H6 2a.

There is already a gypsy/traveller site with consent for caravan use at Wells Close, Woodway Lane, Claybrooke Parva and further sites nearby at Mere Lane, Ullesthorpe and to the SW of Lutterworth. If there is a need for additional gypsy/traveller sites, then it seems to me that Claybrooke Parva and its locale already have more than their fair share. Therefore this site is not JUSTIFIED.

1. There are already nearby gypsy sites at Mere Lane, Ullesthorpe and Wells Close, Woodway Lane, Claybrooke Parva.
2. Spinney View Farm is within the village of Claybrooke Parva and. I am concerned if these three pitches are allowed, it will further negatively impact the nature of the rural village of Claybrooke Parva.

There is a disproportionate provision within this Ward already. Where is the evidence for such a concentration is this part of the District? Our resources are already stretched so any increase is not sustainable.
Planning Appeal 14/00603/FUL confirmed that provision in Claybrooke Parva would be damaging to the countryside, unsustainable and injurious to community relations. The justification for the Inspector's ruling remains unchanged.

I am concerned that a specific designation of the site within a small rural community, that has no amenities, support infrastructure will put pressure on the local community. I have a strong belief that I moved to an area of natural beauty which will be affected by this change of designation. There is already council provided accommodation in the area .

1) There is existing underutilised provision on the other side of Ullesthorpe at Mere Lane. Satellite imagery of the site shows that less that half the pitches are utilised and land allocated to the site has not been fully developed.
2) The proposed site further erodes the separation between and distinct characters of Claybrooke Parva and Ullesthorpe.
3) The land to the south of the Claybrooke-Ullesthorpe road at the proposed site is prone to flooding. This is going to be exacerbated by the large amount of hard surface in the proposed Magna Park development that falls into the same water catchment. The stream by Spinney Farm is choked at the road bridge and floods the fields to the south. We should be avoiding development in flood-prone areas to maintain water quality and minimise insurance costs.

My objection is based upon the
- damage to the countryside with this development
- the negative effects on the natural environment
- inappropriate development of farm land within area of natural countryside/ green belt
- disturb the character of the area
- the declined application for the Gypsy/traveller accommodation on Woodway lane Claybrooke Parva

This is an opportunistic application for use of agricultural land. The fact that the land has been neglected is irrelevant and indeed has probably benefitted wildlife. There is a traveller site a few miles away outside Ullesthorpe and a Showmens' site on the outskirts of Lutterworth. A recent report has shown that there is only a shortage of 780 pitches nationally with most of these needed in the south east as travellers move to find work. Therefore this application is unnecessary and probably would not be enforced leading to a larger number of pitches being provided.

Most of the provision for Gypsy and Traveller sites are situated in the South West of the district around the Lutterworth Area. The proportion of Gypsy and Traveller sites, in proportion to the resident population of the area, is far higher than the Market Harborough area for instance.

Showmen and Gypsy and Traveller sites appear to be in over provision if there is a potential further 10 sites in Gilmorton and 18 for which planning could be resurrected in Moorbarns Lane.

That being said, an additional 3 pitches on the Ullesthorpe site would be easier to Manage rather than starting another new site at Spinney Farm

-Land use change from agricultural to residential within a green belt.
-No planning application has been made or approved for"earmarked" location
-The proposal is not located within a reasonable distance to a settlement, and has
inadequate access to a range of services. It does not have suitable highway access and is
detrimental to public safety. It is therefore contrary to Core Strategy policy CS4.
-Area in question is infill development in between 2 villages.

Most of the provision for Gypsy and Traveller sites are situated in the South West of the district around the Lutterworth Area. The proportion of Gypsy and Traveller sites, in proportion to the resident population of the area, is far higher than the Market Harborough area for instance

Showmen and Gypsy and Traveller sites appear to be in over provision if there is a potential further 10 sites in Gilmorton and 18 for which planning could be resurrected in Moorbarns Lane.

