Question 20

Showing comments and forms 1 to 19 of 19

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9190

Received: 10/01/2019

Respondent: Mr John Kirby

Representation:

The approach road is an unsurfaced track, any extra traffic could take mud onto Dark Lane posing a danger to road users.
Would the approach road be surfaced and extra lighting provided.

Full text:

The approach road is an unsurfaced track, any extra traffic could take mud onto Dark Lane posing a danger to road users.
Would the approach road be surfaced and extra lighting provided.

Support

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9193

Received: 11/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Skye Hayes

Representation:

Water issues and waste is there responsibility

Full text:

Water issues and waste is there responsibility ...redacted...

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9255

Received: 17/01/2019

Respondent: Ms. Jennifer March

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

North Wingfield already has a gypsy/traveller site, occupants of this existing site have been refused planning permission yet continue to build/extend the site, all visible from my house. Council hasn't taken any action to enforce their planning refusal.

Residents unaware of assessment for gypsy/traveller site until February 2019. Site already occupied by caravans, none have planning permission. Site currently used for horses, would have a visual impact on surrounding area. Compatibility.

Poor access, cars parked on both sides of the road, poor visibility on Dark Lane, Elyn Ave and Footpath both unsuitable.

Suitability formally waste/unused strip of land, some light engineering work on site, possible asbestos contamination.

Full text:

North Wingfield already has a gypsy /traveler site at the end of dark lane along footpath 14.The present occupiers there for eight years. The occupants of this existing site have been refused planning permission numerous times for various projects they want .Despite not having the required permission they have continued to build / extend the site with various living quarters ,horse boxes,etc, all of them highly visible from my living room, dining room, kitchen, and garden as i live directly opposite on the other side of the King George V playing field.The local council / authorities have not taken any action to enforce their planning refusal. NW/2301T Local residents [bungalows adjacent to King George v playing field ] unaware of assessment for gypsy/traveler site until February 10th 2019 ,site already occupied with 3caravans ,none have planning permission ,local council aware. COMPATIBILITY existing site residents are grazing, exorcising ,training their horses on the adjacent playing playing field. Hedgerows /fences destroyed to access local farmland, .Both sites are situated in among green fields /farming land and are visible for some distance around the area .ACCESS _------RESTRICTED, many vehicles parked on roadside,view of oncoming traffic along Williamthorpe close is obstructed because the road bends before entrance to Dark Lane. Elyn Ave has also has parked vehicles ,both roads are through residential estates. Footpath 14 is virtually a single track, and is used by pedestrians / farm vehicles and engineers to phone mast,the lane is heavily marked with mud,horse manure and has many large pot holes.___SUITABILITY formally waste /unused strip of land,some light engineering work on site ,possible contamination with asbestos to existing buildings

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9307

Received: 20/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter March

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

Objection to site. Access and exit would be to / from either Williamthorpe Close or Elyn Ave onto A617 a very busy rd leading to M1. Both these roads are through a residential estate leading to Dark Lane ,the surface of this is already being damaged by the increase of traffic to the existing gypsy site. Footpath 14 is an unmade track, and is not suitable. Footpath already unsafe, extending the site will make this worse.
Compatibility. This site should not be considered ,the gypsy site opposite was refused planning permission for several projects; retrospective planning permission was granted subject to conditions none of which have been carried out ,nor has the local council enforced them.

The proposed site is in green space surrounded by local farmers lands and is clearly visible.

Full text:

ACCESS__and exit would be to / from either Williamthorpe Close or Elyn Ave ontoA617 a very busy rd leading to M1 @ J29 This rd carries multiple very large lorries and is also a bus route.Williamthorpe Close has a restricted forward view and many parked vehicles and Elyn ave also has a number of residents parked cars plus two junctions. Both these roads are through a residential estate leading to Dark Lane ,the surface of this is already being damaged by the increase of traffic to the existing gypsy site. Footpath 14 is an unmade track, has many large potholes and frequently covered in mud and horse manure, neither is it adequate for two vehicles to pass as it is quite narrow with a 90 deg bend ,walkers have to step to grass verge for traffic THERE IS NO DESIGNATED PULL IN. This track frequently used by farmers,engineers to phone mast + dog walkers. The footpath continues between the existing gypsy site and the proposed n/w2301t site in close proximity so it would give the impression of belonging to these gypsies , some local people are already very apprehensive so avoid the area because a large dog is chained at the entrance of existing site. COMPATIBILITY,,,,,,This site-NM/2301T should not be considered ,the gypsy site opposite was refused planning permission for several projects they wanted to develop ,retrospective planning permission was granted subject to conditions none of which have been carried out ,nor has the local council enforced them. The proposed site is in green space surrounded by local farmers lands and is clearly visible .King George v playing fields opposite is used by existing gypsy family to graze -tether-exorcise their horses, again no action has been taken by local authority .There is already three caravans on the proposed n/w 2301t and have been on without planning for a number of years, again the authorities have not enforced the regulations.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9351

Received: 27/01/2019

Respondent: Ms. Ann Passeri

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

There is already G&T development on the proposed site, without permission.

