Thank you for taking the time to talk to me this afternoon regarding the GTAA and the Council's proposals.

My particular concern is not with any one of the proposed sites but with the total number of pitches. Having read the GTAA, I do not accept that the evidence base is "robust and reliable" for the following reasons.


1). The authors claim the GTAA to be robust and reliable evidence. They claim in para 1.8 to have sampled aroung 85% of the target population and that it is reasonable to gross up their numbers due to the size of the sample. In other word that 85% is a reasonable sample. This 85% is of the resident households in the district and does not apply to the whole of the data as might be assumed.


2).By far the largest number of pitches proposed is 16 (Row 10 of Table 8.1) being the number of pitches supposedly needed by those involved in "unauthorised encampments" - as opposed to those who have already set up home within the district at "unauthorised developments" . This has not been calculated on the basis of an 85% sample.

3). Turning back to section 5 of the report, the explanation behind this number of 16 can be found and far from being a representative sample of 85% the basis for this number was arrived at by interviewing 15 people (and I note there is no claim to those people being from 15 separate households ) from only 2 separate unauthorised encampments out of 26 encampments. Those 26 encampments , according to the report , had an average of 7.5 vans so a total of around 195 vans. A calculation has been applied to arrive at an estimated number of households involved in unauthorised encampments over the year but only based on the interviews with these fifteen individuals (a figure of 1.3 caravans per household not the 1.7 figure used elsewhere) and further guesses have been made to arrrive at the number of repeat visitors and after deducting this percentage, an estimate has been made of the remainder who would like to stay permanently. This has been taken at 20% but with no robust evidence to support it. Looking at the reasons given for the travellers being in the district it is clear from Table 5.2 that in every single case where a reason has been given, there is no indication whatsoever that there was a need for anything other than a "transit" pitch.


If the number of 1.3 caravans per household cannot be relied on , because it is taken from such a small sample, then the rest of the figures are equally unreliable. If for comparison a multiplier of 1.7 was used (as elsewhere in the report) the average number of households per encampment would come down to 4.4 which would equate to 79 households over the year. Taking 25% from this , being the arbitrary figure applied to estimate repeat visits, would leave 59 seperate households and even making the assumption that 20% of these would require permanent pitches, it can be seen that the figure would then become 59 x 20% = 11.8,which serves to demonstrate the unreliablity of so small a sample.


(If 20% of those households already had a permanent home elsewhere and then, of the remaining 80% a further 20% were provided for by Warwick District Council, if every other District council made the same provision based on a need for 20% of the "passers-through" then unless travellers only ever stopped in four different District Councils in a whole year, the result would be over-provision)


4) If 15 interviewees were taken from 195 vans and each of those vans had 2 adults the percentage sampled would be 3% and at most it could only rise to 18% if it were in fact 15 out of 81 separate households - nowhere near the 85% suggested to be a reasonable sample from which to extrapolate figures.

I should like information as to which two of the unauthorised encampments were interviews done.

5) The additional 6 pitches required in the years 2017 to 2026 are based on a growth figure but with the 16 pitches as aprt of the base line. If the 16 were taken out the provision for growth at the same rate woudl result in a lower number.

I hope that I have explained my reasoning clearly. In conclusion I would say that in my opinion the 16 should be taken out of the need for pitches and that most of this number included in the "transit pitches " need , with the consequent reduction in need for the years post 2016.

For the sake of completeness I should like to add what I said on the phone, that I feel that Warwick District Council's pamphlet is deliberately misleading the "setteld population" by it's depiction of caravan sites, which appear to me more like that of a holiday site and not a permanent "traveller" site.

I am also dismayed to read reports in the press stating that Warwick District Council are "required by Law to provide 31 piches". This seems to be deliberately intended to mislead the public into believing that Warwick District council have no choice in the matter of numbers of pitches.

Some of these criteria for suitability are unrealistic and would constrain the choice of sites too much.
(1) Access to public transport, school, surgery - gypsies and travellers are greater users of private motor vehicles than the general population, and would use cars or vans to access services. So 'convenient access' is not necessary.
(2) Flood risk areas - gypsies use mobile homes and caravans and are much more able to move quickly in case of flooding than normal householders. So area which might flood once in 50 years should not be excluded.
(3) Areas where there is noise and disturbance - gypsy sites are commonly alongside main roads or are subject to traffic noise. Any new site found which is acceptable on landscape grounds may be adjacent to a main road. These sites should not be excluded.
Criteria should therefore not restrict choice of sites for above reasons.

The document from the WDC website titled 'Evidence of Local Needs and Historic Demand for Gypsy and Traveller sites in Warwick District' does not show any evidence support the need for 25 sites now and a total of 31 over the 15 plan period. If anything I would say 3 sites limited to 15 pitches would be more than adequate.

The document from the WDC website titled 'Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment: Warwick Final report' is not statistically sound in that the surveys conducted do not contain enough respondents. On these grounds alone it should be rejected.

Interestingly page 22 states that there are estimated to be 33 Gypsy/Traveller families (124 people) living in Warwick District permanently. This does not correlate with the number of sites proposed in the plan. These families could be accommodated on 3 sites of 15 pitches.

If the goal is to have peaceful coexistence with the local population and ensure that council tax is collected then at the very least the WDC need to have managed sites - not private ones.

The plan is targeting 2 groups of people - Gypsy's and Irish Travellers. It makes no mention of travellers from other EU nations and surely it must do so.

Dear Sir/Madam


Re: LETTER OF OBJECTION
Sites for Gypsies and Travellers (Local Plan Document June 2013)

I write to object to the plan to establish Gypsy and Traveller sites as outlined in the above document. I have detailed the reasons for my objection below.

Warwick District Council has not provided any evidence that these sites are actually needed or any evidence as to why so many sites are needed. In fact the documentation supplied on your own website 'Evidence of Local Needs and Historic Demand for Gypsy and Traveller sites in Warwick District' and 'Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment: Warwick Final report' suggests that 2-3 TEMPORARY sites of 15 pitches for the WHOLE of Warwickshire would be sufficient to cater for the needs of Gypsies and Travellers.

I refer to sections 5.2 and 5.3 of 'Evidence of Local Needs and Historic Demand for Gypsy and Traveller sites in Warwick District:'

Section 5.2 states the "figures demonstrate that, even when organised events are included, the average number of days spent in the district is low. The average number of days per visit overall is 6.2 and the average number of vans per encampment at any time is 8.7.

Section 5.3 states "All gypsies and travellers recorded were transitory and either moving from one part of the country to another, visiting family locally or attending an organised event, after which they left the district."

Section 5.5 includes a table of responses provided by 8 Gypsies and Travellers in which they were asked whether they would prefer a permanent or temporary site. Only 2 of the 8 responses indicated that they would like a permanent site.

So why are you proposing mainly permanent sites of at least 15 pitches when the above evidence quite clearly shows that permanent sites of this size are not needed.

I refer again to section 5.5 which states "The district council's own records comprise questionnaires completed or partially completed by gypsy and traveller groups when they arrived in the district. Since February 2008, eight such questionnaires, all from Irish travellers, have been collected. It is very difficult to get them completed since there is reluctance on the part of the travelling community to give information and distrust of council representatives. Information is also difficult to obtain for each of the families or individuals travelling together and sometimes one person will answer on behalf of the entire group. The questions posed assess the welfare needs of the individual, but some questions are pertinent to their more general needs. One of the questions asked relates to the desirability of a permanent site and where this would best be located for this specific group of travellers."

