Fairfield Park Residents Association
FPRA Correspondence
|
Letter to Mid-Beds Council November 2007:
30 November 2007 Dear Mr Alderson Consultation on Gypsies and Travellers DPD Issues and Options
We acknowledge that ‘Creating and sustaining strong communities, for the benefit of all members of society including the gypsy and traveller community, is at the heart of the Government’s Respect agenda.’ (ODPM Circular 01/2006). We note that nationally about a quarter of the 16,000 gypsy and traveller caravans are on unauthorised sites. We accept that the District Council is obliged to respond positively to the ongoing problem of identifying sufficient sites to meet the needs of the Traveller community in Mid Bedfordshire. We note that the Bedfordshire & Luton Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment Final Report 2006 recommended that 19-20 new permanent site pitches be provided between 2006–2011 to deal with the backlog of demand existing within the Mid Bedfordshire part of the study area, and to meet emerging demand from new family formation. We understand that the Council has adopted as the minimum level of need to be planned for by the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document, the figure of 22 pitches, which the East of England Regional Assembly has recommended for Mid Bedfordshire. We are surprised that the Council has failed to date to include in its Core Strategy DPD, criteria for the location of gypsy and traveller sites to guide the allocation of sites, as advised in Paragraph 31 of ODPM Circular 01/2006. The absence of such criteria makes evaluation of the option sites difficult. We note that the Council has to date identified 24 possible sites from which a number of sites will be selected to provide sufficient pitches to satisfy the required needs. The first issues consultation report published in March 2007 included 20 possible sites. No estimate of the total potential capacity of those sites was given but it is apparent that they were more than capable of meeting the identified need. Of those sites, 6 were subsequently withdrawn by the promoters of the sites, including 4 sites owned by the County Council. We have not been able to ascertain from any published document why those sites were withdrawn from consideration. In our view there does not appear to be any reason why they should be excluded from further consideration, particularly if some of the sites in question were ultimately to be placed in the District Council’s ownership as a result of the possible reorganisation of local government in Bedfordshire. With regard to the site identified at West Drive, Arlesey it is our considered view that the following points should be taken into account: 1. Its development would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding area. In particular the proximity of the site to the residential development in Hitchin Road, Davis Row and Weavers Orchard would result in noise disturbance and visual intrusion. The site is also in close proximity to a care home for vulnerable children, which could result in noise, disturbance and harmful therapeutic environment for the children. The site would also have a harmful visual impact on the pleasant rural environment along this section of West Drive resulting in the loss of amenity for walkers and cyclists who frequent the area. There would be an adverse impact on wildlife in the area and harm to the characteristic hedges and preserved trees adjacent to the site. 2. We note that the recently published LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options document, includes Preferred Option CS5 which states that: It therefore appears that the provision of a site for gypsies and travellers in West Drive could prejudice the expansion of Arlesey and the construction of a relief road. 3. Arlesey does not appear to be a place to which gypsies and travellers in Bedfordshire usually resort and therefore it is unnecessary to locate a site in Arlesey. 4. Compared to many of the other 23 sites selected, including those that were inexplicably withdrawn from the exercise, the adverse impacts of the West Drive site would affect a far greater number of people. 5. It appears unlikely that restricting the site so as to exclude any business use, as recommended by the Council’s consultants who carried out the environmental assessment, would be acceptable to the traveller community and could give rise to enforcement problems subsequently. 6. We note that the access to the site has not yet been assessed as part of the site appraisal. We consider that additional vehicle movements generated by the site would give rise to unacceptable safety and congestion problems at the junction of West Drive and Hitchin Road, Arlesey. 7. Pressure on school places and teaching resources in the area is already high and will increase. In particular the Fairfield Park Lower School is already facing the prospect of having to cater for a greater number of children than originally forecast consequent upon an increase in the originally permitted number of dwellings to be provided at Fairfield Park. 8. We note that the expressed intention is to provide a site with 8 pitches. However given the size of the County Council’s landholding at West Drive we are concerned that ultimately a much larger site could be developed exacerbating the harm to the area that we have identified. 