South Warwickshire Local Plan

Gwrthwynebu

Gypsy and Traveller Site Options

ID sylw: 55641

Derbyniwyd: 28/07/2013

Ymatebydd: Barie & Gill Duggan

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

General objection to high concentration of G & T sites around Chase Meadow/A46; disproportionate and unbalanced.

Object specifically to GT11.
St Mary's Lands designated for recreation - loss of such.
Site supports diverse and sensitive ecology - full environmental impact required.
Site prone to flooding. Hardstandings incompatible with flood risk. Are 'Danger deep water' signs adjacent.
Potential for noise pollution, air pollution and water pollution (Gog Brook). Potential for disease spread to Racecourse stables from non-vaccinated animals.
Already expansion of Chase Meadow housing and erosion of semi-rural aspect and feel. Estate will be completely surrounded by built up areas.
Hampton Rd/Henley St extremely busy and congested. Road to Warwick narrow and very congested. Already exacerbated by caravan site on the racecourse and racecourse traffic. Road no longer wide enough - will become unusable with proposal and 150 new homes at Hampton Magna.
Road safety a concern at Hampton Rd/Purser Dr junction - numerous accidents - will exacerbate.
Lack of control over future expansion and ability to enforce controls. Concerns for large concentration of a G & T community.
Conflict with policy. Local infrastructure (schools, doctors, hospital, roads, social facilities) not able to support.
Conflict with policy - does not meet requirement of promoting peaceful and integrated co-existence.
Tenants should pay equivalent levels of rates and Council tax to private property.

Testun llawn:

Dear Sirs

We attended the Local Plan consultation meeting at Aylesford School on Monday 15th July 2013. As you will be aware the event was very well attended and the strength of feeling about the proposals was very evident.

In general we object to the high concentration of proposed gypsy and travellers sites in and around the Chase Meadow/A46 area. Given the scale of the Warwick District territory, this appears to be disproportionate and unbalanced.

More specifically we object very strongly to the proposal for a gypsy and traveller site at Budbrooke Lodge (GT11 on your plan). This objection is based on a number of factors:

a) our understanding is that St Mary's Lands is designated for the recreational purposes of the people of Warwick. The proposal would take away a further recreational area for people who currently make use of the land

b) the area of land proposed supports a diverse and sensitive ecological environment and we would insist on a full environmental impact study to be undertaken.

c) the area is prone to flooding and sits within a flood plain. There has already been a good deal of flood alleviation work carried out around Gog Brook. However, last winter the Hampton Road was still subject to severe flooding on several occasions. Consequently, installing hard surfaces at Budbrooke Lodge seems incompatible with this flood risk. We still pass signs saying 'Danger; deep water' adjacent to this proposed site.

d) the proposed gypsy and travellers sites have potential for greater levels of noise pollution, air pollution and potential water pollution via Gog Brook. Furthermore, Warwick Racecourse has raised concerns about the stable block adjacent to this site in view of the potential for diseases being transmitted from non vaccinated animals to thoroughbred horses.

e) there has already been a huge expansion of the Chase Meadow housing development over the last few years and this continues. The semi-rural aspect and feel of the development (which was one of the features that attracted us to purchased our property has already been eroded. Consequently the prospect of further green land being developed for gypsies and travellers to the North of the estate means it will be completely surrounded by built up areas.

f) Hampton Road/Henley Street is already an extremely busy and congested thoroughfare. The road into Warwick is extremely narrow and already very congested. This is already exacerbated by the fact that there is a caravan site on the racecourse along with the existing racecourse traffic. As a result of the Chase Meadow development, this road is no longer wide enough to cope with the volume and type of traffic it now carries. Our concerns are that with the proposed gypsy and traveller site, on top of you proposal to build up to 150 homes at Hampton Magna, this road will become vitally unusable.

g) road safety is already a concern, at the junction between Hampton Road and Purser Drive. Whether they are reported accidents or not, we can assure you that there are numerous accidents at this junction. Consequently an increased flow of traffic from Hampton Magna together with the need for an additional access on to this road for the gypsy and traveller site will surely exacerbate road safety risks.

h) having read and listened to the answers you provided we have real concerns that you will be unable to control the expansion of gypsy and traveller sites. If travellers elect to buy the lands we are unconvinced that existing planning permission regulations or objections will be or can be enforced. As the Council has no intention of managing these sites it will be very difficult to avoid temporary or permanent expansion of the number of pitches and/or people occupying these sites. Furthermore, because there are 3 large adjacent sites including Budbrooke Lodge and the land around the A46 we have real concerns that this whole area could eventually be populated by a vary large gypsy and traveller community and that the Council will in reality have little interest or control in preventing this from happening.

i) the proposed sites are in direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller sites'. The local infrastructure is simply not able to support one or more of these sites, especially the local schools, doctors, Warwick Hospital, surrounding roads and social facilities.

j) the proposal is in direct conflict with the Planning Policy for Traveller sites', in that it should promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community. From the evidence of the public consultation meeting we attended this criteria clearly would not be met.

Whichever sites are chosen, it seems to us that if sites are purchased rather than rented, occupants should pay the equivalent levels of rates and council tax to private property owners, rather than the levels for social housing.