Q1. Why has WDC spent considerable time, money and resources formulating a plan based on evidence that is not statistically robust as it is based on responses provided by only eight people. This plan should be dismissed on these grounds alone.

Q2. Why has WDC spent considerable time, money and resources formulating a plan to benefit a group of people who clearly are not interested as they are unwilling to co-operate enough to even complete a questionnaire?

In section 5.6 it states "Advice obtained from the Gypsy and Traveller Officer at Warwickshire County Council based on the above information, indicates that a transient site would need to be made available, of an adequate size for ten vans to ensure that there would be sufficient space to accommodate a figure higher than the average number of vans recorded historically in the district at any one time."

This document concludes "From the data collected, it can be concluded that demand is low and transitory in nature. Even given the highest average number of days spent in the district this is no higher than 12 days. The average number of vans per visit is less than 9. To ensure that a site is provided of sufficient size to accommodate more than this average and accommodate the majority of encampments, it is concluded that there is a need for a transitory site to accommodate 15 vans. It is not considered necessary to accommodate the highest number of vans that has been recorded as these are extreme events and not a regular occurrence."

Q3. Why has WDC spent considerable time, money and resources producing a plan that proposes mainly permanent sites when the advice of your own Gypsy and Traveller Officer is that only ONE TRANSIENT site is required.

I refer to section 3.5 of the document entitled 'Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment: Warwick Final report.' This includes a table that presents an estimation of the size of the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople population and 'states using the best information available we estimate that there are at least 124 individuals or thirty-three households in the study area' i.e. Warwick District.

This document is based on a study sample of only 43 families. Again this is not statistically robust.

Q4. Why has WDC spent considerable time, money and resources formulating a plan that proposes 31 sites when the current population of Gypsies and Travellers is so small?

Statistics from the 2006 Irish census in the Republic or Ireland also does not support the need for so many sites. In the census only 22,369 people identified themselves as Irish Travellers. Of these, only 1,460 lived in urban areas, a clear indication that Irish Travellers do not actually want to live in rural locations. Yet despite this, the majority of proposed sites are in rural locations.

From the location of the proposed sites, it is also clear that Warwickshire District Council has not consulted with Stratford-Upon-Avon District Council. You are proposing six sites within the small parish of Bishops Tachbrook which does not take into account the fact that due to the amount of identified green belt land within the Stratford-Upon-Avon district; the majority of their 52 proposed sites will have to be located to the north west of their district which borders very close to the parish of Bishops Tachbrook.

This plan also does not take into account Warwickshire District Council's own Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2013 which proposes 12,000 new homes, the majority of which are located South of Warwick and Whitnash. The impact of this will be a significant increase in traffic and noise pollution in the very locations where you are proposing to put the Gypsy and Traveller sites.

With reference to all the above information I have provided I request that Warwick District Council provide evidence to justify both the location and number of proposed sites.

Site GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm, Harbury Lane
Site GT04 - Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way

Road Safety/Road Access - The area of the Fosse Way close to these two sites has already been identified as a dangerous road. Road users are warned of this by signs that inform them of how many people have been killed on the road and speed cameras have been installed in an attempt to slow traffic down. Road users will often travel at high speed and take risks due to the relative straightness of the road. An increase in slow moving traffic such as caravans on this road will only result in more accidents. The intersection of Harbury Lane and the Fosse way is particularly bad and traffic will back up here at peak times of the day.

The volume of traffic south of Warwick and Whitnash where this site is located will also increase greatly as outlined in the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2013

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required, "Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site;"

Visual Aesthetics - These two sites will be clearly visible from the Chesterton Windmill. This site is visited daily by members of the local community and visitors to the area who enjoy this peaceful site with wonderful views of open fields. This wonderful view changes with the seasons meaning the site is visited all year round.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required, "Sites, which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area."

The view from Chesterton Windmill also looks out over the remains of a Roman settlement.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 3.5 of the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2013 where a specific principle under the key element of Environment is to protect high quality landscapes, heritage assets and other areas of significance.

Site GT05 - Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury Road

Road Safety/Road Access - The Banbury Road is a very busy road and at peak times, traffic will back up and it can be very difficult to make a right hand turn onto this road from either the Oakley Wood Road or Mallory Road. Adding slow moving traffic such as caravans onto this road will increase the risk of incidents and add to the current traffic problems.

Today whilst travelling along the A46, I found myself in a long queue of traffic, travelling at less than 10mp for approximately 15 minutes. The reason for the build-up of traffic was three traditional style Gypsy caravans and horses on the road.

The volume of traffic south of Warwick and Whitnash where this site is located will also increase greatly as outlined in the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2013.

There is also no pedestrian access to this site.
This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required, "Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site;"

Noise Pollution - The south of Bishops Tachbrook village suffers from noise pollution from the M40. This site would lie even closer to the M40 so would suffer from even worse noise pollution.

Noise pollution as a whole will also increase greatly in this area due to the impact of the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2012 that proposes thousands of new homes within the same parish of Bishops Tachbrook.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required. "Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance;"

Visual Impact - Mallory Road is the main road into the older original section of Bishops Tachbrook village.

Banbury Road is the main road used by visitors approaching from junction 14 or 15 into Warwick which is a historical town attracting visitors from all over the world.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document, that states the following is required "Sites, which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area."

Schools - Bishops Tachbrook nursery and primary school run at full capacity and already have a waiting list. With six Gypsy and Traveller sites proposed for this small area, it would be impossible for the school to take on the significant number of extra students that would come from these sites.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.4 of the document that states the following is required to fully comply with provisions for sites "avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services;"

Site GT06 Land at Park Farm, Spinney Farm

Road Safety/Road Access - This site is situated very close to the Banbury Road, Warwick bypass and junction 14 of the M40. All of these roads are extremely busy especially at peak times of the day when drivers experience long tailbacks. There is also no pedestrian access to this site.

The volume of traffic south of Warwick and Whitnash where this site is located will also increase greatly as outlined in the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2013

The site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required. "Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site;"

Noise Pollution - This site would suffer from noise pollution due to its close proximity to junction 14 of the M40.

Noise pollution as a whole will also increase greatly in this area due to the impact of the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2012 that proposes thousands of new homes south of Warwick and Whitnash resulting in a substantial increase in the volume of traffic in the area.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required. "Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance;"

Visual Impact - The Banbury Road is the access road to the historic town of Warwick.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states that the following is required. "Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area;"

Schools - Bishops Tachbrook nursery and primary school run at full capacity and already have a waiting list. With six Gypsy and Traveller sites proposed for this small area, it would be impossible for the school to take on the significant number of extra students that would come from these sites.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.4 of the document that states the following is required to fully comply with provisions for sites. "avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services;"

Site GT09 Land to the north east of M40 and south of Oakley Wood

Road Safety/Road Access - This site is surrounded by the M40 and Warwick Bypass (A452), all of which are very busy roads and there is no pedestrian access to the site.

The volume of traffic where this site is located will also increase greatly as a result of the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2013 which proposes 12,000 new homes south of Warwick and Whitnash, many of which we are told are required for people who will work in Coventry and therefore travel on these roads on a daily basis.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required. "Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site;"

Noise Pollution - This site would suffer from noise pollution due to its close proximity to junction 14 of the M40.

Noise pollution as a whole will also increase greatly in this area due to the impact of the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2012 that proposes thousands of new homes south of Warwick and Whitnash resulting in a substantial increase in the volume of traffic in the area.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required. "Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance;"

Visual Impact - The Banbury Road is the access road to the historic town of Warwick.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states that the following is required. "Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.;"

Schools - Bishops Tachbrook nursery and primary school run at full capacity and already have a waiting list. With six Gypsy and Traveller sites proposed for this small area, it would be impossible for the school to take on the significant number of extra students that would come from these sites.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.4 of the document that states the following is required to fully comply with provisions for sites. "avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services;"

Site GT10 Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Center

Road Safety/Road Access - This site is bordered by both the M40 and the Banbury Road. There is also no pedestrian access to the site.