9. Notwithstanding that powers have been introduced by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 to tackle anti-social behaviour affecting the environment, such as fly-tipping, we are concerned that the presence of a gypsy and traveller site would attract fly tipping by the community in general to the detriment of the appearance of the local environment. 10. The Council’s achievement in saving the grade II listed Fairfield Hall from demolition, bringing about its restoration and refurbishment and creating a successful and prestigious quality development of housing, landscaped open space and community facilities at Fairfield Park has to be recognised. It is not only important in its own right but could also be key to achieving the successful improvement and expansion of Arlesey and sustaining and improving the image and economy of the District and County. The identification of land at West Drive as a possible gypsy and traveller site could prejudice the successful completion of the Fairfield Park development and undermine the success achieved so far and the undoubted kudos that the Council deserves. 11. The presence of a gypsy and traveller site would deter residents of Fairfield Park from using West Drive as a pedestrian and cycle route to the existing and proposed improved facilities in Arlesey. This would run counter to the Council’s sustainability objectives which include promoting more sustainable transport modes, reducing the need to travel and reducing dependence on the car. The site might also inhibit the establishment of a bus route through Fairfield Park to Arlesey further damaging the achievement of improved sustainability. 12. It is recognized in DCLG Circular 1/06 that anti-social behaviour sometimes accompanies unauthorized sites. We have evidence from the experience of some of our members that anti-social behaviour can also be associated with authorised sites. We are concerned that a gypsy and traveller site in West Drive could lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour and crime in the area, stretching limited police resources in an area where the Blue Lagoon is a well-known trouble spot. For the reasons set out above it is the view of the Association that the site at West Drive’ Arlesey should not be included in the Council’s list of preferred options for the provision of a gypsy and traveller sites.
Andrew Yates Email fpra@btinternet.com |
.jpg)
|
Letter to Developers July 2007:
Dear Sirs
FairfieldPark
I am writing on behalf of the Residents of Fairfield Park to express views shared by the majority of people who have bought property on this development.
No one here is in any doubt that they have bought a home on a building site and must therefore expect some disruption. They also understand that building companies are commercial enterprises and expect to turn a profit. What seems to be missing is a reciprocal acceptance that people live on site and want their surroundings to be as pleasant as possible.
I understand from Dennis Carter that there are induction processes for all contactors on site and we might therefore reasonably expect:
- Roads to be kept (as far as possible) free of mud
- Considerate parking in areas set aside for contractor’s vehicles;
- Contractors to pick up their litter and dispose of it properly;
- Contractors and delivery vehicles to respect speed limits and drive considerately;
- Consideration of residents – no bad language and loud radios where that might constitute a nuisance;
- Work to start at 8.00am, in line with Council guidelines, and not to take place on Saturday afternoons, Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Unfortunately over the past months all of these basic guidelines have been breached leading to residents signing a petition calling for the situation to improve.
There are a few other things that would also improve our life here:
- Accurate information given to potential residents. There have been instances of residents not being told of elements of the design strategy for the park and being understandably upset when something unexpected happens near their property. We have now published the Council’s Urban Design Strategy for the Park on our website so everyone has access to it;
- Installation of street signs, lighting, landscaping, dog waste bins and paving as soon as possible;
- Accurate information from sales offices; committee has lost count of rumours that seem to start there, for example the name of the company to run the shop and that this is to become a gated community.
- Attention to complaints particularly about drains. These seem to be a recurring problem and lead to unsanitary and smelly situations which do not present the Park in a good light to potential buyers. On the whole people really enjoy living on the Park but get very frustrated about these issues which seem completely outside our control and seriously diminish quality of life. Developers and Residents have a shared interest in making this place an attractive and appealing place to be. Residents have the potential to be one of your greatest assets in marketing this place as a great place to live. Conversely if we feel ignored and that our needs are not taken into account we can spread our concerns and that may put people off from moving here.
The Resident’s committee is working to make people’s experience of the Park as good as is possible. We look forward to working with you to address these issues.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Yates
Chair FPRA
|