The site is part of an 'Ancient Enclosure - Fossilised Strip System' and therefore requires preservation and protection.

The site area and nearby brook is a vital habitat; hedgerows for many bird species and bat community and insects.

Walkers use Dark Lane, could be at risk due to an increase in traffic. Access onto site poor; the road is narrow and you can't turn around on it, access to the existing site already dangerous. Emergency vehicles would have restricted and difficult access should it be required.

Updated LAA Assessment, regarding bats, I do know that there is a considerable population of bats in the area.

Full text:

I am a resident in the area of Dark Lane and North Wingfield who would like to inform you and NEDDC that I oppose the current proposed extension, second Traveller site on Dark Lane.

To begin with please see pictures attached herewith my letter as you will see that on the " proposed " site there are already two long residential caravans, a large van and horses. Were you aware of this as surely this is a breach of planning acts and therefore require an Enforcement Notice to remove them until such time that there is an outcome of the current proposals?

Our established local community have made it overwhelmingly clear by attendance of recent public meetings that we do not feel the proposed site is suitable for Traveller camp use. The site is part of an 'Ancient Enclosure - Fossilised Strip System' and therefore requires preservation and protection as it is of huge historical value. Another important reason is that the site area is a vital habitat, for example the hedgerows for many bird species seen in the area, and the existing bat community and insects, all part of local wildlife which we must protect for our essential eco system. The nearby brook, situated below the site is also rich in habitat, plant life, bees and other insects and commands preservation and respect.

Access and fundamental safety is surely paramount? For considerable years walkers and dog walkers have been able to enjoy The Dark Lane narrow track safely, without threat or disturbance by traffic, apart from the farmer's tractor. The Dark Lane track is of single access only, it is not wide enough for vehicles to turn around and the right fork turn to get access to the existing Traveller camp is 90 degrees, sharp and potentially dangerous! Walkers down the track are potentially at risk by vehicles travelling at speed. Emergency vehicles such as ambulances, and fire engines would prove to have restricted and difficult access should it be required. As a single access track if a vehicle was coming one way and another vehicle in the opposite direction, by the time one has reversed to allow access, it could be the time involved in saving lives which is surely crucial. Also traffic to the existing Traveller Camp has already increased traffic in the Dark Lane area, a once very quiet area, which you can only imagine disturbs local habitat and wildlife also as previously mentioned. The residents of Cressbrook Avenue and Cromford Close leading up to the Dark Lane Track are almost all OAPs and in the last couple of years they have seen a real increase in traffic, not to mention the horse and carts or just horses from the aforementioned site riding up and down the street, often at racing speed.

However, since the recent revelation of this proposal for extending the pitches, there has been notable activity taking place on the Dark Lane track leading to the traveller's site, eg: the filling of numerous pot holes and more important, a widening of the track by filling in the drainage ditches that ran either side of the track, all the way down to right turning that leads to the Travellers Site
Referring to the statement about bats in the "Updated Traveller LAA Site Assessment 2017 - NW2301T . I would beg to differ on the "there is a small building on site that could be used by bats (but no records)" I do know that there is a considerable population of bats in the area.
Up to present existing residents have not witnessed the current Gypsy and Travellers of Dark Lane wanting any social integration, in fact the opposite has appeared to be the case.
Finally, at this stage, I hope you acknowledge my important reasons for rejecting the proposal on Dark Lane to protect and preserve such an important green area, as well as keeping existing residents safe, allowing them to continue to enjoy the Lane and all the riches it offers in abundance.


Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9352

Received: 27/01/2019

Respondent: Ms. Ann Milner

Representation:

Summary by Officer

Having more pitches could potentially cause problems and be a danger to members of the public using the site's single access track, which is a public right of way.

Numerous vehicles already use the track to get to the travellers site. Some of these drivers are careful, but others go very fast with little consideration to the residents on Dark Lane and the vehicles coming from Cromford Close.

Allowing more travellers pitches will increase the amount of vehicle using the track, during the day, night and early morning.

Full text:


I write to you with strong concerns for the proposal for further travellers pitches off Dark Lane , North Wingfield. Although I have no issues with the family already residing on the right hand side of the site , I believe having more pitches could potentially cause problems and be a danger to members of the public using the sites single access track which is a public right of way . Numerous vehicles already use the track to get to the travellers site, vans,cars,horse boxes, motorcycle and horse and gigs, also lorries up to the farm. Some of these drivers are careful but it is noticeable that others go very fast with little consideration to the residents on Dark Lane and the vehicles coming from Cromford Close. Allowing more travellers pitches is obviously going to cause problems with extra vehicles dashing up and down the single track lane, not only during the day but also at times during the night and early morning . If this is passed how many more are going to be allowed to join the site in the future ???

