ED149 Matter 12: Provision for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople

Showing comments and forms 1 to 1 of 1


Proposed Main Modifications - List of Examination Documents

Representation ID: 7399

Received: 11/04/2019

Respondent: M Phillips

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Comments on MM139 - MM143 responses to Matter 12 hearing submission - document Ed149:

5 separate comments regarding points brought up by inspector that have not been adequately answered by NHDC

Full text:

Comments on MM139 - MM143 responses to Matter 12 hearing submission - document Ed149:

Woodside Place (CD6) has had planning and retrospective planning applications refused a number of times in the past. At one time, an eviction order was placed on an identical static caravan on the site before the current owner took over.

There is currently a stalled retrospective application pending for this site. The modified local plan has now included this site as an inset to the green belt. This reaction to a planning application is against NPPF policy.

ED149 includes the ORS report in appendix M12-1. This report and others given by NHDC appears to be confused about the numbers of G&T pitches and how they are occupied. Careful study of the numbers given in the ORS report and an earlier capacity study HOU11 2017 suggests that there is plenty of capacity at Pulmer Water (CD4) to take all existing and future G&T needs for NHDC.

There seems to be a problem with the privately run sites within NHDC. The council are relying on private sites and yet they have little control over what happens there. They stated at a meeting with Codicote Parish council (7/4/19) that they do not inspect the sites on a frequent basis and are unsure themselves what is there and how it is being used. Neighbouring councils (Welwyn Hatfield, Stevenage and East Herts) all have some council run sites which are run efficiently by Herts CC.

The site boundary of CD6 described in ED149, M12-2 section e is ambiguous. North, south, east and west are used yet the site runs at approx 45 degree angle to north. The south boundary, which should be referred to as south west, is not clearly described and could be misunderstood. In fact, this boundary has recently been moved on the ground by about 5m and now differs from that shown in the plan shown in appendix 1 of ED149 indicating how poorly this boundary is defined.