Policy DM28: Gypsy and Traveller Provision
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1604
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council
I support the proposal at the traveller site at Rye Etch but would requst that permission be limited to current family (and descendants). This small site whose occupants show proper respect for the area, the woodland and the visual impact has worked well in this area with the family fully integrated into village life.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1605
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council
I do object ot the further provisions for the following reasons:
1. Sites at Curtis Mill Lane do not meet the stated criteria in that there is no realistic access to public transport, shops or schools.
2. The Hope Farm site in Goatswood Lane (wrongly listed as Horseman Side by BBC) is an eyesore with acres of GB bureied under tarmac and brick. The occupiers sghow no respect for the rural environment.
3. Brentwoods count of sites/ pitches is unrealistic, fluctuating between 96 sites in 2012 (assuming 2 piches per site) reduced to only 105 pitches in 2013.
See attached
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1615
Received: 25/07/2013
Respondent: Miss Katharine Turner
- No mention in LDP regarding bordering authorities (Thurrock, Havering). Needs to be joined up to ensure even distribution of traveller sites.
- Local planning authorities should ensure that traveller sites are sustainable economically, socially and environmentally. Local planning authorities should, therefore, ensure that their policies: do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans.
Whilst I recognise that the borough requires significant housing development, potentially in line in numbers with that identified within the Local Plan 2015-2030, I strongly object to the proposed concentration of new dwellings, over a sustained period of time, within the identified West Horndon Opportunity Area.
The construction of 200-250 new dwellings within West Horndon, every year, for 15 years, will firstly expand the town beyond recognition. Based on the current population size (which is broadly stable), the proposals would see it essentially triple in size. Whilst there are proposals for improved infrastructure, it is questionable whether this is truly sustainable within the land area proposed. The density of construction required will not be in-fitting with this beautiful countryside location, where houses are two stories tall at most, with a significant proportion of bungalows. High rise or even medium rise flats are not at all in-fitting with current town character.
Secondly, as our council, Brentwood Borough Council has the obligation to serve existing residents, not just new ones. Those who have made West Horndon their home will see a material depression in their house values as the 200-250 new dwellings come on to the market. There will be no compensation to the existing residents, which feels highly inequitable for such a small population.
Thirdly. Whilst the attractions of expanding at West Horndon are clear, one must question market demand for 200-250 new dwellings each year, in the same place, over 15 years. This demand is unproven, and highly questionable. Is it right that just under half of individuals looking to live in the entire Brentwood Borough, will want to all live in the same place? In a completely new development? It is worth highlighting on this point that the newer, small sized dwellings completed within West Horndon more recently have struggled to sell, particularly those allocated as "affordable housing" (development in question: 191 Thorndon Avenue). Simply finding one place to build nearly half of the dwellings required by the Borough does not mean people will decide to live in them - they need to be in varied locations reflecting local demand.
Lastly, your plans to allocate the bulk of all required traveller sites to West Horndon again looks highly inequitable. I would also question suitability - West Horndon has been flagged as a key area for expansion due to its location to rail links; in essence, this is land prime for development for commuters and local business workers. Travellers, with limited ties to one location, do not have these requirements and indeed it is not clear why the same land so prime for employment and fixed residential communities, also makes sense for a traveller community.
Hence in summary, I strongly object to the proposal in its current form. West Horndon is a small village that whilst can accept a decent level of development, should not be targeted at such a level. It appears that it has been viewed as a fix for the entire borough, and indeed I fear that if these plans are bourn out you will end up with a bloated stock of houses in one location with limited demand vs. supply. The solution needs to provide housing where it is actually needed, and well balanced across the Borough. This proposal fails on both counts.
[see attached comment for further submission]
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1620
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: Mr Roy Pasmore
I strongly object to 14 traveller pitches to be located in West Horndon.
I strongly object to the proposal of 1500 new homes and 14 traveller pitches to be located in West Horndon:
- The current transport infrastructure is currently at or near full capacity.
