Question 28

Showing comments and forms 121 to 150 of 171

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9565

Received: 11/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Joe Hayes

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

Woolley Moor is not a suitable for proposal, it is a level 4 settlement. There is no Post Office, shops, health provisions or secondary school and a limited bus route. These factors would making it difficult for travellers to access services, or retain employment.

Site not large enough for manoeuvring trailers or to provide space for amenity areas and parking, especially if boundary hedgerows are put in.

There will be an impact upon the highway. The lane is already busy, this poses an increased health and safety risk for residents travelling to and from the site.

There no footpath along the lane and only one streetlight. Cars parked along the lane adjacent to the houses restricting visibility. The proposed site is on the brow of a hill which has poor visibility for oncoming traffic with poor road junctions at both ends of the lane.

Full text:

To whom it may concern, I am writing in response to the matters, issues and questions raised in the local plan main matter 15 in relation to question 28 (services/facilities in village and size of site) and question 29 (impact on landscape/access).

As a local resident of Ogston I consider that the proposed site is not suitable due to the following points and considerations:

MIQ Point 28 Suitability of location - access to services, facilities and site size.

* Woolley Moor is not a suitable location for this site due to the type of settlement it is. According to the Settlement Hierarchy Study (2016) Woolley Moor is considered to be a level 4 settlement; a small village with little or no supporting services. There is no Post Office, shops, health provisions or secondary school. It also has a very limited bus route. These factors will have a detrimental effect making it very difficult for travellers to access such services. It will be difficult for them to seek or retain employment, attend school or training or have access to health services or shops.
* The site is clearly not large enough for manoeuvring trailers up to 15m in length or being able to provide enough space for amenity areas and parking as per recommendations from the document Good practice guide (2008) for Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites especially, if as suggested, boundary hedgerows are put in place.
* There will be a significant impact upon the highway. Consideration needs to be taken from both sides. The lane is already busy with traffic particularly at the usual commuting times with traffic using Temperance Hill as a short cut from Clay Cross to gain access to the main Stretton to Matlock roads and as such poses an increased health and safety risk for residents travelling to and from the site. There is not a footpath along the full stretch of this lane and only one street light. There are residential cars parked along the lane adjacent to the houses situated immediately next to the area again restricting visibility. The proposed site is on the brow of a hill which has poor visibility for oncoming traffic with poor road junctions at both ends of the lane.



MIQ Point 29 Can a satisfactory development be achieved in regard to Landscape?

* This proposed development could have adverse effects on the local landscape. A Landscape Appraisal commissioned by NEDDC from Lepus Consulting Ltd (Nov 2018) - states 'unlikely to be able to be bought forward without adverse effects on the landscape'
* The site lies within a designated area identified as having ecological and historic sensitivities as outlined by the North East Derbyshire Local Plan Nov 2017 and as such should be protected.
* The site itself is a valued and well used open space for villagers, walkers, bird watchers etc. It has a diverse natural habitat for badgers, foxes, birds and very close to Ogston reservoir which is a site of special scientific interest which I walk regularly.
* The proposed site lies adjacent to a water course which leads directly into Ogston reservoir. This could potentially lead to contamination of drinking water.
* Well Lane is a well-used path linking Temperance Hill to the centre of the village allowing residents to walk safely as there is no footpath alongside the road. Having the site situated on Temperance Hill would effectively close this path thereby increasing the health and safety hazards posed to the local residents.
* The proposed site is also situated on part of the Woolley Moor Trail. This is an educational nature trail which is regularly used by the pupils of the local school, visiting schools and walkers which passes alongside this site on Well Lane.
* This development will increase traffic within this area thereby raising the impact on the landscape. Increase noise and pollution will be evident yet the NEDDC Vision in its Corporate plan (2015) sets out to protect and enhance its landscape.
* The site will be overlooked by neighbouring properties and proposed sites have been rejected due to this. The planting of hedges will also have a big impact on others in reducing light into properties and effect on site entrance safety.
* Other sites were discounted for being situated within a village centre or in a sensitive location (woodland, conservation site, etc). This site IS in a village and IS in a sensitive area.
* It is directly adjacent to residential property and a well-used trail and footpath.
* Effect on tourism in the area - as a 'Gateway to the Peak District' the natural landscape, Ogston Reservoir and network of footpaths in the area are a huge draw for tourism/holiday lets - the loss of valuable green sites and access to footpaths will have a negative effect. NEDDC say they want to protect and enhance countryside and its tourism.

Please take my objections into account when considering the suitability of this site.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9567

Received: 14/02/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Paul & Helen Fearn

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

The proposed allocation is not justified or appropriate in terms of its location or access to services and facilities and the site size. The area is rural with limited services:

Bus runs on a limited service, however a bus stop is on the proposed entrance to the site and would need be difficult to relocate due to the visibility street parking.
Woolley Moor has one pub but no other amenities, no post office.
The nearest doctors' surgeries are at Ashover or Clay Cross and they are both already overstretched, same for dentists.
Shops and health facilities are not within walking distance and with a limited public service, it can be challenging.
There is a primary school, but there is no early years provision and the nearest secondary schools over 4 miles away and not within walking distance.
Most people commute to work.

Full text:

We would like to submit the following objection, as we are responding to Local Plan Main Matter 15.

We live directly opposite the proposed site on Temperance Hill, Woolley Moor (Site GT/09)
As a resident of the area, we believe that we hold significant evidence to support our objection to the proposal.

Firstly, with regards to question 28:
We do not believe that the proposed allocation is justified or appropriate in terms of its location or access to services and facilities and the site size. The area is rural with limited services:
* There is a bus which runs on a limited service, however the bus stop is on the proposed entrance to the site and this would be difficult to relocate due to the visibility along the road in other places and the fact that there is only on street parking for the houses on Temperance Hill. (see photograph 1)
* The village of Woolley Moor has one pub but no other amenities (however it was stated that there is a post office - this is not true, that closed in 1979)
* The nearest doctors' surgeries are at Ashover or Clay Cross and they are both already overstretched. The same can be said of the nearest dentist surgery at Clay Cross.
* Shops and health facilities are not within walking distance and with a limited public service, it can be challenging.
* Although there is a primary school locally there is no early years (nursery/playgroup) provision and the nearest secondary schools are both over 4 miles away and therefore not within walking distance. There is no bus to Tupton Hall (the nearest Secondary school).
* Due to the lack of amenities, facilities and industry in the area there is also the need to travel several miles for most of the residents of Woolley Moor to find work.



Secondly with regards to question 29:
We do not believe that a satisfactory form of development can be achieved for a number of reasons:
* Temperance Hill sits within a Special Conservation area bordering a SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) which is Ogston Reservoir. This area is of National Importance for Wildlife this was due to the large numbers of migratory and rare birds. This information was sited on the planning application for the dwelling opposite the proposed site in 2009, where a number of restrictions were placed on the build due to its need to be in keeping with the local area.
* The proposed site is also home to badger setts, owls, bats and rabbit burrows. As an area of public land, it is currently used by locals for dog walking, children to play on and wildlife spotting.
* The proposed site borders Linacre Brook, which is teaming with frog spawn in spring. This brook is a direct tributary into Ogston a reservoir for public drinking water.
* For the site to be suitable, the strata of the landscape would need to be altered to accommodate the site. To the rear of the site, the embankment drops away at a slope of 40-50 degrees to Linacre Brook. Any surface water from the proposed site would have to run into this brook as all field drainage does. As farmers in the local area, regulation are posed on us regarding our usage of fertiliser and manure and the siting of any muck heap. This is done to ensure run-off does not cause contamination to the water course.
* The proposed site has no connection to the main sewer and this could not be achieved without crossing a number of private gardens and private land. The said sewerage system is already at capacity and has needed regular maintenance over the past few years to deal with reported problems. Therefore, the risk of pollution from the proposed site into Linacre Brook and eventually into Ogston Reservoir would be high and could be detrimental to public health and risk to local, established wildlife.
* The proposed site would not be in keeping with the surrounding stone-built houses of a type sympathetic to the area. It is out of the curtilage of the village, in open countryside, surrounded by grazing pasture fields. (see photograph 2)
* The proposed site is open from all surrounding aspects and is open to the road (Temperance Hill). As all surrounding land is higher, walls or hedges would need to be exceptionally high to disguise the site. Failure to disguise the site could have a detrimental effect on local tourism and membership of the Sailing, Angling and Bird watching clubs at Ogston Reservoir.
* Many tourists and locals alike, including many Derbyshire schools make regular use of the Woolley Moor trail. As this passes over the site, the trail would need to be protected and this would reduce the proposed site area.
* Temperance Hill is an unmarked road, which is often single track due to the on-street parking for houses on Temperance Hill. The road has a double S bend and the road rises and falls making visibility difficult for motorists. Traffic can, at times be heavy and only part of the road has a pedestrian footpath. As there is a farm entrance directly opposite the site, which the Woolley Moor trail follows directly into the farmyard there is increased risk to pedestrians. This dairy unit has regular feed deliveries from 8-wheeled lorries, which have difficulty manoeuvring due to traffic and often need to shunt taking above the full width of the road.
* A milk tanker (8-wheeled or mini articulated lorry) accesses the site daily at varied times of day and night. They are unable to access the farm if any cars are parked opposite the entrance (as they need 100-foot clearance). Parked caravans etc at the site would only add to this issue.
* Farm vehicles use Temperance Hill several times a day to spread manure, collect and take feed (silage, straw etc) and are often pulling large trailers totally 50 foot in length. Temperance Hill is also used by other local farmers and it is impossible for the tractors to pass other vehicles (especially other tractors or the local bus). (see photographs 3 and 4).

We hope that the enclosed information supports our belief that this is not a suitable site.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9569

Received: 09/02/2019

Respondent: Ms. Sarah Dawson

Representation:

Summary by Officer.


Poor access public transport access to Woolley Moor.

The village is small and has no facilities. Even the local pub at the bottom of Temperance Hill closed due to lack of business. The nearest shop, the Jet petrol station, is an hours walk away along a road without pavement. Additionally there is no local doctor or dentist nearby.

The local bus service is infrequent and not suitable to be able to access nearby towns. They would need their own transport. Cars could park on the roadside outside the development due to insufficient space on the pitches provided.

There is a steep slope behind the proposed site going to the brook, is this a safe environment for young children?

Full text:

I am writing this email in response to Matters, Issues and Questions raised in the local plan main matter 15 in relation to question 28(services/facilities in village and size of site) and question 29 (impact on landscape/access).

For 15 years I have lived in this area and enjoyed its wonderful footpaths, wildlife and history. I regularly travel via Temperance Hill as I journey by car to work as there are no access points to trains/connection during normal business hours.

I enjoy watching the sailing club boats on Ogston Reservoir which is an SSSI. The only powered boat allowed is their safety vessel. The local fishing club stock the reservoir, only fishing from the bank. The shore side management of the reservoir is helped by both associations.

I have objections for the proposed travellers site from the point of view of my local occupancy.

It would be unfair on surrounding neighbours and the 'village' if the travellers were to carry out business from the site as noise, smells and vehicular comings and goings do not allow for the peace and quiet enjoyed at the moment.

The 'village' is so small and has not facilities. Even the local pub at the bottom of Temperance Hill closed due to lack of business.

There is a historic footpath (Well Lane), the construction of the proposed site would prevent me from using this in the future.

I am concerned about pollution entering the reservoir via the brook that runs adjacent to the proposed development. The reservoir is our drinking water.

I am concerned about cars parked on the roadside outside the development there is insufficient space on the pitches provided. If hedging is planted to afford the occupants privacy, there is the high chance that overgrowth will force walkers into the road on a tight section. Each morning when I travel up this road there are several people walking their dogs.

I feel a park home type dwelling/caravan pitch is not at all inkeeping with the neighbouring stone built houses who would overlook it.

It is a recognised area of sensitivity, we see various wildlife including badgers, woodpeckers, herons, foxes, buzzards and ospreys around this area. The woodland below the site provides shelter and should not be disturbed.

From the traveller's view point the local bus service is very infrequent and not suitable to be able to access a nearby town eg Alfreton or Chesterfield. They would need their own transport.

The nearest shop, the Jet petrol station, is an hours walk away along a road without pavement. Additionally there is no local doctor or dentist nearby.

It could take many years for an indigenous hedge to grow to a suitable height to prevent being overlooked by the neighbours who are in close proximity.

Due to the steep slope behind the proposed site and direct access to the brook, is this a safe environment for young children?

The road is already narrow, if space is limited onsite for parking, then any surplus vehicles parked on the road are at risk of damage.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9571

Received: 09/02/2019

Respondent: Ms. Holly Carr

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

Woolley Moor is an inappropriate location. It is a small village and Temperance Hill itself has only 9 cottages, these would dominated by the proposal.

The size of the site is not justified or appropriate as the placement of 3 family sites would require the whole of the area to be used and could not be reasonably obtained without the removal of shrubbery at the edge and back of the site.

Site would not be in character and would impact on the sensitive landscape of surrounding area. Precedent of planning permissions being dismissed for this reason.

There are very few services and facilities in the village, no post office no doctors and an irregular bus service, a primary school and pub.

Putting the site here would disrupt the landscape, character, and history of the area, adding danger to road safety and inconveniencing both locals and visitors.

Full text:

NEDDC Examination Consultation - GT/09 Temperance Hill, Woolley Moor

I am responding to points 28 and 29 in the Matters, Issues and Questions on the proposed 3 site traveller and gypsy site on Temperance Hill, Woolley Moor. Please find my objections below.

1) Point 29 asks 'Can a satisfactory form of development be achieved having regard to the local environment including the impact on landscape quality?'

The Updated Addendum to G&T Topic Paper states 'sites were situated within a village centre or in a sensitive location (woodland, conservation site, etc.) and needed also to be discounted.' The proposed gypsy and traveller site in Woolley Moor is located within an area of primary sensitivity according to the Areas of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity Study. This suggest that the site is in a sensitive location and had it been considered in the site screenings and assessments it would not have been taken forwards as it is stated that 'proposals such as Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation are unlikely to be able to be brought forward without adverse effects on the landscape character of the Wooded Slopes and Valleys Landscape Character Type.' I don't see how this would be able to be protected therefore the proposal of this local green space goes against Government Policy and would be completely disruptive and out of character. The mitigation plans to grow hedges is unsatisfactory and would have little effect on protecting the landscape and views, it would simply reduce visibility from the site even further despite 45m being the apparent visibility distance required for vehicles emerging from the site.

