Dear Sirs

Respecting the need to provide locations within Warwick district for travellers/ Gypsy sites under the national policy framework I am pleased to see that the council is taking this into consideration in the local plan.
Neither do I wish to be a NIMBY and make claim that nothing should be sited near to where I live.

However what has annoyed me significantly about your consultation plan -

Of the 20 sites identified - 15! are in the South / South West Warwick area, and NONE! In Kenilworth... That's not a fair proposal across the Warwick district and raises the question everyone in SWW is asking - where do the district councillors live?


Further, I've just looked at your consultation program and its so heavily biased against the SWW area.
Where do you bring this to those who live by or around the racecourse/ Hampton road??
You've got every part of Leamington and Kenilworth covered, yet there is not one date at which you should have this in either the race course or the girls marching band
Further evidence if needed that the decision has already been made to host the sites in South/SW Warwick!

It is a fact that there are plenty of Caravan and camping sites in Warwickshire already authorised to take Touring and Static vans (Stratford upon Avon and Warwick Racecourse being just two of several in Warwickshire). If people want to stay in Warwickshire for 1 nights or even several months (or on a residential basis) there are established Caravan and Camping sites (with all of the facilities named on your document e..g toilets, showers, car parking etc) that are already set up for exactly that purpose. There are already laws in place to prevent owners of these sites turning people away on grounds of ethnicity if that was a reason for thinking these sites were not suitable. There are also many more pitches than the 30+ you are seeking to accommodate.

With regards to the two sites referred to in your document.

The current site on Kites Nest Lane is in breach of planning law and was occupied in very bad faith (Bank Holiday weekend when the planning office was shut etc). To even suggest legalising it by including it in the consultation document sends a terrible message to the residents of that site and anyone else thinking that way to get their own way is to do something illegal and then resist the law until such time as the law changes to suit them.

Similarly, the site near the Shell Garage in Hatton has been breaching the law for years with Caravans being occupied on that site in spite of it not being a licensed camping ground. To legalise this send a similarly bad message.

I am very disappointed in your approach which in my opinion gives support to those carrying out illegal activities.

We have been made aware that Warwickshire County Council are in the process of identifying sites to be made available for the travellers' community. Of course, the Council has a legal duty to do this. However, great care has to be taken in deciding on the most suitable sites and hence the consultation process in which the Council is now engaged. I am sending this e-mail to you as I believe that you are in a position to influence the decision which is finally reached.

The site over which I feel most concern, and I believe this concern is shared by many living on the estates bordering the Hampton Road, concerns the proposal to locate one of these sites on the Hampton Road. I personally would have no objection to a small site for travellers being set up here. They have every right to live comfortably as I do. However, recent developments at Meriden which have attracted national media attention do ring alarm bells when such developments are proposed. A small site on the Hampton Road is very likely to quickly develop into a much larger site, probably extending all the way from the Racecourse to the by-pass. This expansion would take place from the established nucleus of a legal site across ground where planning permission had not been granted. Events at Meriden show that some in the traveller community are quite prepared to work in this way and apply for retrospective planning permission. While 'retrospective planning permission' is an oxymoron which should not be countenanced, it does seem that this is sometimes granted. Events at Meriden indicate that the process of law by which such developments are reversed seem unduly slow and probably only succeeded in this case as a result of a determined and prolonged campaign by Meriden residents.

I would therefore suggest that a small traveller site on the Hampton Road should only be permitted to go ahead provided absolute cast iron guarantees can be provided that it should not be able to extend. The fact that any extension would be breaking the law is not a guarantee that this would not take place as other developments of this type have indicated. Would it not be better to concentrate on sites which are not close to residential property in seeking to find suitable locations for travellers' sites? It would appear that such sites do exist off the Kenilworth by-pass.

