Response to;
Consultation On Options:
Development Plan Provision for Gypsies and Travellers in Epping Forest District
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission by Epping Residents Group on behalf of its members and for which proxy forms accompany this response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a number of overriding considerations we feel EFDC should take into account when assessing the proposal.
- We urge EFDC to consider the impact both upon the GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS community and the Settled Community in its sustainability. Para. 64 of circ. 1/2006 says ‘sustainability' includes the promotion of peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local (settled) community. Therefore harmony between these two groups should be of paramount importance in site selection. We understand that EFDC has received a poor response to the Myriad report from local GYPSIES & TRAVELLERSs and that many of the sites proposed do not fit the preferred location nor situation favoured by the local GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS community
- The proposal appears GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS centric rather than considering the wider and larger concerns of the Settled Community. This observation is reinforced when comparison is made to proposals published by other districts for example [South Beds]
- We feel the proposal has not considered the overriding natural beauty and setting of the landscape with many of the sites selected and the damage likely to be caused by any development.
- Many of the proposed sites are Green Belt or face other planning restrictions whilst it appears numerous suitable sites have been ‘omitted'. In part this appears to follow a directive from EFDC which has concentrated the search in areas to the North and West of the district and wholly omitted large parts of the district to the South and East for unclear or invalid reasons. We quote from a professional study undertaken by ERG for the purpose of suitability of the three Epping sites;-
"The presumption against inappropriate development in Green Belts and this includes sites for Gypsies and Travellers is not only highlighted in Planning Policy guidance but is specifically repeated in the Government's Circular 01/2006 Planning For Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites.
Paragraph 9 of the Consultation on Options paper acknowledges the harm to the Green Belt that inappropriate development causes, but points out that in ‘cases of very special circumstances' it is necessary to consider the balance of harm against any benefits accruing from development.
Later we will ? set out the specific harm likely to be caused by development of these three sites, not only in Green Belt terms but to a whole series of other acknowledged important issues, it will show that any balance is heavily weighted against their development in any form but specifically for their use as Gypsy and Traveller sites".
Answering the proposal using the same numbering as provided in the Proposal Questionnaire;-
- 1. No (qualified)
The answer No is given on balance, as it is impossible to give a single Yes or No answer to 6 separate objectives given in the proposal. In objective 1 we do not agree with either the direction regarding the to total number of pitches nor the substantial skew to the East of the district. We do however, agree or sympathise with objectives 2 - 6. The Council should aim to meet its share of the RSS figures allocated to Epping Forest District not the regional target as stated. EFDC should not aim to reduce the number of unauthorised sites, which may be an incompatible goal.
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.
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 EFDC to consider avoiding or minimising this as its top priority.
The only way the exercise is likely to gain support is by acknowledging this reality, and if that means sacrificing some of the other objectives (e.g. reducing the weighting used in the ‘layers' evaluation and by reinforcing the mapped suitability considerations on Page 80 allowing more suitable sites, acceptable to both GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS and the Settled Community, to be included) then this should be considered. This would seem to address some of the concerns that this proposal is GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS centric, and worse, seems to ignore the wishes of, and impact upon, the Settled Community.
- 2. No
This dictates unfair concentration in the North and West of the district. It forces sites to be sought in areas with known high density of existing Gypsies & Travellers population, and flies against the requirements of Gypsies & Travellers as we understand they prefer to be located in rural or semi rural areas away from urbanization and the settled community. This also places a further burden on the limited land resource in this ‘target' area (constrained by Green Belt). The administrative districts adjacent to EFDC on the North and East already have populations of Gypsies and Travellers in spite of being in rural areas (Ahmed et al 2006 p.23) and thus we question why these adjoining land areas have been omitted from possible site selection at this early stage. In accordance with the observation that remoteness from services is not necessarily an issue for travellers (Niner 2003 p.93) we further question the validity, and certainly the weighting, given to the ‘layers' selection criteria . A wider variety of choices should therefore be available.
The allocation of sites will be an extremely difficult task if serious public opposition is to be avoided or at least minimised. Subject to what is said below (e.g. regarding urban extensions and specific sites) no areas or potential sites should be ruled out at this preliminary stage, and yet this appears to be the case.
We urge EFDC to reconsider those areas not researched and suitable sites that may have been omitted from these and other areas to be put forward .
- 3. No
We have answered No because we do not agree that the phasing should include contingency pitch provision over and above the RSS target.
We are also concerned with the high level of pitch provision contained in the proposal at 123 pitches over the planning horizon noted for Epping Forest District. We are less concerned about phasing assuming this must be properly managed and should not include any contingency as noted above. We do however voice concern as to the expansion of phase 1 selection to provide expansion for Phase 2. All sites should be established with a maximum size limit from the start. This approach will prevent local residents being made to suffer prolonged anxiety over land use in their proximity over the planning horizon given.