Furthermore, the site backs onto the brook at the bottom of the valley leading directly to Ogston Reservoir, a source of water supply for Severn Trent. This could also be affected by the site as both the brook and the woodlands are home to many species of plants and animals such as owls, newts and fresh water shrimp.

2) Point 29 also asks 'Can a satisfactory form of development be achieved having regard to adjoining uses?'

The area surrounding the site is residential meaning the site both overlooks houses (Woodland Cottage) and is overlooked itself by at least 2 properties. This would cause a serious loss of privacy for myself personally and would be the dominant feature of the hill, completely out of character with the small cottages within this hamlet. During appendix 5, 3 sites were ruled out as 'there were compatibility issues with neighbouring land-uses (e.g. adjacent to recreation grounds, clearly overlooked by houses, etc.)' It seems to me that site GT/09 on Temperance Hill could also have been dismissed for this reason alone.

The site also features a public footpath and a bus stop, both of which I personally use on a regular basis. The footpath is used by myself, other locals and tourists as a way of access to the village centre avoiding the dangerous corners and junctions surrounding the site. The proposed Gypsy and Traveller site would seemingly block access to this footpath and therefore block off a safe way for accessing the village centre and would impact the many local walking routes in the area. The bus stop would also be a safety issue for me as the added vehicles and reduced visibility would make it problematic. Cars are frequently parked at the side of the road and with already reduced visibility the site would only add further danger to bus users like myself. Also, the documents state 'For the purpose of this assessment, an hourly bus service within a 10 minute walk, or 400m, is considered to be adequately accessible and frequent. While the bus service through Woolley Moor is considered to be accessible it is not, by your own guidelines, an adequately frequent service suggesting the services provided to this site are not appropriate and do not satisfy the needs of the proposal. There is one bus service through the village running every 2 hours at the most with 2 of these journeys being completely overfull with students from Highfields School on weekdays.

The site is a local green area attracting dog walkers, hikers, playing children and many more meaning the site is a valued recreational site within the village and placing a Gypsy and Traveller site here would be ruining the character of the village. As a child, I used the site for sports such as football and for picnics with friends as well as for walking and playing with our dogs. The loss of this site would mean the loss of an area for locals to use and enjoy. It seems it would be much more convenient and useful for a site to be placed on unused land rather than a site such as Temperance Hill where the space is valued and has many adjoining and situational uses.

3) Point 28 asks 'Would the proposed allocation be justified and appropriate in terms of the location including access to services and facilities and the site size?'

In my opinion, Woolley Moor is an inappropriate location for the proposed plans. Firstly, it is a small rural village of just over 100 households and Temperance Hill itself has only 9 cottages, all of which would be smaller than the proposed site and therefore the hill would become dominated by this. The size of the site is not justified or appropriate for the proposed plans as the placement of 3 family sites would require the whole of the area to be used and could not be reasonably obtained without the demolishment of the plants and trees at the edge and back of the site. The site would therefore be destructive and large in comparison to the surrounding buildings so would be hugely out of character within Woolley Moor. The site itself and surrounding sites have previously been dismissed and not even considered for planning permission as the location is sensitive and so must surely go against point 28 as these smaller plans for privately owned land (such as the field next to no.1) were deemed inappropriate and apparently could not be justified. Surely the rules can't be changed to satisfy the needs of the government and to accommodate one community while others have been rejected from such requests?

There are very few services and facilities in the village. There is the previously mentioned irregular bus service, a small primary school and a country inn. Despite you saying 'a post office is less than 500m from the site' the closest is actually in Ashover (2.3 miles from the proposed site rather than the stated 500m). The nearest doctors is also in Ashover while the nearest shops are over 2 miles away in Clay Cross. According to the documents Woolley Moor is missing these 'key amenities' and the occupants 'will generally be required to travel further on a more frequent basis'.

In conclusion, I would like the proposed site of Temperance Hill as a gypsy and traveller site to be removed as it does not comply with points 28 and 29 of the MIQs. It contradicts your guidelines and is clear that no one has been to visit and assess the site as it was only added after the appendices, which would have ruled it out. Putting the site here would disrupt the beautiful landscape and character of this small village with much history and sensitivity, adding danger to road safety and inconveniencing both locals and visitors.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9575

Received: 12/02/2019

Respondent: Ms. Heather Coxon

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

Woolley Moor is a picturesque countryside hamlet with extremely limited facilities (Primary School) an extremely limited bus service. The council's full plan seems to indicate that a 'level 4' settlement (Woolley Moor listed) would not have any form of development. With regard to the policy specifically for 'Gypsy and Traveller sites in the Countryside', every point seems to completely contradict the situation in this area and even the desktop appraisal agrees with my assessment. I fail to see how mitigation can have any effect in protecting the natural habitat, tourism and scenery. I park where I presume the entrance to the proposed site would be, as there is no other on street parking that is either safe nor over someone's drive on Temperance Hill. Other walkers are also parked on the street or using the site.

Full text:


Below you will find my objections to question 28 and 29.

I regularly visit the site for walking/exploring with my young grandson who is a resident of Woolley Moor. We first discovered the area on the NEDCC Hidden Gems website. There is a great historical walk linked to the local school that he can manage and enjoy (he's only 2 and a half). The proposed site is where we stop for a picnic and watch the birds, animals and tractors go by. After lunch we usually walk down the old 'Well Lane' and look at the fish and surrounding wildlife - in the Summer months we have regularly spotted many bats and even badgers at dusk! I am extremely surprised that any form of development would be considered in this absolutely beautiful tranquil area. From what I understand the school also uses the space for its children. It would be a huge loss to many people if this proposal were to go ahead.

28
Woolley Moor is a picturesque countryside hamlet with extremely limited facilities (Church of England Primary School) an extremely limited bus service (I say this as my grandson loves buses and unfortunately due to the infrequency I can't take him on it without a few hours wait to get back) From reading the council's full plan it seems to indicate that a 'level 4' settlement (Woolley Moor listed) would not have any form of development. What surprised me further was when I got towards the end and discovered the policy specifically for 'Gypsy and Traveller sites in the Countryside', every point seems to completely contradict the situation in this area and even the desktop appraisal agrees with my own personal assessment. Although mitigation measures are listed I fail to see how this can have any effect whatsoever in protecting the natural habitat, tourism and scenery which I and the many people who use this site have come to love. I also park where I presume the entrance to the proposed site would be, as there is no other on street parking that is either safe nor over someone's drive on Temperance Hill. I presume I am not the only one as most times I visit other walkers are also parked on the street or using the site (most often for picnics).

29
GT/09 is situated in a area of Primary Sensitivity according to the Areas of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity Study. It's also on high ground and could be viewed from many locations including the reservoir (which is an SSSI site) as well as by residents and tourists. The access to the site would in my opinion be extremely unsafe. One thing about Temperance Hill is that it is used daily as a cut through to Matlock and is extremely busy during 'rush hour' morning and afternoon traffic. This coupled with the adjacent farm entrance and that both the north and south junctions are treacherous (particularly to the south) as they are blind bends both ways on a national speed limit road would mean a significant risk of a serious accident.

I hope you can take my points into consideration. Anyone visiting this area can see how sensitive it is to change. Not one of the houses has really changed for hundreds of years and even the more recent adjacent farmhouse has been built using the same Derbyshire quarried stone to be in keeping with this wonderful countryside location. It would be a huge loss to the local population, many of whom have enjoyed this space all of their life.

In addition, this plan does not fall in line with the government policy which states that there will be more robust protection to the green belt and countryside in terms of planning applications. I understand that we aren't at the 'planning application' stage yet, but if this were indeed to be included in the local plan it would be extremely likely to progress.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9577

Received: 09/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs & Mr Rose & Harold Carr

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

We have seen how development destroys the countryside and believe that Temperance Hill is too sensitive and beautiful for this to happen.

Development at this location is against the vision in the Council's corporate plan to protect and enhance the landscape and to encourage tourism in the area.

The site has no access to local services (as there aren't any). There are very few buses, they are so infrequent cars need to be used.

The proposed site would be the major site on what is a very small run of mostly terraced cottages - surely this is not sensitive development?

Is the site really big enough for 3 pitches and parking for towing vehicles? There appears to be some movement of the land in that area, stability works would be needed to make it suitable this would impact on the environment even more?

Full text:

My husband and I are regular visitors to Temperance Hill in Woolley Moor and we are very disturbed at the proposal to develop the site adjacent to the cottages there. We are retired and are lucky enough to be able to visit many places to enjoy what they offer. We have also seen how development destroys the countryside and believe that Temperance Hill is too sensitive and beautiful for this to happen. For this reason we wish to object to your proposal and ask that remove it from the list of sites being considered.
We understand that North East Derbyshire has a vision in its corporate plan to protect and enhance the landscape and to encourage tourism in the area. We cannot see how points 28 (the suitable of the location) and point 29 (a satisfactory development) in the MIQ's can be achieved at Temperance Hill.
In particular:
The site has no access to local services (as there aren't any) There are very few buses - we would use them as we have free use but they are so infrequent we need to use our car.
The proposed site would be the major site on what is a very small run of mostly terraced cottages - surely this is not sensitive development?
The road junctions to and from Temperance Hill are challenging to say the least, we really don't like pulling out of either end of Temperance Hill in our car to join the main roads.
We see lots of wildlife on the proposed site when we are walking on the proposed site and sitting on the seat adjacent to it, this is clearly a natural habitat for many species and needs to be protected.
Is the site really big enough for 3 pitches and parking for towing vehicles? We notice that there appears to be some movement of the land in that area - what kind of stability works would be needed to make it suitable - work that would impact on the environment even more?
All in all this site does not appear to be a suitable place to develop, there must be more suitable locations to site the required developments that do not destroy precious green field sites.
We respectfully ask you to remove Temperance Hill from the list of sites for your development plan.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9580

Received: 10/02/2019

Respondent: Ms. Rosanna Horton

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

1. Unsuitability of site for businesses:
The site is not suitable for businesses to run from, the site does not meet Planning Policy for Traveller Sites guidelines because of its size, location, proximity to other properties, proximity to a SSSI and Wildlife.

2. Lack of local amenities:
Woolley Moor has poor accessibility by foot to services. The settlement does not have any services except for a primary school, there is no post office, medical centre, or shops. The Addendum identifies Stretton as the nearest location for other local services, but this is not on a bus route from Woolley Moor. Public transport servicing the village is limited.

3. Site size is not justified or appropriate:
Site size is disproportionate, representing 25% increase in residences. The site is too small to accommodate 3 pitches, the Council state the overall plot size is 1500sqm, but don't take account of footpaths and screening hedges planting.

Full text:

I set out below my comments on NEDDC's proposed traveller site GT/09 at Temperance Hill, Woolley Moor by reference to the questions set out in the Inspector's Matters, Issues and Questions (MIQs).

Question 2: Is the assessment methodology in the GTAA robustly based and in line with national policy as set out in the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (2015)? Does the PPTS have any implications for the assessment and would the definition of gypsies, travellers and travelling showpeople in the PPTS have any implication for the need identified?

The Council is asked to reconsider its needs assessment for Gypsy and Traveller Sites. In particular:

1. Incorrect definition of "traveller":

The GTAA 2014 (EB-G&T-1b) requirement for 15 additional sites between 2014-2034 is based on the old definition of "traveller" which includes those who have ceased to travel permanently (see EB-G&T-1b page 12).

As acknowledged at paragraph 3.4 of the G&T Topic Paper May 2018 (EB G&T2), two thirds of the respondents to the GTAA survey stated that they did not intend to move in the future, suggesting that the people surveyed to identify the need for 15 sites did not themselves fall within the current definition of "traveller". Therefore the methodology used to identify the need is questionable.

Further, as set out on page 198 of the GTAA, the suggested requirement for 15 additional sites includes 1.9 sites to be allocated to travellers that currently reside in housed accommodation. Once again, the Council is asked to consider whether those persons in housed accommodation have ceased to travel and therefore do not fall within the current definition of traveller, therefore reducing the need.

The Council is therefore asked to consider whether the requirement for 15 pitches is altered by taking account of the current (narrower) definition of traveller.

2. Whether the site is in a desired area for travellers:

Page 52 of the DCLG Good Practice Guide on Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites (May 2008) provides that "gypsy and Traveller families often wish to have small compact and well-managed sites located in areas where they have historically resided and have a network of local family support. Local authorities have in the past tended to provide accommodation in inappropriate areas and the sites have therefore not always been used to their full potential".

The GTAA provides an overall requirement for 15 sites in North East Derbyshire, but it does not identify where in North East Derbyshire those sites would be best placed to meet the preferences of the travelling community.

Having lived in Woolley Moor (and the neighbouring hamlet of Handley) for 30 years, I am not aware of any travellers ever using the village on their travelling route. Therefore the Council is asked to consider whether a site in the village is best placed to meet the needs and desires of the local travelling population, particularly if the location of the site would mean them moving away from family settled in other areas. Members of the travelling community should be consulted on the specific site location. If it is not a desirable location, this supports the argument that the disadvantages of the site (including lack of services and detriment on the environment) outweigh its advantages.

Question 28: Would the proposed allocation be justified and appropriate in terms of its location including access to services and facilities and the site size?

I do not consider the proposed allocation to be appropriate for the following reasons:

1. Unsuitability of site for businesses:

Paragraph 2.3 of the Gypsy & Traveller Topic Paper dated August 2015 (EB G&T2) identifies that many travellers "prefer to run businesses from the site on which their caravans are stationed. For these reasons sites adjacent to industrial estates may provide locational opportunities".

Further, page 5 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (Department for Communities and Local Government, August 2015) provides that local authorities should consider, wherever possible, traveller sites suitable for mixed residential and business uses, having regard to the safety and amenity of the local occupants and neighbouring residents. If mixed sites are not practical, local authorities should consider the scope for identifying separate sites for residential and business purposes in close proximity to one another.

The site does not meet the above guidelines because:

1.1: is located in a rural location where the only local industries are agriculture and leisure/tourism;

1.2: the site is very small with limited, if any, space for carrying out businesses;

1.3: the location of the site (at the top of a small enclosed valley) means that any noise from businesses is likely to travel and affect nearby residents.

1.4: the site sits next to a natural water course in which freshwater shrimps, frogs and newts have all be identified in the past. The stream leads directly into Ogston Reservoir which is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The reservoir provides drinking water but is also a local visitor attraction and supports a diverse range of wildlife including migratory birds. Therefore any accidental contamination of the watercourse as a result of businesses being carried out on the site would have a severe detrimental impact on the wildlife resident at the reservoir and on local drinking water.