- The primary school is currently over-subscribed.
- The catchment area secondary school is at full capacity (Brentwood County High)
- The Doctors surgery is over-subscribed.
- The proposed location for 66% of the new homes is a flood plain.
- The proposed location is green belt.
- The inclusion of a travellers site would de-value the Village and surrounding areas.
- The proposed location of the new industrial estate has zero public transportation connections.
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1621
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council
I object to the traveller provision in the plan for the following reasons:
1. the Councils traveller count is wrong
2. the new plans will not help the situation currently being expereinced.
3. the traveller site is on gb land which should be used for agricultural purposes.
The council is not respecting the interests of Brentwood residents.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1622
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council
We must take control over where and the way they live (travellers) rather than making all their own rules whilst not contributing to our village life.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1623
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council
I object to Traveller provisions in the plan for the following reasons:
1. There are too many travellers in Navestock. We have had to cope with rubbish in our lanes, sewage in the ditches, etc. the councils plan will do nothing to stop this but only make it worse.
2. The travellers site does not meet the necessary criteria because it is not near shops, schools, healthcare or public transport.
3. The site is on gb land which should only be used for agricultural purposes.
The council is not respecting the interests of Brentwood residents.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1630
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council
I object to Travellers provision contained in the draft LDP because it does not seem to allow for travellers currently living in Navestock, let alone the larger Brentwood area. According to the 2012 Monitoring report there was 96 sites, which if they only have 2 pitches each means that there is a need for at least 192 pitches. Allowing 44 pitches, which includes a 5 year forward pitch provision- doesnt make any sense? We are constantly told that Navestock travellers could not be moved on because Brentwood has no allocated sites- how is this new lack fo provision any better?
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1633
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council
Over the last few years so many travellers have moved into Navestock, that they now outnumber us villagers. We have endured rubbish being dumped on our verges, sewage in our ditches. the flouting of planning rules, trepass, theft, abuse, intimidation and now a shooting.
Furthermore, BBC provide an inaccurate counting of pitches- anyone driving through Navestock for 5 minutes can see there are far more than BBC says. The Council should remove all the illegal sites in Navestock and not tuen any into legal sites.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1643
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: Mr Brian Worth
Policy DM28 mentions a Travellers' Site at West Horndon but no indication as to where.
General Development Concerns
The only definite thing about Policy CP4 "West Horndon Opportunity Area" is a proposal for 1500 houses. The plans provide no further details other than outlines of the 3 target areas - sites 020, 021, and 037.
Policy DM28 "Gypsy and Traveller Provision" West Horndon mentions a Travellers' Site at West Horndon but no indication as to where.
In these circumstances it is difficult to make specific comments on such a major proposal. For these reasons and the reasons below I am rejecting both Policies CP4 and DM28.
Infrastructure
The plan has no infrastructure change details. Just a general statement to the effect that necessary infrastructure changes can be made.
The existing infrastructure serving West Horndon is insufficient at this present time to cope with the existing village needs. It is difficult to see how the extra development can be supported when the major infrastructure changes that are required have not been established first. Specifics of the changes to be made, and the how, when, and where, and individual organisations responsible for providing those changes need to be presented alongside the projections of things like 50 houses per year in the rollout plan in order to assess how the figure of 1500 houses was arrived at and how such expansion can be supported.
Unless there is a legal obligation to provide the infrastructure before or during the build then all that will happen is 50 houses per year will be built and nothing will be done until something breaks - if then. This has been my experience in this and other areas.
It is unclear as to why West Horndon is considered to be the target for such large development with its known infrastructure problems such as flooding, drainage, sewerage, road/rail capacity etc., yet areas in the north of the borough with those same issues are not. The statement that necessary infrastructure changes can be made could equally apply to those areas north of the borough as well as West Horndon.