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9392

Received: 22/01/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs R & J Clark

Representation:

Our main concern is the increase in traffic to the site. This access is already used by horse drawn vehicles, motor cycles, vans, horse boxes, forty ton articulated lorries, heavy low loaders with plant equipments and agricultural machinery.

There is no separate provisions for pedestrians, as this is a well used route leading to country walks and the Five Pits Trail.

Our next concern is drainage, there are no existing foul drains on the site, this is a worry as the land falls to the Brook, which could lead to pollution of the watercourse.

To grant this planning would have adetrimentaleffect on the present environment.

Full text:

See attachment.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9426

Received: 25/01/2019

Respondent: North Wingfield Community Group

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

There is already G&T development on the proposed site, without permission.

The site is part of an 'Ancient Enclosure - Fossilised Strip System' and therefore requires preservation and protection.

The site area and nearby brook is a vital habitat; hedgerows for many bird species and bat community and insects.

Walkers use Dark Lane, could be at risk due to an increase in traffic. Access onto site poor; the road is narrow and you can't turn around on it, access to the existing site already dangerous. Emergency vehicles would have restricted and difficult access should it be required.

Updated LAA Assessment, regarding bats, we as residents know fully well that there is a considerable population of bats in the area.

Full text:

See attachment.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9435

Received: 28/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Brian James

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

There is already Gypsy and Traveller development on Dark Lane. Original planning conditions have not be carried out or enforced.

The lane remains hazardous for pedestrians, with inappropriately parked cars on it.

Consideration needs to be given to the impact of increased traffic from the site on local residents and area.

Concern over visual impact on adjacent houses, and impact on property prices. Measures need to be in place to ensure a planning application is complied by. Consideration needs to be given to the scale, design and location of the development so the area is not adversely impacted.

Current site is greenfield, brownfield should be used first. Concern over impact on environment and nearby wildlife.

Concern over effects on drains and sewerage

Site has been occupied illegally already.

Concern over impact on surrounding facilities and services of additional residents.

Full text:

See attachment.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9437

Received: 28/01/2019

Respondent: Mrs Phyllis Beresford

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

There is already Gypsy and Traveller development on Dark Lane. Original planning conditions have not be carried out or enforced.

The lane remains hazardous for pedestrians, with inappropriately parked cars on it.

Consideration needs to be given to the impact of increased traffic from the site on local residents and area.

Concern over visual impact on adjacent houses, and impact on property prices. Measures need to be in place to ensure a planning application is complied by. Consideration needs to be given to the scale, design and location of the development so the area is not adversely impacted.

Current site is greenfield, brownfield should be used first. Concern over impact on environment and nearby wildlife.

Concern over effects on drains and sewerage

Site has been occupied illegally already.

Concern over impact on surrounding facilities and services of additional residents.

Full text:

See Attachment.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9439

Received: 28/01/2019

Respondent: Mrs Gail Ford

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

There is already Gypsy and Traveller development on Dark Lane. Original planning conditions have not be carried out or enforced.

The lane remains hazardous for pedestrians, with inappropriately parked cars on it.

Consideration needs to be given to the impact of increased traffic from the site on local residents and area.

Concern over visual impact on adjacent houses, and impact on property prices. Measures need to be in place to ensure a planning application is complied by. Consideration needs to be given to the scale, design and location of the development so the area is not adversely impacted.

Current site is greenfield, brownfield should be used first. Concern over impact on environment and nearby wildlife.

Concern over effects on drains and sewerage

Site has been occupied illegally already.

Concern over impact on surrounding facilities and services of additional residents.

Full text:

See Attachment.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9441

Received: 28/01/2019

Respondent: Mrs Christine Reynolds

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

There is already Gypsy and Traveller development on Dark Lane. Original planning conditions have not be carried out or enforced.

The lane remains hazardous for pedestrians, with inappropriately parked cars on it.

Consideration needs to be given to the impact of increased traffic from the site on local residents and area.

Concern over visual impact on adjacent houses, and impact on property prices. Measures need to be in place to ensure a planning application is complied by. Consideration needs to be given to the scale, design and location of the development so the area is not adversely impacted.

Current site is greenfield, brownfield should be used first. Concern over impact on environment and nearby wildlife.

Concern over effects on drains and sewerage

Site has been occupied illegally already.

Concern over impact on surrounding facilities and services of additional residents.