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 figures 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 sites be allocated to meet identified 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.
- 4. Option 1 [This is arguably preferable to option 2 or 3 and is answered to avoid the narrative being rejected]
This is a patently unfair question. We as a community are being asked to ratify lots of small sites, potentially affecting many areas as opposed to choosing the minimum number of large sites affecting fewer. If we were to choose option 3, and it was adopted, this potentially excludes 2 of the 3 sites on the edge of Epping, but leaves one site potentially taking the maximum.
- 5. Option 1
The allocation of 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 in 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.
- 6. Option 3
Firstly, this is an unanswerable question as presented with the limited choices given. We suggest a wider distribution of sites inline with the site size question (presented earlier) and in preferred areas suggested by the Gypsies & Travellers, which are generally rural. The exception to this maybe the provision of medium sized sites in or close to urban extensions of a large enough scale to more easily absorb the social integration issues, for example the north and north western side of Harlow in the long term development plan, but also more immediate opportunities, for example the extension of Church Langley.
- 7. Yes
Whilst we broadly agree with the site search sequence we find it difficult to believe these are the actual criteria used to select the 27 sites published as we understand no sites have so far been rejected after consideration by EFDC. This must be statistically impossible. We provide details of at least one omission site (M11 Roundabout land - see Appendix 1) with the principles to support its selection and suggest many more could similarly be identified, researched and put forward. However using limited resource we have not been able to do so prior to the consultation deadline. This work will continue and may show dereliction or negligence in the site selection process in this regard.
Elsewhere we note that the proposed sites are overly and unfairly weighted to ‘sustainability' defined as amenity (the Layers) and yet both the Settled Community and settled GYPSIES & TRAVELLERSs currently live and thrive in remote areas without being close to such amenities. In fact we understand remoteness to urbanization is favoured by the GYPSIES & TRAVELLERSs themselves. One questions the sustainability and long term viability of the proposed sites if the GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS don't want to live on them.
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.
8. a. Yes
- b. No
Your definition of large equates, by your own interpretation (pitches of 0.1 Ha on average = 10 pitches per Ha site), to a site of 10 or more pitches. We therefore find this answer at odds with the answer we provide to question 4. Your criteria may therefore be correct but you should not limit their use to large sites but to any size sites on merit. Arguably this policy can then be made congruent with your determined optimum pitch number.
Site selection should favour brownfield sites but should absolutely be contained within the boundaries of any brown field site selected and must not encroach upon the Green Belt.
We similarly do not believe cost should be a constraint on site selection. At present it appears the proposal is seeking to acquire the lowest cost agricultural land to minimize the overall cost of site provision while ignoring the potentially massive cost to certain elements of the community. If this is indeed a key criterion it makes a mockery of the more important criteria agreed elsewhere of sustainability and the promotion of social harmony.
9. a. Yes
b. Yes
We have answered yes to both questions as noted in our written response to question 6 citing the ability of larger urbanizations to cope with the large number of GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS proposed. This compares to some locations in the proposal where there could be a danger of the GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS dominating the local settled community thus leading to resentment, conflict and discord.
- 10. Yes
Subject to 2 pre-requisites;-
i) that the urban extension is of large enough size to accommodate the proposed number of pitches and site(s)
ii) that the 15 pitches noted form part of the total planned 123 pitches planned to 2023 and are not in addition
- 11. We do not have detailed or relevant knowledge of the site(s) proposed and are therefore unable to comment.
- 12. We do not have detailed or relevant knowledge of the site(s) proposed and are therefore unable to comment
- 13. yes
- 14. We do not have detailed or relevant knowledge of the site(s) proposed and are therefore unable to comment
- 15. We do not have detailed or relevant knowledge of the site(s) proposed and are therefore unable to comment
- 16. We do not have detailed or relevant knowledge of the site(s) proposed and are therefore unable to comment
17. a. We do not have detailed or relevant knowledge of the site(s) proposed and are therefore unable to comment
b. No
Transit sites have no stake in the community and evidence exists to show that they cannot be managed successfully anywhere in the UK (Niner 2003, page 182). We agree that such provision should be resisted by EFDC at all costs
18. a. No
Site 18a:
Former allotment land to the west of Wintry Park House
There is a strong and fundamental objection to the development of this site. The land lies within the Designated Metropolitan Green Belt near the edge, but beyond a clear and defensible boundary, of the built up area of Epping. The site does not constitute previously developed land; it is close to the Lower Forest Area of Epping Forest, a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest and does not have an acceptable access. In locational terms it is in an exposed and prominent position in the landscape and clearly is in an inappropriate location for development.