That being said, an additional 3 pitches on the Ullesthorpe site would be easier to Manage rather than starting another new site at Spinney Farm

There is already a Gypsy site nearby at Ullesthorpe We dont need another one locally

I object to this proposal.

This is an unwarranted intrusion into the countryside.

There is already a Gypsy and Travellers site close by in Woodway Lane, Claybrooke Parva.
This has been unused since permission was granted for it and clearly demonstrates a lack
of demand for such further provision in this area.

There is little point in making provision in a location that is not geographically suitable.

Why is it necessary to have another G/T site when there is already one in Mere Lane. Why are the majority of G/T sites on the eastern side of the District. They should be spread over the District. Why has HDC included this site when HM Inspector's ruling on Planning Appeal 14/00603/FUL remains unchanged.

We have enough new dwellings proposed for this village. Any more people will make the traffic worst. The school is over subscribed and we have no amenities to speak of. The proposal will be damaging to the countryside and the character of this SMALL village. There is no shop, no doctors and one pub. Why is the district council so keen to spoil are village. People live here to look at countryside NOT buildings of any description. Residents children should be able to live here, but they can't

* Seems unfair to the traveller community to house them near each other in one area. Travellers should be spread out across the county so as not to make them feel segregated from the rest of the county.
* Local area around Spinney Farm is already under threat from the expansion of Magna Park. This would be taking more countryside away from local people.
* Increase in traffic would be detrimental to the local area
* How has planning permission been granted for this site?

This site does not have safe access to amenities. By the general habit of humans the shortest route is always taken to places so by foot there is no safe access to encourage zero carbon foot print by motivating people to walk to the nearby shop, pub, hairdressers and butcher. Recent applications near to the site were turned down due to Highways deeming it being unsatisfactory and harm being greater than good. Site next an area with listed buildings and an area of ridge and furrow.

I Object for two reasons:
There is already one travellers site within the parish. This site is not full and has capacity - there is no need for a second site within the same parish where amenities are already stretched to breaking point.
A planning proposal was rejected by Harborough Council for building houses on land off Claybrooke Road, Ullesthorpe as public access to village amenities on foot was not a safe option. Why then are they now proposing to permit a travellers site adjacent to this land using the same village access and consider this a safe option?

That the proposed site would not be beneficial to either claybrooke Parva or ullesthorpe also that a site which is already in the local

This is green land and travellers pitches and associated infrastructure would damage the countryside. There is a site in Ullesthorpe which is not at capacity and could accommodate 3 more pitches.

This site Spinney View is not adjacent to the highway and has been refused planning several times in the past because of its location other applications have applied even if they have local community tie. these applicants where not from the gypsy / traveller community and only wanted singular residential dwellings. which HDC refused forcing them to leave the area. surely there is an unfair positively discriminative bias if a site previously refused at least twice for valid planing reasons is now approved for 3 residences / pitches. other sites are approved in the parish for this provision

There is already a travellers site in close proximity of this site and another in development. There is no requirement for another in this area of Claybrooke and Ullesthorpe.

- The proposed site would further increase the already high concentration of G/T/S accommodation in this area.
- There are insufficient services available in the area to accommodate further increase in demand.
- The proposed site is on a busy derestricted road and has very limited view of oncoming traffic.
- Slow moving large vehicles turning on to or off the A5 is a major safety issue.
- The proposed development would lead to a loss of open countryside, thus damaging an important element of the area.
- The site was subject to a refused planning application some years ago, following an inspectors decision. There can be no democratic reason for bringing the site back in again.
- It is therefore unsound to consider that the Planning Inspector's decision should be totally disregarded.

There is already a gypsy/traveler site just outside Ullesthorpe and I see no need for another in this area of beautiful countryside.