Full text:

See Attachment.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9473

Received: 08/02/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Ian & Marion Ford

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

The location of the proposed site already has caravans plus a building with an asbestos roof in situ.
It is situated directly across from the present site which was adopted in 2009.

The access to the site is a small un-adopted narrow, unlit lane (no passing points, cars often parked on it) with a blind spot at a 90 degree bend. This lane is well-used and leads onto playing fields, whistle wood and the 5 pits trail. The road is unsafe.

As far as we are aware there are no electricity, gas, water or drainage supplies. The proposed site slopes down to a stream. Is this likely to become contaminated by waste?

Hedges have been removed and the playing fields have at times been used for grazing without regard for the environment. Concern over impact on wildlife.

Consultation process poor.

Full text:

The location of the proposed site already has caravans plus a building with an asbestos roof in situ.

It is situated directly across from the present site which was adopted in 2009.


We do not believe that the location of the site is appropriate for this area for the following reasons.


1. Access

The access to both the proposed site is a small unadopted narrow lane with a blind spot at a 90 degree bend, the narrow lane itself
Has no passing points.
This lane is well used in a daily basis by walkers with access to the playing fields and the 5 puts trail. It is also used all of the time
by dog owners from as early as 6am until night. the lane is unlit. It is used by families as it has access to the playing field and
Whistle Wood.
We have agricultural traffic, heavy at certain times of the year, plus traffic from a travellers site, usually small lorries, driven at
speed at times, cars, horse boxes, ponies and traps and sometimes the travellers children riding bare-back

The road at the bottom of Dark Lane is impassable at times. Cressbrook Avenue residents and those on Ayncourt Rd have no
parking facilities and therefore have no alternative but to park on the road. The road is narrow and there is a 90 degree bend
between Cressbrook and Ayncourt. It is getting congested.

The exits from Cromford Close and Cressbook onto Dark Lane have to be made with extreme caution, any increase in traffic
Will make it more hazardous. There is also additional traffic when funerals take place in the cemetery opposite Cromford
Close.

2. Utilities

As far as we are aware there are no electricity, gas, water or drainage supplies. The proposed site slopes down to a stream.
Is this likely to become contaminated by waste?

3. Environment

Hedges have been removed and the playing fields have at times been used for grazing without regard for the environment.
Whistle Wood was created as a quiet safe place for wild life and nesting birds, not happy that increase in traffic will
achieve that.

4. Consultation Process

We became aware of the planning proposals by someone who had seen a report on facebook. Most of the residents
heard by word of mouth. We contacted our local council to find out more. Why was the NEDDC not forthcoming since
they where aware of this last year?
A notice has been posted on a lamppost this week, barely a week before the closing date.
We have been given no evidence as to why this site was chosen out of the many, many that were considered. One
can only speculate,

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9621

Received: 15/02/2019

Respondent: Ms. S Penarski

Representation:

I understand that NEDDC are proposing to make the pitches which exist at the above location without planning permission, but still within the enforcement timescales, official.
This in my opinion would be extremely unwise for the following reasons.
1. There are three pitches in question, if regularised will lead to more. If it is seen how easy it was to force the issue on these three, more will follow as sure as night follows day.
2. This type of site is in an entirely inappropriate location.

Planning enforcement is the simple solution to the problem, preventing the situation becoming a bigger insoluble problem.

Full text:


I understand that NEDDC are proposing to make the pitches which exist at the above location without planning permission, but still within the enforcement timescales, official.
This in my opinion would be extremely unwise for the following reasons.
1. There are three pitches in question, if regularised will lead to more. If it is seen how easy it was to force the issue on these three, more will follow as sure as night follows day.
2. This type of site is in an entirely inappropriate location.

Planning enforcement is the simple solution to the problem, preventing the situation becoming a bigger insoluble problem.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9634

Received: 14/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs & Mr Rachel & Ian Hammond

Representation:

Summary by Officer.


The traffic on Dark Lane has significantly increased. Any additional dwellings on Dark Lane will only result in a further increase in traffic.

Proposed site has no residential planning consent at present, however is already in use, there had been no move to remove them. I have no faith NEDDC will ensure only 3 families live on the site. Concern that if permission is granted, the number living on the site will exceed the proposed number and the District Council will do nothing.

Permission by a private resident on this site was refused by the Council. Surely the same objections still exist. It does seem a case of double standards.

A quiet residential area is not the right place for a Gypsy and Traveller site. There are more suitable brownfield sites in the District that should be considered as an alternative to Dark Lane.

Full text:

We wish to add our objections on this consultation for a gypsy and traveller site on Dark Lane, North Wingfield.

Although our postal address is Williamthorpe Close, the entrance to our property is actually on Dark Lane.

We have lived here for 21 years, and over the years traffic on Dark Lane has significantly increased. Any additional dwellings on Dark Lane will only result in a further increase in traffic.

