Appendix XXXXX by 7ikBt8Md


									 Appendix 5

Summary of consultation


10 responses have been received from members of the public.

Responses made reference to the following issues:

          Location of site next to multi-million pound road development
          Location next to new office developments
          Site in prominent location in a ‘gateway’ to Stockton
          Impact on landscape and the river frontage
          Impact on recent housing developments and levels of investment in the area
          Impact on regeneration schemes planned for areas near the river
          Concerns over cost to Council
          Concerns over claimed reductions in costs associated with clear-up and
           enforcement of unauthorised encampments
          Concern over size of site and attraction to travellers from outside area
          Concern from residents of newly purchased properties at Sun Gardens (other
           side of river, opposite proposed site). Effect on the view from there.
          Effect on house prices
          Effect on secure environment in which to bring up children
          Concerns on temporary nature of site which may become permanent [may
           refer to confusion over definition of site – ‘transit’/‘temporary stay’ but site
           would have been permanent.]
          Concerns over impact of general image of the area.
          Concerns over increased crime in local area
          Reassurance needed that location is the correct one
          Should be located away from residential areas
          Proposed location is within industrial land, this would have negative impact on
           health and welfare of travelling community
          Concern over whether Travellers have been consulted on the viability of the
          Impact on future economic expansion – if land is needed in future will the
           search for a site start again
          No expectation that land would be used for such purpose before purchasing
          A site should not be provided at all
          One respondent referred to starting a petition

Local Business

A number of businesses have expressed their reservations and strong objections to
the proposal; this response includes four letters which have been received from
businesses in the vicinity of the site. Issue raised in the correspondence include:

           The effect on confidence of their location within Stockton
           Location of site within the Bowesfield development area, an emerging office
            development site
           Location of site close to the gateway of the Bowesfield and Preston Farm
            Business Parks
           Three companies stated that they would not have committed to their recent
            relocation in the area had they known of such a proposal – the effect on
            others looking to relocate
           Effects on the valuation of the company assets
           Difficulty in letting buildings
           Impact on attracting new employees and retaining existing staff
           The potential for increased security and the costs of this
           Security and safety of personnel working in the area
           One company intimated that it would consider its position within Stockton if
            the proposal went ahead

Northumbrian Water

Northumbrian Water manage the pumping station adjacent to the proposed site.
Initial observations were made in relation to the need for daily access to the pumping
station and that this would need to be considered.

The security of the pumping station would need to be considered. Previously there
had been issues with fly-tipping in the area which had restricted access to the station.

Central Area Partnership

Members of the partnership were raised the following issues:

          The location of the site being quite close to the current residential site at
           Mount Pleasant, Bowesfield Lane
          The site should be developed in order to take into account the environmental
           concerns. Both in terms of site condition and site appearance at a ‘gateway’
          Concerns relating to site management, and the length of stay and how this is
          Recognition that those living in the Parkfield would have concerns

Ward Councillors

A response was received from the ward councillors for Parkfield and Oxbridge (Cllrs
Rix and Javed) and the Town Centre Ward (Cllrs Coleman and Kirton). In relation to
the location:

‘While we fully support the provision of a transit site for Travellers to alleviate the
problems of illegal encampment and to provide a decent standard alternative, we
object to the proposed site for the following reasons:
        1. Too prominent a position close to the Southern Gateway approach. The
            TDC had a winter storage caravan park removed from ‘Lower Hartburn’
            because they said it was an eyesore and should not be on a major
            gateway into Stockton.
       2.   Potential conflict between settled travellers on the permanent site at
            Bowesfield Lane – both the settled residents and the travellers would be
            competing for the same type of work and the close vicinity of the two sites
            could lead to conflict
       3.   Possible negative effect on inward investment on Bowesfield Industrial
            Estate where millions of pounds have already been spent. There are new
            office blocks, new commercial developments such as Lexus up-market
            car showroom, top of the range Toyota showroom and the Abbey Bank
            plus others due to come in.
       4.   Potential adverse impact on residential and commercial developments in
            the area eg. Boathouse Lane, Sun Gardens - Thornaby, Queen’s Park
            Estate and Kvaerner Site.
       5.   Environmental impact – the proposed site would be visible from the new
            commercial developments, The A66, 1825 Way and the proposed
            housing developments. The site will be exposed to noise and fumes from
            the A66. The Bowesfield Pumping Station if put out of action could create
            an environmental hazard.’

The response also made reference to the short timescale for consultation. The ward
councillors believe that the process should incorporate an impact assessment in
regeneration terms, an assessment of impact on housing and commercial
developments, environmental assessment and due reference to social inclusion and
cohesion issues.

Mount Pleasant, Bowesfield Lane
Residential Gypsy and Traveller site managed by SBC

Site Warden

The Bowesfield Pumping Station is close to the residential site. Possible effects
could be:
    Increased fly tipping in immediate area
    Problems associated with relations between those on current site and those
       using transit site.
    Increase in traffic on permanent site as those using transit site visit to explore
    Effect on relations between Mount Pleasant residents and the rest of the local
       community. Currently these are good and have taken a long time to build up.

Comments from representatives from 5/6 English and Irish families

Reference was made to the following issues:

      Would like to know why Haverton Hill area was not chosen
      Could have an effect on good relations in local area if problems arise
       associated with use of the transit site
      Reference was made to the children on site and their places in local schools,
       and possible bullying.
      Concern over those who would be likely to use the site and that they would
       not know who was moving into the area
      One group made reference to the possibility of moving out if the transit site
       was located nearby

Members of unauthorised Irish Traveller encampment

A discussion was held with members of one group currently in the Borough and the
following points were raised:

      This particular group prefer to stay in the area surrounding Thornaby due to
       children in schools and relatives in area
      Other families don’t necessarily get on well, so smaller sites may be an option
       to consider
      Any site must not be near a dump or it won’t be used.
      Would need to provide refuse facilities to be able to keep it clean
      Some concern regarding a site in Bowesfield which would increase the
       amount of the Gypsy and Traveller community in the local area, as there is
       already a site nearby
      Feeling that if they had tried to get on the residential site they would struggle
       to gain acceptance from the residents.

Tees Valley Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment Steering Group

(This group contains planning and housing officers from the Tees Valley Authorities
and representatives from the UK Association of Gypsy Women, Northern Network of
Travelling People, SPARC (Society for the Promotion and Advancement of Romany
Culture), the Showmen’s Guild and the Traveller Education Service)

      Representatives stated that any land used must not be contaminated through
       previous use and that assurances would be needed regarding the state of the
      One Traveller representative recalled that the residential site’s location
       (Mount Pleasant Grange, Bowesfield) had been moved from a site nearby
       [due to planned road construction]. When subsequently it was suggested that
       the ‘old site’ could be used as a Transit Site, the member recalled that there
       was opposition from permanent site residents at the time.
      Officer members of the steering group noted that the length of stay and
       management of the site would need to be strictly monitored in order to ensure
       its success. Attention would need to be paid to community relations and the
       definition of a ‘transit site’ would need to be made clear.
      It was noted that in general the GTAA process would be likely to point
       towards a mix of increased permanent provision, transit sites and ‘softer’
       temporary stopping places.

To top