28

RE: Objection to the proposed traveller site at North Burlingham. Single parent with three children and elderly parents living at same address, site will be fully visible from the front and side of the house, with unsightly views of the site from the upper floors. Site will have a significant impact on devaluing our home, will increase car and home insurance policies. I run a dog home boarding and day care business from home 24 hours a day 365 days of the year, this is my only income to support three children and my parents. This proposed site will have a significant impact on my business, site will be visible to new customers viewing my boarding facilities and I believe will deter customer from leaving their dogs with me for safety reasons.

Myref: Objection 12.

– Objection to the Process of Site Selection – Expansion of existing sites and locating sites in other authority areas have not been considered.
The GNLP seems to be weighting its assessment of solutions to the G&T Site issue heavily towards the actual availability of "Any" and "Low cost" land, rather than attempting to find land that would suit the G&T culture, lead to a successful site development, and provide some potential for balanced relationship with a wider community.
From a limited amount of study in the field, it would appear that the G&T sites are successful when they are situated with access to greenspace, and are able to obtain a comfortable separation from the "settled community" by ensuring that sites have adequate privacy and discretion. Adequate educational and healthcare resources should be on hand as the community often has some degree of special needs in these areas.
Surely it would be better to search for locations based on satisfying requirements (both from the G&T cultural requirements and the "bigger picture" perspective) and adopt a top down approach to solving the problem rather than considering placing a community in the middle of an available road junction on effectively a piece of "wasteland"? (Or, as a planner described it to me, a "goldilocks" location: Cheap and available with limited agricultural potential due to its size).
There would appear to be great potential to expand the existing successful sites at Brooks Green and The Roundwell in Norwich, where adjoining land is available and could be acquired, and the sites are shown to work and meet the needs of the G&T community without impacting greatly on the local community.
Further, a large site with infrastructure is available at the now disused Park & Ride location at Postwick. This site is owned by Norfolk County Council, who are apparently unwilling to cooperate by making it available for consideration by the GNLP.
Councils have a duty and ability to cooperate across boundaries to trade needs and assets in a way that may be useful. They can also use compulsory purchase powers to obtain land where necessary to satisfy an identified need for the greater good.
There is much land in the Gt Yarmouth borough council area (including brownfield sites) that is currently underdeveloped, and which may have significant difficulty attracting investment for either housing or business use (given the possibility of it being under the sea in 30-50 years). I would suggest that such land may produce an interim solution (until the sea comes in) for relatively low capital accommodation fulfilment. If indeed the sea levels do rise, then options may need to be reconsidered in the future, and the costs of relocating a traveller community will be lower than those of relocating residents in traditional bricks and mortar housing.