It is my understanding that the proposed site for the Gypsy and Traveller site has no residential planning consent on it at present. However, a traveller family already live on this site, and have done for a number of years. I do not know of any moves by the District Council to remove this family from the site. Therefore, I have no faith whatsoever in the District Council ensuring only 3 families live on this site. My concern is that if permission is granted, the number of families living on the site will exceed the proposed number and the District Council will not do anything to address this.

Furthermore, a few years ago a private resident applied for residential planning permission on this site and it was refused by the District Council. It does seem rather ironic that a few years on, the District Council wishes to put residential planning on the same site. Surely the same objections still exist. It does rather seem a case of double standards.

A quiet residential area is not the right place for a Gypsy and Traveller site. We are not NIMBYs, but we know that there are far more suitable brownfield sites in the District that should be considered as an alternative to Dark Lane.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9673

Received: 09/02/2019

Respondent: Joan Hardy & Roy Hatton

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

Location site: The proposed site will be near an G/T existing site, with a public footpath in between, which already brought more traffic to Dark Lane. The proposed site already appears in use. There is already a building on the site that may have asbestos.

Concerns over access, lane is a single, unmade track, also designated as a public footpath. There is a blind bend in the track, and it is already well-used. There is no street lighting and cars parked along it. Access would be difficult.

Utilitiesn and Services: Council waste collectors do not go to the existing site, how will rubbish be removed? How will sewage be removed or contained? Concern over contamination of nearby stream and impact on wildlife and nature.

Concern over impact on environment.

Would enforcement be carried out to regulate the site

Full text:

See Attachment.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9690

Received: 08/02/2019

Respondent: Mr M Ife

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

-Possible land contamination, supported by EO.
-It is an inappropriate development, which is outside the area of the local.
-Highway and public safety, reported several times by DCC.
-The development in the countryside.
-There is no means of rubbish disposal/ parcel/postal deliveries.
-There is no mains water, mains sewer or septic tank on site.
-There is no electricity on site. They use generators which causes noise and disturbs residents.
-There is no natural gas to the site.
-The access does not meet the Equality Act 2010, a design and access statement should be undertaken to consider all needs, since the distance to a surfaced highway is 350metres.
-There will be a significant increase in the volume of vehicle movement along Dark Lane. This increase will pose a risk to pedestrians many of who are elderly along the road and track/footpath 14.

Full text:

See Attachment.

Support

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9714

Received: 15/02/2019

Respondent: Derbyshire County Council

Representation:

Landscape Comments
The site is relatively small and unlikely to have any significant landscape or visual effects.

Flood Risk Comments
There are no flood risk issues associated with the proposed use of the site.

Highways Comments
Due to its small scale, no highways comments are made on this site.

Full text:

NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION CONSULTATION
PROVISION FOR GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS
MATTERS, ISSUES AND QUESTIONS
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Main Matter 15: Whether or not the plan would make appropriate provision for
Gypsy and Traveller accommodation over the plan period having regard to the
evidence of need and proposed sites.
Issue: Whether the plan is based on a robust assessment of need for gypsies
and travellers (Questions 1 to 7 and 9)
Derby, Derbyshire, Peak District National Park Authority and East Staffordshire Gypsy
and Traveller Accommodation Assessment
1.1 Under the requirements of the Duty to Cooperate set out in the Localism Act
and in accordance with the provisions of the (former) National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) (2012) and Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS)
(2012), the Derby, Derbyshire, Peak District National Park Authority and East
Staffordshire Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) was
jointly commissioned in August 2013 by the following partners to update the
previous GTAAs published in 2008 for Derbyshire and 2013 for East
Staffordshire:
* Amber Valley Borough Council
* Bolsover District Council
* Chesterfield Borough Council
* Derby City Council
* Derbyshire County Council
* Derbyshire Dales District Council
* Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group
* East Staffordshire Borough Council
* Erewash Borough Council
* High Peak Borough Council
* North East Derbyshire District Council
* Peak District National Park Authority
* South Derbyshire District Council.
1.2 Derbyshire County Council was the lead authority for overseeing the
commissioning and project management of the GTAA. RRR Consultancy
Limited was commissioned to undertake the assessment in August 2013,
following which extensive consultation and liaison took place between RRR and
the partners (including North East Derbyshire District Council) over the course
of the commission. North East Derbyshire District Council's officers were also
represented on a Steering Group, which was set up to oversee the preparation
of the GTAA. RRR completed the final version of the GTAA on 26 June 2015.
1.3 The methodology applied in the GTAA is based on the approach recommended
in PPTS and other Practice Guidance issued by the (then) Department for
Communities and Local Government (CLG). It contains seven basic
components: five assessing need and two assessing supply, which are applied
to each sub-group of Gypsies and Travellers based on primary data and using
a fifteen stage assessment process. The GTAA draws on primary and
secondary data sources including:
* Primary data: face-to-face surveys with Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling
Show people;
* Secondary information: including a literature review and secondary data
analysis, for example, analysis of the Department for Communities and Local
Government's Bi-Annual Traveller Caravan Count; and
* Stakeholder consultation with local organisations involved with Gypsies,
Travellers and Travelling Show people.
1.4 The GTAA has a base date of 2014 and provides a snapshot in time based
largely on survey evidence collected between October 2013 and February
2014. The GTAA sets out recommendations for the accommodation needs
across the study area as a whole and for each local authority area for the period
2014 to 2034, showing need for the number of:
* Permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches;
* Travelling Show people plots;
* Transit sites / emergency stopping places (study area as a whole only);
* Bricks and mortar accommodation units.
1.5 The 15 stage assessment process takes account of overcrowding on existing
sites (stage 12), newly forming households (stage 14) and future household
formation from families moving out of bricks and mortar accommodation (stage
15).
1.6 The GTAA does not identify specific sites to accommodate future pitch and plot
requirements in the study area. The Assessment makes it clear that this will be
the responsibility of the individual city, district and borough local planning
authorities (LPAs) through the preparation and review of their local plans.
1.7 The final GTAA report was agreed by all Derbyshire partners, including North
East Derbyshire District Council, for publication on Derbyshire County Council's
website in August 2015. Since its publication, the GTAA has been used by all
the partner authorities in Derbyshire, including North East Derbyshire District
Council, to inform policies for the pitch and plot requirements set out in their
emerging Local Plans.
1.8 For North East Derbyshire District, based on the 15 stage assessment
methodology, the GTAA recommends that there is an overall requirement for a
total of 15 additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches over the period 2014 to 2034,
together with 7 additional bricks and mortar units. The Assessment does not
identify the need for any additional Travelling Showpeople's plots in North East
Derbyshire District. The assessment indicates a need for 6 Traveller pitches to
be provided in the period 2014 - 2019 and 9 additional pitches to be provided
thereafter over the period 2019 - 2034.
1.9 Section 10.61 and 10.62 of the GTAA also sets out recommendations for the
site size of new pitches noting that as a general guide, an average family pitch
must be capable of accommodating at least an amenity building, a large trailer
and touring caravan, drying space for clothes, a lockable shed, parking space
for two vehicles and a small garden area.
1.10 Section 10.62 indicates that a pitch of approximately 325 square metres would
take into account all minimum separation distance requirements between
caravans and pitch boundaries as stipulated in guidance and regulations for
caravan development. A pitch size of at least 500 square metres would
accommodate the following on-pitch facilities:
* Hard standing for 1 touring / mobile caravan and 1 static caravan;
* 2 car parking spaces;
* 1 amenity block;
* Hard standing for storage shed and drying space;
* Garden / amenity area.
1.11 Derbyshire County Council's officers consider that the GTAA is a
comprehensive, thorough, robust and up-to-date piece of evidence to inform
the pitch and plot requirements that are being identified in emerging district and
borough Local Plans across Derbyshire, particularly the pitch and plot
requirements over the period 2014 to 2019. The GTAA has been tested at a
number of Local Plan Examinations in Public (EIPs) since it was published and
has been deemed by respective Inspectors to provide a sound and robust basis
for the assessment of Gypsy and Traveller pitch and Travelling Showpeople's
