South Warwickshire Local Plan

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options Consultation - Land at Stratford Road, Warwick

ID sylw: 67306

Derbyniwyd: 12/12/2014

Ymatebydd: Jenny & Carl Johnstone

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Site not included in original list of options, so no time for residents to share thoughts.
Little information/communication from the Council.
Two meetings were held during the day so workers couldn't attend, queues were long, time with planners, minimal and incorrect information given out.
Lack of public engagement in short timescale. Consultation should be redone.
Not an attractive place to live with motorway noise and air quality poor. Near sewage treatment works which can smell at a considerable distance.
Busy, fast road with difficult bend; a known accident spot
Safety issues of road, river and works for small children.
No real access and turn in dangerous for large vehicles. Visibility not good.
Flood plain.
Impact on doctors surgeries and schools.
Lack of integration with local community.
Potential impact on tourism/local economy. Out of character.

Testun llawn:

We write to voice our objections to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site at Stratford Road.

CONSULTATION PROCESS
Firstly we would like to express our concern at the lack of effort made to consult on this proposal properly. our points on this are as follows:
1. It was not included on the original list of options and was only recently proposed, so residents have had almost no time to find out about the proposal and to share their thoughts.
2. we have seen little information on this proposal, and certainly no communications from the Council on something that will affect us all and particularly the local residents (of which we am one).
3. The two meetings where representatives from planning/the council were available to talk to the public were held during the day when we was working full time, so we was unable to attend. we am also given to understand from those who did attend that queues were long, time with planners was minimal and incorrect information was given out, which is surely not good enough for a sufficient public consultation, where residents and concerned local parties should have access to all the facts.
4. The public meeting held by local residents to discuss the proposals, to which planners or councillors (whose wages WE pay) were invited to attend and explain the proposals, but they declined to join what was an orderly meeting.
Certainly we believe that the consultation has lacked for public engagement and has been conducted (pushed through?) on a tiny timescale and has therefore not been fair, transparent and reasonable. There has been a lack of information and engagement, and the decision making process has been unclear. For this reason, the consultation should at very least be re-done to allow residents a fair say.

Objections:
There are a number of reasons why we object to this proposal. The site would not constitute an attractive place to live, being between a motorway (pollution, fumes, particulates, volume of traffic; all contributing to poor air quality and noise), a sewage treatment works, which on a bad day can smell all the way up Stratford Road, and the Stratford Road itself, which is a busy and fast road with a difficult bend which is a known accident spot. There are also safety issues with the roads, the river and the treatment works, all of which would make the site fairly unsafe for small children. It might be possible to make the site safe, but at a significant cost to the taxpayer, of which we am one!
The area is also unsuitable as there is no real access, only a dirt track bounded by trees, which would likely have to be removed. The dirt track is not suitable, and making it so would again cost lots of money. The turn in at the accident spot on Stratford road is also unsuitable and would likely only increase the accident rate there. Visibility is not great and it would be difficult for huge caravans to turn in there, even were the access road upgraded to be suitable.
It is noted that the area is also a flooplain, so named for good reason. There is a flood risk here and we know that the river does flood regularly - the castle have lost their central island several times over the past few years, so the river can come quite high.

There will also be significant impact on local amenities such as the Doctor's surgery and schools, as the site would be able to grow (Gov regulations state it should be able to grow) and this would also not help at all with integration with the local community. There is also the issue of the proximity of the camp to the existing local residents, where the site would be out of character with the current buildings and would therefore impact on the local area. It is unlikely that there would be good integration with the local community and there might also be an impact on tourism, as this would be the first part of Warwick visitors directed into Warwick this was would see, and it would be out of character from the main part of town in a town that relies heavily on tourism for employment, revenue etc..

There are many other reasons and we could go on, but the deadline presses. Please note that we also support the "mega proposal" by the Chase Meadow Residents Association. we sincerely hope that this proposal will be rejected outright, or if it does go further, will be subject to proper consultation with local residents rather than what it seems as though is being pushed through as an afterthought.