1.5: the site is not located near any other sites that would allow for separate residential and business accommodation nearby to one another.

2. Lack of local amenities:

Paragraph 3.1 of the DCLG Good Practice Guide on Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites (May 2008) states that "As with any other form of housing, poorly located sites, with no easy access to major roads or public transport services, will have a detrimental effect on the ability of residents to: seek or retain employment; attend school, further education or training; and obtain access to health services and shopping facilities".

Paragraph 4.19 of the G&T Topic Paper dated August 2015 (EB G&T2) provides that sites should be discounted if they are within or next to Level 4 settlements (i.e. settlements of a small size, in remote locations and have a lack of services).

The proposed site is inappropriate should be discounted for the following reasons:

2.1: Woolley Moor has poor accessibility by foot to services. The settlement does not have any services except for a primary school (the route to which is on a narrow lane with no pavement or street lighting). The Updated Addendum to the Gypsy & Traveller Topic Paper (December 2018) (ED44D) incorrectly states that there is a post office within 500m of the site. There is no post office or other shop in the village. Further, the Addendum identifies Stretton as the nearest location for other local services (shops, village hall), but this is not on a bus route from Woolley Moor and therefore can only be accessed by car.

I also note that the discounted site at Temple Normanton (GT/05) has been assessed as a "red" indicator in this category for similarly poor local amenities, yet the site at Woolley Moor has been assessed as "amber". This is not acceptable and must be reassessed by the Council taking into account the above comments.

2.2: The village primary school is very small with only a limited number of places per year. According to the Derbyshire County Council website, the school received 13 applications for its 8 available places for 2017/2018. Paragraph 3.5 of the DCLG Good Practice Guide on Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites (May 2008) acknowledges a "relatively high density of children likely to be on the site". With this in mind, it may be that the local school cannot provide spaces for the number of children on the site as well as the current population that it services.

2.3: There is no medical centre in the village with the nearest GP practices being in Ashover or Clay Cross. The Gypsy & Traveller Sites Assessment (November 2018) (ED44B) incorrectly states at paragraph 3.17.5 that there is a "hospital" in Clay Cross. Clay Cross hospital is not a full service hospital and only provides the following limited services:

2.3.1: Musculoskeletal Service/ Orthopaedic Triage
2.3.2: Community Therapy Services
2.3.3: Physiotherapy
2.3.4: Community Podiatry
2.3.5: Falls Prevention
2.3.6: Continence

2.4: Public transport servicing the village is limited. There are bus services which run every hour to Matlock and to Chesterfield but only between the hours of 7:55am and 5:42pm in respect of buses to Matlock and 9:22am and 4:13pm for buses to Chesterfield. This makes it difficult to access amenities outside of the village generally and almost impossible to use public transport to access places of work if working usual office hours. For example, the first bus to Chesterfield does not leave the village until 9:22am and the last bus leaves from Chesterfield at 5.10pm. Similarly, whilst there is an earlier bus to Matlock, the last bus from Matlock leaves at 3.45pm. The bus timetable on Saturdays is even more limited with buses running on a two hourly basis to Matlock and Chesterfield respectively and no buses at all run on Sundays.

3. Site size is not justified or appropriate:

3.1: The site size is disproportionate to the local neighbourhood:


Page 3 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (Department for Communities and Local Government, August 2015) provides that local planning authorities should relate the number of pitches to the circumstances of the specific size and location of the site and the surrounding population's size and density. It also provides that when assessing sites in rural areas, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community (see page 4). Appendix 5 page 9 of the Updated Addendum to the Gypsy & Traveller Topic Paper (ED44D) suggests that the scale of the site is insignificant, even so compared to the adjacent hamlet of Temperance Hill. This is disputed. A site of 3 pitches in a hamlet of approximately 12 houses represents a 25% increase in residences. Temperance Hill should be considered a separate hamlet to Woolley Moor as it is a distinct settlement that was in existence before Woolley Moor was even created (Woolley Moor was effectively created when the village of Woolley was flooded to make way for the reservoir in 1958).

3.2: The site is too small to accommodate the suggested 3 pitches:

The GTAA (EB-G&T-1b page 175) provides that a pitch size of at least 500 square metres is required to accommodate the following on-pitch facilities:

3.2.1: Hard standing for 1 touring/mobile caravan
3.2.2: 2 car parking spaces
3.2.3: 1 amenity block
3.2.4: Hard standing for storage shed and drying
3.2.5: Garden/amenity area

The Council has stated that the overall plot size is 1500sqm (exactly 3 pitches), but the plot plan does not take account of the public footpath across the site (which would need to be partitioned off) or any space that would need to be allocated for hedge planting (which is suggested as a mitigating factor in the Landscape Appraisal Technical Note for the site (ED44C)). This in itself is likely to reduce the entire site size to below 1500sqm. Further, the Council is asked to consider how any communal areas including play area and any path/driveway on the site to connect the pitches to each other and/or to the public highway will be accommodated on the site whilst maintaining the recommended pitch size of 500sqm. It is suggested that the site, once these factors are taken into account, is only large enough to fit 2 pitches at most. If 3 pitches are placed on the site, this is likely to lead to parking on the road which will obstruct other road users and may obstruct the drive to the adjacent farm. In the event that only 2 pitches can be accommodated, it is argued that the detrimental impact of the site on the environment and the disadvantages of the site in terms of access to facilities and suitability for businesses etc is not outweighed by the Council's need to provide traveller accommodation.

Question 29: Can a satisfactory form of development be achieved having regard to:
* The local environment including the impact on landscape quality;
* Connections to utility services including water, electricity, gas and drainage;
* Access onto the local highway network;
* Adjoining uses; and
* Air and water quality, noise pollution, land stability and flood risk.

I do not consider that a satisfactory form of development can be achieved for the following reasons:

1. The site's close proximity to Ogston Reservoir, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (as noted above).

2. The site would have a detrimental impact on the environment:

The Landscape Appraisal Technical Note (ED44C) identifies that the proposed accommodation is unlikely to be able to be brought forward without adverse effects on the landscape character of the area. Further, the mitigation guidelines that it sets out are provided would only go some way to alleviating the detrimental impact and would not alleviate it to such an extent to make the development suitable. In particular:

2.1: the hedging suggested for the eastern boundary to the site (abutting the road) would not be possible if the site size of 3 pitches is to be achieved as the site is too small to accommodate both.


2.2: I question whether the hedging to the eastern boundary could be achieved given that much of that boundary would be taken up by a visibility splay (as noted below).

2.3: Some of the existing hedgerows (according to the technical note itself), fall outside of the site boundary and therefore it is questionable whether the Council has sufficient control over the hedgerows in order to keep and maintain them in the manner suggested by the report in order to mitigate the adverse impact of the site.

I also note that the Landscape Appraisal Technical Note (ED44C) is only a desktop survey and contains errors. For instance, the technical note does not take account of the well-used footpath running along the site and the effect the site would have on that footpath and those using it (the site will clearly be visible from it). It is suggested that a full survey is required to understand the true impact of the site on the environment.


3. There is likely to be noise pollution:

Paragraph 3.5 of the DCLG Good Practice Guide on Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites (May 2008) states that sites "should also provide visual and acoustic privacy and have characteristics which are sympathetic to the local environment. When selecting locations for permanent sites, consideration needs to be given to the relatively high density of children likely to be on the site".


The landscape surrounding the site (undulating valleys and open fields) tends to allow for noises to carry very easily for considerable distances and therefore there is likely to be noise pollution which will affect other local residents and vice versa. Any effective mitigating factors (high and dense hedgerows, fences etc) would not be appropriate for site residents (and the guidance provides that sites should not be heavily "fenced off" from the community) and would not blend in to the local environment. At the very least, the Council should commission a survey to properly assess the likelihood of noise pollution emanating to and from the site.

4. Highway network issues:

The Council has noted that visibility splays are "likely" to be achievable for the site. However, the Council is asked to consider whether those visibility splays can be met whilst also planting the hedgerow on the eastern boundary of the site as suggested in the Landscape Appraisal Technical Note (ED44C). It does not appear that both can be achieved.


It is argued that there will be an adverse impact on highway safety on Temperance Hill. In particular, there are bad junctions at each end of the road which are difficult turns, particularly for larger vehicles or vehicles towing trailers/caravans. The road is also narrow and would be adversely affected if further vehicles are parked on the road.

Conclusion

For the above reasons, the proposed site GT/09 is inappropriate and should be discounted. The Council has clearly left it very late to finalise its Local Plan and (as set out in the Topic Paper) has had to amend its own methodology in order to quickly find sites to meet its need for traveller pitches. It is a result of this last minute and further search for sites that site GT/09 has been identified. Accordingly, the Council has not properly considered the appropriateness of site GT/09 or its detrimental impact on the local environment. Further, in leaving the Plan so late, members of the public have been given very little time to comment on the proposals and the Inspector is asked to consider this (including extending the period for further comments) in any further consultation process for the site.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9582

Received: 14/02/2019

Respondent: mrs nicola haines

Representation:

* Woolley Moor has limited facilities and is a grade 4 settlement which has limited facilities. I have tried catching a bus from Temperance Hill and the service is limited.
* No shops or health facilities.
* Limited Employment opportunities.
* No local senior school.
* site size seems too small from a safety aspect once mitigation measures have been applied. Site size not appropriate to image outline due to sloping of land, closeness of neighbouring property and footpath.

Full text:

* Woolley Moor has limited facilities and is a grade 4 settlement which has limited facilities. I have tried catching a bus from Temperance Hill and the service is limited.
* No shops or health facilities.
* Limited Employment opportunities.
* No local senior school.
* site size seems too small from a safety aspect once mitigation measures have been applied. Site size not appropriate to image outline due to sloping of land, closeness of neighbouring property and footpath.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9585

Received: 10/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Luke Bowling

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

The village has very few amenities, only a primary school and pub. It doesn't have a shop, supermarket, dentist, doctor's surgery, nursery/child minder, secondary school, village hall, frequent bus service or post office.

The settlement is designated by the Council as Level 4. The current level of services/amenities fails to support the residents in the area at present, and would therefore be unable to support an increase in the number of residents.

The proposed site is on narrow, poorly lit, ill-maintained country lane which is not covered by services such as gritting and has parked cars located at one side. Junctions either side of the road emerge onto national speed limit roads and have poor visibility. Traffic incidents have occurred.

Increased traffic from proposal may involve larger vehicles/ caravans, these would impact highway safety on Temperance Hill and its junctions.

Disappointed about lack of notification of consultation to residents of Woolley Moor.

Full text:

Reference: NEDDC Examination Consultation - GT/09 Temperance Hill, Woolley Moor
Matter: Matters, Issues and Questions (MIQ's) raised in the local plan main matter 15 in relation to question 28 and 29

1. I am writing in respect of the above matter to submit my strong opposition to the proposed traveller site.

2. I wish to first express how greatly disappointed I am with North East Derbyshire District Council due to the lack of notification the residents of Woolley Moor have received about this consultation. Having resided in Woolley Moor for over 22 years and used the proposed site and connected public right of way regularly throughout my time in the village, this matter is of great concern to myself, along with the local residents of the village, the surrounding villages and visitors to the area who too use the proposed land and adjoining footpath routinely.

A. MIQ Point 28 Suitability of location - access to services, facilities and site size

3. The village has very few amenities consisting of only a small primary school and public house. Woolley Moor is without a local shop, supermarket, dentist, doctor's surgery, nursery / child minder, secondary school, village hall, frequent bus service or post office, contrary to point 25 of Appendix 5 of the North East Derbyshire District Council Updated Addendum to Gypsy & Traveller Topic Paper.

4. The: (1) limited bus service that runs through the village currently, which in recent times has been reduced and by no means provides a frequent service, contrary to point 3.17.2 of the Sustainability Appraisal of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2014-2034, combined with (2) the lack of facilities / amenities inside the village and the secluded location of the village, means that residents who do not have access to their own transport rely heavily on the goodwill and availability of family or friends to undertake essential day-to-day activities such as food shopping and attending healthcare appointments.

5. The lack of facilities and services that are present in the village are reflected in Woolley Moor's position in North East Derbyshire's Settlement Hierarchy Study, which, by North East Derbyshire District Council's own findings, assign the village with the status of "a very small village/hamlet with very limited sustainability" ('Level 4' ranking). Personal experience from living in the village and supporting a vulnerable family member with a developed illness who also resided in the village and were required to attend regular doctors / hospital / specialist appointments, attests to the challenging nature that is borne by residents due to the lack of local provision.

6. It is clear from both a personal perspective as a long-term resident and the empirical evidence which formed the basis of North East Derbyshire District Council's own Settlement Hierarchy Study that the current level of services / amenities fails to support the residents in the area at present, and would therefore be unable to support an increase in the number of residents in the future.

7. The location of the proposed site is on a narrow, poorly lit (only 1nr street light), ill-maintained country lane which is not covered by services such as gritting during periods of freezing weather and has parked cars located at one side. Junctions either side of the road emerge onto national speed limit roads and are affected by restricted vision, particularly at the Temperance Hill-B6014 junction. Crashmap records evidence a number of reported slight and serious traffic incidents on the roads in the immediate locality of the proposed site.

8. My concern is with increased traffic caused by a potential new development which may involve larger vehicles, some of which may be towing, and the impact these would have on the highway safety not only on Temperance Hill as traffic emerges from the proposed site, but also the safety of traffic emerging from junctions at either end of Temperance Hill.

B. MIQ Point 29 Can a satisfactory development be achieved in regard to Landscape

9. The proposed site is located in a sensitive location (woodland, habitats etc.) and therefore satisfies the criteria detailed in point 2.11 of North East Derbyshire District Council's Updated Addendum to Gypsy & Traveller Topic Paper to be ruled out.

10. The proposed site and neighbouring environments are natural habitats for many different species including badgers, foxes, birds etc. The site slopes downwards to a tributary stream to Ogston reservoir - a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest - which is located c.150 metres from the proposed traveller site. Ogston Reservoir and the surrounding farmland and woodland, which this proposed site falls within, is one of Derbyshire's premier bird watching sites, a leading national site for observing migratory birds and one of the country's most prominent inland sites for watching and recording Gull roosts, according to the Ogston Bird Club Charity. The tributary river itself is a natural habitat where species including freshwater shrimps, frogs and newts have been observed.