The volume of traffic in the area where this site is located will also increase greatly due to thousands of new homes proposed to be built south of Warwick and Whitnash as outlined in the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2013.

This site proposed does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states that the following is required. "Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site;"

Noise Pollution - The site would suffer noise pollution from the M40. Noise pollution as a whole will also increase greatly in this area due to the impact of the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2012 that proposes thousands of new homes south of Warwick and Whitnash resulting in a substantial increase in the volume of traffic in the area.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required. "Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance;"

Visual Impact - The Banbury Road is the access road to the historic town of Warwick.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required. "Sites, which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.;"

Business Impact - This site holds the national breeding centre for guide dogs. There is a risk of their breeding dogs being introduced to and infected by diseases carried by pets belonging to the Gypsy and Travelling communities.

Site GT15 Land to east of Europa Way

Road Safety/Road Access - This site is located near to Europa Way. This is a very busy road and at peak times experiences long tail backs in both directions. This road is so busy that there is a proposal to turn this into a dual carriageway road. There is also no pedestrian access to this site.

The volume of traffic where this site is located will also increase greatly as identified in the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2013 which proposes thousands of new homes in the area south of Warwick and Whitnash bringing with it a huge increase in the volume of traffic in the area.


This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required, "Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site;"

Environment - This site is located close to the Tachbrook and as the sites are also designated as places of work, there is the risk of pollution from this site into the Tachbrook.

I request that you register my objection to the above sites and review your current Local Plan.

Please acknowledge receipt of my letter by return post and keep me informed of this matter.

After reading with trepidation about the huge housing developments proposed for the South Leamington area, the Residents / Rate Payers and Electorate and are now being told to expect 10 permanent Traveller sites in what can only be see as an over the top planning action by the elected councillors of WDC!
Most of the sites appear to be unsuitable for Travellers and far to large for 15 families; a 1/4 of an Acre per family, I only wish my children could have grown up with a full sized football pitch to play on!

The sites proposed at locations 3,4,5,6,9,10,15 are remote from any main amenities, such as shops bus routes and very little in the way of pedestrian access. Also accessing onto very busy A & B roads that carry high volumes of rush hour traffic, including school traffic into Warwick each week day. Some of the sites would result in employment loss i.e. Fosse Exhibition centre & Guide Dogs Breeding Centre. Others sites would impinge on the local historic views e.g. approach to Warwick & Chesterton Windmill, others are prone to winter flooding e.g. Tachbrook, all would put a strain on local middle schools and Doctors Surgeries.
Yes we do worry about increased crime and falling house prices, so the way to limit this is to spread the load more evenly across the district. There must be more suitable locations North, East & West of the Town? But apart from the one site proposal in Cubbington North Leamington is unscathed yet again, because the proposed housing developments have also passed it by? The residents in South Leamington area can only be left to wonder how many serving councillors live it the seemingly protected North Leamington area???
But take heed, councillors are employed because you were elected by the local voters, but if these proposals go through then at the next local election you wont be getting too many votes from South of the River! You were elected to benefit all of the local areas not damage some and favour others.............................. If the Government is bullying you into this Traveller site fiasco then SPREAD THE LOAD FAIRLY AND EVENLY thought the district!

From a very concerned local resident and rate payer over the past 39 years.

I wish to register my great concern about the plan as set out in your consultation document for the following reasons 1. I find the study conducted by Salford Universary to be lacking in rigour. The evidence provided to be circumstantial and without supporting evidence. Sweeping assumptions have been made about numbers.
2. The sites chosen have been made without looking carefully as to whether they are truly suitable and include landfill sites, sites next to busy main roads, sites well away from the amenities required to make the sites acceptable.
3 Sites are not going to be managed by the council, there is no protection for those living near the sites. What studies of the effect of sites on local populations have been conulted. I have experience of living in the same parish as an official site, not Warwickshire, the effects were not pleasant both from crime increase, litter and hygiene 4. I do not agree with one section of the population being afforded rights not granted to others. I think true integration is better than isolation. You cannot opt out of the way a society lives to live ones own way and still expect the same amenities. We all have to pay rates and taxes to maintain the fabric of society, I don't see why i should have to pay for those who choose not to contribute.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

Dear Sirs

Re: Placement of Gypsy and Traveller Sites

We are residents of the above address and have a keen interest in the proposed placement of gypsy and traveller sites. We ask you to note our interest in this matter.

We also attended the recent meeting to discuss these issues held at Barford on 3 July 2013. We have heard various points of discussion and wish to put forward our views on the proposed sites.

Identification of Pitch Numbers for Warwick District Area

At the Barford meeting, it was discussed that the numbers of the proposed sites/pitches has been established by research conducted by Salford University. At no point have we as residents been advised of the methods used to obtain the data relied upon. Please provide a full copy to us. Until you do so, we reserve the right to raise legal argument about the appropriateness or otherwise of this selection process. Further, it was suggested that the Salford University research took place over a 3 month period but, again, the exact data has not been forthcoming. Please identify the period over which such research was conducted.

.





The Legal Framework

We understand that pursuant to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Housing Act 2004, that you as a Local Authority have a legal requirement to meet the needs of accommodation for the population. However, in implementing that NPPF you are required to comply with all other legal requirements.

Of particular interest to us is site GT20 - land at junction 15 of M40. This has been identified by you as a potential site. First of all, part of the land in question is owned by ourselves. We trust you are not possibly contemplating the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO) in this regard. We ask you to confirm this point by return. Until you do so, we reserve the right specifically to raise legal argument about the appropriate use of CPO powers. Clearly, and for the avoidance of doubt, purchase of land for gypsy and traveller sites does not fall into that category.

That aside, the land in question, GT20, is in fact a Greenbelt site. We are sure we need not remind you of the Department for Communities and Local Government's written Ministerial Statement dealing with the issue of planning policies towards gypsy and traveller sites. We are sure the Minister of State's Statement is well known to yourselves but, again for the avoidance of doubt, we quote:

"The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that, in considering planning applications, although each case will depend on its facts, he considers that the single issue of unmet demand, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the greenbelts and other harm to constitute the "very special circumstances" justifying inappropriate development in the greenbelt".

As you well know, the Secretary of State further advises in that Statement that particular scrutiny will be applied to traveller site appeals within greenbelt land.

Please allow us to be clear. If planning permission is given to develop gypsy and traveller sites in greenbelt land in Warwickshire, we will appeal the process, apply for a judicial review and invoke the Secretary of State's intervention.

Urban Areas

Your consultation document, chapter 8.1, suggests that land owned by Warwick District Council, (other than that contained in this document) has proved unsuitable. Upon what evidence and what basis has that conclusion been reached? Urban land is entirely appropriate for developments of this kind. Whilst we are not experts in the population statistics of gypsy and travelling communities, we would suggest that they may have children. Site GT20, and indeed for that matter many others, have no schools nearby. The residents of the site will also need access to urban amenities such as hospitals, GPs, shops etc. By placing gypsy and traveller sites in such a remote location it increases the level of services and amenities which will be required by this community. The roads surrounding site GT20 are often used by farming machinery; such machinery and farm traffic being unsuitable for developments of this nature. Placing a G & T site in this location will undoubtedly create difficulties between the existing population and the gypsy and travelling community.