General Site Location Considerations
This site which is an area of land measuring approximately 4,070m2 (0.4 ha) shown on Plan 1 lies beyond the north western boundary of Epping. The site can only be accessed via a narrow unmade track across The Corporation of London owned land (also part of Epping Forest, a site designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest). It was formerly used as privately owned allotment land, a use akin to agriculture and therefore legitimately not considered as previously developed land.
As would be expected, this area is rural both in its appearance and character. There is little in the way of main services close to the site and no street lighting, the introduction of which would destroy this area's natural aspect and current character.
Development of this site in any form would be extremely hard to screen to the countryside beyond and its development would have an excessive adverse impact upon the openness, rural character and visual amenities of this area of open Green Belt countryside.
The importance to the Green Belt of land close to the defined boundaries of a town cannot be overstated. As the District Council's Local Plan acknowledges at paragraph 5.42 ‘As well as protecting the character and openness of the Green Belt it is also necessary to maintain and protect its role as a recreational resource. This could be severely damaged by inappropriate developments ...which are inadequately landscaped. It is therefore necessary to control any such developments in the light of their impact on the Green Belt and in accordance with PPG2'.
Developed as proposed the site would be extremely prominent when viewed from the gardens of houses in Wood Meads, Lynceley Grange, Beulah Road, Woodberry Down, Barnfield, Frampton Road and James Street to the south.
Beyond the northern side of the site on the far side of the private access drive to Wintry Wood Cottage (Kennels) is a defined continuous row of mature, many ancient, trees. Little in the way of trees or shrubs marks the site's southern or western boundaries such that from the site itself it commands extensive views of the falling open landscape in both the south and western directions. Conversely development of this site as well as fragmenting the clear logical built up edge of the town would introduce a finger of built development into this otherwise open field.
Not only would development of this land be intrusive and contrary to Local Plan Policies GB2A and GB7A it would offend virtually all of the main purposes of including land within the Green Belt as set out in Planning Policy Guidance 2 (Green Belts) highlighted above.
PLAN 1
Since a major thread running through both the Government's Circular for Gypsy and Traveller Sites 01/2006 as well as the 2008 Good Practice Guide suggests that only sites in appropriate locations should be identified, clearly this site does not in any way fall within such a category.
Site's Previous Use
Whilst partly abandoned of its previous use a small area of the site has been under allotment cultivation until very recently. Loss of this land, however, to any form of development would be contrary to Policy RST13 of the Epping Forest Local Plan. The supporting text to this policy states, inter alia; ‘Allotments fulfil an important recreational function although demand for, and use of, them varies from time to time....it is therefore important to retain existing sites, improve their facilities and monitor future demand. However, even if there is no demand for the existing allotments they will not normally be built on because of the cyclic demand for them'.
To nominate this or any other allotment site for development clearly negates the above Policy and advice and is a short term action which could reap long term regrets.
Site's Proximity to Epping Forest
As previously indicated this site is extremely close to the boundary of Epping Forest and in fact gains its access over Forest land. Whilst having no specific role in the forest's management the text to Local Plan Policy HC5 states; ‘The District Council is concerned to ensure that its activities as a local authority will help in protecting, interpreting and even enhancing this most important historic and natural feature'. This concern manifests itself in the adoption of Policy HC5 which states; ‘The Council will not grant planning permission for any development or use which could prejudice the historic nature and wildlife value of Epping Forest or its function as open space for the purposes of public enjoyment'.
Development of this particular site for Gypsies and Travellers with the envisaged access and egress arrangements will undoubtedly prejudice the character, natural aspect and wildlife value of an important area of Epping Forest contrary to the above policy's aims.
Access
Access from the highway network to the site is gained from a narrow junction on the western side of Thornwood Road on the boundary between a 30 and 50 mile an hour speed limit. Whilst currently used by visitors to the small number of dwellings in this area increased use of this access, particularly by large and slow moving vehicles such as mobile homes and caravans, would be a hindrance to fast flowing traffic on the B1393 and result in highway danger.
Paragraph 17.26a of the Local Plan Alterations makes it clear that in making an assessment of new development the Council will take into account the potential impact of such development on road safety. This aspect is repeated in part of the criteria of Policy ST4 which states ‘planning permission will only be granted when proposals are (i) well related to the road hierarchy (ii) Unlikely to lead to an excessive degree of traffic congestion (iii) Not be detrimental to highway safety
(iv) Not likely to result in excessive adverse effects, from traffic generation, on the character or environment of any part of the area through which the new traffic will move'.
Any increased use of this junction to access the proposed site would inevitably lead to further disturbance to the area as well as increasing traffic hazard.