11. Changing the use of the proposed site to a traveller site (or indeed any other development) would evidently fail to safeguard local wildlife which utilise the current site and surrounding environment, fail to improve the local natural environment and would negatively impact on the areas Green Infrastructure and biodiversity values. The granting of permission for possible development of the land would as a consequence contradict the fundamental reiteration of the National Planning Policy Framework and a central aim of authoritative Government White Papers ('Natural Environment White Paper') which, according to organisations such as the UK Green Building Council, seek to move from a net loss of biodiversity to net gains for nature.

12. In reference to the National Planning Policy Framework, the site is in contravention of Sections (including, but not limited to):

a. Section 11 paragraph 117,
b. Section 11 paragraph 118 (b)
c. Section 15 paragraph 170 (a), (b), (d) and (e)
d. Section 15 paragraph 174 (a) and (b)
e. Section 15 paragraph 175 (a) and (b)
f. Section 15 paragraph 180 (b) and (c)

13. The negative environmental impact that would ensue from the proposed site becoming occupied by traveller pitches is made clear by the North East Derbyshire District Council commissioned study 'External Memo: Technical Note' document code: LC_465_NEDDC_Landscape dated 7th November 2018, which concludes:

"Proposals such as Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation are unlikely to be able to be brought forward without adverse effects on the landscape character of this LCT [Landscape Character Type] and the visual amenity of receptors within the local context. The local landscape context to the site is considered to have a unified character with key features that are representative of the Wooded Valleys and Slopes LCT. Proposals which do not respect or enhance the local context, such as Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation, are likely to have an adverse effect on the character of this sensitive landscape".

14. The identified possible mitigation measure of planting hedgerows or some other form of boundary treatment is likely to, in practice, be unsuitable, creating an ongoing maintenance issue, impacting on the visibility of approaching / exiting traffic and also alter the aesthetic of the area. The formation of additional boundary borders is likely to also negatively impact on neighbouring properties with the potential for issues such as reduced natural light. As the site borders are currently formed the site would be overlooked by surrounding properties (and visa versa), from the vantage point of immediate public rights of way which currently run both through and adjacent to the proposed site, and from nearby roadways and public footpaths which form part of the wider footpath network.


Your kind consideration of each point raised above would be gratefully appreciated.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9587

Received: 11/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs J Lebeter

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

Woolley Moor is a rural village with no shops, services, health care facilities etc. within a walking distance, and a limited bus service, which does not run into the evenings, limited on a Saturday and no service on a Sunday. Residents often use cars for transport.

Concerns over the size of the site, a screen would need to be erected to provide privacy for neighbouring properties and the site users. Access would need to be provided down the path of Well Lane which is part of the Woolley Moor walking and audio history tour.

To the north of the site there is a drainage ditch which feeds directly to the stream below. The rear of the site slopes quickly and is quite steep. All this points would indicate the site would actually be reduced in size considerably.

Full text:

Ref - NEDCC Examination Consultation - GT/09 Temperance Hill. Woolley Moor

I am writing to express my concern about the above planning for a gypsy traveller site.

I visit Temperance Hill between 3-4 times a week to care for and visit my Grandson.

I am writing in response to matters, issues and questions raised in the local plan (main matter15)-

Question 28 (services/facilities in the village and size of site) -

The village of Woolley Moor is rural with no shops, services, health care facilities etc within a walking distance and advanced planning with transport is required to attend these amenities. I have found in the past that it is often impossible to use the limited bus service, which does not run into the evenings, limited on a Saturday and no service on a Sunday as the infrequent timings do not adhere to present day busy lives. I often see elderly residents relying on friends and family for a more convenient quicker method of transport.

I would ask you to explore the size of the site, as to the south of the site, a screen would need to be erected to provide privacy from number 13 and to the travellers themselves and to the north of the site access would need to be provided down the path of Well Lane which is part of the Woolley Moor walking and audio history tour. Also, hidden to the north of the site there is a drainage ditch which feeds directly to the stream below. The rear of the site slopes quickly and the sheer steepness of this can be seen more clearly on the path and the residents gardens. All this points would indicate the site would actually be reduced in size considerably.

Question 29 (Impact on landscape / access etc) -

The site is directly accessed onto a national speed limit road, which regularly I see being used at this speed limit and also by heavy farm machinery. I believe a highways assessment has been done following guide line standards, however I cannot see how the speed could be fully assessed in a 3 hour period on a quiet afternoon. On road parking by residents, visitors and tradesmen also hamper the view of the road, especially from the north of the site where the farm entrance and blind hill is situated.

The site is regularly used by local wildlife, including badgers and my grandson and I often observe the foraging and pathways used by the badgers. The stream is popular with pondlife and we have seen frogs, newts and often a crayfish along the watercourse.
The site is situated closely to Ogston Reservoir, which is one of Derbyshire's premier bird watching locations and features heavily as the place to visit on the NEDCC website. Bird watchers often use the site to view from a distance the rare birds that visit the reservoir and fields opposite the site.

I ask you to listen to the Woolley Moor audio tour which was composed by the local school children with endorsed by NEDCC. This tells you the history of the cottages, opposite farm and the story of Well Lane to the north of the site. The cottages on Temperance Hill were the earliest in the area dating back to the 1800's. When travelling around the local area you notice that newer developments are all within keeping of the rural environment and the stone style cottages ( for example Milltown / Fallgate) and also the additional farm house opposite. Any mitigation measures would have to take into account access for the travellers from the road, appropriate screening for number 13 which is directly adjacent and no amount of mitigation would stop the view from the farm housing above the site to the north east.

The impact on the landscape itself would be great and the area is in a recognised area of sensitivity and the land appraisal states that it would be sensitive to change. The grass area is used by local villagers for dog walking, accessing the main village and children to play and exercise. It is also regularly used by visitors to the area, bird watchers and ramblers. I am confused why this area would be considered as a traveller site in the local plan.

I ask you to consider the proposal carefully to ensure that this grass area is retained for locals, children and visitors.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9589

Received: 10/02/2019

Respondent: Ms. Karen Bowling

Representation:

Summary by Officer.
Concern over impact on the highway safety, the road is narrow with parked cars. The site will increase traffic, including larger vehicles. Both junctions leaving Temperance Hill have restricted vision. Traffic incidents have happened.

Previous cottages demolished due to sewage concerns. A traveller sites would not be in keeping with the surrounding landscape.

Woolley Moor is a Level 4 settlement.

The villages has few services, as shops, post office, doctors or dentist etc., and an infrequent bus service. There is a primary school. Most people use cars for transportation.

The site is not large enough to support three pitches, utility buildings and space for parking. Especially if hedgerows are planted as this would encroach on the site.

There would be no space for grazing land should this be a requirement.

Full text:

Reference: NEDDC Examination Consultation - GT/09 Temperance Hill, Woolley Moor

I am writing in response to the Matters, Issues and Questions (MIQ's) raised in the local plan main matter 15 in relation to questions 28 and 29, to strongly oppose the proposed traveller site in the rural village of Woolley Moor.

Firstly, can I say how greatly disappointed I am with North East Derbyshire District Council due to the lack of notification the residents of Woolley Moor received about this consultation which I feel has been handled in a very disorganised and underhanded manner.

I have grown up in the village and have resided here for 53 years also bringing my family up in this tranquil hamlet. I regularly use the proposed site for dog training, picnicking and playing with my children and now with my grandchildren.

I would be grateful if you could please consider my concerns below:

MIQ Point 28 Suitability of location - access to services, facilities and site size

I am extremely concerned about the impact this site will have on the highway safety on Temperance Hill as the road is narrow with parked cars. The site will increase the traffic of potentially larger vehicles, some of which will be towing. Both junctions leaving Temperance Hill have restricted vision, especially the one opposite Ogston Reservoir which is a 60 mph road and has limited vision to traffic approaching on the left of the junction. The Crashmap website verifies the dangers which has recorded serious collisions at the junction on Ashover Road.

There used to be a handful of cottages on this parcel of land but they were demolished upon the formation of Ogston Reservoir (in 1958) due concerns with the sewage on the site.

Typically traveller sites are concreted which would not be in keeping with the surrounding landscape.

When referring to North East Derbyshire's 'The Settlement Hierarchy Study', Woolley Moor has been given a Level 4 which is classified as a very small village and hamlet with very limited sustainability.

Although residents find Woolley Moor a lovely rural hamlet in which to live, it can be a challenging place to reside as it does lack in services such as a local shop, post office, doctors or dentist. The bus service is always being reviewed which concerns those residents who rely on this facility. Although there is a local primary school, this is small. The handful of children who currently live in the village have to rely on a bus journey to the Secondary School. A lot of the people in the village go out to work, therefore the elderly residents can find it an extremely lonely place to live and have to rely on family/friends/retired neighbours to help them do their shopping or take them to the doctors, post office etc.

I would also question the calculations of the site as I do not believe it is large enough to support three pitches, each of which providing land per household suitable for a mobile home, touring caravan and utility building together with space for parking. Especially if the alleged hedgerows are to be planted as this too would encroach on the measured 1500 sqm of land. There would be no space for animals for example sufficient grazing area for a horse/pony should this be a requirement for the traveller family. As a horse owner for many years, I found it impossible to find land available to rent in the village for my horse as local farmers do not wish to find surplus land to graze horses due to the damage they cause to fields.

MIQ Point 29 Can a satisfactory development be achieved in regard to Landscape

This proposed site is situated on a rural lane overlooking Ogston Reservoir.

As stated on the 'Experience Peak District and Derbyshire website'; "Ogston Reservoir is owned and managed by Severn Trent Water and is a site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Apart from the Reservoir there is a variety of other habitats including farmland and woodland, boasting many species of birds, including spring and autumn passage migrants. It has gained a reputation as one of the premier inland sites in the country to watch and record gull's at roost during the winter months."

The site slopes down to a tributary stream which feeds into the Reservoir. This part of the land is overgrown and is a wonderful safe haven for wildlife which attracts; owls, woodpeckers, squirrels, foxes, badgers and lots of species of birds.

The historic Well Lane footpath runs alongside the land which is a lovely place to walk, sit and relax. The stream runs under a small bridge which is a peaceful place to stand and watch dragonflies skim across the water. It is also home to frogs and toads - freshwater shrimps and crayfish have also been spotted there.

This footpath is part of the Woolley Moor Trail nature walk and is enjoyed by the local school, visiting schools and visitors to the area. The path is well used as it is safer than walking on the road which is narrow and has no footpath.

When making reference to the Updated Addendum to Gypsy & Traveller Topic Paper 2018 in 'Appendix 4 - 8 out of 205 potential traveller sites' it states the site is "Part of Woolley Moor but not within village centre". I can confirm that the village does not have a centre and this site is well and truly part of the village and is also in a sensitive area.

Making reference to 'A Landscape Appraisal' commissioned by North East Derbyshire District Council from Lepus Consulting Ltd it states in the conclusion:
"Proposals such as Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation are unlikely to be able to be brought forward without adverse effects on the landscape character of this LCT and the visual amenity of receptors within the local context". The local landscape context to the site is considered to have a unified character with key features that are representative of the Wooded Valleys and Slopes LCT. Proposals which do not respect or enhance the local context, such as Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation, are likely to have an adverse effect on the character of this sensitive landscape".

Can I please also refer to the National Planning Policy Framework, the site is in breach of Sections (S.), including, but not limited to:

1. S.11 paragraph 117,
2. S.11 paragraph 118 (b)
3. S.15 paragraph 170 (a), (b), (d) and (e)
4. S.15 paragraph 174 (a) and (b)
5. S.15 paragraph 175 (a) and (b)
6. S.15 paragraph 180 (b) and (c)

The site will be overlooked by neighbouring properties - I believe other sites have been turned down because of this. The traveller site will have a huge impact on their lifestyle as it is lovely and quiet and overlooks Ogston Reservoir.

The possible mitigation of planting hedges, these take time to grow, will the site be out of view and who will maintain the hedges? Once grown, it will have a significant effect on the sensitive landscape and will reduce light into the neighbouring property, whilst also reducing visibility when entering/exiting/approaching the site entrance.

I feel the site will also impact on the lovely holiday let provision we have in the village. We have regular visitors who like to stay and enjoy walking along the network of footpaths in the area. I am somewhat surprised North East Derbyshire are considering this site at all as they say they want to protect and enhance the countryside along with its tourism!

I would be grateful if you could give my concerns your serious consideration.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9591

Received: 13/02/2019

Respondent: Ms. Nicola Bird

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

Woolley Moor is small village with few services close by. Although it is in close proximity to a primary school, it is not near a secondary school or places of employment, there are no shops, post offices, doctors or dentists nearby and the transport links are limited, thus making it more difficult to access these services. The location of the site is unsustainable. Settlement designated as Level 4. Concern over traveller communities feeling isolated, which could be detrimental to their health and well-being.

I do not feel that the site is big enough to sustain 3 pitches. The site stated as 1500sqm, I believe it is nearer 1000sqm. As there are no boundaries currently in place, whatever boundaries are could make the site smaller.

Full text:

I am writing in response to the matters, issues and questions (MIQ's) raised in the local plan main matter 15 in relation to question 28, which asks if the proposed site would be suitable in terms of its location (the size of the site and access to services and facilities) and question 29, which relates to access and the impact on the landscape.

From having looked at the proposed site, I do not feel it is suitable for several key reasons, which I outline below.

From reading 'Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide' (2008), I do not feel that the site is big enough to sustain 3 pitches. Although the site is reported to be 1500 sqm, I believe it is actually nearer to 1000 sqm. As there are no boundaries currently in place, whatever boundaries are used will make the site even smaller. This is a concern in itself, but if hedges are planted, it could reduce the visibility when entering and exiting the site entrance, thus also having an impact on highway safety.

I also have other concerns in relation to highway safety. Temperance Hill is a narrow road with bad junctions at both ends. If the site does become a gypsy and traveller site, then there would be larger towed vehicles using the road, which will impact on this further. Even DCC Highways cannot say that visibility splays will definitely be achievable, they only say it is likely. In order to ensure everyone's safety, surely this is not enough.

Again with reference to 'Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide' (2008), it states in Chapter 4 (4.1) that sites should be developed with particular regard made to 'visual and acoustic privacy'. This is in relation to people living on the sites and other people living nearby. The proposed site does not allow for this, as the neighbouring houses will be overlooking the site. I am aware that other sites have been discounted because of this.

