BASE HEADER

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options for Sites

ID sylw: 63893

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2014

Ymatebydd: Judith & Paul Wilkinson

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

A4177 will not be able to cope with more traffic. It is the main link into Warwick,the A46 and onto the M40. Road is frequently at a standstill in a morning. Turning into/out of the proposed site will be disruptive & dangerous. There have been fatalities.
Whilst aware that the proposal is for only five caravans, likelihood is that more will congregate. Will any watch be kept on this? What action will be taken when more than five caravans are on site? Who will ensure the site is kept clean & free of debris? If this goes ahead who is going to pay for the utilities to be connected to the site?
Who will pay the council tax?
Who will pay for refuse collection?
A4177 is one of the main routes into Warwick for tourists:approach will look awful when the site is in full view of the road.
Planning option of building houses opposite Brownley Green Lane was dismissed as it would be seen from A4177 & would disturb canal use: surely a travellers site would do same.
Need for school places for the travellers children, as all the local primary schools are full, where will they be schooled?
Which GP surgery has the capacity to take on extra patients?
Will Warwick hospital have the capacity to deal with more patients?
Is the infrastructure in place to take extra people on?

Testun llawn:

We wish to lodge an objection to the proposed travellers site on the A4177 by the Shell garage.

We feel the A4177 simply will not be able to cope with a greater volume of traffic than it now has, the road is the main link into Warwick, also to the A46 and onto the M40, the volume of traffic is such that the road is frequently at a standstill in a morning, the speed of the traffic will mean any vehicle trying to turn into/out of the proposed site will be disruptive & positively dangerous. Especially when there is already a constant flow of traffic in/out the Shell garage. The A4177 is a dangerous road as fatalities over the last few years have proved.

Whilst aware that the proposal is for only five caravans, the likelihood is that far more than this will congregate, as happened at the Kites Nest Lane site which, incidentally, looked a terrible mess most of the time it was there, will any watch be kept on this, what action will be taken when more than five caravans are on site, the Kites Nest Lane site most certainly had more caravans on it than were permitted & nothing was done to bring the amount down to the agreed level while they sort permission to stay there, who will ensure the site is kept clean & free of debris. If this goes ahead who is going to pay for the utilities to be connected to the site, who will pay the council tax, who will pay for refuse collection. We all pay heavily for these services will the travellers do the same?

As the A4177 is one of the main routes into Warwick, the approach to the town will look awful when the site is in full view of the road, is that really the impression you are trying to give to the very vital tourism industry that Warwick depends on? Warwick Council dismissed the planning option of building houses opposite Brownley Green Lane as it would be seen from the A4177 & would disturb the canal use, surely a travellers site would do precisely the same, are double standards coming to the fore here? Having one rule for one site & another rule for another site on the same stretch of road & canal is not acceptable.

Also there is the need for school places to be found for the travellers children, as all the local primary schools are full, where will they be schooled? Warwick Council does not believe in all siblings going to the same school, will this mean even more cars on the A4177 during rush hour when the parents of the children have to shoot off in different directions to take their children to different schools? Which GP surgery has the capacity to take on extra patients? Will Warwick hospital have the capacity to deal with more patients? Is the infrastructure in place to take these extra people on?

We would be most grateful to have these concerns answered properly and in full.