Beyond the road junction the access becomes narrower and the track surface poorer. The track is currently maintained by the The Corporation of London and would require way-leave rights to cross it. Additional usage of this track will result in further deterioration to it and cost for its upkeep at the expense of other important management costs.
As part of the identified criteria for the design of Gypsy and Travellers' sites in the Government's Good Practice Guide 2008 it suggests that not only is it desirable that sites have more than one access but that no caravan should be sited more than 50 metres from the road. In this instance the site lays a minimum of 160 metres from the road and certainly no part of the access route is constructed to adoptable standards.
Passing directly in front of Nos: 37-47 Thornwood Road increased vehicle usage of the existing track will also lead to an obvious deterioration to those residents' amenities in terms of noise, disturbance and general wear and tear of their current environs.
Beyond these properties the site's access becomes even narrower and is little more than a domestic private drive maintainable again by private means. This access is certainly insufficient for commercial or emergency vehicles and again it falls far short of the required standards as set out in the Good Practice Guide 2008.
Site's Location adjacent Electricity Sub-Station
As highlighted in the Consultations on Options document this site lies adjacent a high voltage electricity sub-station with power cables crossing a part of the site. Once again the choice of such a situation runs counter to design advice within the Good Practice Guide 2008.
From a purely practical point of view any site that lies adjacent a large sub-station and electrical installation with high voltage electricity cables crossing the land is exposed to additional risk. The Good Practice Guide points out ‘It is essential that the location of sites provide a safe environment for residents'. This is particularly so in view of the high density of children likely to be on such sites and with this in mind the location of this site adjacent a large electrical installation leaves a lot to be desired.
Although not designated within a flood zone the high water table within this area has in the past proved problematic. Evidence of this can be seen on the Electricity sub-station site when recent excavations have shown the extent of the high levels of flood water existing. In view of the requirements of Policy U3A in the Local Plan Alterations this aspect needs to be carefully assessed.
Density of Likely Development
Finally, despite the number of practical objections set out against the use of this site as a Gypsy and Travellers' site its location in close proximity to Site 18b would lead to an over population in this area and over-domination of the existing settled community.
As previously indicated there is little in the way of local services or its infrastructure in this area. The provision of the necessary infrastructure to support the provision of 4 pitches on this site and a further 6 pitches on Site 18b would be excessive. The general comings and goings to both sites and the disturbance created by use of the sites would be far in excess of that generated by the existing inhabitants of this fringe settlement. So much so that both this site and Site 18b's impact would be out of proportion both in character and intensity and put excessive strain on the area's fragile make up. The development of this site as proposed is patently contrary to so many of the newly adopted Local Plan Core Policies and particularly Policy CP2 and its criteria points (i), (ii), (v), (vi) and (vii).
- b. No
Site 18b:
Paddock Land to the West of Wintry Park Farm
There are also fundamental planning objections to the selection of this site (see Plan 2) for its development as a site for Gypsies and Travellers. This land, which is located close to the previous site, also lies within the Designated Metropolitan Green Belt beyond the edge of the town of Epping.
The site does not constitute previously developed land; it too is in close proximity to the Lower Forest Area of Epping Forest, a designated SSSI, and is also an exposed area of land within an otherwise open landscape.
Added to these factors the land is currently traversed by a right of way and public footpath, a strategically important water main and the land's northern boundary abuts the curtilage of a Grade II listed building.
General Site Location Considerations
This site which is an inverted irregular L shaped area of land of approx 8,110m2 (0.81ha) is accessed off a narrow unmade track in the ownership of The Corporation of London and which also forms the western boundary of Epping Forest's Lower Forest. The land has never previously been developed and is essentially an open agricultural field.
As such, it is a category of land that fails to fall into any of the identified categories of land that should be considered prior to Green Belt land and cannot meet many of the desired requirements within the Good Practice Guide 2008.
As with the previous site this site is inappropriately located for its intended purpose not least for the following detailed reasons.
PLAN 2
Access
As indicated the land is contiguous with the boundary of Epping Forest and in fact it too gains its access over forest land. As with the previous site it is an area that should benefit from Local Authority protection under the Local Plan, wherein the supporting text to Policy HC5 states, inter-alia ‘(The local authority) will continue to monitor traffic movements within the forest .....and introduce traffic management measures to protect the environment and physical fabric of the forest'.
Development of this particular site with the envisaged access and egress arrangements along the boundary of the Lower Forest will again undoubtedly prejudice the character, natural aspect and wildlife value of the forest, clearly contrary to Policy HC5 of the Local Plan.
In this case, given the status of Epping Forest as a site of Special Scientific Interest and the need to use forest land to access both this and the previous site according to the Local Plan text, it is even questionable whether the land can be used for this purpose without first gaining Parliamentary consent.