Finally, we have to call into question the competence and integrity of the planning officers who have identified the proposed sites. Salford University has, we understand, identified the number of sites both residential and transient for Gypsy and Traveller use in Warwickshire. The local authority planning departments have then applied this information to their planning criteria. They have concluded that 40% of the proposed sites are to be built in greenbelt land, including the one of most immediate concern to us, GT20. This is totally inappropriate use of the green belt and not in any way being used as a last resort. These sites should never have been selected at this stage, but only in very special circumstances and as a last resort. This clearly flies in the face of clear guidance from the Secretary of State

We trust we have made our feelings clear on this issue and ask you to acknowledge receipt of our correspondence. We have taken the liberty of copying this letter to our Solicitor, James Leo, Partner in the firm of Coley & Tilley Solicitors, Neville House, 14 Waterloo Street, Birmingham. B2 5UF. We ask you to submit your response to this letter and the documentation we have requested in it to our Solicitor so that he may deal with any outstanding issues.

see attached

Please note your on line system to make comments is very confusing and following the instructions does not allow on line comments to be accessed and made

Site 12 comments and objection

NB Site 16 is within this area, although is designated as separate from it. Comments apply to 16 as well. It cannot be used. It's a flood compensation area.

Part of site 12 does flood or contains ground/surface water a number of times during the year. There are wildlife implications.

The site is high flood risk and according to the Salford Survey p9 para
7.3 such sites should be avoided on grounds of flooding and safe access to road network

On these sites there will be various industrial type activities occurring as acknowledged by the Salford document p9 para 7.4 and indeed sites should be able to allow this. Here there will be river contamination effects and effects on adjacent agricultural land.

Exit and entry onto the site is off the A429, a road with poor sight lines and an existing poor accident record and a fatality in the short time it's been open.

There will be a material impact upon Barford School

It makes better sense to integegrate any site within the new developments proposed.

The Salford Report overestimates the demand for pitches by using the concept of 'suppressed need'

The survey methods used by Salford are highly suspect in that they ask questions which will lead interviewees to give only answers that lead to there being more pitches required. Can we please see studies that show the impact of sites already being used? The analysis used by Salford is very convoluted and only leads to conclusions because of the way in which the survey is conducted and the weighting given to factors they have used, not just confined to suppressed demand.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to make my objections to the Gypsy and Traveller Site (G&TS) options clear.
It is clear that when considering G&TS's the following must be considered:
Convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport
In 2007, 2.7% of children of Gypsy/Romany origin and 8.4 % of traveller children of Irish heritage achieved 5 or more A* to C grades or equivalent exams including English and Mathematics in England compared to a national average of 45.4%. 8% of Gypsy and Traveller mothers have experienced the death of a child compared to less than 1% of the settled community. This could put a major strain on the already overworked education and medical facilities already available in the area.
The Catholic Primary in Whitnash, St Josephs' has had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate. Is the council going to supply additional funds to help support these children's needs? Given that the parents of many of these children are unable to read & write themselves they are not in a position to help children with their own learning and this identifies yet another pressure point. As an adult not being able to read & write seriously narrows down the type of work you would be able to apply for, there are limited employers within in the village of Bishops Tachbrook therefore there is no immediate local economy for them to join with.
Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
Field on the corner of Mallory Road, Banbury Road floods on each side whenever there is a significant rainfall. Sites GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT10 are all prone to flooding.
Provision of utilities
Who would be expected to provide this? Sites GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT10 do not have adequate provision of utilities such as sewerage, drainage, gas and water.
Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site
Sites GT05,GT06, GT09 and GT10 are all on very major roads with no means of pedestrian access. There are no bus routes and they are all fast moving roads.
Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance
Banbury Road is the main road off the M40 for people travelling from both the North and the South. GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT10 are all bordering the M40 meaning that these sites will be very noisy for occupants. GT05 is in extremely close proximity to residents of Bishops Tachbrook and so any noise from this site would have a major effect on current residents.
Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment
St Chads church in Bishops Tachbrook has many historical features. It is mentioned in the Domesday Book. GT05 and GT09 are both situated on the approach to Bishops Tachbrook and would be the first visual sight that visitors would see of the village.
Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.
It is difficult to think of any area at all that would meet this criteria. The character of the area around GT05, GT09 and GT10 is agricultural farm land. I fail to see how a G&TS would integrate into this landscape without harming the character of the area.
Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and local community
I would suggest this is highly unlikely due to the level of local disagreement with the proposed sites, in particular GT05, GT09 and GT10. I have concerns over the level of noise that any sites may incur, both from the inhabitants and also the local community expressing their objections. Local residents have discussed various methods of protest if these plans are to go ahead. Various residents have offered financial assistance regarding legal advice. The press and local MP's have been engaged and shown their support.
Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
Will additional funding be provided to the village school to support with the proposed number of children likely to attend? If not will a new school be built to support in this area? Will this cause a change in the catchment areas for the school? It would be unfair for tax paying residents to be moved out of the catchment area to accommodate these new developments.
The school in Bishops Tachbrook is single form entry and is already oversubscribed. G&TS of 5,10 or 15 are likely to provide homes for 10,20 or 30 children. A small school which is always at capacity is unlikely to be able to provide the infrastructure required to support the needs of the proposed sites. The school does not have the resource to support children that have received very little if any formal education. They will struggle to integrate into the local school environment.
The school also relies on the parent teacher working relationship meaning that parents support the school by giving up their time to help teach and read with pupils. It is known that 81% of Gypsy and Traveller children's parents are illiterate. This will mean no support for the school. It will also mean that these children will require even more support from existing parents. The extra support that these children will need will put the current children at a disadvantage. The school is simply not equipped to deal with the needs of these children.
There are already concerns that the secondary schools in the area are oversubscribed and that there is not adequate provision for the current population of the parish. Any additional strain on these numbers will only make the situation worse.
There is a grade 1 listed church and a sports and social club built through local fund raising. There is a small local shop, a hairdresser and one public house. That is it.
Reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location thereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability
I would suggest that it is a small minority of Gypsy and Travellers that live and work from the same location. I would be interested to see the evidence to show how a Gypsy and Traveller site can support local sustainability in this area.
Specific sites
GT05, GT09- Vehicle access is onto a very busy main road, with vehicles travelling at speed. To introduce caravans and mobile homes turning into the site would be dangerous. Additional traffic at the junction of Mallory Road & Banbury Road would put too much strain on an already busy junction onto a road where cars are travelling at speed, because of the north and southbound approaches to junction 13 of the M40. This is not an easy junction to get out of especially if you have to move slowly due to pulling a trailer or caravan.
Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals? For instance a horse on the Banbury Road especially a loose one could end in fatalities.
The potential visual impact would be devastating on the approach to the Historical Warwick town and could discourage visitors and tourists. There are listed buildings on this site in need of protection. The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document. It would be the first thing that people see when travelling into the village from the M40
GT06 - Very remote from main centres and no means of pedestrian access
GT10 - Close to the Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre. The risk of disease from any unvaccinated animals belonging to Gypsies and Travellers could be devastating. Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals? For instance a horse on the Banbury Road especially a loose one could end in fatalities. As could loose dogs.
Vehicle access is onto a very busy main road, with vehicles travelling at speed. To introduce caravans and mobile homes turning into the site would be dangerous.
The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document.
GT15 - site located on the banks of the Tachbrook. There could be a chance of contamination, given that the proposed site may be used as a place of work. Europa Way is an already congested road and adding further traffic to this mix could be devastating.
Sites GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT10 are currently homes to many forms of farm and wildlife animals. They are also working farm land.
Other considerations
6 out of the 20 sites have been proposed around the small unique village of Bishops Tachbrook.
Are the sites identified in and around Bishops Tachbrook too remote from the main infrastructure of Leamington Spa or Warwick to be suitable for this type of development?
On behalf of Warwick District Council, Salford University has determined that there is a requirement for 25 pitches initially expanding to 31. Why the need for so many propsed sites then?
Who will monitor the sites. It is my understanding that the sites will be operated by Gypsy and Travellers and not Warwick District Council. If this is the case how can concerns such as noise pollution land pollution and overcrowding be controlled?
Recommendations state that the size of each site must be between 5 and 15 pitches but does not specify how many people can populate this sites. What plans have been put in place to ensure that what happened at Dale Farm does not happen again. This was where a legitimate site expanded?
What about the effect on house prices in the general area around these sites?
What will be the visual impact on Bishops Tachbrook village and surrounding area. Will it have an impact on tourism in the area?
All proposed sites are on busy roads where it would be a danger for any children to wait for transport to school.
Why are 15 of the proposed sites in the south of Warwick & Leamington? The small village of Bishops Tachbrook has 6 of these proposals within a mile of it, 3 are on its immediate doorstep. Potentially all of these sites could be approved and the very nature of our community and how the approach to our village would look would be irrevocably changed. The effect on Bishops Tachbrook would be devastating to our way of life. This is not acceptable nor a reasonable request for the council to make.
There is no statement from the Gypsy Council of Great Britain or any other organising body on behalf of the Gypsy & Traveller community, within your brochure/document, that they wish to join our community in Warwickshire or anywhere else. Perhaps this is because they have no desire to permanently live here? What evidence does the council have that the Gypsy & Traveller community wish to use these sites as a permanently settled site with a fixed maximum number of 15 Pitches? You also do not state how many people are able to live within a pitch or who is responsible for the site. Due diligence has not taken place here. I appreciate that you state the Regional Spatial Strategy & commissioned Salford University have produced a report but you have failed to put any meaningful back up data into this document . Therefore I have to question the validity of the study as you have not put it in the information you are handing out. Where is the proof that so many sites are needed? Much needed data is missing here & the council are remiss in leaving it out.
You also state that the Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment shows a need for 31 pitches, 25 within the first five years & a further 6-8 transit pitches over the Plan period. Yet the brochure you have produced is only showing 19 of these. Why are you not identifying where all these sites will potentially be? Are you planning to use these larger identified areas to put up multiple sites? Please be clear & honest!
Sites GT05, GT06, GT09, GT10 are all next to each other meaning that of all these sites are successful there would be a huge Gypsy encampment in a small area.
The images you are using on your front cover, page 3 & page 4 are clearly stock images of holiday camping sites. They are not permanent sites and they are certainly not Gypsy & Traveller sites. Why is the council not using real images from existing successful sites to give an honest & truthful photographic representation of how these sites will look?
Proposals
Has the area next to the police site on the west side of Europa Way in between GT06 and GT15 been considered. This could have access onto one of 4 roads and would have a high Police presence.
A further alternative site and one that is a much more suitable at addressing the issues that are set out in Section 4 of the consultation document is on the opposite side of Stratford Road, Warwick to Aylesford School. This site is located within walking distance of medical, educational and recreational facilities.
It is located on a straight section of road with good sight lines and a 40 mph speed limit. It is served by bus routes and has wide pedestrian footpaths. This site is also set back from the road so would provide some protection from any negative visual impact.
Other comments
The instructions for this plan are very unclear. I have been advised that a separate letter needs to be submitted for each proposed site but I can not see anywhere that this is mentioned for email responses, this is unclear. If that is the case I have grave concerns that this consultation has not achieved its legal goal of "improving the efficiency, transparency and public involvement in large-scale projects or laws and policies" as people do not know how to respond in the correct manner.
I request to know the name of the authorised Gypsy site shown in your brochure.
Whilst I appreciate that WDC are under instruction to provide sites I would suggest that the proposed sites around the Bishops Tachbrook area are in the wrong places. This community is already stretched to capacity. I fail to see how the G &T could contribute to our small community.