The Gypsy and Traveller communities need places to live. I would like you to choose the best sites based on the criteria NOT by avoiding who shouts the loudest against sites near them

COMMENTS ON THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY OF THE WARWICK DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN - 2013
INTRODUCTION:
Because of having to be away from Warwick for the latter part of June and into early July it was only at the presentation at Aylesford School on 15/07/2013 that I was able to find out more about the "Revised" proposals. Unfortunately the presentation by WDC personnel on that night was less than impressive, the acoustics were bad resulting in part of the presentation not being fully audible and the attitude seemed to be, "this is what you are going to get so you will have to put up with it". It was certainly not a "consultation" process. However, having now been able to read the documents issued I will at least comment on the "revised" plan and the potential problems it will create if implemented. Also, as the forms provided for comment do not seem to give enough space to fully comment I am using this format to cover a range of points.
HOUSING PROJECTION AND LOCATION:
The projected figure of an additional 6.600 new houses seems excessively high and with a very large concentration of the same in the area immediately south of Warwick. That, in turn will produce problems with congestion and transport. Also, there does not seem to be any mention in the "Revised Plan" of those sites which have previously had planning permission but have not been developed. (There are a number in Warwick still not started). Nor is there any mention of the number of empty houses available for sale or for rent. Until all those numbers are included in the figures the true need for "new Build" cannot be fully assessed.
Also, it has been reported that Stratford District Council have approved a "draft" strategy to build a new 4000 home "town" in the Lighthorne area just south of Warwick. If that goes ahead it would also have some effect on the infrastructure requirements, (as mentioned below), within the Warwick Local Plan; yet no mention is made of that scheme has been taken into account when preparing the Warwick Local Plan.
ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE:
Much is made in the plan of the proposed improvements to road junctions, new traffic lights, etc. to enable traffic to move faster into Warwick & Leamington, but no solution is given to the problems caused when the cars reach the towns. Warwick has natural "bottlenecks" in The Butts, Jury St., High St., Smith St., Nicholas Church St. Friars St., Hampton St., and Theatre St. etc. etc. Unless those roads are widened, (by demolishing listed buildings!), or a new road around the town is built, there will be a massive congestion problem, (there already is). No solution to this is offered in the "Plan" and needs to be prior to any approval for new houses.
AIR POLLUTION:
Where we live at present, (on Friars St. and by Hampton St.), is already at, or above, the recommended levels, as is parts of the Warwick Town Centre. The revised Plan does not address this problem.
HEALTH:
Apart from the additional health problems that can be caused by any increased traffic congestion there is no mention of the capacity of Warwick Hospital to cope with a massive increase in population. The present hospital is surrounded by housing and cannot expand, can it cope with such an increase as is projected by the "Plan"?
SITES FOR GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS:
The need for such sites is recognised and the concept supported. Indeed it is needed to stop the current problems that occur when car parks and public parks are used unofficially and left in a mess. However, even a casual glance at the Plan shows a marked imbalance of the distribution of the possible sites over the whole of the District. Of the 20 possible sites listed only four are in the northern part of the District with the remaining 16 in the southern part, with the biggest cluster just south of Warwick. This should be re-examined to ensure a more equitable spread of the burden on the residents of the District.
CLOSING OBSERVATIONS:
The above points are general rather that specific but clearly indicate a need for a more "in-depth" approach to what the District as a whole needs. From the information provided the people who have drawn up the Plan do not seem to have considered all the facts nor how to overcome, or at least alleviate, the problems that will be created by placing the bulk of the predicted new dwellings into one main location. To gain the support and the trust of the residents of Warwick District more openness and consultation than in the past is now required. In addition, serious consideration should be given to giving equal protection to open land to the south of Warwick and Leamington as that given to the "green belt" area located to the north of the towns so that all the open "greenfield" sites can be considered equally and the load spread more equitably throughout the District.

My question is this.... If they are travellers why do they need a permanent site? If they are not travellers they can make their own living arrangements like the rest of us. They are either travellers or they are not.

Kenilworth Town Council met last evening and although not affected by the sites proposed decided to submit the following comment
The Town Council appreciates the need for Warwick District Council to find appropriate sites for Gypsies and Travellers following the detail assessment. As the location of a Horse fair three times a year the Town is well aware of the challenge posed
Whilst we do not feel it appropriate to comment on the individual sites as they are not within our boundaries we support the District Council in their efforts to locate sites and trust a suitable solution will be found.

My paramount concern is that proper provision is made for travellers and gypsies. It seems to me to be vital to a democracy that those whose living arrangements are not mainstream should be accepted as part of our diverse (and therefore rich) culture.

Unfortunately it's too easy to forget the lessons of history and the terrible suffering that takes place when differences are not tolerated. At the extreme we have regimes like Nazi Germany and South Africa. It's easy to think that we're more civilised, but we'll only remain so if we have respect for all our citizens.

