Opposition Letters
Feel free to copy this and modify to your own personal opinion. It just provides some example of ways to object.
Feel free to copy this and modify to your own personal opinion. It just provides some example of ways to object.
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.
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. In particular the the points below should be considered.
Unfair Process
Councillor Steve Flitter at the Travellers Consultation Meeting at Holy Trinity Church Middleton on 18th September 2024 assured the village that the site at Middleton would not be put forward as a potential temporary site. Reassured we were blindsided by the decision to batch Middleton in with three other sites on 9th December 2024.
Since then active opposition to the site has grown and we will be strenuously opposing the planning application.
Deemed an Unsuitable Temporary Site
· Middleton was listed as unsuitable as a temporary site at the DDDC Council Meeting on 24 November, 2022. https://democracy.derbyshiredales.gov.uk/documents/g174/Printed%20minutes%2024th-Nov-2022%2018.00%20Council.pdf?T=1
The site has not changed in the three years since then and political necessity does not make it any more suitable.
Unsuitable under Your Own Assessment Criteria
· By your own criteria, the Middleton site fails three of the requirements of HC6. Your Site Assessment https://www.derbyshiredales.gov.uk/your-council/have-your-say/consultations/traveller-sites-consultation-2024#h2 lists 3 of the 9 criteria as Red, 1 as Amber and 1 as Unknown.
Middleton was given a score of 16, while Rowsley, which has just been turned down for planning, had a score of 20.
How can Rowsley be deemed unacceptable and yet Middleton acceptable?
Not a Quick Solution
· The land is currently leased out to a tenant, David Spencer, whose family have held grazing rights on the land for 60 years. He will need to be given a year’s notice.
Our understanding is that you have an urgent need to house the family to whom you have a homelessness responsibility. This site does not offer a quick fix and suggests this site would be only worthwhile if the planning was extended to a permanent site, as the proposed application may well expire before the DDDC acquires possession of the ground.
Permanent Damage
· The fact that there is currently no hardstanding, no water, no electricity, no sewage, no drainage, and no privacy on the site will entail extensive work.
· Once virgin grazing land has been built on, it cannot be returned to its original state.
· The environment and the eco system cannot be reinstated as they were.
It is disingenuous to claim that this will only be a temporary arrangement. By its very nature, putting a travellers site on the land will cause permanent damage.
Impact on the Community
· Tourism – the site will be an eyesore as you enter the village unless you are prepared to pay for extensive landscaping.
· The Nelson Pub – this is a local hub offering a place for clubs and societies to meet and housing the Post Office. If it closes it will be an irreplaceable loss to the community.
· Cemetery and Funerals – the village is a small knit community with multiple generations of families, including young children, being buried in the cemetery. It is still used for funerals. The proximity of the travellers’ site will stop it being a safe place of grief and quiet reflection.
· Safeguarding – villagers are concerned about their own safety and about their recourse against anti-social behaviour/activities.
DDDC’s response to residents’ concerns seems to be CCTV and a Management Plan.
What evidence do you have that these are effective in managing any issues that might arise? Do you have case studies?
Costs
· The initial estimate allocates £135,579 for the site preparation. A quick site visit will show you that this is a gross underestimate. https://democracy.derbyshiredales.gov.uk/documents/s11952/Temporary%20Traveller%20Sites.pdf
Your current costings are either misleading or intentionally underestimated to make the site appear more appealing.
Will you be providing revised costs to reflect the actual work that will be required for all the preparation, services, road alterations etc?
Thank you for your consideration of these matters. We look forward to hearing your response.
Yours sincerely,
XXXXX