This site fails to meet the councils Local Plan Requirements & its preferred options because-
The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash are at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients. It is difficult to get appointments at the surgery in Bishops Tachbrook now.
The primary school in Bishops Tachbrook is already oversubscribed & the Catholic Primary in Whitnash, St Josephs' has even had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate.
Also the educational needs of many of these children will mean that should a place be found at a local school they will need additional help to catch up, and this should be provided. Is the council going to supply additional funds to help support these children's needs? Given that the parents of many of these children are unable to read & write themselves they are not in a position to help children with their own learning and this identifies yet another pressure point. As an adult not being able to read & write seriously narrows down the type of work you would be able to apply for, there are no employers within in the village of Bishops Tachbrook therefore there is no immediate local economy for them to join with. Most villagers have to commute to work.
What about secondary schooling also? The surrounding schools are pushed to their limit and with the pressures from intended Gypsy and Travellers numbers and intended new build housing surely this will all be too much for all the schools in this area?
There is no Dental care in Bishops Tachbrook.
Will Warwick Hospital be able to cope with increased demand?
There are no pavements between the proposed site and the village and this would be a great danger especially during peak travel hours and school run times.
There are no bus stops and no safe place for a bus stop to be put in.
Where would the site exit/entrance be? If onto the Banbury Road I feel this would be dangerous if pulling a trailer or caravan as the traffic is fast flowing along the Banbury Road.

This plot does not have any Provision of Utilities

Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals? For instance a horse on the Banbury Road especially a loose one could end in fatalities.
.
It states in your Sites for Gypsies & Travellers page 9 last bullet point on section 7.4 the site should reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles ( whereby some travellers live & work from the same location hereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability. Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash would not be able to offer any traditional forms of income for travellers or gypsies. Next to this statement is an image of a draught horse. We are not a horse based community so farrier's would not be able to make a living here. Also my understanding is that traditional forms of employment also include door to door sales and this would be in stark contrast to advice given by police not to buy from door to door sales people. I fail to see how our community can support the traditional lifestyle of travellers.

The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document.
There is a potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. This will damage the Tourist Industry which accounts for a large proportion of business transactions for both Large and Small & Medium Enterprises alike.
Therefore a site in this location will put undue pressure on local infrastructure & services.


I picked up the council's document "Sites for Gypsies & Travellers" Local Plan helping shape the district.
How is it those 15 sites are all placed south of Warwick & Leamington? The small village of Bishops Tachbrook has 6 of these within a mile of it, 2 are on its immediate doorstep. Potentially all of these sites could be approved and the very nature of our community and how the approach to our village would look would be irrevocably changed & the effect would be devastating to our way of life. This is not acceptable nor a reasonable request for the council to make.
There is no statement from the Gypsy Council of Great Britain or any other organising body on behalf of the Gypsy & Traveller community, within your brochure/document, that they wish to join our community in Warwickshire or anywhere else. Odd that. Perhaps this is because they have no desire to permanently live here? What evidence does the council have that the gypsy & traveller community wish to use these sites as a permanently settled site with a fixed maximum number of 15 Pitches? You also do not state how many people are able to live within a pitch or who is responsible for the site. Due diligence has not taken place here. I appreciate that you state the Regional Spatial Strategy & commissioned Salford University to produce a report but you have failed to put any meaningful back up data into this document . Therefore I have to question the validity of the study as you have not put it in the information you are handing out. Where is the proof that so many sites are needed? Much needed data is missing here & the council are remiss in leaving it out.
You also state that the Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment shows a need for 31 pitches, 25 within the first five years & a further 6-8 transit pitches over the Plan period. Yet the brochure you have produced is only showing 19 of these. Why are you not identifying where all these sites will potentially be? Are you planning to use these larger identified areas to put up multiple sites? Please be clear & honest!

