BASE HEADER
Gwrthwynebu
Preferred Options for Sites
ID sylw: 64385
Derbyniwyd: 01/05/2014
Ymatebydd: Mr Anthony King
objects to the possible allocation of site GTalt01 for gypsies and travellers on following grounds:
1. On 25th June 2013 WDC Officer Dave Barber wrote to Mrs Beatrix Law of Save Warwick on the this subject stating:
' this was a former landfill site and is therefore contaminated....the site is not suitable as a Gypsy & Traveller site. We have not included this site within our options for gypsies and travellers and it is most unlikely that our position on this would change.'
What has caused the WDC to do a complete 'volte face' from their position at the time of Mr Barber's letter?
2. The WDC in its current Local Plan has withdrawn the Gallows Hill site and the Asps site from the local plan. They mention the significant Heritage value of these two sites in the Warwick and Warwick Castle landscape for so doing. Why if the these two sites have been excluded are they considering Brookside Willows which is adjacent to the two mentioned sites as suitable for a gypsy & traveller site?
3. The Environment Agency landfill database confirms that the site previously received both industrial and commercial waste and Special Waste ( which is waste with hazardous properties which may be toxic, flammable, carcinogenic, corrosive and an irritant.
Surely for these reasons the Brookside Willows is not suitable for human habitation?
4. Finally, the Banbury Road is the main entrance into Warwick from the South, and provides fine views of the historic town. What sort of message are we sending out to visitors to the area, by placing a gypsy and traveller site in such a prominent position?
I am writing to object to the possible allocation of site GTalt01 for gypsies and travellers as a permanent site for the Gypsy and Traveller community.
1. On 25th June 2013 WDC Officer Dave Barber wrote to Mrs Beatrix Law of Save Warwick on the this subject stating:
' this was a former landfill site and is therefore contaminated....the site is not suitable as a Gypsy & Traveller site. We have not included this site within our options for gypsies and travellers and it is most unlikely that our position on this would change.'
What has caused the WDC to do a complete 'volte face' from their position at the time of Mr Barber's letter?
2. The WDC in its current Local Plan has withdrawn the Gallows Hill site and the Asps site from the local plan. They mention the significant Heritage value of these two site in the Warwick and Warwick Castle landscape for so doing. Why if the these two sites have been excluded are they considering Brookside Willows which is adjacent to the two mentioned sites as suitable for a gypsy & traveller site?
3. The Environment Agency landfill database confirms that the site previously received both industrial and commercial waste and Special Waste ( which is waste with hazardous properties which may be toxic, flammable, carcinogenic, corrosive and an irritant.
Surely for these reasons the Brookside Willows is not suitable for human habitation?
4. Finally, the Banbury Road is the main entrance into Warwick from the South, and provides fine views of the historic town. What sort of message are we sending out to visitors to the area, by placing a gypsy and traveller site in such a prominent position?
For these reasons I object to the above proposed G & T site and sincerely hope the WDC will remove this site from their proposal