John Mann MP has issued a 30 point objection to the planning application for a Showman’s Site at Manor Farm, Oldcotes.

The letter to the Chief Executive of Bassetlaw Council can be read below or downloaded by clicking on the icon below:

David Hunter
Chief Executive
Bassetlaw District Council
Queens Buildings
Worksop
S80 2AH

15 April 2008

Dear Sir

Planning Application for a Showman’s Site at Manor Farm, Oldcotes

I object to the application and do so on 30 grounds, each one a distinct planning objection.

I also strongly object to the way in which this application has been handled and how Bassetlaw Council has developed its policy on traveller sites without any public consultation, without talking to me and without even a council committee discussion and vote. It is astonishing to see that discussions have been ongoing about this site since February 2007, which was only a few months after Bassetlaw had sneaked though its traveller site policy though a delegated decision.

The councillors involved, Isard, Yates and Quigley have acted against the interests of the people of Bassetlaw and done so with no consultation or debate.

I object to this application on the following 30 grounds:

Government policy

1. Government policy is outlined in the Department for Communities and Local Government document of January 2007 ‘revised planning guidance in relation to travelling show people’ which consults on best practice and provides guidance.

2. Government states that there must be pre-application discussion on all sides. It is clear that the council has only consulted with the applicant. The local parish councils and myself have not been consulted pre application as guidance requires.

3. Government states that such sites are for residential, storage and maintenance of equipment and that split sites should be avoided. Government points out that there will be a significant amount of equipment. The correspondence on this application does not make these uses clear.

4. Government guidance highlights the need to avoid any visual impact and noise to neighbours. This site has both. Indeed government guidance states that open field sites should not be considered. This site is an open un-hedged field, totally contrary to government guidance.

5. Government guidance states that councils must be ‘realistic about availability of services without use of a car’. This site has no such immediate services.

6. Government guidance states that sites need to be specifically allocated in the local plan. This site is not.

7. Government guidance states that alternatives should be explored before greenbelt is used. This site classifies as greenbelt under PPG 2.

8. Government guidance states that sites should avoid rural areas and countryside where possible. This site is both.

9. Government guidance states that the council must have a presumption against inappropriate development and that such sites are normally inappropriate. This site is inappropriate.

The second set of objections are those specified by the Association of Independent Showmen in written evidence to the Parliamentary select committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs in February 2000.

In their submission the showmen state:

10. Sites need to have screening. This site does not.

11. Showmen should not choose a site in the middle of an open field. This site is precisely so.

12. They say that an ideal site is in a farm yard or on the edge of an industrial development. This site is neither.

The third set of objections are the views of the Showman’s Guild on where to establish sites.

In descending order of priority of importance they state

13. Close proximity to towns is important to 82%. This site is not near a town

14. Near to shops is important for 65%. This site is not.

15. Close to school for 43%. This site is near no school.

16. Close to doctors for 26%. This site is near no doctors surgery.

17. Walking distance from amenities for 15%. This site is not.

18. Good public transport for 12%. This site is not.

Thus on all the showman’s own top six priorities this site matches none of them.

19.  In fact only 8% of showmen view a rural site as suitable, making this site undesirable for showmen themselves.

Bassetlaw Council Policy

Incredibly, and despite stated opposition from neighbouring councils, Bassetlaw jumped the gun to propose between 43 and 47 new traveller placements in Bassetlaw. This was done without consultation. The Council’s report bases its conclusions on perceived gypsy needs, but in fact only interviewed 1 gypsy, as there is only 1 gypsy on Bassetlaw’s current sites. Most are so-called new age travellers and English travellers.

Despite this, on 18 September 2006, on delegated authority, Councillor Keith Isard signed this policy, having consulted Council leader Quigley and deputy leader Yates.

Every other Nottinghamshire council combined to write one report. If Bassetlaw had consulted other councils they would have realised that showman’s sites already exist in Gedling, Ashfield and Nottingham. The extra 47 placements that Bassetlaw are now required to find are in my view totally over the top and unnecessary.

The extra provision elsewhere for the combined councils of Ashfield, Mansfield, Gedling, Broxtowe, Mansfield and Rushcliffe is 36 placements. But having completed their report in May 2007 they had the benefit of knowing the very generous determination of Councillors Isard, Quigley and Yates. Of equal concern is the policy determined on 18 September 2006 as signed on delegated authority which states that Bassetlaw council will:
‘offer clear information on buying land and identify (sic) suitable sites.

In Bassetlaw’s gypsy and traveller accommodation needs assessment (March 2006):

20. No demand for showmen’s sites was identified. This site is thus.

21. No showmen live in Bassetlaw. This site is thus.

22. Paragraph 6.5.2 highlights the need for access to facilities. This site does not.

23. Paragraph 9.23 highlights a need for access to adequate public transport links

24. Paragraph 9.23 states that new sites should be near existing facilities, services and employment. This site is not.

Councillor Quigley and Yates proposed and seconded this year’s council budget in March providing £233,000 to be spent this year on new gypsy and traveller sites in Bassetlaw. No indication has been given about where such sites should be located,
though the policy agreed on 18 September 2006 proposes one somewhere near Retford.

25. This site is not specified in the current local plan as a traveller site.

26. No greenbelt land is designated in the current local plan for a traveller site.

The applicant claims to adhere to PPG13 on walking distance to amenities. In fact all amenities listed under my objections 13-16 are significantly more than 1.6 km walking distance. Langold is 3km and Harworth 5km from the site.

I have four final objections, making 30 specific planning objections to this application. In the government guidance paragraph 41 is unequivocal:

Sites in rural areas and countryside

‘there is a general presumption against inappropriate development within  Green Belts. New travelling show people’s sites within Green Belt are normally inappropriate development as defined in Planning Policy Guidance 2 (PPG2). National planning policy on Green Belts applies equally to planning permission for travelling show people. Alternatives should be considered before Green Belt locations are considered.

Paragraph 44 sums the government position up explicitly:

‘sites should respect the scale of and not dominate the nearest settled community’

If the council had chosen to work with every other Nottinghamshire Authority it would not be in the mess it now is. Instead you have burdened the council taxpayer with the cost of additional sites for which there was no defined need. Instead of enhancing existing sites you are now obliged to look for new sites for a travelling gypsy community that is small and that explicitly seeks to live in Newark and Sherwood.

In doing so, you cause alarm to local residents, but are also encouraging wholly inappropriate developments that do not meet the defined needs of the traveller community.

This planning proposal for Oldcotes is entirely outside government planning guidelines, outside Nottinghamshire guidelines and defined need and outside your own local development plan. It should never have been encouraged and should be immediately rejected in principle, in detail and in entirety.

Yours sincerely

 JOHN MANN
Member of Parliament for Bassetlaw