Five residents are taking B&NES to Court over its handling of plans for gypsy and traveller sites across the district. They argue the process is fundamentally flawed. They oppose the selection of three of the six sites identified by B&NES as preferred options. The sites are the Old Colliery in Stanton Wick, the former Infants School Canteen, Bath Old Road, Radstock and land near to Ellsbridge House, Keynsham.

Solicitors representing the claimants wrote to B&NES on 24th July, saying why they believed the site selection process undertaken by the Council was 'unreasonable, irrational, unlawful and procedurally irregular'. The response from B&NES, received on the very last of the fourteen days permitted under the pre-action protocol, was wholly unsatisfactory.

Two of the claimants, Philip Townshend and Elizabeth Richardson, are also members of the Stanton Wick Action Group and oppose the selection of the Old Colliery site in Stanton Wick as a preferred option.

Mr Townshend said: "B&NES' own assessment of The Old Colliery site at Stanton Wick ranked it as being particularly unsuitable, placing it in seventeenth position out of 23 sites considered. There was no logical reason for it to even be on the long-list, let alone being identified as a 'preferred option' on the Council's shortlist.

"There has been overwhelming feedback from local residents about why the Stanton Wick site is inappropriate at every point of this deeply-flawed process; we have attended every meeting available with B&NES, given evidence whenever possible, and presented them with multiple opportunities to reconsider. We have urged them to run a transparent, well-publicised process that is based on objective site suitability scoring, an up-to-date needs assessment, local communities' views, long-term site sustainability and deliverability and the needs of the traveller communities themselves.

"B&NES have ignored all of our considerable efforts to resolve this. We are left no choice but to start proceedings that will challenge this deeply-flawed process in law."

Despite multiple efforts to persuade B&NES to reconsider at all levels and a huge response from the local communities (including more than 1,000 signatures on both written and e-petitions), the claimants say that B&NES has "failed to remedy the errors made in relation to a number of sites; or provide answers which can explain the seeming irregularity of [their] actions in terms of reasonableness, lawfulness and procedural propriety."

Les Robson, Co-Chair of Bath Old Road Action Group which opposes the selection of the former Infants School site in Bath Old Road, Radstock, said: "We are disappointed that despite numerous opportunities for B&NES to withdraw these wholly inappropriate and unsustainable sites from the Preferred Options list, our

requests have essentially been ignored despite the overwhelming evidence presented.

"Bath Old Road Action Group believes that the sites selected are undeliverable. The process undertaken has unreasonably raised the expectation of the travelling community, as well as putting the lives of local residents on hold whilst a decision is being made This hasn't done anyone any favours.

"With B&NES stating that caravans or mobile homes would be viewed as 'alien' and 'unacceptable', Bath Old Road Action Group are bemused that the Council continues to believe that placing a traveller site in the middle of a residential street is a good idea."

Rosemary Collard, who runs the Snapdragons Nursery which is next to the land at Ellsbridge House, Keynsham, said: "There are many problems with this site, many of which have been admitted by the Council, yet despite this they have chosen to ignore their own information, our detailed information and just carry on with this damaging process, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it is, in my opinion, impossible to develop this site as proposed. The major problems include: the very busy road, the unsuitability of a shared access with and location next to a childrens' nursery, the loss of woodland, the impact on a listed building (the nursery) and the unsuitability of the site for residential accommodation when it is between a busy main road and a recycling plant."

Clarke Osborne, Chairman of the Stanton Wick Action Group, said: "We believe that the Council are in breach of their responsibilities to ensure a proper, fair and open selection process for sites before any detailed consultation is undertaken with the public and before any commitment is made to the possibility that any site can be developed for this purpose. We have listed no less than sixteen areas where we consider the Council have failed. We, together with our colleagues in Keynsham and Radstock, have gone to great lengths and considerable expense to show the Council the errors of this process, but at each juncture we have been met with meaningless platitudes and left with many unanswered questions. It is highly regrettable that we have felt the need to resort to this legal challenge but the three groups consider that there is no alternative if we are to ensure that what appears to be a hurried and bungled process is fully exposed and stopped.

"We are very concerned that such a sensitive and important planning matter that will have a lasting effect on both settled and travelling communities should be dealt with in this cavalier way. With seemingly little or no regard for the required process and criteria set down by the Government and, as importantly, seemingly no regard for the views of some of their own Senior Planning Officers.

"It surely cannot be right that our Council, B&NES, should seemingly seek political gain from such conduct and seek to justify and defend these errors and wasted money."