Submission to the Planning Committe by the Forncett Residents Group.

Opening Statement

This land was knowingly advertised, sold, and purchased by the applicant as agricultural land for grazing with severely restricted access. This fact has been acknowledged by the applicant.

ACCESS

The existing means of access to the site is narrow, being of single vehicle width with only a small turning radius at the carriageway edge. The track known as "The Loke" is un-surfaced. The lack of visibility in compliance with regulatory guidelines creates a significant safety concern to all users of Gilderswood Lane.

The Highways Development Control Officer states "... the proposed development would therefore be detrimental to highway safety". Contrary to IMPS

Emergency services have confirmed that they would not be able to access the site due to the width and height restrictions of The Loke, and it is well known locally that this is all but impassable in the wet months of the year except by the agricultural vehicles it is intended for.

TRAFFIC

Motor transport must be used to and from this unauthorised site. A recent 12 hour survey has shown how extensive and intrusive the additional vehicular movements are proving to be, with 29 vehicle movements recorded in Gilderswood to and from the site by one family.

The local highway network is unsuitable for the demonstrated increase in traffic associated with the unauthorised development, particularly in Gilderswood Lane (only 2.6 metres wide) with no passing places. This application will directly cause inconvenience, danger and hazard to other highway users. It is to the detriment of highway safety, and the safe flow of traffic in the immediate area, and does not comply with current transport policy.

The Highways Development Control Officer states " the unclassified road servicing the site is considered to be inadequate to serve the development proposed, by reason of its restricted width and lack of passing provision. The proposal if permitted would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety". Contrary to IMPS

During week ending 7^th August, we observed numerous movements of a 12 -wheeled lorry delivering crushed concrete, and removing spoil, and also a significant number of concrete mixer lorries to the site, which exited Gilderswood via the very narrow Grove Lane. This is hardly conducive to the safe usage of these lanes by either local traffic, walkers, children, cyclists or horse riders.

ENVIRONMENT

Photographs as shown on the Planning website were taken in June, when trees and shrubs are all in foil leaf. The site was subjected to unauthorised occupation from January 25^th, the Planning department should have taken photographs at this point, as an absolute minimum, as reference of the situation when the tress and shrubs were bare. The views of, and into, the site from various roads can, were and will be seen in the spring, autumn and winter ahead. Mature trees were cut in several places by the applicant to access the site. The site has gone from agricultural land to a building site in very short period.

What chance for wildlife? We have already lost the natural sight of Roe Deer and Brown Hares moving across the fields, which used to take shelter in what is now the land occupied by the applicant. Water Voles have also been seen (an endangered species). This all happened very quickly and will never ever be seen again. Wildlife will be pushed into a decreasing area, less hospitable to their natural lifestyle.

LOCAL PLANNING PROCESS

Applicants have access to extensive information and support from their local planning committee. The gypsy and traveller community, in particular, have access to an extensive network of support, to ensure they fully understand and comply with all aspects of the planning process. Therefore, there is no justifiable excuse for the applicant, in this instance, not being aware of, and then, abiding by the relevant planning process.

The applicant has already disregarded the planning process. The committee should not be sending out a message to the public that it will turn a blind eye to such clear disregard of its regulations by "rewarding" the applicant with the relevant permission.   This will be seen by the gypsy and traveller community as a precedent, whether or not the planning department understand this basic fact.

If the application was granted, it would appear to give carte blanche to abuse the planning system, by allowing the purchase of agricultural land, then occupying it, ,and then applying for retrospective residential status. The consequences will be unplanned development which surely cannot comply with the intent of the planning system.

The application is outside the local development boundary, and it should be remembered that previous applications outside the boundary have been refused.

On the Forncett Village Plan of 2005, residents clearly showed that they required development to be restricted within this envelope, thereby protecting our environment.

In conclusion; we strongly believe this application should be refused immediately. Surely the interests of the many must outweigh the interests of the few.

QUESTIONS

Why has the applicant been allowed to carry out extensive work on this site, moving in many tons of material when he is fully aware that this is an unauthorised site?

Have any Building Control officers visited the site to inspect any work being carried out, and if so where is their report?

Have Building Control been involved in the pouring of the tons of concrete at site? Which SNDC officer looks after or liaises with the Forncett Residents?

Why were photographs not taken at the commencement of the unauthorised site in January when it was reported to the Council?

The Applicant stated at the Forncett Residents Association meeting "that people encouraged him in pursuing this application" who were these persons?

Did any member of SNDC have any prior information in any form whatsoever of the applicant's intention to occupy the site prior to the end of January?

Why was there no report from the SNDC gypsy liaison officer as it appears totally inappropriate not to have this?

Why did the case officer not respond to correspondence requesting information?

Why did the case officer publish character references which were irrelevant to planning issues when it was stated that only correspondence relating to planning issues would be considered?

Why was no environmental study undertaken prior to the applicant moving on to the site, when it was a requirement? Was the site measured or estimated?

The applicant states that his child is registered at the local school. Our local school is in Forncett St Peter not Long Stratton.