Setting legalities aside additional traffic movements along this unmade track network at this location will undoubtedly damage the fabric of this part of the forest, again contrary to the aims of Policy HC5 as pointed out above.
As with the previous site the additional use of the existing access onto Thornwood Road (B1393) would be likely to create disruption and highway safety issues. The junction is of poor standard with the metalled surface of Thornwood Road meeting the unmade surface of the forest track and is not suitable for the level of increased use likely to occur from use of these sites for Gypsies and Travellers. Currently in a poor state of repair, use by large and heavy vehicles towing mobile homes and caravans would not only be a hindrance to fast flowing traffic on the B1393 but would inevitably cause further significant surface damage to the forest road.
As with the previous site the access arrangements here would not comply with any of the Good Practice Guidance 2008 criteria and again it is an unsuitable and inappropriate location in access terms.
This fact is graphically illustrated by the accident data compiled by Essex County Council and Essex Police which show an appalling catalogue of some 600 road traffic accidents between 1981 and 2008 along this stretch of Thornwood Road between Palmers Hill and Thornwood, many around this junction. It is particularly concerning to note that out of a total of 64 incidents involving pedestrians 5 resulted in fatalities.
Any additional traffic generated by development within this area is both unsustainable and likely to add further to the inherent dangers of the road failing once again to satisfy the Good Practice Guide's requirement for the ‘provision of a safe environment for residents'.
Impact on Local Footpath and Infrastructure
As previously indicated the site is currently traversed from east to west by a public footpath (Right of Way) No 25. The Local Plan acknowledges the importance of public rights of way and at Para: 12.29 states; ‘Public interest in access to the countryside is expected to grow and the value of the Rights of Way network as a recreational resource is therefore likely to increase. It is necessary to ensure that footpaths and bridleways are adequately protected against pressures for built development or inappropriate changes in land use'. These statements culminate in the adoption of Policy RST3 which aims to protect public rights of way from development.
As a footpath route leading out of the town into its surrounding countryside this is an extremely important facility. It is considered that the development of this land by a gypsy and travellers' site will inevitably hinder the footpath's use. Open access to the site by members of the public using the footpath will cause security issues for the site and in due course this could compromise the footpath's future use as a public right of way.
The route's traditional links with the forest and the network it is very much a part of could suffer as a consequence.
Similarly, the site also provides the route of a major 24" water main serving the town of Epping. Development of the land and any form of enclosure upon it will compromise easy access to the main for both maintenance and repair works.
With regard to this particular aspect attention is particularly drawn to paragraph 14.27 of the Local Plan which refers to situations such as this. This text explains the purposes of the policies within the Utilities chapter of the Local Plan which seek to ensure that new development does not have an unacceptable impact both in environmental terms and in the provision of local facilities. It is considered that the policies within the LP Alterations merely add to this philosophy.
Whilst care and careful protection must be provided to this vital water service it should be noted that with the lack of other infrastructure in this area a great deal of ground work will be required to establish a Gypsy and Travellers' site here with possible risk to existing utilities and the fauna and flora of the area.
Setting of a Listed Building
In consideration of the protection of the local environment in this instance it is also of prime concern that this site lies within just a few metres of a Grade II listed building, Wintry Park Farmhouse, and clearly forms part of this building's setting.
PPG15 which gives advice in relation to Planning and the Historic Environment is clear about the importance of the setting of listed buildings and of the care that should be given to preserve them.
Paragraph 2.16 of the guidance note states inter-alia ‘The setting (of a Listed Building) is often an essential part of the building's character....... and can be robbed of much of their interest, and of the contribution they make to
townscape or the countryside, if they become isolated from their surroundings, e.g. by new traffic routes, car parks, or other development'.
The creation of a Gypsy and Travellers' site so close to this listed building would not only isolate it from part of its farm land setting but would obliterate important views of the building from both the south and west.
This action flies in the face of the District Council's own advice regarding the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their settings and would be totally contrary to Policy HC12 of the Local Plan which states; ‘The council will not grant planning permission for development which could adversely affect the setting of a listed building'.
The Grade II listed status of Wintry Park Farmhouse is an important constraint which appears to have been disregarded by the choice of this particular site.
Whilst important to the setting of Wintry Park Farmhouse the land also forms a boundary with two other residential properties, Wintry Park House and Oaklands. The use of this land as a Gypsy and Travellers' site would have a serious impact upon the amenities of both of these properties in terms of noise, outlook and general disturbance.
Density of Likely Development
As previously noted, use of this site for the creation of 6 pitches would generate an excessive impact in terms of additional population and physical development in this tiny rural enclave. Apart from the damage caused by the general comings and goings to both this site and that at 18a the disturbance would be far in excess to that generated by the existing inhabitants. Known to have a high level of vehicles and children on Gypsy and Traveller sites the noise likely to be generated from an additional six families would be totally out of keeping in this area and alien to its current character.
