site. Following consultation, permission was refused after objection from the MOD and prison, AVDC have not consulted with these parties or the Military or Civil Police, and the adjoining parishes of Arncott, Murcott and Piddington.
3. I fail to see how a plan could be legally compliant that is in flagrant disregard of the development control committee member (elected Councilor's) repeated decision; it suggests that AVDC are making policy not its councilors.
4. The inclusion of this inappropriate site and systemic policy of AVDC over recent years to grant permanent permission to traveler sites it has previously refused permission to is a clear indication of its own failure to identify appropriate sites; on this basis the plan cannot possibly be considered to be a positively prepared policy.
5. Given the development control committee and inspectorates decisions, the authors of this plan have attempted to now justify the site on the basis of greater regulation of the site, they have done this in full knowledge that the site has flouted conditions imposed upon it and enforcement have been unable to influence this. The authors have not commented on the major reason for prior refusals, its dominant and unnatural effect on the open country side. On this basis its inclusion cannot be considered as justified or effective.
6. The VALP state the site is for 13 plots whilst the Authors have unfettered knowledge that is divided into 20 plots; I see the naming of 13 sites as a clear attempt to mislead the Inspector on compliance with the size recommendation within National Policy for gypsy and traveler sites. The authors have publically acknowledged non- compliance and defended it on the basis of it being the most appropriate "identified" site, i.e. 1 of 1. The site does not meet the defined criteria.
a. It has reasonable access to existing local services and facilities (a. including shops, schools,
healthcare and public transport). Sites should either be within or close to existing
sustainable settlements or with good access to major roads and/or public transport
b. Have safe and convenient vehicular access without giving rise to unacceptable impacts on
c. Be able to achieve a reasonable level of visual and acoustic privacy for both people living
on the site and those living nearby
d. Not have an significantly adverse impact on environmental assets such as open
countryside, landscapes, the historic environment, biodiversity, waterways, open space and
e. The size and scale of the site and the number of caravans stationed is appropriate to the
size and density of the local settled community, and does not dominate the nearest settled
f. The site should not be located where there is a risk of flooding or be affected by
environmental hazards that may effect residents health or welfare
g. The site must be capable of being adequately serviced by drinking water, utilities and
sewerage disposal facilities
h. Sites should remain small in scale - no more normally than 15 pitches on any one site