Scale of the Proposed Expansion
West Horndon is currently a small rural village of low density development surrounded by open spaces. In the core of the village there are around 500 houses, with more in outlying areas, making it a well sought after location.
Adding 1500 homes to the village core would nearly quadruple its size, and treble the size of the parish. It would effectively turn West Horndon into a town, destroying its rural setting and character, eroding the community spirit and significantly reducing house prices as the reasons for West Horndon being a sought after location would no longer exist.
Green Belt
A large proportion of the 1500 houses are proposed to be built on site 037, which is Green Belt land, indeed Metropolitan Green Belt land. National planning policy indicates that such land should be permanently open, and housing development is considered an inappropriate use for such land except in exceptional circumstances. The Brentwood Borough Local Plan does not detail what the exceptional circumstances are to justify releasing Metropolitan Green Belt land.
If those houses get built on such land, developers will have a powerful case to build more homes on adjacent green belt land once the precedent is set. Once this starts to happen, the boundaries of West Horndon will be forgotten and its periphery will become a sprawl of housing out of all proportion to the village centre.
The Brentwood Borough Local Plan not only seems to conflict with National Planning Policy on Green Belt retention but actively seems to encourage more than just this "one-off" release of Green Belt with the inclusion of the statement on the first page of Policy CP4: West Horndon Opportunity Area which begins "West Horndon could give rise to further capacity..."
Mixed Use Development
Policy CP4 mentions the mixed use of the land for housing, employment, retail, community, open space, education and health purposes in various different sections of the policy. It also mentions encouraging local employment to reduce travel, particularly by car.
However, the closure of most of the industrial units in the brownfield sites of 020 and 021 on the plan to make way for the homes, and the relocation of the businesses to the former M25 works site 010A, will slash local employment opportunities within walking distance of the village and create the need for additional traffic (even if the "Green route", whatever that is supposed to be, does ever materialise) as there is no rail link to site 010A and the site is definitely not within walking distance of the village.
There is no mention in the plan for any other uses of the land in sites 020, 021, and 037, except for housing.
Gypsy and Traveller Provision
The initial estimated 14 traveller pitches is out of proportion to the much smaller allocations elsewhere. West Horndon would be taking nearly half of the total pitch requirements.
No indication has been given as to where the 14 pitches are to be located. As National Planning Policy states that the use of Green Belt for traveller/gipsy sites is classes as inappropriate development, that leaves just the brownfield sites of 020 and 021.
A rail link in the form of West Horndon station has been one of the reasons given for attracting potential development. But in the case of travellers and gypsies this is irrelevant due to the nature of the people and their work.
Nearby access to facilities such as primary schools and secondary schools is another requirement for such a site. West Horndon has a very limited range of amenities and facilities. It has very few shops, even less that are actually open, a primary school which is at full capacity now and no secondary school.
Healthcare is another requirement. The limited hours of opening and service provided by the surgery in the village cannot meet the needs of the existing residents now.
The village is remote from the larger centres of Brentwood, Basildon and Upminster.
Such a site would harm the character and appearance of the village and result in an unacceptable visual impact. House prices in the area would plummet. The events of Dale Farm have proved how a supposed limit of a legal number of pitches can mushroom out of control. Even today on Oak Farm, the remaining legal part of the Dale Farm settlement, a large number of travellers are cluttering up the area far in excess of the legal permitted maximum and have been doing so since the Dale Farm eviction.
Given the above, the travellers with their larger than average families, could soon start overwhelming such a small rural village as West Horndon.
The above points illustrate why West Horndon is not a suitable location for a travellers' site.
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1646
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council
I live on Horseman Side in close proximity to the gypsy site. I cannot see that a permenant site aids travellers nomadic lifestyle. Sites should be smaller, so that the residents can become part of the community. Navestock has had a gypsy site for 50 years and fmily members being part of the working and social life of the community.