Landscape Setting
Finally, in relation to this particular piece of land its open character and appearance is a positive contribution not only to this specific spot but to the wider green belt landscape to the south and west. Without any form of natural boundary enclosure the site is also visible over some considerable distance to the north west also across open agricultural fields.
Development of the site in any form would impinge on the area's open character. As a high density caravan site it would serve to consolidate an unacceptable form of built development in this north western corner of the town to the detriment of both the historic boundary of Epping and to the purpose of including the land within the Green Belt.
As with the previous site, 18a, development of this site would offend virtually all of the main purposes of including land within the Green Belt as set out in PPG2 (Green Belts) and many of the Local Plan policies and would be untenable.
- c. No
Site 18c:
Land to the side and rear of 137-167 Lindsey Street
As with the previous sites there is a strong and demonstrable objection to the development of this site (Plan 3). The site lies within the Designated Metropolitan Green Belt outside the defined built up area of Epping. Development of the land would consolidate an existing ribbon of development and thus be harmful to the open character of the area. The site does not constitute previously developed land; it is close to existing houses and a working agricultural farm and is in an extremely exposed and prominent position in the landscape.
General Site Location Considerations
As with the other Epping sites commented upon above this site lies within the
designated Metropolitan Green Belt and as such development of it would constitute inappropriate development. The presumption against the siting of Gypsy sites in the
Green Belt has recently been reiterated in The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's
Circular 01/2006 and in this case there are strong locational and environmental
reasons why this site is wholly unsuitable for such development.
As well as forming an important break between the built up edge of the urban area
and a ribbon of development stretching to the west the open appearance and
character of this land is highly visible within the landscape in all directions.
Measuring approximately 24,700m2 (2.47 ha) the site is a sizeable area of elevated
land in a swath of particularly attractive countryside. Visible to public view from
Lindsey Street and Bury Lane to the south the area of land is also highly visible from
public footpaths Nos.4 and 5 which run to the east and south of the site. There are
currently no natural features that screen the land and it is difficult to see how
screening could be adequately provided.
The site's invaluable contribution to the landscape is especially apparent when viewed
from the adjacent ancient Bolt Cellar Lane which is a very important part of an
extensive new leisure area.
This area includes the Swaines Green nature site which was fairly recently purchased
by a local voluntary group in conjunction with the Corporation of London and Epping
Town Council for use as public open space and is seriously aiming for SSSI status.
The area is the most accessible and natural space within the parish. It extends from
Bury Lane in the south west and runs parallel with the built edge of the town right
through to Lindsey Street close to the site.
The area can be entered from points quite near to the town centre, and enables many
local people to walk peacefully in the open countryside thus fulfilling one of the main
purposes of Green Belt land.
The area represents an ongoing project in which many townspeople have invested
both time and money.
In this context the location of a Gypsy and Travellers' site on this land would be a
serious visual intrusion on the landscape inconsistent with a whole raft of Local Plan
Policies as well as being totally inconsistent with the purposes of including land within
the Green Belt.
PLAN 3
Access
Vehicular access to this site can only be gained from Lindsey Street (B181) which is
an extremely busy and important distributor road and a major east west route through
this part of the district.
The road is also a main route into and out of Epping. Despite being a 30 mph
restricted road, by its nature and the volume of traffic using it, it is a dangerous road
particularly at peak times. Once again a study of the injury accident data compiled by
Essex County Council and Essex Police for this stretch of road over a sustained
period clearly support this fact. Indeed statistics show that between 1981 and 2008 in
excess of 130 accidents have occurred along the length of Lindsey Street with many
serious and minor incidents occurring between Shaftesbury Farm and the residential
properties to the west, including 2 recent fatalities.
When recent approved developments are also taken into account such as the new St
Johns School complex with access onto Bury Lane the traffic volume in Lindsey Street
will inevitably rise, bringing with this added highway safety implications.
The only existing access point into the site, apart from utilisation of the farm, is
between Nos.163 and 165 Lindsey Street. This access is very narrow, close to
properties on either side and totally unsuitable for the type of traffic likely to use such a
facility. As with the previous sites the manoeuvring of large vehicles in and out of an
access at this point with minimum sight line provision would pose serious highway
danger. The resulting noise and general disturbance from the use of such an access
would be unacceptable to neighbours.
However, any access from this site onto this stretch of Lindsey Street would be
problematic from both a highway safety point of view and a sustainability aspect where
the creation of a new access would add to the visual impact of the development.
