Dear Mr Moss Re: Application Reference 10/01796/FUL I am writing on behalf of residents of Welford on Avon and Long Marston who will be affected by planning application 10/01796/FUL if permission is granted. Whilst the applicants must be commended for ensuring that proper planning process was followed, I urge the council not to grant simply because the boxes have been ticked, the t’s crossed and the i’s dotted. The Council must instead ask if the boxes being ticked are in fact the correct boxes. Validity of planning policy CTY.7 Planning policy CTY.1 states that “All forms of development in the countryside other than those in accordance with provisions elsewhere in the Local Plan, will generally be resisted in order to preserve its character and to ensure that resources are protected.” This policy therefore lays out that all development in the countryside (regardless of whether or not it is greenbelt, or special landscape area) will be resisted. However in 2006 John Prescott introduced planning circular 01/2006 which stated “Local planning authorities in rural areas should include a ‘rural exception site policy’ in the relevant DPD”. This is in effect the reason for planning policy CTY.7, which Mr Paul Harris of SDC Policy Advice states that the application should be assessed against. This policy states “Proposals for the provision of permanent gypsy sites will be supported where all the following criteria are met: a) Monitoring indicates that there is a significant unmet need for further provision within the district; b) The proposed site would not cause harm to the character of the local area or to features of acknowledged importance, or unduly affect any neighboring properties or activities; and c) appropriate facilities are provided to meet the requirements of people living on the site.” However in a letter to Council Chief Executives, Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government stated that not only would he be abolishing Regional Spatial Strategies and that their abolition should be treated as immediate, but that Council’s should take note of his intention to revoke planning circular 01/2006. Additionally speaking in the House of Common on the 13th of September 2010, in answer to a written question, Andrew Stunell MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Department for Communities and Local Government confirmed this by saying “The government intends to revoke Planning circular 01/2006… It will be replaced with a short policy statement and light touch guidance” In light of this, it is therefore clear that the Coalition Government and the Secretary of State no longer intends for Gypsy and Traveler site applications to be treated preferentially to other developments. I therefore respectfully suggest that the Council should assess this application against CTY.1 alone, and act as if CTY.7 did not exist, its driver for existence having been revoked. If this is the case then the development should be treated as any other residential development in open countryside, and the council should reject rather than accept the application. Considerations if CTY.7 were to be considered valid Even if one were to accept the idea that CTY.7 should still stand, despite the revocation of circular 01/2006, then there are a number of important issues to consider: 1) The fact that there is unmet need in the district is questionable given that the Gypsy and Traveler Accommodation Assessment (2008) against which need is measured is a) out of date, b) was driven by planning circular 01/2006, and c) used a questionable methodology. Indeed when even the Gypsy and Traveller Officer at Warwickshire County Council states that he thinks the methodology was unsuitable, one must question its conclusion and the validity of the needs assessment. 2) Access and highways considerations have not been properly assessed in the Highways response. The road which access opens onto is a 60mph limit and is at the bottom of a steep hill. Although the Highways department states there are no records of accidents, local residents disagree, indeed access considerations were given as a reason for refusal on a previous application at Rainbow Nurseries. 3) Local facilities for residents of the site are extremely limited providing little evidence that the development is sustainable. Neither Welford on Avon nor Long Marston has a doctors surgery or pharmacy, and there is no pedestrian access to the local school other than a steep and dangerous road with no pavement. Additionally a bus service from Welford / Long Marston into Stratford runs along this road, for safety reasons the bus does not stop on Rumer Hill or near the property. Local residents instead currently have to catch the bus from Long Marston, which is not safely accessible on foot. Restrictive Covenants and localism Although not something that can be taken into account of in the current planning process it is also important to note that on the sale of the land that forms Rainbow Nurseries to its previous owners a restrictive covenant was included which states that the owner of the land will not “erect or build any building or other structure (except necessary horticultural or agricultural buildings) or park any caravan or home on wheels on any part of the said property hereby conveyed…” This covenant was clearly designed to protect not just the retained elements of the property (known as Welford Hill Farm) but also other local residents from what local people would consider unacceptable development. Covenants are generally enforced through the civil courts, however in the new world of locally determined planning policy envisaged by the Coalition Government and articulated by the Secretary of State the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP and the Housing Minister Grant Shapps MP, I would argue that the existence of such a covenant forms the basis of a input into a localised plan. In this way such a covenant defines the expectations of the local community and residents in terms of what constitutes acceptable development in the local area. If this is accepted then the existence of such a covenant could therefore be considered in the planning policy in place of retained policies such as CTY.7, and as a result the application should be rejected. Conclusion In conclusion it is all too easy for the Council to adopt the approach that in the so called “planning vacuum”, following the revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategy, one must default to what was there before, i.e. the RSS traveler pitch targets, planning circular 01/2006 and CTY.7. However it is well known that this is not where the Coalition Government wishes Planning Authorities to go, instead they want to see localism, and bottom-up locally developed plans at the heart of the planning system. To pass this application under these default rules would be to do so under the last breath of a dying system, a system that was developed by regional Quangocrats and Whitehall bureaucrats, rather than the people of the District. This application is instead an opportunity for the Council to be bold and lay out its future planning approach by putting the views of local people and parish councils upfront. For too long Councils, including this one, have hidden behind the threat of appeal, and said that they are waiting for guidance from government before they can make changes to planning policy and decisions. This must end now, the Conservative Party’s Planning White Paper and the Secretary of State’s comments since the election have been very clear, and the Council must now move forward to make a positive decision for the good of local people. Yours sincerely Nadhim Zahawi MP