The Horseman site has harmed the green belt, has no access to services and facilities, it harms the character of the area and is not designed or landscaped to minimise the impact.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1648
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council
We object to the travellers provision in the plan for the following reasons:
1. We are in close proximity to the site and therefore experience noise, litter, sewage as a result of human waste dumped into he ditches rather than being exposed of in a sanitary way.
Overall we feel that brentwood council does not respect our position and does not enforce against the travellers.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1650
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council
I object to BBC's proposed travellers provision in the local plan. The sites being considered will cause (and have already caused) unacceptable harm to the gb land. One of the proposed sites - Hope Farm on Horsemanside is fast acelerating into the next Crays Hill. In the LDP, the councils count of the current number of gypsies living in Navestock is grossly inaccurate. It is common knowledge that the number of travellers in the Parish now vastly outnumber the settled residents.
What we need is a workableframework to prevent further encroachment and remove travellers living illegally from Navestock.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1651
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council
I object to traveller sites in the Navestock area. I think there are too many. They just buy a field and the next thing its concrete plots. Which at the time are illegal (with no planning permission) they seem to do what they like an the council seems afraid of them.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1652
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council
i object for the following reasons:
1. The sites which are being give onsideration are agricultural use and will destroy green belt by being tarmacked over.
2. the curent sites at Navestock are not applicable as they are not near shops, services an transport.
3. the council will not confirm the actual number of travellers because there are more than the local community.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1653
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council
I object to traveller sites based at Horseman Side and Goatswood Lane, Navestock, for the following reasons:
1. Navestock has been allocated three sites in the Plan whilst the rest of the Borough has only two
2. The above sites are now occupied by more caravans and other semi-permenant dwellings than were originally agreed by BBC.
3. sites have been tarmaced and paved in clear contravention of GB legislation
4. these sites do not meet the accepted criteria in terms of proximity to services nad facilities
5. governments aim to meet travellers needs must be extended to settled communities.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1662
Received: 26/09/2013
Respondent: Mr Scot Pugsley
I have the following concerns:
-Volume of houses and traveller pitches being allocated to West Horndon.
-How will West Horndon be appealing to potential buyers with an allocation of Traveller pitches within the parish?
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1664
Received: 26/09/2013
Respondent: Ms Martine Taylor
I have the following concerns:
-Volume of houses and traveller pitches being allocated to West Horndon.
-How will West Horndon be appealing to potential buyers with an allocation of Traveller pitches within the parish?
See attached
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1693
Received: 24/09/2013
Respondent: L. Taverner
Endorses the comments of the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group and supports section C as stated in Professor Acton's response that "We do not consider there are any material differences between the situation of these families and the families whose sites are included on this list, or between now and when they were considered for permanent permission by the Council. We consider it very unfortunate that this site should have been dropped from the list of those recommended after this campaign."
I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C. and especially the comments relating to Cottage Gardens, Beads Hall Lane.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1694
Received: 24/09/2013
Respondent: S.J. and Paul Beniston
Endorses the comments of the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group and supports section C as stated in Professor Acton's response that "We do not consider there are any material differences between the situation of these families and the families whose sites are included on this list, or between now and when they were considered for permanent permission by the Council. We consider it very unfortunate that this site should have been dropped from the list of those recommended after this campaign."
I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C. and especially the comments relating to Cottage Gardens, Beads Hall Lane.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1695
Received: 24/09/2013
Respondent: Brian M. Garner
Endorses the comments of the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group and supports section C as stated in Professor Acton's response that "We do not consider there are any material differences between the situation of these families and the families whose sites are included on this list, or between now and when they were considered for permanent permission by the Council. We consider it very unfortunate that this site should have been dropped from the list of those recommended after this campaign."