Your brochure has not been laid out in a way that makes for easy & understandable reading. For instance sites GT05 & GT09 in reality face each other on opposite sides of the Banbury Road yet in your document the numbers on the map are shown as far away from each other as possible and are shown in map form pages apart from each other & at different scales & angles. This also occurs for site GT06 which is opposite GT09. You are failing to make your documentation easy to read & this is inexcusable.
Also the images you are using on your front cover, page 3 & page 4 are clearly stock images of holiday camping sites. They are not permanent sites and they are certainly not Gypsy & Traveller sites. Why is the council not using real images from existing successful sites to give an honest & truthful photographic representation of how these sites will look?

These pictures were taken after some travellers left a field near Bishops Tachbrook recently after only a short stay. Are the Council going to provide skips/bins/recycling points for this site or will the council be going around the site on a regular basis to ensure the village is as clean and tidy as it is at the moment.

Identified Gypsy & Traveller Site GT03 land at Barnwell Farm Harbury Lane
Whilst I understand that with a population increase more housing is required, I do not understand why Warwick District Council believes that the only option they have is to build all the proposed properties south of the river Leam focussing on the areas surrounding Warwick Gates, Bishops Tachbrook and Harbury Lane areas. This is not a case of 'not in my back yard' as I realise that some development will have to be in this area, however just using the excuse that the rest of Leamington north of the river, is green belt and therefore should not even be considered is totally unacceptable. Just because it is a complicated process doesn't mean that you should not challenge it.
I attended a meeting with representatives from the Planning and Highways departments on 16th July in Whitnash and came away with the impression that as far as these representatives are concerned the developments are a 'done deal' and we should not waste our time objecting. They did not listen or acknowledge the views of the concerned residents and at the Highways representative was unprofessional in the way he handled questions and should not be allowed to interact with the public again without significant training on how to handle public concerns. People were leaving throughout the meeting in disgust as the residents views were just brushed away and their concerns not acknowledged.
Forecasted Housing Numbers:
In the 20 years to 2011 the population growth was 18%. The Local Plan RDS is now proposing a further 20% increase in within 15 years requiring an additional 12,300 homes. Using projections based only on natural growth of the population and an allowance for migration only 5,400 homes are required. There is no need for the additional 6,900 homes.
Warwick District Council's own consultants G.L.Hearn gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast Study in December 2012, which in option PROJ 5 arrived at only 4,405 new homes being required. Why are you choosing to ignore this?
Warwick District has a low unemployment rate of only 1.7%. The 2012 Strategic Housing Market Assessment stated that overall 'Warwick District had a very good job-homes balance' and I do not see a driver for new homes to bring in new jobs being a valid reason.
Visual Impact of Development
Currently Bishops Tachbrook and the south of Leamington are just visible to one another. Building 2000 houses south of Harbury Lane and extending down the side of the Tachbrook valley will have a severe negative visual impact.
Whilst there is the proposal to build a country park which may provide some form of separation between Bishops Tachbrook and Warwick Gates, the house building proposed on the rolling countryside which makes this highly visible and negates the value of the Country Park.
The Planning Inspector who reviewed the current local plan in 2006 stated that Woodside Farm should not be built on now or in the future.
WDC's landscape consultant Richard Morrish in the Landscape Area Statement in 2009 referred to the land south of Gallows Hill and concluded "this study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development". So why has the district gone against that recommendation?
Local Infrastructure
Can the improvements required be delivered?

The Local Plan RDS does not contain any evidence to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements can be delivered from the Developer contributions through Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy.

With so much unnecessary housing concentrated to the south of the town centres the surrounding roads will end up severely congested.

There will be even more severe at pinch points, crossings of canal river and railways where there is no realistically deliverable solution to the problem.

Traffic Volumes
There will be a significant increase in traffic which the road infrastructure will not be able to cope with, especially in the villages.

Agriculture
The land south of Harbury lane is predominately high grade agricultural land and we are always being told to support our local farmers and consider the environment. Is it sensible for high quality land producing multiple crops per year to be built upon and what impact will this have on our environment?

In relation to the proposed gypsy site, I also have significant concerns on the impact to our community.

This site fails to meet the councils Local Plan Requirements & its preferred options because-
Health Facilities:
The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook, Warwick Gates, Whitnash & Harbury are already at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients.
There is no dentist surgery in Bishops Tachbrook and other surgeries are already at capacity.
Education:
The primary schools in Bishops Tachbrook & Harbury are already oversubscribed & the Catholic Primary in Whitnash, St Josephs' has had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate.
The educational needs of many of these children will mean that should a place be found for them at a local school they will need additional help to catch up, and this would have to be provided. Is the council going to supply additional funds to help support these children's needs and how will this be prioritised against the constant demand for funding? Will our taxes have to be increased to pay for these?
Given that the parents of many of these children are unable to read and write themselves they are not in a position to help children with their own learning and this identifies yet another pressure point. An adult who cannot read and write will have limited options on the jobs that they would be able to apply for. There are no employers within in the village of Bishops Tachbrook or Harbury which means that there is no immediate local economy for them to join with. Most villagers have to commute to work.
Infrastructure:
There are no pavements between the proposed site and the nearest village and this would be a great danger especially during peak travel hours and school run times.
There are no bus stops and no safe place for a bus stop to be installed.
This would force more traffic through the village of Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash together with the additional traffic at major road junctions putting too much strain on an already busy junction onto a road where cars are travelling at speed.
Most of this plot does not have any Provision of Utilities
Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals?
It states in your Sites for Gypsies & Travellers page 9 last bullet point on section 7.4 the site should reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles ( whereby some travellers live & work from the same location hereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability. I fail to see how our community can support the traditional lifestyle of travellers.
Environment Impact:
The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document.
There is a potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. This will damage the Tourist Industry which accounts for a large proportion of business transactions for both Large and Small & Medium Enterprises alike.
Therefore a site in this location will put undue pressure on local infrastructure & services.
I have read the council's document "Sites for Gypsies & Travellers" Local Plan helping shape the district.
As per my comments regarding the planned housing development, how is it those 15 sites are all placed south of Warwick & Leamington? The small village of Bishops Tachbrook has 6 of these within a mile of it, 2 are on its immediate doorstep. Potentially all of these sites could be approved and the very nature of our community and how the approach to our village would look would be irrevocably changed and the effect would be devastating to our way of life. This is not acceptable nor a reasonable request for the council to make.
There is no statement from the Gypsy Council of Great Britain or any other organising body on behalf of the Gypsy & Traveller community, within your brochure/document, that they wish to join our community in Warwickshire or anywhere else. Perhaps this is because they have no desire to permanently live here? What evidence does the council have that the gypsy & traveller community wish to use these sites as a permanently settled site with a fixed maximum number of 15 Pitches? You also do not state how many people are able to live within a pitch or who is responsible for the site. Due diligence has not taken place here. I appreciate that you state the Regional Spatial Strategy & commissioned Salford University to produce a report but you have failed to put any meaningful back up data into this document. Therefore I have to question the validity of the study as you have not put it in the information you are handing out. Where is the proof that so many sites are needed? Much needed data is missing here & the council are remiss in leaving it out.
You also state that the Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment shows a need for 31 pitches, 25 within the first five years & a further 6-8 transit pitches over the Plan period. Yet the brochure you have produced is only showing 19 of these. Why are you not identifying where all these sites will potentially be? Is the plan to add these to the ones for south of the river and avoid any impact to the north of the river as it is blatently your intention.
Your brochure has not been laid out in a way that makes for easy & understandable reading. For instance sites GT05 & GT09 in reality face each other on opposite sides of the Banbury Road yet in your document the numbers on the map are shown as far away from each other as possible and are shown in map form pages apart from each other & at different scales & angles. This also occurs for site GT06 which is opposite GT09. You are failing to make your documentation easy to read and this is misleading and in my view a deliberate attempt to mis-lead the impacted community.
I am extremely disappointed with the way that Warwick District Council is managing the consultation and the proposed development. I look forward to receiving a response to my objections and confirmation on the next steps.