plot provision in emerging Local Plans. Although Planning Policy for Traveller
Sites has been revised by Government (August 2015) since the GTAA was
published, primarily relating to Green Belt matters and an amended definition
of Gypsies and Travellers, the GTAA is still considered to be compliant with
requirements for accommodation assessments in the revised Policy document.
1.12 The Derbyshire Traveller Issues Working Group (TIWG) comprises officers
from all the local authorities in Derbyshire, including officers from the
emergency services and health organisations, who have responsibility for
Gypsy and Traveller matters. The TIWG has been monitoring the
recommendations, implications and requirements of the GTAA, since it was
published in August 2015. At the time of writing, there are no firm proposals at
the current time by the TIWG to commission a refresh or update of the GTAA.
However, in the context that it is likely that there may be a need to commission
such an update in 2019, once the first five year pitch requirement period in the
GTAA has expired, the TIWG discussed the issue of a need to update the GTAA
at its meeting on 5 February 2019. Prior to the meeting, RRR Consultancy had
been contacted by Derbyshire County Council's Officers for a quote for
undertaking a full review of the GTAA. Agreement was reached at the TIWG
meeting by partners that this issue should be discussed more widely with all the
respective local planning authorities in the coming weeks, particularly at a
forthcoming Derbyshire Planning Policy Officer Group meeting on 7 March
2019, including the investigation of potential funding sources.
Investigation of Derbyshire County Council owned sites as possible sites for Gypsies
and Travellers (Question 1)
1.13 In the context of the Duty to Cooperate, Derbyshire County Council's officers
have engaged in joint working with officers from North East Derbyshire District
Council over the last 16 months or so to seek to identify land in the County
Council's ownership that might be suitable for use as Gypsy and Traveller sites.
A number of potential sites were initially identified by Derbyshire County
Council's officers, which were subsequently assessed in further detail for their
suitability based on a range of criteria, particularly their location, highways and
environmental impacts, planning policy constraints and continuing operational
requirements by the County Council. As a result of this detailed analysis,
Derbyshire County Council's officers concluded that none of the potential sites
were suitable for release for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. North East
Derbyshire District Council was subsequently informed of the County Council's
position.
Issue: Whether or not the proposed sites identified for Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation would be soundly based in terms of their location and site
specific impacts.
1.14 As part of the County Council's consideration of the acceptability of the four
sites, which North East Derbyshire District Council are proposing for allocation,
consultation has been undertaken with County Councillor Kevin Gillott, Clay
Cross South Electoral Division; County Councillor Nigel Barker, Sutton
Electoral Division; and County Councillor Brian Wright, Clay Cross North
Electoral Division for their comments on the respective sites which fall within
their electoral divisions. Their comments are set out below, where relevant,
relating to the respective sites.
1.15 In addition, consultation has also been carried out with a range of Derbyshire
County Council's officers for comments on the acceptability of the proposed site
allocations in respect of their highways, landscape and flood risk implications.
These officer comments are set out below where appropriate.
Site CAL/2301T - The Old Potato Store, Dark Lane, Calow (2 pitches)
Q 15: Can a satisfactory form of development be achieved on the site?
Landscape Comments
1.16 The site is relatively small and unlikely to have any significant landscape or
visual effects.
Flood Risk Comments
1.17 There are no flood risk issues associated with the proposed use of the site.
Highways Comments
1.18 Due to its small scale, no highways comments are made on this site.
Site NW/2310T/ Dark Lane, North Wingfield
Q 19: Can a satisfactory form of development be achieved on the site?
Councillor Comments
1.19 Councillor Nigel Barker has commented that he will be objecting to the proposed
site on Dark Lane at North Wingfield but this will be on issues beyond highways
matters and therefore he will submit his comments to the Inspector at a later date.
Landscape Comments
1.20 The site is relatively small and unlikely to have any significant landscape or
visual effects.
Flood Risk Comments
1.21 There are no flood risk issues associated with the proposed use of the site.
Highways Comments
1.22 Due to its small scale, no highways comments are made on this site.
Site GT/06 - Greenway, Wingerworth
Q 15: Can a satisfactory form of development be achieved on the site?
Highways Comments
1.23 An initial site inspection revealed that a satisfactory access was not achievable
from Greenway, due to insufficient width, at the site boundary with the publicly
maintainable highway. The site boundary with Derby Road appeared of
sufficient width to cater for a vehicular access and there was therefore,
potential, for some form of direct access onto Derby Road.
1.24 However, the site was situated on a long downhill gradient, on the outside of a
sweeping bend and given that Derby Road at this point was subject to a 50mph
speed limit, the County Council advised the District Council that there were
concerns relating to the potential impact on the existing highway and that the
required level of exit visibility may not be achievable (the required level of
visibility is based upon the speed limit of the road in question or alternatively,
the 85th percentile of measured speeds).
1.25 Subsequently, a speed survey was commissioned by the District Council which
determined the required level of visibility necessary (2.4m x 116m & 2.4m x
103m); the site was then measured by the County Council which established
that a satisfactory level of visibility was achievable for the measured speeds on
this section of road. The District Council was advised that the required level of
visibility was achievable.
1.26 The County Council also considered the proposed access to a consented
residential development site, which was almost directly opposite the potential
traveller site. The plans for the residential development incorporated a right
turn harbourage with associated approach markings and hatching.
1.27 When taking the planned changes to the road layout into account, the provision
of a traveller site access would have resulted in traveller vehicles
