Testun llawn:
Objection to the proposed Stratford Road Gypsy & Traveller site
I am writing to formally object to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on the Stratford Road. The proposal is fundamentally flawed in many respects, leading to my objection on planning grounds, but I also object on the basis that the council's own consultation process has been fundamentally flawed, and thirdly that WDC should be looking after the interests of the vast majority of Warwick residents, rather than risk the peace and livelihood of many for the sake of a few.
Objections on planning grounds:
1. The access road is totally unsuitable:
a. It is on a dangerous bend
b. It is already subject to known (to police etc) congestion regards parked cars, meaning emergency vehicles, lorries, vehicles towing caravans, etc will struggle to access any site
c. The access road uses part of a national cycle route, and the increase volume and size of traffic on this route will seriously affect the safety of people using this cycle route.
d. The access road is not suitable for Lorries, or any towing vehicles
e. The farm track that is the proposed access route is not only too small (going by the government guide lines) but also privately owned. No council representative has spoken to the landowner about using this road, so this site fails the test of being available and deliverable
f. Currently several lorries end up reversing out on to the A429 as lorries have no space to turn. This is very dangerous, and will lead to increased accidents on an already dangerous bend.
g. The track would have to be widened to meet government stipulations, and this would mean the removal of around 50 mature trees
h. There has been no evidence of any provision for expenditure to make up the track to a suitable condition
2. The site itself has been announced as being available, and yet the councils statement that the land is owned by Severn Trent, a farmer, and the council, all of whom are willing to sell for gypsy use, is untrue, as neither the farmer or Severn Trent wish for the land to be used for gypsies, and both state the council approached them regarding employment land only. This shows that the council have been willing to lie to the tax-paying public about this matter.
3. The site fails the government guidelines:
a. Being bordered by a Motorway, river, busy road, and sewage works, this site clearly fails on safety and environmental health grounds
b. The land is deemed flood plain and of the highest risk of flooding. While the flood risk can be reduced with engineering works, these cost money which has not been identified in the plan
4. While the site is being proposed on the grounds of access to roads and footpath access, and access to schools and doctors in the close locality, the councils advocation of the Harbury Lane site show these are not essential in considering a site, so cannot be relied upon as reason to promote this site.
5. While noise reports have been commissioned, these are (as acknowledged by the author) of limited value, as the normal criteria were not met when carrying out the tests.
6. There are plenty of other sites within the WDC area that are better suited to be used that this site, but which WDC appears to have discounted, so this site should also be discounted.
7. It has been stated in writing that should this plan be approved, the site will be for the exclusive use of gypsies and travellers. This is a blatantly racist stance by the council, and one that will create a large ghetto on the outskirts of the town, past which most tourists will drive. This will adversely affect the abilities of the communities to integrate and live harmoniously when that would be essential with a site so close to the centre of Warwick. Currently it is believed that some gypsy families live on Chase Meadow, and this has not caused noticeable problems, as they live in houses, and in small numbers so integrate with the other residents. This would not happen with the WDC proposal for a gypsy ghetto, which is for the maximum number of gypsy families as allowed under government rules
8. There is no provision to ensure that the gypsy site does not expand onto the surrounding fields / residential properties through illegal means as has happened at other sites.
Objections to the Council process:
1 This has been stated as a consultation process, but the impression given is that this has already been decided by council bureaucrats without any consideration to the residents of Warwick who will be adversely affected by this proposal.
2 The Mayor of Warwick has been known to speak of it being "inevitable" that the gypsy site would be sited on the Stratford Road site even before the consultation started, giving rise to concerns about deals being done outside of the proper processes.
3 The council had researched the site so little before proposing it that they did not even realize that people lived in houses down the lane proposed for access, or who owned the lane over which access was proposed.
4 The site itself has been announced as being available, and yet the councils statement that the land is owned by Severn Trent, a farmer, and the council, all of whom are willing to sell for gypsy use, is untrue, as neither the farmer or Severn Trent wish for the land to be used for gypsies, and both state the council approached them regarding employment land only. This shows that the council have been willing to lie to the tax-paying public about this matter.
