Appendix A Option 1 SA Matrix
SA2

Comment
I note that 'there is sufficient scope within Dev Option 1 to accommodate a new health care facility if future investigations identify that one is required.' I think the majority of existing residents will be able to give the answer to that statement. See also 4.7


SA3 Reduce crime and the fear of crime
Comment
I note that CAS states 'This option supports this objective though it may only have a minor effect.'

SA3 summary does not reflect having a proposed traveller site within this development.

Was CAS Environmental aware of the proposed Traveller site when they carried out this work? Without a traveller site I would agree with their findings but with a traveller site the findings should be 'Potentially significant adverse effect.'

I understand that councils are required to provide sites for travellers. However, I strongly object to the positioning of this site. I object on the grounds that a site will cause untold upset so near to Sidley where existing residents have already been through a great deal, beginning with the construction of the link road, where people are trying hard to live their daily lives in a less than affluent area where some are struggling to make ends meet. The people of Sidley do not need to contend with travellers living in the area.

I strongly object for myself and other existing residents who until now have lived on the edge of the countryside. I feel able to put forward this view and to share some facts because in 2007 the people of Watermill Lane and the surrounding areas including Sidley had to contend with travellers taking possession of a field, opposite Preston Cottage and where now the access road will run. We have already experienced living near such a community. In 2007, after months of upset and disturbance I wrote to the council and have here copied parts of my letter to the Planning Dept. dated 2nd November, 2007.

Quote: Para 4. 'I am complaining on behalf of the people who pay their council tax, their bills, who work hard, who care about their homes and the future of their children and grandchildren, who stick to the rules and regulations regardless of whether they agree or not: the law abiding people amongst us who generally cause no nuisance. Where is the support for these people when they have been harassed, when they have been intimidated and have had abuse thrown at them? Where is the support for people whose business has been affected, whose property has been broken into, and when they stand up for themselves are cautioned by the police? Where is the support for a community of people who have a genuine concern about their own safety and wellbeing, who feel intimidated and unsupported, distressed, angry and in some cases at their wits end?

Para. 7. Personally, I feel intimidated by the mere presence of these people in the area. I no longer feel comfortable being in the house alone and I check that they are not wandering down the lane when I go out. I have never, ever felt like this in all the years I have lived here. I know that other people feel as vulnerable, particularly as there is a public footpath at the back of our and others' property. I am constantly looking to see who is about, where noises are coming from, and who is responsible.

With reference to this time in 2007, I am aware that my family and I suffered less than other families around because we had a number of noisy dogs within the boundary and these acted as a deterrent. However, some experiences recorded by others were absolutely appalling. It seemed also that the police had their hands tied and were often hesitant to investigate upsets that occurred, certainly they seemed unable to offer the support and protection asked for by the existing local inhabitants. I take it all incidents where the police were involved would have been logged.

The plans show that if the proposed traveller site is developed then there will be easy access to a network of footpaths and it will be within easy reach of Sidley on foot. The very life style of travellers means that families have vehicles and are able to make longer journeys to access schools and shops whilst in the area. This therefore cannot be a contributing factor to its siting.

Regardless of whether travellers are on a regular site or using a field of their choice, it is a known fact that communities suffer, therefore I am suggesting that any site in this area should be moved away from existing and proposed communities so that people may live without an increase in crime and fear of crime.

Finally, the Access Road appears to be well on its way, land has been churned up, trees have just been felled on either side of Watermill Lane, motor bikes can be heard racing along the Link Road, so I guess there will be more racing nearer to home in due course before the noise and disruption of building begins. The countryside recedes to be replaced by concrete. Do planners realise that country parks cannot take the place of the countryside? Progress!