I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C. and especially the comments relating to Cottage Gardens, Beads Hall Lane.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1696
Received: 24/09/2013
Respondent: H. Olushola
Endorses the comments of the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group and supports section C as stated in Professor Acton's response that "We do not consider there are any material differences between the situation of these families and the families whose sites are included on this list, or between now and when they were considered for permanent permission by the Council. We consider it very unfortunate that this site should have been dropped from the list of those recommended after this campaign."
I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C. and especially the comments relating to Cottage Gardens, Beads Hall Lane.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1697
Received: 24/09/2013
Respondent: E.W. King
Endorses the comments of the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group and supports section C as stated in Professor Acton's response that "We do not consider there are any material differences between the situation of these families and the families whose sites are included on this list, or between now and when they were considered for permanent permission by the Council. We consider it very unfortunate that this site should have been dropped from the list of those recommended after this campaign."
I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C. and especially the comments relating to Cottage Gardens, Beads Hall Lane.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1698
Received: 24/09/2013
Respondent: Name Not Supplied
Endorses the comments of the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group and supports section C as stated in Professor Acton's response that "We do not consider there are any material differences between the situation of these families and the families whose sites are included on this list, or between now and when they were considered for permanent permission by the Council. We consider it very unfortunate that this site should have been dropped from the list of those recommended after this campaign."
I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C. and especially the comments relating to Cottage Gardens, Beads Hall Lane.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1699
Received: 24/09/2013
Respondent: Name Not Supplied
Endorses the comments of the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group and supports section C as stated in Professor Acton's response that "We do not consider there are any material differences between the situation of these families and the families whose sites are included on this list, or between now and when they were considered for permanent permission by the Council. We consider it very unfortunate that this site should have been dropped from the list of those recommended after this campaign."
I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C. and especially the comments relating to Cottage Gardens, Beads Hall Lane.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1700
Received: 24/09/2013
Respondent: Name Not Supplied
Endorses the comments of the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group and supports section C as stated in Professor Acton's response that "We do not consider there are any material differences between the situation of these families and the families whose sites are included on this list, or between now and when they were considered for permanent permission by the Council. We consider it very unfortunate that this site should have been dropped from the list of those recommended after this campaign."
I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C. and especially the comments relating to Cottage Gardens, Beads Hall Lane.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1701
Received: 24/09/2013
Respondent: Mrs J. Martin
Endorses the comments of the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group and supports section C as stated in Professor Acton's response that "We do not consider there are any material differences between the situation of these families and the families whose sites are included on this list, or between now and when they were considered for permanent permission by the Council. We consider it very unfortunate that this site should have been dropped from the list of those recommended after this campaign."
I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C. and especially the comments relating to Cottage Gardens, Beads Hall Lane.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1702
Received: 24/09/2013
Respondent: Rosemary I. Ganghan
Endorses the comments of the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group and supports section C as stated in Professor Acton's response that "We do not consider there are any material differences between the situation of these families and the families whose sites are included on this list, or between now and when they were considered for permanent permission by the Council. We consider it very unfortunate that this site should have been dropped from the list of those recommended after this campaign."
I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C. and especially the comments relating to Cottage Gardens, Beads Hall Lane.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1703
Received: 24/09/2013
Respondent: Sylvia Williams
Endorses the comments of the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group and supports section C as stated in Professor Acton's response that "We do not consider there are any material differences between the situation of these families and the families whose sites are included on this list, or between now and when they were considered for permanent permission by the Council. We consider it very unfortunate that this site should have been dropped from the list of those recommended after this campaign."
I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C. and especially the comments relating to Cottage Gardens, Beads Hall Lane.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1704
Received: 24/09/2013
Respondent: Name Not Supplied
Endorses the comments of the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group and supports section C as stated in Professor Acton's response that "We do not consider there are any material differences between the situation of these families and the families whose sites are included on this list, or between now and when they were considered for permanent permission by the Council. We consider it very unfortunate that this site should have been dropped from the list of those recommended after this campaign."
I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C. and especially the comments relating to Cottage Gardens, Beads Hall Lane.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.