This site fails to meet the councils Local Plan Requirements & its preferred options because-
The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash & Harbury are at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients.
The primary school in Bishops Tachbrook & Harbury is already oversubscribed & the Catholic Primary in Whitnash, St Josephs' has even had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate.
Also the educational needs of many of these children will mean that should a place be found at a local school they will need additional help to catch up, and this should be provided. Is the council going to supply additional funds to help support these children's needs? Given that the parents of many of these children are unable to read & write themselves they are not in a position to help children with their own learning and this identifies yet another pressure point. As an adult not being able to read & write seriously narrows down the type of work you would be able to apply for, there are no employers within in the village of Bishops Tachbrook or Harbury therefore there is no immediate local economy for them to join with. Most villagers have to commute to work.
There is no Dental care in Bishops Tachbrook.
There are no pavements between the proposed site and the nearest village and this would be a great danger especially during peak travel hours and school run times.
There are no bus stops and no safe place for a bus stop to be put in.
This would force more traffic through the village of Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash & Additional traffic at major road junctions would put too much strain on an already busy junction onto a road where cars are travelling at speed.
Most of this plot does not have any Provision of Utilities
Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals? For instance a horse on the Banbury Road especially a loose one could end in fatalities.
.
It states in your Sites for Gypsies & Travellers page 9 last bullet point on section 7.4 the site should reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles ( whereby some travellers live & work from the same location hereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability. Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash & Harbury would not be able to offer any traditional forms of income for travellers or gypsies. Next to this statement is an image of a draught horse. We are not a horse based community so farrier's would not be able to make a living here. Also my understanding is that traditional forms of employment also include door to door sales and this would be in stark contrast to advice given by police not to buy from door to door sales people. I fail to see how our community can support the traditional lifestyle of travellers.

The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document.
There is a potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. This will damage the Tourist Industry which accounts for a large proportion of business transactions for both Large and Small & Medium Enterprises alike.

We would lose the much used New Windmill football ground. This is not acceptable.
Therefore a site in this location will put undue pressure on local infrastructure & services.


I picked up the council's document "Sites for Gypsies & Travellers" Local Plan helping shape the district.
How is it those 15 sites are all placed south of Warwick & Leamington? The small village of Bishops Tachbrook has 6 of these within a mile of it, 2 are on its immediate doorstep. Potentially all of these sites could be approved and the very nature of our community and how the approach to our village would look would be irrevocably changed & the effect would be devastating to our way of life. This is not acceptable nor a reasonable request for the council to make.
There is no statement from the Gypsy Council of Great Britain or any other organising body on behalf of the Gypsy & Traveller community, within your brochure/document, that they wish to join our community in Warwickshire or anywhere else. Odd that. Perhaps this is because they have no desire to permanently live here? What evidence does the council have that the gypsy & traveller community wish to use these sites as a permanently settled site with a fixed maximum number of 15 Pitches? You also do not state how many people are able to live within a pitch or who is responsible for the site. Due diligence has not taken place here. I appreciate that you state the Regional Spatial Strategy & commissioned Salford University to produce a report but you have failed to put any meaningful back up data into this document. Therefore I have to question the validity of the study as you have not put it in the information you are handing out. Where is the proof that so many sites are needed? Much needed data is missing here & the council are remiss in leaving it out.
You also state that the Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment shows a need for 31 pitches, 25 within the first five years & a further 6-8 transit pitches over the Plan period. Yet the brochure you have produced is only showing 19 of these. Why are you not identifying where all these sites will potentially be? Are you planning to use these larger identified areas to put up multiple sites? Please be clear & honest!

Your brochure has not been laid out in a way that makes for easy & understandable reading. For instance sites GT05 & GT09 in reality face each other on opposite sides of the Banbury Road yet in your document the numbers on the map are shown as far away from each other as possible and are shown in map form pages apart from each other & at different scales & angles. This also occurs for site GT06 which is opposite GT09. You are failing to make your documentation easy to read & this is inexcusable.
Also the images you are using on your front cover, page 3 & page 4 are clearly stock images of holiday camping sites. They are not permanent sites and they are certainly not Gypsy & Traveller sites. Why is the council not using real images from existing successful sites to give an honest & truthful photographic representation of how these sites will look?

I attended the public meeting at Whitnash Primary School recently regarding the Local Plan. I have never attended a public meeting before & went with the idea that WDC & our local councillors would be working for the benefit of our community. Unfortunately when I left the meeting & on reading the documents I felt very disillusioned. The lead spokesperson for the council gave a long and drawn out introduction implying that we were all prejudist against the traveller community. I found it offensive, ill advised and very condescending. Where I appreciate all the hard work & effort that council employees put in and I appreciate that the directives regarding The Gypsy & Traveller sites are coming from 10 Downing Street and not Local council I found the attitude of the councils representatives quite staggering. The gentleman representing The Highways Agency had clearly not received any training in how to speak to people. He was interrupted at one point by a lady at the back of the hall who asked a question relevant to the comment he had just made. The gentleman from the Highways agency then lost his temper and threatened not to give us any information if he was interrupted again. I found this to be highly unprofessional and suggest that that gentleman needs to learn the difference between a heckle and a pertinent question. And for the record that lady asked 3 questions, non of them were answered. I was left wondering if this was because she didn't appear to be a councillor.
I also thought I was attending a public meeting but it appeared to be that the vast majority of people who were handed the microphone were councillors. I am very glad they were there but surely this was a place for the general public to have the chance to speak and to ask some questions supported by councillors?
Many people left that meeting about halfway through as they felt their voice was not being heard by the council. I found the whole experience depressing and frustrating. The gentlemen from the council set out their stall as a "you & us" situation and they seem to of forgotten that actually we are all supposed to be on the same side! We are able to understand directives from Downing Street and we should be questioning decisions that are projected onto our lives. Surely this is democracy? That meeting felt like the council had attended just to tick the box and that what they were suggesting should just be signed off. I am truly appalled.
I look forward to receiving the answers to my questions and trust my objections have now been logged.