Again, if the key advice in relation to the design of Gypsy and Traveller sites in the
Government's latest Good Practice Guide 2008 is taken that ‘It is essential that the
location of sites will provide a safe environment for residents'. In access terms
this site proves its unsuitability.
The access arrangements here would neither comply with the standards as suggested
in the Government's Guide nor create a level of health and safety commensurate with
a safe environment for future residents. As such the use of this site would fail to
comply with the criteria of Policies H10A for Gypsy caravan sites and Policy ST4 of
the Local Plan Alterations in relation to road safety.
Previous Use of the Site
As noted earlier, the land has never been previously developed. Part of the site has
been used as allotment land similar to Site 18a, and whilst currently uncultivated loss
of the facility would be contrary to Policy RST13 of the Epping Forest Local Plan. As
highlighted previously in connection with Site 18a the Local Plan is very clear in
relation to allotment land ‘even if there is no demand for the existing allotments
they will not normally be built on because of the cyclic demand for them'.
To nominate this or any other allotment site for development clearly negates the Local Plan Policy and the important aims it seeks to achieve.
Apart from the allotment land the majority of the site is an ancient grass meadow that has never been ploughed despite being within the stewardship of the Pegrum family, local farmers, since 1880.
Recently the land has been divided into four small paddocks each providing grazing for two liveried horses. With the recent closure of Hobbs Cross Equestrian Centre there is a real local shortage of livery stabling and particularly in the Epping area. The current livery operation at Shaftesbury Farm employs two members of staff and the loss of these paddocks to development would effectively close this business resulting in the loss of two jobs. Such a loss of valuable local employment in the current economic climate cannot be condoned.
The land is also of extreme importance as a local recreation facility as it is currently also used to provide pony riding lessons for children within the district by a qualified riding instructor. The lessons are carried out partly on the adjacent ménage and within the field, part of the current suggested site. The position of the ménage adjacent to the site makes it an ideal situation for the training of horses and as a location for very young children to be provided with safe riding instruction.
The ménage and field are also regularly used by the local branch of the Pony Club (Essex Hunt North Branch) with the facility readily made available free for this charitable organisation. Similarly, the facility is also used by other local riding clubs for training clinics including the Forresters Riding Club.
Loss of this land for horse grazing and riding and the noise and disturbance from development of this land, so close to the ménage, would also render the use of this facility unacceptable due to the likely ‘spooking' of horses.
Since part of the main function of Green Belt land is to provide town dwellers with access to the countryside for recreational purposes the loss of these facilities would also be contrary to a number of National, Regional and Local planning policies.
Local Environment
As with the Wintry Park Farm site the unsuitability of this site in close proximity to an existing working farm brings forward other environmental and social concerns. Working farms are generally noisy and often dusty environments, particularly during the summer months when they are in operation for long and more often antisocial hours. In the case of Shaftsbury Farm the use of its grain dryer for up to 24 hours a day over both summer/autumn periods could make it a highly undesirable location for residential caravans.
Currently the existing undeveloped land fulfils yet another practical function as a buffer between the farm and the ribbon of residential dwellings to its west.
As with the other two nominated Epping sites development of this land to provide up to 15 pitches would be a serious overdevelopment of the land failing to respect the scale and character of the existing settled community.
Set both behind and in close proximity to the private amenity areas of existing houses in Lindsey Street the proposal would inevitably have a massive impact upon the current level of amenity of these properties. This would constitute a clear form of backland development which would be contrary to many of the aims of Policy DBE9 of the Local Plan and in any other circumstance be discounted out of hand. A site of such size, which far exceeds the recognised ideal size suggested in Government Circular and the Good Practice Guide 2008, would bring a significant population, number of structures, vehicles and general disturbance to the area.
This location would be unsuitable for any form of housing development and at this density could never create the level of visual and acoustic privacy aimed at from development generally by Local Plan Policy DBE9 in urban areas let alone in the countryside.
This level of domination of the existing settled community could not possibly create the good community relations that are required to ensure success of the establishment of a Gypsy and Travellers' site and further underlines the unsuitability of Site 18c.
The density and nature of such development raises other practical concerns which would ordinarily rule this site out as a suitable site for Gypsy and Traveller use; that of flooding. Set at the base of a sloping landscape it is not surprising that existing properties adjacent to the proposed site have in the very recent past suffered from excessive surface water run off.
PPG25: (Development and Flood Risk) advises that the susceptibility of land to flooding is a material planning consideration and indeed Policy U2 of the Local Plan Alterations is quite clear in stating that ‘The Council will not permit development in areas at risk from flooding'.
As indicated in the recent past the occupiers of 167 Lindsey Street have been faced with severe flooding within their garden and encroachment of flood waters into the ground floor of their home. Any development that involves the hardening of land and the erection of structures takes away the ground capacity for absorbing surface water and increases further the likelihood of local flooding. Policy U3 is equally clear as to the council's stance in such cases, wherein it states: ‘The Council will not permit development which would increase the risk of flooding'.