entering/exiting the site encroaching upon the road markings/hatching and
potentially affecting vehicles turning right into the residential development.
1.28 The potential for shortening the proposed right turn harbourage running lane
was investigated, however it was found that this would impact upon the
deceleration requirements for this road layout, and may have resulted in an
increased risk of collision for other road users.
1.29 The potential for providing a 'left in - left out' arrangement was also investigated,
however a number of issues with the site including limited site frontage, the
presence of undertakers equipment and the positioning of motorists at the
access meant that it was unlikely that a suitable access could be designed to
ensure enforceability and which would not adversely affect the free and safe
flow of traffic on Derby Road.
1.30 In view of the above matters it was established that the provision of a safe
access at this site was not possible, and the District Council was advised
accordingly.
Landscape Comments
1.31 The site is relatively small and unlikely to have any significant landscape or
visual effects.
Flood Risk Comments
1.32 There are no flood risk issues associated with the proposed use of the site.
Site GT/09/Temporance Hill, Woolley Moor
Q 15: Can a satisfactory form of development be achieved on the site?
Member Comments
1.33 Councillor Kevin Gillott objects to the proposed Gypsy and Travellers site and
will be submitting his objection direct to the Inspector.
Highways Comments
1.34 The County Council was consulted on this site at the same time as the
Wingerworth site. An initial site inspection revealed that the site was
approached in both directions via narrow and relatively steep lanes. A tractor
and trailer was observed travelling past the site and it was therefore considered
that the site would be accessible to towing caravans, however it could not be
determined that adequate visibility was achievable in either direction.
1.35 As with the Wingerworth site, a speed survey was commissioned by the District
Council and the site measured to determine whether a satisfactory level of
visibility was achievable. Given the approaches to the site, the measured
speeds were predictably low, and as a result the required visibility splays were
shortened to comply with the national criteria (2.4m x 47m & 2.4m x 38m).
Consequently, it was established that the site could meet the visibility criteria in
both directions, and could be reasonably expected to be accessible to, and
cater for, a limited number of traveller vehicles.
Landscape Appraisal
1.36 This is the most sensitive site of the four sites under consideration, as reflected
in the landscape and visual impact assessment that has been prepared for this
site. The LVIA acknowledges that this site is located in an area of 'Primary
Sensitivity' as defined in the County Council's Areas of Multiple Environmental
Sensitivity (AMES) study. However, the site almost presents itself as informal
open space with an open frontage to Temperance Hill. Provided the
recommended mitigation proposals were undertaken and there are not
secondary impacts associated with highway improvement requirements, then it
may be possible for this site to be developed as a Gypsy and Traveller location,
without having adverse impacts on the surrounding landscape. Officers would
strongly urge North East Derbyshire District Council to secure these
requirements prior to allocation.
Flood Risk Comments
1.37 There are no flood risk issues associated with the proposed use of the site.
Issue: Whether or not the approach to assessing other proposals for Gypsy and
Traveller and Travelling Showpeople's accommodation would be soundly based
and five year supply (Question 32)
1.38 Derbyshire County Council submitted comments on the North East Derbyshire
Local Plan Publication Draft on 4 April 2018. With regard to the policy approach
for Gypsies and Travellers in the Plan, Derbyshire County Council made the
following comments:
The GTAA recommended that there was a requirement for 15 additional pitches
in North East Derbyshire District between 2014 and 2034, of which 6 pitches
would be required between 2014 - 2019 and 3 pitches for each five year period
thereafter up to 2034. This is appropriately set out in paragraph 5.103 of the
LPPD, which is welcomed. It is noted that paragraph 5.106 makes reference to
the fact that although to date, no sites have come forward which allow the
District Council to propose site allocations in the LPPD, work on identifying
potential allocations is continuing by the District Council. Officers of Derbyshire
County Council are currently liaising with officers at NEDDC to assess the
suitability of a number of sites in the County Council's ownership for the
provision of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation.
In the context of this on-going work, the inclusion in the LPPD of Policy LC9 is
broadly supported, which indicates that sites will be 'encouraged' to meet the
accommodation needs of Travellers and which sets out a range of criteria for
the assessment of any potential sites that come forward for Traveller pitches,
in line with the recommendations of national policy guidance for Travellers in
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. It is recommended, however, that the
wording of the Policy should be amended to set out a firmer commitment by the
District Council to ensure that sites are brought forward for Travellers to meet
the identified need such as:
The District Council will seek to ensure the provision of sufficient pitches within
the District to meet the accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers as
assessed through the current Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation
Assessment (or its replacement).

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9719

Received: 23/01/2019

Respondent: J.L. Heathcote

Representation:

Summary by Officer

In the last couple of years the traffic has increased considerably, there are cars, vans, motorbike pick up trucks and horse trailers going up and down Dark Lane every day, with potential safety issues regarding existing drives, and the junction with Cromford Close.
The Bottom and Top of Dark Lane is not wide enough for 2 cars to pass. The Top is only a dust track!
Walkers use the track to get to the Five Pits Trail , so if any traffic is coming from the small holding it can't be seen till it actually comes round the corner - dangerous for walkers.
Also we have pony and traps and numerous horses going up and down Dark Lane, which is being used as a training track.
The proposed site would mean more cars and more traffic using Dark Lane.

Full text:

See attachment