Identified Gypsy & Traveller Site GT03 land at Barnwell Farm Harbury Lane

This site fails to meet the councils Local Plan Requirements & its preferred options because-
The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash & Harbury are at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients.
The primary school in Bishops Tachbrook & Harbury are already oversubscribed & the Catholic Primary in Whitnash, St Joseph's has even had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate.
Also the educational needs of many of these children will mean that should a place be found at a local school they will need additional help to catch up, and this should be provided. Is the council going to supply additional funds to help support these children's needs? Given that the parents of many of these children are unable to read & write themselves they are not in a position to help children with their own learning and this identifies yet another pressure point. As an adult not being able to read & write seriously narrows down the type of work you would be able to apply for, there are no employers within in the village of Bishops Tachbrook or Harbury therefore there is no immediate local economy for them to join with. Most villagers have to commute to work.
There is no Dental care in Bishops Tachbrook.
There are no pavements between the proposed site and the nearest village and this would be a great danger especially during peak travel hours and school run times.
There are no bus stops and no safe place for a bus stop to be put in.
This would force more traffic through the village of Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash & Additional traffic at major road junctions would put too much strain on an already busy junction onto a road where cars are travelling at speed.
Most of this plot does not have any Provision of Utilities
Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals? For instance a horse on the Banbury Road especially a loose one could end in fatalities.
.
It states in your Sites for Gypsies & Travellers page 9 last bullet point on section 7.4 the site should reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles ( whereby some travellers live & work from the same location hereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability. Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash & Harbury would not be able to offer any traditional forms of income for travellers or gypsies. Next to this statement is an image of a draught horse. We are not a horse based community so farrier's would not be able to make a living here. Also my understanding is that traditional forms of employment also include door to door sales and this would be in stark contrast to advice given by police not to buy from door to door sales people. I fail to see how our community can support the traditional lifestyle of travellers.

The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document.
There is a potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. This will damage the Tourist Industry which accounts for a large proportion of business transactions for both Large and Small & Medium Enterprises alike.
Therefore a site in this location will put undue pressure on local infrastructure & services.


I picked up the council's document "Sites for Gypsies & Travellers" Local Plan helping shape the district.
How is it those 15 sites are all placed south of Warwick & Leamington? The small village of Bishops Tachbrook has 6 of these within a mile of it, 2 are on its immediate doorstep. Potentially all of these sites could be approved and the very nature of our community and how the approach to our village would look would be irrevocably changed & the effect would be devastating to our way of life. This is not acceptable nor a reasonable request for the council to make.
There is no statement from the Gypsy Council of Great Britain or any other organising body on behalf of the Gypsy & Traveller community, within your brochure/document, that they wish to join our community in Warwickshire or anywhere else. Odd that. Perhaps this is because they have no desire to permanently live here? What evidence does the council have that the gypsy & traveller community wish to use these sites as a permanently settled site with a fixed maximum number of 15 Pitches? You also do not state how many people are able to live within a pitch or who is responsible for the site. Due diligence has not taken place here. I appreciate that you state the Regional Spatial Strategy & commissioned Salford University to produce a report but you have failed to put any meaningful back up data into this document. Therefore I have to question the validity of the study as you have not put it in the information you are handing out. Where is the proof that so many sites are needed? Much needed data is missing here & the council are remiss in leaving it out.
You also state that the Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment shows a need for 31 pitches, 25 within the first five years & a further 6-8 transit pitches over the Plan period. Yet the brochure you have produced is only showing 19 of these. Why are you not identifying where all these sites will potentially be? Are you planning to use these larger identified areas to put up multiple sites? Please be clear & honest!

Your brochure has not been laid out in a way that makes for easy & understandable reading. For instance sites GT05 & GT09 in reality face each other on opposite sides of the Banbury Road yet in your document the numbers on the map are shown as far away from each other as possible and are shown in map form pages apart from each other & at different scales & angles. This also occurs for site GT06 which is opposite GT09. You are failing to make your documentation easy to read & this is inexcusable.
Also the images you are using on your front cover, page 3 & page 4 are clearly stock images of holiday camping sites. They are not permanent sites and they are certainly not Gypsy & Traveller sites. Why is the council not using real images from existing successful sites to give an honest & truthful photographic representation of how these sites will look?

I attended the public meeting at Whitnash Primary School recently regarding the Local Plan. I have never attended a public meeting before & went with the idea that WDC & our local councillors would be working for the benefit of our community. Unfortunately when I left the meeting & on reading the documents I felt very disillusioned. The lead spokesperson for the council gave a long and drawn out introduction implying that we were all prejudiced against the traveller community. I found it offensive, ill advised and very condescending. Where I appreciate all the hard work & effort that council employees put in and I appreciate that the directives regarding The Gypsy & Traveller sites are coming from 10 Downing Street and not Local council I found the attitude of the councils representatives quite staggering. The gentleman representing The Highways Agency had clearly not received any training in how to speak to people. He was interrupted at one point by a lady at the back of the hall who asked a question relevant to the comment he had just made. The gentleman from the Highways agency then lost his temper and threatened not to give us any information if he was interrupted again. I found this to be highly unprofessional and suggest that that gentleman needs to learn the difference between a heckle and a pertinent question. And for the record that lady asked 3 questions, none of them were answered.
I also thought I was attending a public meeting but it appeared to be that the vast majority of people who were handed the microphone were councillors. I am very glad they were there but surely this was a place for the general public to have the chance to speak and to ask some questions supported by councillors?
Many people left that meeting about halfway through as they felt their voice was not being heard by the council. I found the whole experience depressing and frustrating. The gentlemen from the council set out their stall as a "you & us" situation and they seem to of forgotten that actually we are all supposed to be on the same side! We are able to understand directives from Downing Street and we should be questioning decisions that are projected onto our lives. Surely this is democracy? That meeting felt like the council had attended just to tick the box and that what they were suggesting should just be signed off. I am truly appalled.

see attached

see attached

I have responded on behalf of the JPC, with site specific comments, using your online system.

The system works well for responding to each site but does not allow wider comment - this is disastrous as most of our councillors' and residents' views go beyond the site specifics.

Please take on board the following generic views on this consultation and its proposals;
* This is a poor consultation and its timing parallel to the New Local Plan consultation has sadly had a debilitating effect on that consultation - or was that deliberate?
* The sites selected and proposed are very poor and their presentation is even worse.
* The GT12 and GT16 confusion is inexcusable and unacceptable - and the author should be made fully aware of their shortcomings - presumably it was a table-top study from someone out of the area...
* The JPC sees no reason why G&T sites should be considered any differently to any built development sites - indeed there are significant reasons to believe that the criteria applied should be stricter - eg caravans are at greater risk in flooding situations.
* Many of the proposed sites would never currently be considered for built development - evidenced by their not appearing in the main NLP proposals.
* This brings us to a major principle - G&T sites should be considered along with AND WITHIN the NLP
* G&T sites should be included within new development areas - such as the massive swathes proposed south of Warwick and Leamington - where they can be properly designed, provided at an early stage and fully integrated with their surroundings rather than parachuted into a settled community. This would make planning sense, would be acceptable to the major developers - they agree! - and most importantly would actually be best for the G&T community
* The consultation carried out by Salford University to measure Permanent G&T site needs is not remotely convincing. Their sampled population may well not be representative of actual need and would appear to be simply ticking a consultation tick-box. There are empty sites to the north of the district.
* The Sustainability Appraisal also lacks convincing evidence - it has clearly been dumbed down by its traffic light scoring system rather than the more conventional numeric scoring. The fact that on certain criteria some sites score wildly different extremes but are not averaged is bizarre! The fact that GT16 is scored as it is must cast the final doubt on this whole consultation - by objective assessment of the Sustainability Appraisal results for that site it would appear to rank in the top THREE despite being a flood compensation area!
* Whilst we understand, but may not actually agree with, the apparent requirement to address this matter on a District basis we are concerned that no cross-district boundary consideration or cooperation seems to have taken place. Specifically we consider that the Stratford DC site on the A46 just outside Sherbourne should be taken into consideration along with the problems that such an allocation have brought to the local community and indeed the WCC.
* Once again the Greenbelt issue is providing problems and requiring a district wide requirement to be shoe-horned into the small area south of Warwick/Leamington. Again this requires a more realistic and imaginative approach to how WDC deals with Greenbelt policies.