Also in Chapter 4 (4.1) it states that particular regard should be made to the 'aesthetic compatibility with the local environment'. The proposed site does not allow for this. The site is in an Area of Multiple Sensitivity (DCC 2010), due to its ecological features, historic environment and visual unity. I am aware that other sites have been discounted for being in a sensitive location (Document Updated Addendum to Gypsy and Traveller Topic Paper, Step 2: Manual Site Screening 2.11). The proposed site is an important green space, used daily by local ramblers, dog walkers, bird watchers and visitors enjoying the beautiful scenery. The site is close to Ogston Reservoir, which is a site of Special Scientific Interest. The Woolley Moor Trail, which is both a historical and nature trail, runs across the site and is commonly used by the local school, schools from other areas and walkers. If this valuable green site was lost and access to footpaths in the area affected, this could then impact on tourism, which NEDDC have said they want to protect and enhance.

In the NEDDC Vision in its Corporate Plan (2015), Section 3, it also talks about protecting and enhancing landscape character, which would not be possible if the site was agreed. In further support of this, 'The Landscape Appraisal', which was commissioned by NEDDC (carried out by Lepus Consulting Limited, dated 7th November 2018), concluded in relation to this site that 'Proposals such as Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation are unlikely to be able to be brought forward without adverse effects on the landscape character'.

In Chapter 4 (4.1) of 'The Good Practice Guide', it states that particular regard should be made to the 'scope for social integration with the local community', and in Chapter 3 (3.4) identifies factors which are important for the sustainability of a site. The factors that I believe are relevant to the site in question are 'means of access, availability of transport modes and distance from services', 'easy access to General Practitioner and other health services', and 'near to shops and schools'.

The proposed site is in a small village which has very few services close by. Although it is in close proximity to a primary school, it is not near a secondary school or places of employment, there are no shops, post offices, doctors or dentists nearby and the transport links are limited, thus making it more difficult to access these services. I therefore do not feel that the location of the site is sustainable.

This is also highlighted in the Council's own Local Plan, which says that Woolley Moor has limited sustainability. The 'Settlement Hierarchy Study' (December 2016) also states that Woolley Moor is a small village, considered lacking in services.

In the 'Good Practice Guide', Chapter 5 (5.35), it states that if a site is isolated from local facilities, provision of a communal building is recommended. I feel that the size of the proposed site would be too small to accommodate this. Due to this and the fact that the site would only have three pitches on it, I am concerned that any gypsy and traveller communities living there would feel isolated, which could be detrimental to their health and well-being.

I hope these views on the proposed site at Temperance Hill will assist you in your assessment, and that you will agree it is not a suitable gypsy and traveller site.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9593

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Martin Howe

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

Highways: To be able for a large vehicle to turn into the site, any drive would be at least 10m wide. This would restrict the number of pitches on site.

Addendum, q.25: GT/10 is discounted as the site has not got good accessibility to services on foot with those services being 1.5km away. Services (there is no Post Office) are more than twice as far away from GT/09 but no comment is made on accessibility.

Q.28:
GT/10 has "not good accessibility to services"
GT/09 is stated as having "some services that are near but others are further away". Whereas it is stated that GT/10 is within an Area of Primary Sensitivity this fact is left out with regard to GT/09.

Full text:

Local Plan proposal for Gypsy & Traveller Site GT/
09 at Temperance Hill, Woolley Moor
06 February 2019
Ref: MIQ 28 / 29
I am writing to express both my opposition and concern at the above proposal and would like to raise the following issues:
Assessment Process
The NEDDC Gypsy and Traveller Topic Paper of May 2018 sets out the criteria for site assessment. I will not copy out each point but will list the number for your reference:
2. Context
2.3.
Location of Traveller sites
5.7
1. Both refer to the preference of Gypsy and Travellers to run businesses from residential sites but no caveat is attached to these points (e.g. subject to the appropriate planning permissions being granted). If this is correct, occupants of the proposed site (which adjoins private housing) will be able to engage in any business they wish without being subject to established planning and environmental requirements.
(You may consider this point can be rejected as being only a probability, but this site has been evaluated against this criteria and, as NEDDC state, the practice is a fact on established Traveller sites.) Location of Traveller sites
5.6
Accessibility to local services and facilities on foot.
1. Contrary to the assessment document findings there has not been a Post Office in Woolley Moor since the 1980's.
2. Except for a primary school the remainder of services listed are over 3km away and obviously not accessible on foot.
3. As a village Woolley Moor is not self sustainable and does not comply with the requirements as set out in these assessment criteria.
Despite all the above, on this point, the site is considered suitable by the NEDDC assessment process.
Highways.
1. Please look closely at the topography of Temperance Hill and the field to the north of the proposed site which is not controlled by NEDDC. I believe that traffic emerging from a dip in the road, and from behind a stone wall and trees, will be hidden and the required guaranteed line of site cannot be achieved.
2. I understand that any to the site must be situated so that the largest vehicle entering the site may do so without causing other traffic to queue on the road if the gates are closed. If there are no gates, I assume the siting of pitches must also allow entry as above.
A twin axle caravan plus towing vehicle can be 18m in length and to allow such a vehicle to make the turn in one go off a narrow road, any drive would need to be at least 10m wide. Even more room would be required to manoeuvre once in the site.
To comply with highways regulations this would reduce the area available for pitches by a minimum of 180 sq m. On a small site with a total usable area of only 1500 sq m the siting, or number, of pitches would be restricted.
Addendum:
Step 3. Site Assessment 2018
2.13
1. Other potential sites have been rejected on the grounds of "adjacent to recreation grounds, overlooked by houses etc".
The proposed site at Temperance Hill is bordered by No.13 which will overlook, and be overlooked, by the site. No's 8 -12 are also in very close proximity.
The rear gardens of all the above houses will have their privacy compromised.
This does not appear in the NEDDC assessment.
2.17
Area of Primary Sensitivity ( as classified within AMES)
1. NEDDC own conclusion states "proposals are unlikely to be able to be brought forward without adverse effects on the landscape character of this LCT. However, adverse effects can be mitigated."
Any mitigating action will in itself change the landscape character of this Area of Primary Sensitivity.
2. The proposed site is on a direct route to Ogston reservoir for fishermen, sailors, birdwatchers, walkers and tourists arriving from the direction of Clay Cross district, via Handley to the north.
Sites have been discounted for having a 'visually prominent frontage' but, again, the assessment process seems not to have addressed this point in relation to GT/ 09.
As has been seen, there are too many anomalies in the assessment process. Some occur where the same question has been asked of two similar sites and different comments are applied or information left out.
An easy way of confirming this is to compare GT/09 and GT/10 which are side by side in Appendix 5 of the December Addendum document.
These include but are not limited to:
Q.25.
GT/10 is discounted as the site has not got good accessibility to services on foot with those services being 1.5km away.
Services (there is no Post Office) are more than twice as far away from GT/09 but no comment is made on accessibility.
Q.28.
GT/10 has "not good accessibility to services"
GT/09 is stated as having "some services that are near but others are further away".
Policy Conclusion.
Whereas it is stated that GT/10 is within an Area of Primary Sensitivity this fact is left out with regard to GT/09.
In conclusion:
The proposed site is on a narrow rural road with a visually prominent frontage in an Area of Primary Sensitivity directly adjoining private housing on the outskirts of a non-sustainable village which (apart from a Primary School) has no services within walking distance.
The proposed site fails to reach the criteria set by NEDDC and, as such, is unlikely to serve either the local population or the intended travelling community well.
Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt either by post or to my email
Regards,
Martin Howe

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9596

Received: 14/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Martin Lees

Representation:

Reference point "Has the site access to key services/facilities by foot?"
1). Report incorrect as no Post Office 500m from site. Nearest PO approximately 3.7km from site.
2). Nearest convenience store is approximately 3.25km
3). Majority of roads from the site have no footpaths, therefore the access via foot to key services/facilities would be dangerous with many roads at 60mph limit.
4). Inconsistent application of assessment rules to Temperance Hill site-other sites in survey reported facilities closer than at Temperance Hill and were RATED RED - Temperance Hill RATED AMBER-INCONSISTENT 6). Poor visibility exiting bottom of Temperance Hill/B6014 (60mph) junction

Full text:

Reference point "Has the site access to key services/facilities by foot?"
1). Report incorrect as no Post Office 500m from site. Nearest PO approximately 3.7km from site.
2). Nearest convenience store is approximately 3.25km
3). Majority of roads from the site have no footpaths, therefore the access via foot to key services/facilities would be dangerous with many roads at 60mph limit.
4). Inconsistent application of assessment rules to Temperance Hill site-other sites in survey reported facilities closer than at Temperance Hill and were RATED RED - Temperance Hill RATED AMBER-INCONSISTENT 6). Poor visibility exiting bottom of Temperance Hill/B6014 (60mph) junction

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9598

Received: 04/02/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs D Hinchliffe

Agent: John Church Planning Consultancy Limited

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

Respondants are unaware of any demonstrable need for the proposed development in this particular area arising from the perceived lack of any credible, established historic demand for a facility of this nature in the rural parishes to the west of the A61.

Access to services and facilities in Woolley Moor is poor, there is a school, church and pub, but few other accessible facilities.

Sustainability Appraisal refers to a bus stop providing frequent services. This is strongly contested. Bus services are intermittent. There are a maximum of five services passing the site daily from Chesterfield and four towards Chesterfield. This number reduces on Saturdays and there is no Sunday or Bank Holiday service.

Full text:

See Attachment

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9600

Received: 12/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Robert Fox

Representation:

Summary by Officer.


The site is too small to support the proposed number of pitches. ED-G&T2 suggests that the G&T community pitches on existing sites.
Woolley Moor is a Level 4 Settlement, and as such has very few services/facilities, site should be discounted because of this.
No safe access to amenities in the village does on foot, due to lack of pavements, lack of local amenities will cause increased use of cars, and so traffic. Children walking to the Primary School maybe unsafe due to busy roads.
Assessment criteria used to judge the appropriateness of sites wasn't applied consistently, when comparing GT/09 to other sites.
Development size inappropriate to consider for Temperance Hill area, an increase of more than 25% in the size of the nearest settlement should be rated red.
Investment to improve the facilities/services available to residents would make the village more suitable for the proposed development.

Full text:

