BASE HEADER

1. Environmental impact.
The site is open arable land which lies on a level plateau except where it falls to areas prone to flooding.The vista from south to north is across the river Avon to Sherbourne and its beautiful Gilbert Scott church.It would be impossible to design a site which would "enhance the environment" as required by para 24 (b) of the Government Planning Guidance.A site would not "protect the local amenity and environment"---- 9(b).Whether or not the site is bunded or landscaped it will stick out like a sore thumb.
2. Planning.
The site is open green field land.There is no way in which a planning consent would be granted for residential development on this land.Indeed Mr Tym Morgan was refused planning permission to build a house next to his buildings despite farming a viable holding and having real security concerns which were realised when serious damage was caused to his buildings and diesel and small tools were stolen.The thieves came with bolt cutters to open the main doors and a key for the fork lift truck which they used to force up the roll up door on the lean-to.The owners of Westham House were refused consent to add to the flats at their property despite the fact that the proposed development would not have been visible outside the boundaries of their own property.To grant consent for a Travellers site would be discriminatory and unfair to those who have been refused perfectly reasonable applications.
The site lies outside areas allocated for development in the Local Plan,would certainly not respect the interests of the settled community and would dominate the settled community in Westham Lane thereby breaching the guidance in paras 10,12 and 23.
3. Infrastructure.
There are no public services west of the bypass.Any water supply would have to be brought from Wellesbourne Road ,along the whole length of the eastern half of Westham Lane and then under the bypass and across farm land to the site.Mains drainage would have to be by septic tank.This is not straight forward.We struggled with our own system for some years until an expert advised that the outfall was below the water table.We have had to instal and maintain a pump.The water table is high in the area and tends to vary greatly--- particularly over the past 12 months.It is more variable where the substrata is gravel as is the case with the site and its surrounding land.
4. Access.
There is no satisfactory access on to the bypass.Traffic travels at speed along the bypass where the speed limit is 60 mph. The fact that traffic could travel at speed and thereby save travel time was a highly relevant factor in assessing the Cost Benefit Analysis when the bypass was built.The initial scheme which proposed safer junctions for access to the village was rejected by the Department of Transport on account of the extra cost and the effect that such junctions would have on the speed of through traffic.Subsequently the County Council rejected a request from the Parish Council that available funds be spent in reducing the speed limit on the bypass to 50mph.Slow moving mobile homes/caravans turning off or onto the bypass would be hazardous.Pedestrian access would be just as hazardous.There is no pavement along any of the site frontage.There is no central reservation for pedestrians.We have direct knowledge of the hazards.Mr.Hunt from No.5 Westham Lane has cycled daily to shepherd stock on our land.When the bypass was opened he judged it too dangerous to cycle down so he drove.He collided with a vehicle as he crossed the bypass. That vehicle turned over.There were no human fatalities but a dog in the vehicle was killed.I am not at all certain that that incident was recorded in the statistics.Mr.Hunt now cycles to us crossing at Westham Lane.He waits until he can see no traffic in either direction but frequently a car is virtually upon him before he has completed the crossing.He has been hooted at and abused.It beggars belief that the study concludes that there is good pedestrian access to the the village for the school and buses.It should also be noted that considerable development is taking place in Wellesbourne which can only increase the traffic.At peak times,when children would need to go to the village,it is common to have to wait several minutes to exit Westham Lane safely.The greater part of
Westham Lane is a private road --- resurfaced at the cost of the residents a few years ago.It is narrow and not well suited to the traffic that would be generated by a travellers site.
5. Agriculture.
The site is on land classified as grade 2. Only a tiny percentage of land in Warwickshire is of that quality.If required,it is capable of irrigation for intensive vegetable cropping as is the case with other land in the valley which runs to Wellesbourne.Anyone travelling from Barford bridge to Wellesbourne can see the high value cropping that is possible on the land.Only a few months ago I was telephoned by a former client ( who grows salad crops on a substantial scale ) asking if I knew of any land for sale or to rent in the Barford/Wellesbourne corridor as he is well aware of the suitability of the land in this area for intensive cropping.He is desperate to find more land and would pay well over the price for such suitable arable land.The land is well farmed by Mr.Morgan and is viable despite a relatively small acreage for an arable holding.It would be wholly wrong for any site to be located on "the best and most versatile land".The site would lie downwind of the adjoining land and would inevitably be affected by any spraying of the crops,thereby bringing the travellers into conflict with the farmer of the land.Mr.Morgan applied treated sewage sludge to part of his holding last autumn.There would surely be conflict when sludge is applied to the land adjoining the site.Our land and that immediately adjoining is farmed entirely for livestock production.It is a fact that dogs form an important part of the travellers community --- indeed Best Practice advice suggests the provision of kennels with pitches.It is also well known that travellers dogs are kept reasonably free.That represents a hazard for livestock producers and a potential conflict.Although livestock owners are within their rights to shoot dogs causing a nuisance to stock,such action would bring about open warfare rather than the harmonious relationship the policies aspire to.

6. Compulsory Purchase ( CPO )

The site ( and any alternative site to the west of Barford bypass )is not available as the owners,including my wife and I, would not be willing to sell.I have grave reservations as to whether compulsory purchase powers are appropriate in this case.Such powers should only be used for the public benefit --- not simply to get the Council off the hook.No public benefit can be demonstrated in this case.Where land is acquired by CPO for public benefit compensation is paid to those adversely affected.There is no provision for compensation in the case of land acquired for a travellers site.That is simply because there is no public benefit.We will fight any CPO tooth and nail whether of our own land or neighbouring land.

7. Other locations.

There are other locations far more suitable than GT12.In particular,GTalt01 and GT15.There is some suggestion that gas is a problem with the former but that is a problem well capable of resolution --- even beneficial.If the Council is obliged to provide a site then,if that site is in all other respects suitable,the Council should take such steps as may be necessary to resolve any problem with the site.There are other potential sites within the possible major developments south of Warwick and Leamington or east of Kenilworth which should be considered.It would be far more sensible to locate a site within a development where it can be planned from the outset rather than impose a site on an established community in a location where it simply does not fit.Any large scale development has to provide facilities for "public benefit" such as affordable housing.Why not a travellers site? Those locations may not be immediately available but,bearing in mind that the Government is considering redefining the term "travellers"it would be right to withdraw the present proposals altogether and plan for an an appropriate site as part of the new developments.




In summary it seems to us that the location of a site GT12 would have a disproportionate effect upon the existing small community that lies to the west of the bypass.It is a poor location for the potential occupants,will be damaging to the environment,will take extremely valuable agricultural land and will be expensive to deliver.For all those reasons we oppose it.