Precedent would suggest that it is not wise to have three gypsy traveler sites in close proximity. There is already a site in Claybrooke Parva and a very large one in Ullesthorpe.
The Consultation report Gypsy, Traveler & Showpeople site identification study report dated July 2017 states in
Paragraph 1.12: 'To be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged"
Harborough District Council Enforcement Department has spent many years and much council tax money preventing people living here. Why does it suddenly become acceptable site for a Gypsy/Traveler development.
Paragraph 2.13: The desk research & interviews only managed to interview 23% of target despite three attempts.
This is a very low sample and begs the question as to the accuracy of the need.
Paragraph 2.18: states that it is difficult to identify the number of sites required.
Draft Local Plan in H6, 2a identifies Spinney View Farm as a suitable site. The description in the Consultant Report Annex D is inaccurate.

- The proposed site would further increase the already high concentration of G/T/S accommodation in this area.
- There are insufficient services available in the area to accommodate further increase in demand.
- The proposed site is on a busy derestricted road and has very limited view of oncoming traffic.
- Slow moving large vehicles turning on to and off the A5is a major safety issue.
- The proposed development would lead to a loss of open countryside, this damaging an important element of the area.
- The site was subject to a refused planning application some years ago, following an Inspector's decision. There can be no democratic reason for bringing the site back in again.
- It's therefore unsound to consider that the Planning Inspector's decision should be totally disregarded.

My concerns with the plan start with its title. It cannot be retrospectively applied to year 2011. By the time it is adopted we could well be in year 2019 if not 2020. 2011 is already 6 years past. Events have overtaken it.

Secondly there is a complete imbalance in the proposals. It would appear that a line has been drawn across the district following the route of the A6 road and all "hard landscaping" development proposals concentrated to the west of this road with the consequential loss of agricultural land particularly in the southwest corner in the Lutterworth area and very little to the east of this road. Times change, circumstances alter; the plan leaves little room to accommodate such events.

Policy H6
Consistent with the above observation of imbalance, all the existing and proposed traveller sites apart the site at Keyham are concentrated around the Lutterworth and Market Harborough areas. Another site between Ullesthorpe and the Claybrookes is not needed nor is it desirable. Additional provision should be made in the eastern half of the district where at present there is a shortage.

Policy BE2 (Magna Park)
It is noted that the plan allows for the expansion of Magna Park subject to certain criteria, one of which is the effect of traffic flows on the local roads and A5. The area around Magna Park does not have an unemployment problem consequently any expansion will create commuter traffic to and from the site as well as increase the flows of HGVs servicing the site. The plan should state emphatically that no expansion of the Magna Park be entertained until, i. there is an unemployment crisis in the Lutterworth district and ii. The A5 trunk road is majorly improved along its whole length from the M1 to the M42 with a dual carriageway and safety improvements at all its junctions with the minor roads with which it interconnects.

The local area is over represented with Gypsy and Traveller plots - Mere Lane (largest in the Harborough district) and Woodway Lane.
The Claybrooke School area is extremely busy and very dangerous at dropping off and picking up times. There is a severe health and safety issue with increased local population.
The access to the plots is a single lane track there could be as many as 12 vehicles on site.
The area is at the bottom of a hill next to a stream that floods every year.
The area runs next to a footpath which could be disrupted.
Local facilities are at a minimum, local town shops are 4 miles away.

The local area already has two other sites within one mile of this proposed location. The local amenities are unable to cope with more sites and is already being negatively impacted by the location of the other two sites. The local schools of Ullesthorpe and Claybrooke are unable to cope with the increased demand placed upon them.

The local area already has two sites, Mere Lane and Woodway Lane. The additional site will put additional strain on local facilities that are already struggling to cope. Both Ullesthorpe and Claybrooke Schools are being negatively impacted by the requirements placed on them.

30% of the District's provision is already around the Claybrookes and Ullesthorpe. It would be disadvantageous to increase the provision in this, due to the fluctuating demand on services.

Provision should be spread across the whole of the District, to ensure fairness and spread of resources.