I am writing with regard to the proposed development of land referred to as site GT/09, adjacent to 13 Temperance Hill, Woolley Moor; as a permanent site for G&T accommodation.
Sixty years on, there are few residents left who remember the old village prior to the construction of Ogston Reservoir. The 'new' reservoir is now considered as much a part of the areas beauty, as the valley it flooded once was, however this this does not alter the lasting impact that this development had. I feel privileged to be able to live in such a beautiful neighbourhood and can easily understand the many factors that would make it desirable to anyone wishing to move here, however I will never be able to follow the footpath along the side of the river to the field where, as my grandmother described in her poignant composition "A Reservoir Takes Its Toll", she played cricket with her fellow infants, before drinking milk and tea from a farm house up on top of the hill; "Now the same field lies 30 feet under water, only memories are left."
Main Matter 15 - Point 28
Section 5.2 of ED-G&T2 states: "The 2014 GTAA recommends a pitch size of at least 500m2" The size of site GT/09 is given as just 1500m2 so it appears that NEDDCs plan is to squash three pitches onto the smallest plot possible. Scant consideration seems to have been given to the needs of the potential residents, who given the rural location are likely to require space for parking additional vehicles on each pitch as well as space for their caravans, an amenity/utility building, business etc. In fact, once space is deducted for mitigation hedges and public footpath access it seems likely that the site would be too small for the potential number of pitches even if these were kept to the smallest size acceptable.
Advice on site location in Circular 01/2006 Planning for G&T Caravan Sites identifies provision of local amenities as being an important factor in finding a suitable location. Having access to key services/facilities "by foot" is also one of the physical suitability criteria considered in ED44D. Leaving the proposed site on foot, you can safely walk either along the pavement south, down to the B6014 or alternatively can take the public footpath known locally as 'Well Lane' NW towards Beresford Lane. St Marks Church, Stretton Handley Primary School, the Play Area/Jubilee Playing Fields and the White Horse Inn are all within a relatively short walk of the site, however none are accessible via either of the routes mentioned; travelling to any of them from the site on foot would mean walking on narrow roads without pavements which in some cases are unlit.
Woolley Moor has less than a third of the fifteen possible types of services/ facilities listed in the Settlement Hierarchy Study for NE Derbyshire conducted in December 2017. The Study gives Woolley Moor a total score of 4/40 in its sustainability rankings concluding "settlements that score 4 or below... are classified as very small villages and hamlets with very limited sustainability." You need to travel 2.6miles (4.1km) to Ashover to find the nearest GP, small shops and post office (despite ED44D listing one as being within walking distance of the site) whilst the nearest dentist, chemist and supermarket are 3miles (4.8km) away in Clay Cross (distances which seem to be downplayed or possibly calculated 'as the crow flies' in ED44B). Even for those for us who have spent very little time living elsewhere it is annoying to have to get in the car whenever you need to buy a loaf of bread or a pint of milk rather than taking a quick walk to a local shop.
NEDDCs RAG rating for suitable services accessible by foot, suggests site GT/09 rates as amber (despite there being so few of them). Curiously GT/10 is RAG rated red for accessible services stating "South Wingfield Primary School and other local services... are approx. 1.5km away from the site. The site has therefore not good accessibility by foot." If the potential site in Woolley Moor were to go ahead, as already described the vast majority of amenities would be at least double the distance that appears to have been deemed unsuitable in Oakerthorpe. Similarly GT/05, also RAG rated as red, stated "in general the settlement does not have any services except for a primary school... Temple Normanton is considered a settlement with limited sustainability in the Settlement Hierarchy Study." Temple Normanton's score in the study (8/40) was actually double that given Woolley Moor; Woolley Moor being considered to have not only limited sustainability but very limited sustainability.
NEDDC has only adopted the threshold in relation to area in reaching its conclusion that "compared to Woolley Moor the scale of the site is insignificant (even so compared to the adjacent hamlet)". Clearly the population measure recommended by CBC is difficult to assess, as even if figures were readily available for the population of the village, it is unknown how many members of the G&T community would live on the site. The area threshold also seems problematic however as the present day village is essentially comprised of several small hamlets surrounded by green space (the few remaining houses from the old villages of Woolley and Woolley Moor flooded during the construction of Ogston Reservoir, together with the expanded settlement of Badger Lane where residents were re-homed at that time), so whilst the area covered by the village as a whole is large, the addition of three pitches will actually have a far bigger impact than the size of their plot would suggest.
A far more appropriate measure in my opinion would be to consider the number of households. Being unable to find any official figures for the number of households in the village, my own count puts this at 90. Adding three new households is therefore an increase in the size of the village of approximately 3.3%. Compared to the Fletcherhill area, adding three new households would be an increase of 25% (twelve households already being present). To scale up this percentage increase, this is the equivalent of adding Clay Cross North and South wards more than two and a half times each to Chesterfield Borough (2.7x 4342 households compared to 46796, based on 2011 census data).
This raises a number of issues/concerns regarding the suitability of the site to be considered under Point 28:
a. The site seems unlikely to be able to support the proposed number of pitches
i. Appendix 5 of ED-G&T2 suggesting that as soon as site gets below 1499m2 the suitability goes from Green to Amber.
ii. ED-G&T2 also suggests that the G&T community would actually prefer more pitches on existing sites to NEDDCs plan to create new sites.
b. Woolley Moor is a Level 4 Settlement in the Settlement Hierarchy study, and as such has very few services/facilities.
i. Section 4.19 of ED-G&T2 explicitly states a number of reasons why sites should be discounted out-of-hand. This includes if they "are situated within or next to Level 4 Settlements".
ii. Residents of the site will be unable to safely access the amenities that the village does have on foot, due to lack of pavements
iii. Lack of local amenities will cause increased road traffic as residents will be forced to travel to access amenities elsewhere.
c. The safety of children living on the site walking to the Primary School and the playing fields/play area needs to be considered, particularly the likelihood that they would be walking to/from school at times when the school traffic on Beresford Lane would be at its busiest.
d. Assessment criteria used to judge the appropriateness of sites doesn't appear to have been applied consistently, when comparing the RAG rating given to site GT/09 with that given to other sites.
e. Given the make-up of the settlement now known as Woolley Moor, it may be inappropriate to consider thresholds for development size against the village as a whole.
i. If considering the Fletcherhill area only, NEDDCs own measures state that a development which causes an increase of more than 25% in the size of the nearest settlement should be rated red.
f. NEDDC could look to invest in the village in order to improve the facilities/services available to all residents which would make the village more suitable for the proposed development e.g. by opening a convenience store or GP surgery.
Main Matter 15 - Point 29
Landscape Appraisal ED44C states that "there appear to be no public rights of way within the site". Whilst there may be no formal PRoW, there is a public footpath that crosses the site. 'Well Lane' runs from the corner of Beresford Lane, emerging at the NW corner of the site; the footpath then runs across the site to join with the start of the pavement on Temperance Hill and provides a link between the houses on Temperance Hill and the main part of the Village. 'Well Lane' and the path across the site also form part of the route of Woolley Moor Audio Trail, between sites G (Temperance Hill Cottages) and H ('Well Lane' itself).
Woolley Moor Trail was originally developed at Stretton Handley Primary School in approximately 1994 during my time as a pupil there, becoming an Audio Trail in 2010. It is now over 25 years since the trail was founded and in that time it has become an important feature of the local area and has always maintained the same goals of encouraging people to take exercise and engage with the nature and history of the area. NEDDCs Chris Taylor, speaking about the Audio Trail project praised: "A series of fascinating trails that explain the history, heritage, flora and fauna of our towns, villages and countryside. The feedback from residents and visitors has been excellent and the trails now form an important part of our digital tourism promotion."
Having been walking along part of the route of the Woolley Moor Trail down Beresford Lane this weekend, I was able to quite clearly see the proposed site on Temperance Hill. As ED44C describes "the land parcel occupies a moderately elevated position lying ... on a north west facing slope." The main part of the village is at the top of the facing slope across the valley. This makes the site very visible so I am therefore unsure that there would be sufficient privacy for site residents. ED44C recommends mitigation hedgerows along the roadside on Temperance Hill in order to help screen the site, however I fail to see how a low hedge that would be in keeping with others in the local area (such as that currently on the sites own southern boundary) would provide a sufficient barrier to screen the site or provide privacy. Ironically should a larger screening hedge be planned this would not be in keeping with the local area and given the small size of the site would no doubt make residents feel uncomfortable and enclosed. ED44C concludes that "Proposals such as Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation are unlikely to be able to be brought forward without adverse effects on the landscape character of this LCT and the visual amenity of receptors within the local context."
ED44D assesses "The development of the site would not cause an adverse impact on surrounding highway network" and "it is likely that the identified visibility splays will be achievable". The assessment appears to overlook the key element of the findings namely that Temperance Hill is a narrow, minor road, that is often narrowed even further, due to cars being parked both outside the existing row of houses and often also on all approaches to the cross roads at the B6036 junction when services or events are taking place at the Church. Even if suitable visibility splays are achievable at the site entrance, Temperance Hill's junction with the B6014 has very limited visibility; particularly in respect of traffic coming from the left (as you exit Temperance Hill) due to undulating ground and the walls and hedges surrounding Oldfield House. The bend in the B6014 to the right at this junction and also the bend in the B6036 to the left (just past the Church) as you exit Temperance Hill from the other end, are also not ideal when considering suitability for larger slower moving towed vehicles such as those I imagine may be owned by future residents on the site.
When I was 15, I was hit by a car whilst crossing the B6036 opposite Hawthorne Close, whilst doing my Paper Round. I was extremely lucky that having long legs I slid up the car's bonnet so the main impact occurred when my arm/shoulder shattered the car's windscreen, resulting in me breaking my arm just below the shoulder joint but not sustaining any more serious injuries. The planned site has no direct impact on where my accident took place, however the lack of visibility which caused it, is just as relevant anywhere in the village. Unlike roads planned more recently, the roads in Woolley Moor have been largely unchanged for generations and therefore bend, narrow and meet in places that I doubt would meet with modern road planning laws. They largely weren't built for either the amount of traffic or the size of vehicles that use them today and at times there is barely space for one vehicle to pass another.
This raises a number of issues/concerns regarding the suitability of the site to be considered under Point 29:
a. In order to maintain the current footpath and route of the Woolley Moor Trail, the footpath would need to be fenced off from the site
i. This would reduce the size of the potential site.
ii. Walkers on the footpath would overlook the proposed site.
iii. Walkers on the footpath could also pose a potential risk to residents of the site, particularly in regards to safeguarding child residents.
b. The site is overlooked and widely visible within the village
i. The site will not be in keeping with other local properties
ii. Deciduous woodland will not provide a sufficient screen to hide the site from the main part of the village in winter.
iii. Mitigation hedgerows will reduce the size of the site.
iv. Mitigation hedgerows seem unlikely to provide sufficient screening on Temperance Hill assuming that these are in keeping with other local hedgerows. If these are exceptionally tall, residents are likely to feel cut-off and enclosed and not part of the community.
c. Planned vehicle access will be onto Temperance Hill causing increased road traffic in the village
i. The obvious place for vehicular access at present (i.e. where there is no curb in order to allow for this) is right at the NE corner of the site, and would therefore be shared with pedestrians using the public footpath.
ii. Having site access which is shared with pedestrians would not be desirable to potential residents, the vehicular access would therefore need to be relocated closer to the existing houses (and parked cars that are often left on the road outside them).
iii. This would endanger walkers and pedestrians within the village, particularly those crossing Temperance Hill following the path of Woolley Moor Trail from the PRoW on the opposite side of the road to the site.
iv. Larger vehicles passing parked cars could result in damage to the vehicles
v. Speed readings and visibility splays should be calculated both on Temperance Hill outside the planned vehicular access to the site and also at Temperance Hill's junctions with both the B6036 and the B6014 to ensure all of these meet relevant safety guidelines.
d. NEDDC could look to invest in the village in order to improve road safety and visibility for all residents which would of course make the village more suitable for the proposed development, including perhaps installing traffic lights on the junctions with least visibility or maybe implementing a one way system around the perimeter of the village.
My family have lived in Woolley Moor since approximately 1745; however the village that they called home, the one where Grandma played cricket, was sacrificed underneath Ogston Reservoir, to the needs of the NCB Carbonisation Plant. Any subsequent benefits to the local area however desirable they may now seem, are merely a happy coincidence to that requirement. I very much want my six year old niece, to be able to develop an affinity with the local area as it is now, in the same way that her mother and I did growing up here a generation ago, aided by the Woolley Moor Trail and our families long association with the area, particularly since due to lack of suitable housing, like so many of our former classmates, my sister and her family are unable to live in the village.
Changes need to be made for the right reasons. The proposed development needs to work not only to enable NEDDC to demonstrate that they have made a permanent site for G&T accommodation available, but also to be a place where the G&T community will want to live. Since the coming of the reservoir, Woolley Moor has been a largely forgotten community, unfortunately whilst I see lots to suggest that NEDDC are desperate to make this site work, so many others having been found unsuitable, I am struggling to see anything to suggest that this development is planned in the best interests of the local community or local area.
I hope that after carefully considering the points I have raised regarding the suitability of the development, you will reach that same conclusion that I did, that site GT/09 is unsuitable for the proposed development. Grandma liked to have the last word "In the past the valley was one of Derbyshire's beauty spots, a lovely place in summer, but forgotten in winter. What will it be now?"

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9602

Received: 15/02/2019

Respondent: mr chris haines

Representation:

Having studied the plan and proposal I object with the points below.
* woolley moor has no facilities, shops, health care services, senior school etc.
* the area is extremely rural
* the site has been open for over 50 years with no demand or use by gypsies in this area.
* limited infrequent bus service which is near impossible to use.
* size of the site would be limited once hedges planted, footpath taken into account, front screening and the steep slope at the rear. The outline plan shown has not been fully assessed.

Full text:

Having studied the plan and proposal I object with the points below.
* woolley moor has no facilities, shops, health care services, senior school etc.
* the area is extremely rural
* the site has been open for over 50 years with no demand or use by gypsies in this area.
* limited infrequent bus service which is near impossible to use.
* size of the site would be limited once hedges planted, footpath taken into account, front screening and the steep slope at the rear. The outline plan shown has not been fully assessed.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9604

Received: 15/02/2019

Respondent: Natalie Aldread

Representation:

No, the site is accessed via a narrow road which would be unsuitable for large vehicles and caravans. There are also limited amenities available in the immediate local area.

Full text:

No, the site is accessed via a narrow road which would be unsuitable for large vehicles and caravans. There are also limited amenities available in the immediate local area.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9612

Received: 14/02/2019

Respondent: Stretton Parish Council

Agent: Charlotte Stainton

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

Site just less than 1500 square metres and outside Woolley Moor. The site is on a rural lane. The site is visited by the local school as part of their nature trail. There is a bench on the site. The site has a countryside character and appearance, and feels physically separate from the village.
Woolley Moor is a Level 4 settlement, with few services and facilities. At Step 7, sites were discounted if they are situated within or next to Level 4 settlements. There is no post office in the village. The primary school is small. The site is a distance from Woolley Moor and there is no nearby main road.
The site does not have space for business activities and such activities would impact on local amenity. There is limited sources of employment in the locality. The site is in an unsustainable location.

Full text:

See Attachment.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9616

Received: 15/02/2019

Respondent: K C & H A Green

Representation:

- As referenced in many of the consultation documents Woolley Moor is a small community which apart from the local primary school lacks the amenities listed as desirable for the G/T communities. The nearest shops/medical facilities being some 3+ kilometres distant in Ashover or Clay Cross (also for fuel).
- The site is away from the wider main road network, the nearest access being the A61 at Clay Cross or Stretton (3k).

Full text:

Ref: Local Plan Main Matter 15, Q.28/29
As the owners of a property adjacent to the proposed Temperance Hill site referenced above we would make the following observations for your consideration:
- The site maps appear to show complete use of the available space, as the surrounding landscape is farming land it is generally not accessible to the public. Loss of this open space would therefore be a lost amenity for the local/visiting population.
- As referenced in many of the consultation documents Woolley Moor is a small community which apart from the local primary school lacks the amenities listed as desirable for the G/T communities. The nearest shops/medical facilities being some 3+ kilometres distant in Ashover or Clay Cross (also for fuel).
- The space is open on Temperance Hill for the full length of the eastern boundary, suggestions have been made to screen this with hedgerow/planting but this will obviously need access opening(s). Is it therefore possible to give effective screening without adversely affecting the general views across the landscape in which it sits.
- The site is away from the wider main road network, the nearest access being the A61 at Clay Cross or Stretton (3k).
We are sure that you will have had many, and more eloquently phrased, comments placed before you during this period but ask you to also consider the above raised points.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9617

Received: 14/02/2019

Respondent: Mr David Birkill

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

The Site is not large enough to sustain 3 pitches especially if mitigation hedgerows are planted, this combined with the travellers vehicles depending on family size (3 pitches,3 families with two cars each) will decrease the amount of adequate space for the travellers to live in and function.
With the potential parking spill, vehicles will be parked on a narrow road, which has limited outdoor lighting, these factors combined with lack of facilities in the village means you have to constantly travel by car to local shops, so increasing traffic movement which in turn increases chances of accident especially at night. This problem will only increase as well if the site is used for business purposes.

Full text:

My main issues are in reference to Matters in Question (MIQ) 28 and 29
MIQ Point 28 Suitability of location - access to services, facilities and site size.
* I have concerns that the Site (1500sqm) is not large enough to sustain 3 pitches (especially if mitigation hedgerows are planted (would cut down on stated 1500sq m) especially where the recent tendency for members of the Gypsy and Traveller communities is to favour the use of a mobile home in place of the traditional caravan, and some mobile homes could be up to around 25 metres in length, so this combined with the travellers forms transport which could be in excess of 6 cars depending on family size ( 3 pitches, 3 families with two cars each ) will definitely decrease the amount of adequate space for the travellers to live in and function.
* With the potential parking spill, vehicles will be parked on a narrow road, which has limited outdoor lighting, these factors combined with lack of facilities in the village means you have to constantly travel by car to local shops, so increasing traffic movement which in turn increases chances of accident especially at night. This problem will only increase as well if the site is used for business purposes.
MIQ Point 29 Can a satisfactory development be achieved in regard to Landscape
* It is a well used walking track, so there is a constant flux of ramblers, residents and dog walkers, travellers might be unsettled by the amount of human traffic so close to there property.
* The site will be overlooked by the existing residents, so causing lack of privacy for the travellers, I know the plan is for hedgerows to be planted but is it feasible within the time span to provide the full privacy for all parties concerned.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9623

Received: 14/02/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs F Jackson

Representation:

The site size itself is questionable, as we presume the outline is from the desktop appraisal. Consideration would need to be taken to incorporate the footpath / history trail to the north, mitigation measures at the front and to the south (taking into account the privacy and light of number 13) and the steep slope at the rear. With this in mind the site size would be reduced considerably and measures would need to be taken to ensure correct spacing between pitches.

