Testun llawn:
I am writing having read the proposals regarding the location of future sites for gypsies and travellers, as stated in the WDC New Local Plan.
Whilst I fully appreciate the challenges facing WDC to provide adequate sites for gypsies and travellers, As a resident of Chase Meadow, I am writing to lodge an objection to the 4 sites (ref GT11, GT17, GT18 and GT20) and in particular site ref GT11 directly opposite the entrance to the Chase Meadow Estate.
I will expand further upon my objections at a later date as I am undertaking further research on this matter. However the time frame you have stated does not leave myself or local residents much time to correspond with you regarding the location of proposed traveller sites.
Here is a summary of my main objections.
* Expansion and Infrastructure. With the current expansion of the estate, there is already a great strain on resources serving Chase Meadow, specifically on roads, safety and education. The addition of a traveller site on the edge of the estate will only compound this further. I am undertaking further research on this matter regarding the strain on infrastructure.
* Education. The local primary school, Newburgh is completely full and I am aware from Council estimates that there are more projected births than places at our the school for the next three years. My daughter attends Newburgh and I have a very real concern on the already strained resources of the school. Newburgh has a variety of challenges with the children in its care and I think Mr Smith and his team do a terrific job. Placing the additional burden on him is unfair when there is clearly no room for all local children in the next few years.
* Location (1). Site 11 is the only site within 'close proximity to a residential area - one which local residents are striving hard to develop into a cohesive community. One of the stated aims of the 'Planning Policy for Travellers Sites' is to reduce tensions between settled and traveller communities in plan-making and planning decisions. With that in mind, what is the advantage in choosing a site located so close to an existing settled community? Other sites listed in your proposal are not located so close to an existing settled community.
* Location (2). Additionally from the 'Planning Policy for Travellers Sites' is the aim to "for local planning authorities to have due regard to the protection of local amenity and local environment. Settlement of site 11 on land partly owned by a historical trust and adjoining the racecourse, a major tourist attraction for Warwick. The racecourse and historical aspect of Warwick both are fundamental to the appeal of the town and surrounding area. Choosing to build on land owned or adjoining to land owned by the Henry V111 Trust, as opposed to other sites, feels morally and ethically wrong in light of the stated aim to protect the local amenity and environment. Warwick is a town visited by people from all over the world because of its historical associations and attractions - they should be the first locations to be saved from any developments, regardless of them being traveller sites. With regards our local amenity, the local public use St Marys fields and the land within the racecourse for recreational purposes all year round. The position of a traveller site adjacent to the racecourse will be detrimental to the appearance of the amenity.
* Approach. Further to the above, building a traveller site along a key approach into Warwick will have a visual impact for tourists visiting Warwick, on visitors attending the racecourse, even on TV viewers watching racing from Warwick (the location would be directly on the approach to the home straight). Is this the first impression WDC wants visitors to take from Warwick?
* Community Anxiety. With issues of this nature, we have to be very careful to focus on factual information and not let our emotions rule our head. As previously mentioned, one of your aims is to reduce tensions between settled and traveller communities in plan-making and planning decisions. I have seen an enormous response from local people and from local businesses on Chase Meadow and beyond, who are all very concerned about noise, litter, traffic, potential crime, impact on local services and amenities. Some of these elements are clearly not quantifiable and cannot be supported with any other evidence than perception or personal experience. I acknowledge the tough job you have on your hands because you have to identify sites that meet the required criteria and aims. However, the anxiety that you have now created with your list of proposed sites, is very evident and very real. It exists within a large number of residents and stakeholders on Chase Meadow and the Forbes Estate and the choice of site 11 to develop will only amplify those anxieties and tensions further. I would therefore request that site 11 in particular is not considered, as there are other sites on your proposed list which are still served by the facilities you need to provide but, are less residential.
Final point, can I ask that WDC consider holding a public meeting for local residents in Warwick to speak to you about your plans? All of the meetings are scheduled away from our community yet, we warrant a meeting for local residents and stakeholders to listen to your plans.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.