5 WDC last year published a list of over 20 sites for consideration, but this site was not amongst those. For it now to be included as one of the final 3 prteferred site, without proper consideration is outrageous.
6 No council representatives attended the public meeting at Aylesford school to support the proposals and advise / discuss with concerned residents - hense the fact that the meeting was unanimous in its opposition to the plans, and the commonly held opinion at that meeting was that the council had no interest in what the residents thought, and the term 'consultation' was a joke.
7 The drop in sessions arranged for Chase Meadow were poorly publicized and only open till 6.30pm, meaning most local residents could not attend. Those who did witnessed an astonishing lack of awareness by those meant to be giving clear and concise responses, and in some cases blatantly incorrect mis-information was being given out.
8 While certain individuals have been warned that protesting against the gypsy site is bordering on racism, the fact that it has been stated in writing that should this plan be approved, the site will be for the exclusive use of gypsies and traveller is a blatantly racist stance by the council, and one that will create a ghetto on the outskirts of the town, past which most tourists and visitors will drive
9 Despite receiving a petition of around 800 signatures asking the council not to proceed with considering this site, the council has still done so, causing worry and concern to many of the tax-paying residents in the area, and a feeling that their views are being ignored.
10 By proposing such an unsuitable site in close proximity to so many residential properties, many, many residents have spent many days worrying about the problems this will cause, and has caused many to have to spend many hours of their time researching the situation, wasting a lot of time, and this showing that the councils proposals are fundamentally flawed, and as they are detrimental to so many tax paying residents, has totally undermined the credibility of WDC in the eyes of many of the affected residents
11 While much of the justification of this site has been that the council need to get the local plan approved, so need to identify gypsy sites, to do so will adversely affect life in Warwick far more than if the plan is not approved by central government. It will blight the lives of thousands of tax-paying residents, and where Tournament Fields is already proving difficult to sell employment space on, this will only get worse if gypsies are sited just a few hundred yards away - meaning Warwick will lose out on valuable jobs and investment, in a part of Warwick seen by the vast majority of visitors to the town.
12 WDC has made the process difficult for people to object, asking people to read pages of council literature on how to object, asking people to download forms that try to steer people into specific areas of response, and making the process more complicated that it needs, in general.
Objections on the moral ground:
1 Warwick District Council has an obligation to look after the interest of the tax paying residents it represents, and there is no way this proposal is in the residents interests, or that of the town as a whole
2 To propose such a site on the main route into Warwick for most visitors and tourists defies all logic
3 To date the only arguments for this site indicate that WDC has backed itself into a corner on this issue, and is now clutching at straws in identifying a potential site, with the main criteria being that WDC believe this land to be available - ie no other land is available, so it has to be here - this totally undermines the whole process as it means WDC effectively saying that if a site is potentially available, it is therefore more suitable than one that might be ideal, but that is not available. As the majority of land in Warwick is privately owned and thus unavailable, this makes WDC look like idiots.
4 While we are told that complaining about increased crime etc is not a valid reason to object, there is well documented (examples have already been supplied by other objectors) evidence that gypsy communities cause trouble for the existing populations and for WDC to risk such a thing on the main route into Warwick is reckless beyond the acceptable.
5 To announce such a site is being considered, without having first assessed it properly again shows a reckless disregard for the welfare of tax-paying residents of Warwick
6 While everyone acknowledges the need for WDC to identify sites for gypsies, WDC seems to be alone in thinking this is a good suggestion, and many more of the original sites now discounted, were far more suitable than this one, with many residents believing that two on the A46 bypass being the most suitable as least disruptive to the lives of existing Warwick residents - if WDC is determined to construct a racial ghetto, it should have the least impact on the remaining integrated society as possible.
As the proposed site can be shown to be unsuitable, and the council process can be shown to be flawed, this site should immediately be discounted from the list for consideration, allowing people to concentrate on their peaceful lives and businesses again, rather than worrying about this ridiculous proposal.