The facilities in Woolley Moor are limited to a Public House - more of an eatery / restaurant with limited opening hours. There are no health services, high schools or shops that are listed as a requirement.
The bus service is limited especially on a weekend.

Full text:

Ref - NEDCC Examination Consultation - GT/09 Temperance Hill. Woolley Moor

I am writing to express my concern about the above planning for a gypsy traveller site. As visitors / tourists to the area we were horrified that a proposed traveller site would be situated in such a rural area of Derbyshire, which seems to have no demand for traveller sites.

I am writing in response to matters, issues and questions raised in the local plan (main matter15)-

Question 28 (services/facilities in the village and size of site) -

The site size itself is questionable, as we presume the outline is from the desktop appraisal. Consideration would need to be taken to incorporate the footpath / history trail to the north, mitigation measures at the front and to the south (taking into account the privacy and light of number 13) and the steep slope at the rear. With this in mind the site size would be reduced considerably and measures would need to be taken to ensure correct spacing between pitches.

The facilities in Woolley Moor are limited to a Public House - more of an eatery / restaurant with limited opening hours. There are no health services, high schools or shops that are listed as a requirement.
The bus service is limited especially on a weekend.

Question 29 (Impact on landscape / access etc) -

As caravan owners ourselves we visit the area regularly and have used Temperance Hill whilst towing our van. We have a "normal" sized outfit and have struggled with the narrow lanes around the village and surrounding area. In particular to the South of the site onto the B road. The turn out of here is an accident waiting to happen.
To the north of the site the cross road is equally as dangerous with cars travelling at speed. We have often encounted heavy farm machinery and vehicles on Temperance Hill and other surrounding minor roads and have struggled in passing on the winding lane and blind hill directly north of the site. From a safety point of view the increased movement of travellers and vehicles would be an accident waiting to happen.

We have often walked the history trail which consists of part of the proposed site, sat and admired the view from the bench and watch the wildlife and birds pass by on this grass area. We have seen numerous dog walkers, ramblers, bird watchers, locals and children all using this area - it does not appear to be an area of waste land or unused grass.
The area is of primary significance and from what is written would be sensitive to change and the area is of typically stone built cottages from the 1850's. The site would not easily blend in with the character of the location.

The impact on the site would not only affect the immediate houses but would be visable from numerous locations around the village - even into Handley.

We ask you to consider this proposal carefully as it does not seem a viable location.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9625

Received: 14/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Anthony Holloway

Representation:


The village does not have any amenities such as a post office, shop, doctors etc and the bus service which is currently limited is always under threat of being stopped.

There is a village school which is very good but is small. The secondary school is a bus journey away. The traveller sites, as I see them, usually have hard standing surfaces to put vehicles and mobile homes on which will destroy the landscape of a special area for the villages. I certainly do not see how this area is large enough to site three mobile homes comfortably.
I do have grave concerns with regards to the highway safety of the site. Pulling out on to the rural road from the site would also be dangerous due to parked cars on the road. Both junctions from leading from Temperance Hill are problematic where accidents have occurred.

Full text:

Reference: NEDDC Examination Consultation - GT/09 Temperance Hill, Woolley Moor
Proposal for a new traveller site on: Temperance Hill, Woolley Moor

Having heard via word of mouth from a number of local people, which is exactly how they heard the news of a proposed gypsy and traveller site on Temperance Hill, Woolley Moor, I felt moved to write and share my frustration of the fact that there has been no discussions with local people by North East Derbyshire
District Council about the proposals.

MIQ Point 28 Suitability of location - access to services, facilities and site size

The village does not have any amenities such as a post office, shop, doctors etc and the bus service which is currently limited is always under threat of being stopped.

There is a village school which is very good but is small. The secondary school is a bus journey away. The traveller sites, as I see them, usually have hard standing surfaces to put vehicles and mobile homes on which will destroy the landscape of a special area for the villages. I certainly do not see how this area is large enough to site three mobile homes comfortably.
I do have grave concerns with regards to the highway safety of the site. Pulling out on to the rural road from the site would also be dangerous due to parked cars on the road. Both junctions from leading from Temperance Hill are problematic where accidents have occurred.

MIQ Point 29 Can a satisfactory development be achieved in regard to landscape?

Moving to Woolley Moor five years ago was a difficult decision to make but I know it was the right ones due for the peace and tranquillity it provides. My daughter, Nancy is autistic and we go on regular walks to look at the wildlife and play and take picnics down to the site during the summer months. It has helped me as her father and carer to have a place away from the noise and humdrum of every day life as she benefits so much from walking down to Ogston and back up to Temperance Hill.

Nancy loves to relax and look for all types of insects on the small bridge along the historic Well Lane footpath which is a nature walk for the local schools and visitors. The stream runs into the reservoir and it is a lovely place to watch various types of wildlife.

Woolley Moor is becoming a rare village of its type being the tranquil place to live as more and more green fields are being developed.

The site is next to a number of cottages which will no doubt have a detrimental effect on their everyday lifestyles and privacy.

I strongly feel that the gypsy and traveller site will significantly impact on the sensitive landscape, the surrounding area and wonderful wildlife.

I would be grateful if you could give my concerns above your consideration.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9627

Received: 13/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Kelly Margaret Broadhead

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

Woolley moor is a small village with minimal services, a limited bus service and a primary school. Because of limited services people would mostly need to use their own vehicles and this adds traffic in to the surrounding roads.

The site is already very small and if the mitigation hedges are planted this will further reduce the area. Plus the front border would be set further back to allow for visibility splay so this would then further reduce the area.
Therefore there is not enough room for the pitches.

Full text:

Village area - Woolley moor is a very small village with minimal services.
We have a limited bus service and a primary school.


Services - We have no shops, post office, doctors or dentist.
Because of limited services people would mostly need to use their own vehicles and this would add greatly to the amount of traffic in the area and on Temperance Hill and the junctions.


Site size - The site is already very small and if the mitigation hedges are planted this will further reduce the area.
Plus the front border would be set further back to allow for visibility splay so this would then further reduce the area.
Therefore there is not enough room for the pitches.


Traffic - at peak times Temperance Hill is busy.
Since the mirror has been lost from the junction of Badger lane and Ashover new road at the blind right hand turn next to Toll Bar Cottage many more vehicles now avoid this turning and travel the longer way round up Temperance Hill past the proposed site. This has upped the traffic in this area.
Temperance hill is a narrow road with tight junctions at each end, with parked cars and frequent farm traffic including tractors and trailers.
I myself travel up Temperance Hill several times a week to avoid the Badger Lane/Ashover new Road junction as I have nearly been crashed into there a few times.


Area use - The site is frequently used by dog walkers, picnickers, people exercising, people taking in the views, tourists, the school uses the site for pond dipping and also has an educational history and nature trail.
Well Lane footpath is well used esp as the main road doesn't have pavements at that end of the road.
Myself and husband love to sit and rest after a good country walk on the bench on the proposed site especially.


Neighbours - the neighboring houses will have their views disturbed and I believe other sites have been turned down due to this reason so I see no reason why our neighbours would matter any less to you.


Other sites were also turned down due to being in a village centre (Woolley moor is a very small village so anywhere in the village is the centre of the village) and also in a sensitive area. This site according to study's found are in both of these.


The NEDDC say " they want to protect and enhance countryside and its tourism. "


The site is very close ( around 300 meters ) to Ogston Reservoir.
I believe from researching that traveler sites cannot be within 500m of a site of special interest.


Areas of multiple sensitivity assessment DCC Nov 2010
The site is within an area of 'primary significance' in relation to ecological features, historical environment and visual unity.


The site lies within the locally designated Derbyshire Special Landscape Area.


The site lies in 'the Derbyshire peak fringe and lower Derwent landscape character area' ( LCA )


And also lies within ' The wooded slopes and valleys landscape character type ' ( LCT )


In conclusion I would like to enter my objection to the proposed G and T site at Temperance Hill, Woolley moor.


Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9635

Received: 14/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sally Buckley

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

Is the site is large enough for 3 pitches, especially if trees and hedges have to be planted to screen off the site, and toilet facilities built?

Temperance Hill is a narrow road, without pavements, and blind junctions at both ends. Concern over safety of caravans using the highway for access, and impact that more parked cars would have on the visibility. Farm vehicles would have more access difficulties to the farm opposite the site.

Woolley Moor is a small village (level 4 settlement) with no local services. Would it be able to support the needs of a gypsy/traveller community? There is only a very limited bus service. Existing residents have difficulty with transport.

There are houses immediately next to the site, house will overlook the site. This will impact on both parties. Would the occupants of the proposed site want to be overlooked?

Full text:

As a Woolley Moor resident, I strongly object to the proposed Gypsy and Travellers site on Temperance Hill, and am writing in relation to the matters, issues and questions raised in the local plan.

MIQ Point 28 - Suitability of location, access to services, facilities and site size :

* Firstly I would question if the site is large enough for 3 pitches, especially if trees and hedges have to be planted to screen off the site, and toilet facilities have to be built?
* Temperance Hill is a narrow road, without pavements for most of its length, and blind junctions at both ends. I would question the safety of larger, possibly towing vehicles using this highway for access, and the impact that more parked cars would have on the vision of motorists going over the brow of the hill. There is access to a farm opposite the site and farm vehicles would have more access difficulties if there were additional parked cars along the route.
* Woolley Moor is a very small village, (level 4 settlement) with virtually no local services, therefore would it be able to support the needs of a gypsy/traveller community? There are no shops, post office, NHS services etc. There is only a very limited bus service. Many existing residents have difficulty with transport, and especially in severe weather. Woolley Moor is virtually cut off in snow conditions.
* There are houses immediately next to the site, therefore the neighbouring house will overlook the proposed development, which could have an impact on both parties. Would the occupants of the proposed site want to be overlooked?


MIQ Point 29 - Can a satisfactory development be achieved in regard to landscape :

* The proposed site is very close to, indeed it overlooks Ogston Reservoir, a local popular tourist attraction and site of scientific interest. Ogston supports many wildlife and bird habitats, as does the tributary stream which runs alongside the site into Ogston. The site itself is a natural habitat for local wildlife, foxes, badgers, birds etc. Any development would have an adverse effect on these habitats.
* Well Lane is the footpath which links Temperance Hill to Beresford Lane and the heart of the village. It is well used by residents, myself included, and walkers who would otherwise have to walk along the part of Temperance Hill that does not have a pavement. I fear that this footpath would be closed if the development goes ahead. This is an old packhorse trail and is of historical importance, the well having once being used for drinking water.
* The Woolley Moor Trail runs across the site. This is a history and nature trail, well used by Stretton Handley Primary School and other visiting schools and walkers. The school also use the site for outside nature studies and picnics, and therefore would have an impact on both the landscape and the school.
* The site is used as a village green for children's games, bird watching, dog walking exercise and picnics for ramblers, who use the site for the beautiful views over Ogston reservoir. The loss of a valuable green site with access to a well-used trail and footpath will have a negative effect on the village residents, tourists and the landscape. NEDDC talk in their "NEDDC Vision in its Corporate Plan" (2015), about protecting and enhancing landscape character and its tourism. Surely this goes against that vision?

I hope that the Inspector will consider all of these points carefully and conclude that the proposed site is not a suitable location for a Gypsy and Travellers site, as it would not support their needs, and that this type of development would have a significant negative impact on the sensitive landscape, highways, the settled local community and its wildlife.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9642

Received: 14/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Brian Dronfield

Representation:

Sumamry by Officer.

I believe the site is NOT a suitable location to be developed and occupied by a Gypsy and Traveller site.
It is an accessible beautiful green field area with a wooded valley, stream, nature trail and amazing views over Ogston and the Derbyshire hills and it should remain so!

Full text:

In response to Local Plan Matter 15, I would like to register my objections with reference to MIQ's 28 and 29.

As a retired member of the community I enjoy twice daily walks, which I do regularly for health and well being, and I always pass through this site. On my walks I have witnessed many near accidents both along Temperance Hill (due to its narrow, bending road lacking in pavement) and on the junctions at each end of the road. The proposed site is located on the brow of this hill, near a bend, on a poorly lit, narrow road where residents park and opposite a farm entrance which is regularly used by large tractors, trailers and milk lorries. The creation of a new entrance , large enough to accommodate caravans and trailers at this site, on the brow of a hill, near a bend and virtually opposite the farm entrance would seriously impact on the safety aspect for all users on this road; vehicles and pedestrians!

When I reach the proposed site, a lovely green space with beautiful views, rather than continue down the narrow road I walk across the site and down the footpath (Well Lane) where I often rest to enjoy the sight and sound of bullfinches and bramblings which frequent this area. This site is visited by many species of birds due to its wooded valley, stream and close proximity to Ogston Reservoir a Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI). I fear that if the site is developed and occupied, not only will it hinder walkers wanting to access the path but also reduce the number and species of birds and wildlife which currently enjoy and visit the area. I have been a member of the Ogston birdwatching club since 1981 and used this site on many occasions and I feel very strongly that if this proposal is granted then it would have a huge detrimental affect on the wild life, the flora and fauna and possibly the tributary which flows (taking surface water drainage) into Ogston Reservoir.

Bearing in mind the points I have raised I believe the site is NOT a suitable location to be developed and occupied by a Gypsy and Traveller site.
It is an accessible beautiful green field area with a wooded valley, stream, nature trail and amazing views over Ogston and the Derbyshire hills and it should remain so!
I consider the proposal is NOT SOUND! My further research into the selection process for this site (which I feel is very questionable and not consistent), the rushed nature in which it suddenly re-appears as a viable option suggests that this has been a purely desktop exercise, completed in a panic by an authority who has taken little notice of the reports provided, has not actually visited the site and is frantically trying to comply with government policy no matter what cost to the countryside that they themselves say they wish to enhance and protect!

