There are more than one significant reason why the site in Middleton is not appropriate. When contacting anyone it might be better to focus on one or two of the key issues rather than all of them as this reflects the breadth of feeling and is not so repetitive.

 Below are some suggestions which could be expanded upon. It far from an exhaustive list.

Key focuses 

• Proximity to the graveyard – inconsiderate, insensitive, visual and noise impact on peace and tranquillity – no place to reflect.

• the destruction of the natural beauty around the village, an  area of outstanding beauty – not a brown field site - destruction of habitat.  Loss of major vista from national park. Border a SSSI. 

• Not permanent not seasonal

• Cost – already predicted to be large – unrealistic no sewage costs or contamination costs or restoration costs

Some suggested wording you might want to copy or use in an email. A longer email example can be found at the bottom

Dear XXXX

I am writing to object to the planning application for Travellers’ Site on land north-west of the cemetery on New Road, Middleton. The whole proposal seems to break many of the planning regulations concerning the Development in the Countryside policy S4 in the local plan which states it should "not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the rural area" and EC8 where development should be permitted only if "there is no detrimental impact on the character of the local landscape and/or nearby settlements". The specific planning regulations requirements concerning travellers sites, HC6, are not met by this site. Not only this but many of the reports and meeting by the DDDC have identified this site as inappropriate, even as a temporary site, and more so that other sites which have now been refused planning. I am particularly concerned about ....

Use as you see fit

A

Environmental and visual impact - The proposed site lies within an area of outstanding beauty. It is virgin farmland, classified as a priority lowland meadow area containing hay meadow of unimproved grassland which provides habitats for many species. It is only a few hundred metres from a site of special scientific interest (SSSI), the Via Gellia woodland and less than 100m from the SSSI nearby meadows. it also neighbours the local national parks. It lies within a SSSI impact zone. I cannot believe there are no other suitable brown field sites which could be developed instead.

B

Not temporary, not seasonal - I have no confidence that the proposed site will be temporary or seasonal. Derbyshire Dales District Council have been looking for a permanent traveller site for over 10 years.  The “temporary” sites at Matlock Station and Matlock Bath have been occupied for 6 and 3 years respectively.  We know from these sites that any non-compliance or issues with uninvited visitors take years to resolve. Additionally it is significant that there is no provision in the costings to restore the site to its original state after the proposed 2 years. Therefore, I cannot trust the assurances that the site will be temporary or seasonal. 

C

Proximity to the cemetery – The proposed site lying within metres of the cemetery is both inconsiderate and insensitive. In the village, with such a small close knit community there are families with several family members including children buried there. The cemetery is an important place of grieving as well as tranquillity. There is no realistic possibility of suitable screening in the near term and will have both a visual and noise impact which will destroy the peace of the cemetery. This is an “amenity” for the village, a place of quiet reflection and grief. It makes it a totally unsuitable location for a travellers' site.

E

Cost - The cost to set up the site, which currently has no hardstanding, water, electricity or sewage, is estimated to be £135,000. In addition there is no costing for dealing with the lead contaminated land which would require a membrane or for building suitable banked screening with mature trees. If there is an intension of connecting to the sewage system it would require pumping waste uphill.  In addition, there will be considerable costs involved in maintaining the site. Even if that figure is realistic, it is worrying to us that there is no budget to return the site to its previous state once the purported two year period is up. This money would be much better spent on finding a permanent site.

Conclusion

I urge you to oppose this planning application. Just because this is the last potential site the DDDC has, it does not mean it is an appropriate site. Just because the DDDC has a responsibility to find a travellers site does not meant this site is the some suitable to meet their needs. There are many other sites which were considered more appropriate by the DDDC themselves. The DDDC has a responsibility to the residents of Middleton as well as the travellers and their views should carry significant weight as the DDDC councillors are there to represent us.