Aylesbury Vale Area

VALP Proposed Submission

Search Representations

Results for Leafgrove Ltd search

New search New search


VALP Proposed Submission

S6 Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople provision

Representation ID: 457

Received: 06/12/2017

Respondent: Leafgrove Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

VALP fails all of the necessary criteria for inclusion:

1. The site does not have planning permission and has been previously judged as unsuitable
2. is not legally compliant.
a. is in flagrant disregard of repeated decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate and the Development Control Committee.
3. does not comply with the duty to co-operate.
a. disregards the views of all the stakeholders
4. The VALP is not sound on the grounds that it;
Is not positively prepared, (section 4)
Is not justified, (section 5)
Is not effective, (section 5)
Is not consistent with National Policy, (section 6)

Full text:

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 (Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan)

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. The VALP is Unsound
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. Duty to Co-operate
2.1. The VALP fails to comply with the duty to cooperate as it disregards the views of all the stakeholders, including the consultants and other subject matter experts advising AVDC.
2.2. It disregards the repeated decisions of its own Development Control Committee.
2.3. It disregards the repeated decisions of the Planning Inspectorate.
2.4. It disregards the repeated objections of the Parish Council.
2.5. It disregards repeated objections from the residents adjacent to the site, who have spent many thousands of pounds on additional security measures to minimise the quantity and impact of break-ins and vandalism proven to be perpetrated by the occupants of the site.
2.6. The site lies within a few meters 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, or the adjoining parishes of Arncott, Murcott and Piddington.

3. Legally Compliant Local Plan
3.1. The VALP fails to be legally compliant while it remains in flagrant disregard of repeated decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate and the Development Control Committee; the latter being made up of elected Councilors. This suggests that employees of AVDC are making policy, not our elected Councilors. This is fundamentally overrides the remit of the elected Councilors.

4. Positively Prepared Local Plan
4.1. The inclusion of this inappropriate site and systemic policy of AVDC over recent years to grant permanent permission to traveller sites it has previously refused permission for, 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. Justified or Effective Local Plan
5.1. 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, while planning enforcement remains ineffectual.
5.2. The authors of the local plan have failed to comment on the major reason for prior refusals; its dominant and unnatural effect on the open countryside. On this basis, its inclusion cannot be considered as justified or effective.

6. Consistent with National Policy
6.1. The VALP states that the site is for 13 plots. However, the Authors have known since 2005 that the site is actually divided into 20 plots; The assignment of 13 plots is a clear attempt to mislead the Inspector into believing that the site is in compliance with the VALP itself, and National Policy for Gypsy and Traveller sites (refer here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457420/Final_planning_and_travellers_policy.pdf)
6.2. The authors have publicly acknowledged non-compliance with local and national policy, and attempted to defend it on the basis of it being the most appropriate "identified" site, i.e. 1 of 1.

The site does not even meet the criteria stated in the VALP itself:

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 highway safety

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 [sic] significantly adverse impact on environmental assets such as open
countryside, landscapes, the historic environment, biodiversity, waterways, open space and
green infrastructure

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 [sic] residents [sic] 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

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.