I do hope you will consider the points I have made and urge you to visit the site so that you can see for yourself how unsuitable it would be for the proposal.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9644

Received: 15/02/2019

Respondent: Ms. Isobel Hammersley

Representation:

Woolley Moor itself is a very small village with little to no local amenities; the nearest local shop is located 2-3 miles away. It doesn't have a Doctors surgery or Dentist, there are no leisure facilities or even a Post Office; it is a very remote part of Derbyshire.
There is a very limited bus service which goes through the village, but it is very infrequent, meaning that any Gypsy or Travellers located there would either have to walk miles or drive. The roads around the area are mainly country roads and one track lanes; they are not built for heavy traffic & would not sustain it.
The site being proposed is very small and too small for the number of pitches proposed. The Travellers & Gypsy's would be very tightly compacted on this space, which I am sure they would not be comfortable with.

Full text:

I am writing in response to the Matters, Issues and Questions (MIQs) raised in the local plan main matter 15, in relation to question 28 (services/facilities in village and size of site) and question 29 (impact on landscape/access).

Question 28

Woolley Moor itself is a very small village with little to no local amenities; the nearest local shop is located 2-3 miles away. It doesn't have a Doctors surgery or Dentist, there are no leisure facilities or even a Post Office; it is a very remote part of Derbyshire.

There is a very limited bus service which goes through the village, but it is very infrequent, meaning that any Gypsy or Travellers located there would either have to walk miles or drive. The roads around the area are mainly country roads and one track lanes; they are not built for heavy traffic & would not sustain it.

The site being proposed is very small and too small for the number of pitches proposed. The Travellers & Gypsy's would be very tightly compacted on this space, which I am sure they would not be comfortable with.

Question 29

The site being proposed is at the top of Temperance Hill. Living at the top of Handley Hill, I can see where the proposed site is from our house. Hedging has been suggested to privatise the site from the road, however, we overlook the site, and no amount of proposed hedging to screen the site will stop us overlooking them. Even if hedging is planted, this will take a long time to establish and even then will have no impact on the aerial view we have of the site. It will spoil the beautiful landscape we have and I'm sure Travellers & Gypsy's would not want to be overlooked by others.

The current site is used by my children to play on and regularly take our dogs walking on the Woolley Moor Trail that runs across the site. A site here would ruin this for us and many others who use the trail.

I have lived in Handley, which is half a mile away from the proposed site, all of my life, and can say from personal experience that in winter and times of adverse weather, the village can get extremely cut-off from civilisation! Many a time myself and my family have had to abandon vehicles in Clay Cross and walk home as the roads in this area become impassable as understandably, they do not get gritted as frequently as they do in built up areas. Temperance Hill being away from the main road, would fair even worse & would be very isolated in winter and adverse weather. As previously stated, the roads on and around Temperance Hill are very small and for lightweight traffic only. Large vehicles both in terms of size and volume would not be sustainable. Temperance Hill itself is a very narrow country lane and access to the site would be limited.

The site in question has a brook running at the bottom which runs directly into Ogston reservoir, a feeder reservoir to Carsington Water. Any litter or pollution from the site would run straight into Ogston which would have effects both on wildlife using Ogston, but also would cause issues for the water treatment facility at Ogston.


In conclusion, I do not feel that the proposed site on Temperance Hill is suitable for a Gypsy & Traveller site. The access is too narrow, there are no shops or amenities for them to use & it would have dramatic negative effects on the local landscape.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9646

Received: 15/02/2019

Respondent: Mr David Boulby

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

The village doesn't fit the Council's criteria for site suitability. The criteria suggests that the travellers should be close to amenities, services etc that don't exist in Woolley Moor. An example is that there is no school bus.
Although Highways seem to have indicated otherwise, I would consider the poor road junctions to make the site unsuitable. The reservoir end of Temperance Hill is a known trouble spot to pull out of, due to lack of clear sight and the national speed limit meaning cars travelling on the lower road don't see people until very late. Temperance Hill is dangerous as there are no footpaths near the site and very poor street lighting.
The site is not large enough to accommodate the three pitches. With a mitigation hedgerow planted, the site is not the 1500m2 that the document states.

Full text:

Matter in question (MIQ) 28 - Suitability of location

Having lived in the village for 12 years, I don't believe the village fits the Councils own criteria for site suitability. The criteria suggests that the travellers should be close to amenities, services etc that don't exist in Woolley Moor. An example of how the current services are so stretched is the school bus. Our eldest child goes to Highfields secondary school in Matlock and as there is no school bus, they have to catch the public transport bus. Due to its size and popularity this bus has been known to actually make the children get out and walk along side it up Slack Hill as it cannot cope with the weight and the gradient.
Although Highways seem to have indicated otherwise, I would consider the poor road junctions to make the site unsuitable. The reservoir end of Temperance Hill is a known trouble spot to pull out of, due to lack of clear sight and the national speed limit meaning cars travelling on the lower road don't see people until very late. I also walk my dog around the village and have to evade cars travelling on Temperance Hill as there are no footpaths near the site and very poor street lighting.
The proposed site is not large enough to accommodate the three pitches. With a mitigation hedgerow planted, the site is not the 1500 m2 that the document states.

Matter in question (MIQ) 29 - Regard to Landscape

My major concern to the proposed site would be the change to the look of our beautiful village. We have built a small hotel at The White Horse almost purely based on the amazing views around our village. We have people visit us from all over the world and they all are amazed by the stunning views around us. This site would have a dramatic and devastating effect on the landscape. There would be no way of stopping people seeing the site because of the nature of the scenery. We have rolling hills all around us so looking up from the reservoir and all the properties surrounding the site would have a negative impact on their vista.
Our business brings a huge amount of tourists in to North East Derbyshire and much of this is based on the views and scenery and we actively promote the Woolley Moor Trail and surrounding walks. This site would have a very negative effect as it cannot be hidden due to the nature of the site.
Well Lane also is a very well used footpath by dog walkers and hikers as it a safer alternative to walking around the Beresford Lane/Temperance Hill auction as there are no paths. The site would stop this through root altogether.
The site lies within an Area of Multiple Sensitivity (DCC 2010) as Primary Significance in relation to ecological features, historic environment and visual unity.
The proposed site would also have a significant impact on the diverse local wildlife. There has always been sitings of badgers that frequent the proposed site.

I trust that my objection and the many others you will have received, leave you in no doubt that this site does not fit the councils own criteria and should not be considered for the proposed traveller site.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9648

Received: 15/02/2019

Respondent: Ms. Jenny Meadows

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

This site is directly adjacent to residential property on one side and a well-used nature trail and footpath on the other (a site of biodiversity value).

The site is not big enough for 3 pitches if sufficient space is allocated for hedges etc. and to allow sufficient access to the well-used footpath that runs through it.

There are little to no services in the immediate area, no shops, post office etc. The nearest Doctor's surgery is in the next village and dentists are several miles away. There is limited transport available which can make it difficult for the older generation who need to rely on family and neighbours to meet their needs and for children to get to secondary schools which are several miles away.

Full text:

GT/09 Temperance Hill, Woolley Moor
Ref: Matters in Question 28 & 29

In reference to the consideration of a Gypsy and Traveller Site on Temperance Hill in Woolley Moor, I would like to set out my objections to such a site as follows:

This site is directly adjacent to residential property on one side and a well-used nature trail and footpath on the other (a site of biodiversity value).

I am surprised you are considering the named site as suitable as I would dispute that it is big enough for 3 pitches if sufficient space is allocated for hedges etc. and to allow sufficient access to the footpath that runs from Temperance Hill to Beresford Lane. This is a footpath used by walkers, dog walkers and children to observe the natural habitat for wildlife etc. This area is a natural habitat for birds, badgers, squirrels, foxes etc. and along the stream running to Ogston reservoir a natural habitat for newts, crayfish, frogs and toads which are likely to be disturbed by this proposal. This is also part of the Nature Audio trail for Stretton Handley School which is used for educational purposes also used by other schools and walkers both local and tourists.

Tourism has grown in Woolley Moor recently with the availability of holiday accommodation etc. providing access to Ogston reservoir locally, surrounding walks in areas of outstanding beauty and as a convenient access to the Dales, Matlock and the Peak District in general. I understand that NEDDC say they want to protect and enhance the countryside and its tourism - this doesn't seem the best way to go about it!

There are little to no services in the immediate area, no shops, post office etc. The nearest Doctor's surgery is in the next village and dentists are several miles away. There is limited transport available which can make it difficult for the older generation who need to rely on family and neighbours to meet their needs and for children to get to secondary schools which are several miles away.

Road safety is a worry as both ends of Temperance Hill can be difficult to exit, ESPECIALLY WITH TOWED VEICHLES, as there is very poor visibility to either side of both exits, especially in the summer months when the grass is allowed to grow beyond safe limits. Exit from both ends of Badger Lane is also potentially dangerous with poor visibility, especially from the top end of Badger Lane where there is no visibility to the right after the mirror was taken down. Probably more importantly the trail is used as an alternative for walkers and children going to and from school to avoid the very narrow, winding lane at the bottom of Beresford Lane which doesn't have a pavement and which can't be seen easily by traffic coming down the hill and round the bend..

To consider this site which is in a small village without normal services and in a sensitive location would seem totally inappropriate and dangerous to other road uses and walkers (including children on their way to school) trying to enjoy the countryside.

Object

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9652

Received: 15/02/2019

Respondent: Mr James Whitworth

Representation:

Summary by Officer.

The site is too small, the footpath and mitigation measures weren't taken into account. The site also slopes and has unstable ground. All of this reduces and the highway within the site, would mean there is only enough room for 1 pitch.
Access to services, the Post Office is stated as being 500m from the site where as it is actually 3.3km away in Ashover along with the Doctors Surgery which is not mentioned.
What is unclear is how the services at Temperance Hill have been scored when compared in relation to site GT/10, whose services, apart from the school, are only 1.5km away and scored 'Red' as opposed to Temperance Hill and which scored 'Amber'.

Full text:

I would like to notify you of my objection to the proposed traveller site at GT/09 Temperance Hill, Woolley Moor, as described in the planning proposal North East Derbyshire Local Plan (2014-2034) - Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers.
My primary reasons for objection are in relation to
MIQ 28 Suitability of location - access to services, facilities and site size
And
MIQ 29 Can a satisfactory development be achieved in regard to Landscape
- The site has been proposed as designated for 3 pitches in an area of 1500 sq m. If the site had been visited it would easily be seen that a footpath has been included in the area outlined, reducing the area by 80 sq m. along with a steep unusable gradient to the west boundary with vegetation on soft unstable ground, historic demolition works, a further reduction of 260 sq m. There is also landscape mitigation on the East boundary of 100 sq m and a requirement for a suitable fence next to No 13 Temperance Hill consuming 63 sq m and a further requirement of 41 sq m to shield and screen the site during winter months.
Finally, the highway within the site, with a requirement of 43 sq m, is an unusable area leaving a total of 993 sq m. This would only allow room for 1 pitch and when compared to other sites in The Revised Appendix 4 to the Updated Addendum on a map that have been designated as being 'Too Small' seem to be of a comparable size and therefore site GT/09 should also be classified as Too Small.
It is also below the minimum of at least 0.1 hectare threshold as stipulated in the 'Updated Addendum to Gypsy & Traveller Topic Paper' December 18. Section 2 - Site Selection Approach 2018, Paragraph 2.8.

- In consideration of noise and possible disturbance to Gypsy and Travellers living on the site, and possible noise and disturbance to the wider community, in particular from movement of Gypsy and Traveller vehicles. The proposal for the site on Temperance Hill does not take noise into consideration, it is next to residential properties, located within the existing settled community. Commercial vehicles would be entering and leaving the proposed site at all hours, including night time, as is common practise and can be witnessed at other traveller sites.

- In relation to aesthetic compatibility with the local environment, any changes to the proposed site at Temperance Hill would in no way be in keeping with the local environment,

- In relation to Highway Safety, account needs to be taken of a more recent tendency for members of the Gypsy and Traveller communities to favour the use of a mobile home in place of the traditional caravan, and some mobile homes could be up to around 25 metres in length. Vehicles of this size would require a suitably large turning space to allow entry and exit from the site and manoeuvring at low speeds in the local area before reaching main 'A' roads.
Emerging from the proposed site onto Temperance Hill risks traffic from the North emerging from a dip and over a rise. The junction to the south of Temperance Hill with the B6014, national speed limit applies, has a blind dip to the East side and the junction to the north of Temperance Hill has a blind corner to the West as traffic emerges round the Stretton Handley church and starts to accelerate to the national speed limit out of the village. There have been several accidents at both locations.
The only other entry exit would be via the extremely narrow Beresford Lane onto Badger Lane and through the village. Turning South at the top of the Lane entails a very sharp 'Y' junction and if travelling North West and emerging from Badger Lane onto Ashover New Road, this junction is totally blind resulting in numerous accidents and appeals to Derbyshire CC to make the junction safer.
There is no safe entry exit from the Temperance Hill proposed site for long slow manoeuvring vehicles.
It requires noting that the Radar Spot Speed Readings taken on 6/11/18 between the times of 12.20 to 15.20 do not give an accurate representation, to give a more accurate representation the 3 hours to choose would be 7.00 -> 10.00 or 15.30 -> 18.30 where the maximum recorded speed of 35 mph will undoubtedly be higher in this 60 mph zone. This brings into question the identified visibility splays which are only likely to be achievable, not being achieved and therefore access being unsatisfactory.

- Access to services, the Post Office is stated as being 500m from the site where as it is actually 3.3km away in Ashover along with the Doctors Surgery which is not mentioned.
What is unclear is how the services at Temperance Hill have been scored when compared in relation to site GT/10 Amber Terrace, Oakerthorpe whose services, apart from the school, are only 1.5km away and scored 'Red' as opposed to Temperance Hill and similarly not good access by foot but has been scored 'Amber'.

- The proposed site at Temperance Hill lies within an Area of Multiple Sensitivity (Derbyshire CC 2012), as with any proposed G&T site a trade is allowed to be operated from it. Being in extremely close proximity to a tributary stream for Ogston Reservoir, where the natural habitat has been known to include freshwater shrimps, frogs, toads, newts and crayfish, the possible effect on the wildlife and water supply cannot be underestimated in an Area of Multiple Sensitivity.
Any mitigation to the site will, in itself, have any an impact on the proposed site and Area of Multiple sensitivity and conflicts with the natural landscape.
These would affect a number of different policy assessments that either have been classed as Green or Amber which should be Amber or Red when either compared to other proposed sites or the full impact taken into consideration in an Area of Multiple Sensitivity.
If it is possible to raise an argument against some of the objections raised, they can be no argument when the overall picture is taken into account for the plot at Temperance Hill to be suitable G&T site.