The creation of a caravan site at this specific point within the landscape will not only increase the risk of flooding but undoubtedly impede the lands current capacity to absorb the existing surface water which flows from the fields to the south.
As PPG 25 states ‘one of the objectives of sustainable development requires that action through the planning system to manage development and flood risk should be based on a precautionary principle'.
In relation to the concerns of the loss of this area of open countryside is also the effect on existing wildlife.
The protection of the rural environment is paramount within the framing of Policy CP2 of the Local Plan Alterations and in the preceding text the plan recognises how highly valued the special character of the district's countryside is. This fact is underlined in the wording of the policy which states: ‘The quality of the rural and built environment will be maintained, conserved and improved' and encapsulated within its 7 point criteria, the first point of which states:- (i) Sustaining and enhancing the rural environment, including conserving countryside character, in particular its landscape, wildlife and heritage qualities, and protecting the countryside for its own sake'.
It has already been pointed out the crucial role this area of land performs in providing direct and easy access to the surrounding countryside for the residents of Epping. As PPG2 explains at paragraph 1.6 part of that recreational benefit is for town dwellers to see and appreciate the wildlife that thrives in open and undisturbed countryside. This area is particularly rich in such wildlife which should be conserved at all costs including its safeguarding from development.
Finally, in considering the suitability of both this site and that of the other two Wintry Park sites it is hoped that Epping Forest District Council take careful heed of the advice at paragraph 3.2 of PPG2 which states; ‘In view of the presumption against inappropriate development, the Secretary of State will attach substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt when considering any planning application or appeal concerning development'.
see attached planners report
18. d, e, f, g, h, i, We do not have detailed or relevant knowledge of the site(s) proposed and are therefore unable to comment
19. We do not have detailed or relevant knowledge of the site(s) proposed and are therefore unable to comment
- 20. We do not have detailed or relevant knowledge of the site(s) proposed and are therefore unable to comment
- 21. No
We do not agree with all of the criteria given and can thus not answer simply Yes or No. Windfall sites may indeed be preferable, particularly if brownfield. However, the planning criteria used should be on the merits of the site and be no less stringent than for any other designated Gypsies & Travellers site or as proposed.
We agree in broad terms with criteria; a, b, f, g, i, j, k
The others;-
c, All sites should be considered at this stage
d. This policy is not extended to the majority Settled Community so why would it be applied to any minority?
e. We have argued elsewhere that access to ‘amenity' should not be weighted above the key consideration; to minimize the impact on the Settled Community and avoid community tension. This ‘layer' weighting also creates a major constraint on site selection.
h. We find this at odds with the statements about amenity as a criteria for site selection, and see that these public amenities are then to be ignored and provided individually on certain sites?
While we recognise that sites with these accessibility, or amenity attributes, are preferable in accordance with normal planning principles, 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.
- 22. Yes
We have suggested elsewhere and given reasons why transit sites should be
resisted by EFDC at all cost
.
- 23. We do not have detailed or relevant knowledge of the site(s) proposed and are therefore unable to comment
- 24. B
This is a wholly unfair question. A subjects the settled community to blight over many unlikely or unsuitable sites simply to have a large pool (of unsuitable and unsustainable sites) to select from, whilst B requires the most draconian use of the law against the majority of the community by the use of CPOs. We suggest EFDC should only have put forward sites that have a high chance of owner accession to sale or indeed sites owned and or controlled by EFDC/ECC which we understand to be numerous.
Indeed we understand that EFDC have not publicized a specific call for land/sites suitable only for Gypsies & Travellers and have omitted many more suitable sites from the proposal. Further, many of the sites put forward have not been assessed for suitability or sustainability and no impact assessment has been undertaken, particularly with regard to social issues. We feel this to be negligent on the part of EFDC.
Allocations should be made only of the most appropriate sites, and be kept to the minimum required to meet the RSS figures. The alternative approach of allocating ‘surplus' sites could result in less acceptable sites being developed merely because the owners of more appropriate sites are not willing to sell.
25. No
The proposed indicators are wholly inappropriate the main reason being many of the factors to be used in calculating those metrics are outside the control of EFDC. For example, EFDC are not in control of GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS attempting to establish unauthorized sites or seeking formal planning consents on other land. Additionally metrics not considered here may be more appropriate in referencing the Settled Community and its impact upon them rather than the success or otherwise by reference only to GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS sites. Elsewhere we reference a key objective to be harmony within these two disparate communities, and whilst acknowledging this to be a qualitative measure it should at least be attempted.