I'm taking the trouble to communicate with you because of the frequently expressed hostility to these minorities - a hostility that is rather paradoxical when one sees the number of holiday caravans on our roads, and the well-maintained sites for them to rest in.

I missed the public consultation dates recently but having seen some
publicity produced by a local resident I am prompted to contact you
and state that I am in full support of the proposals.

I think it is extremely important for councils to plan adequately for
housing and offering more stable sites for Travellers which will
benefit not only these ethnic minorities but protect residents and
minimise cost to the council from unauthorised encampments in car
parks, laybys and grass verges. Since ethnic cleansing is not
something a reasonable person might want, I am impressed that you are
courageously facing up to how you might best include those on the
margins of society, enabling potential residents to access more stable
healthcare and education.
Brilliant

I was amazed to see that the site at the junction of Kites Nest Lane and Brownley Green Lane, Beausale, Warwick had been included on the Council's list of suitable sites for travellers.

This site should never have been included on such a list since planning permission has already been refused twice and these decisions were upheld at a Public Enquiry in 2012.

The site is located in the Green Belt in a particularly beautiful part of Warwickshire, which should remain unspoilt. Travellers' caravans, miscellaneous buildings and vehicles would have a huge impact on the local community and due to their high visibility would ruin the area for not only the local community but the hundreds of walkers, cyclists and horse riders who regularly enjoy using the lanes and surrounding bridlepaths and foopaths.

The site is also subject to flooding because it is the lowest point for the surrounding fields and lane to drain on to and the narrow lanes would also be totally unsuitable for the amount of emerging traffic to and from the proposed site.

When I moved here in 1978 I found an old book detailing the history of the local area in which it was stated that Kites Nest Lane had one of the finest collections of flora and fauna in the United Kingdom. I am currently trying to find this again.

One only has to walk down Brownley Green Lane and Kites Nest Lane to see the pride the local people take in their houses, outbuildings and gardens. Those altering their properties have sought the proper permissions to do so and have followed planning guidelines to the letter in order that their properties blend in to the surroundings.

Kites Nest Lane alone, within its short length, has several Grade II listed buildings which are of special architectural interest, some of which have extremely interesting histories.

I was surprised and disappointed that the sites suggested by FROG were not included in the list of suggested sites and I hope serious consideration will be given to the fact that the land at Kites Nest Lane/Brownley Green Lane is wholly unsuitable and that Green Belt Land should not be used for such a development.

You will no doubt be familiar with the text body below which I have included here given that I whole heartedly support the comments. To include the Kite's Nest Lane site as "an option" is so preposterous that it borders on comic.

In my view the sites proposed which are south of Warwick and Leamington seem to be more appropriate. Having previously lived in Bishops Tachbrook I am aware of the vast expanses of land away from green belt or urbanization that would make for more appropriate Traveller sites.

You will be aware that Lighthorne Heath was earmarked for a major development some years ago (I believe it was blocked ultimately), the reason being of course that it makes good sense to develop on the land between Lighthorne and Leamington/Warwick when the overall picture is looked at.

As for the proximity of local transport, doctors and schools, what is all that about? This is the 21st century, we all have cars, and these people are supposed to be able to travel! Living in Beausale I am 5 miles away from my doctor, my kids school, and we have one bus that stops once a week on a Saturday! It is all just so much boloney

I am a supporter of FRoG. I want to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

The "WDC Gypsy and Traveller Sites Options for Consultation" document includes the Green Belt site at Kites Nest Lane in Beausale as an option for Gypsy and Traveller Sites. Its inclusion is perverse given that in the past three years two applications for planning permission as a traveller site have been unequivocally refused by the Planning Committee (each time in line with the Council's officers' recommendation). Both those planning decisions have been appealed and both have been resisted by WDC.

The first of those appeals was - following scrutiny at an expensive 7 day long Public Inquiry - unambiguously and entirely refused by the Inspector and the Secretary of State. The second appeal is currently being opposed by the Council.

The inappropriateness of the site is clearly identified in the report of the Inspector from the first appeal and in the submissions made by WDC and FRoG in the context of the current appeal.

Tens of thousands of pounds of local council taxpayers' money has been and is being spent in resisting what has already been determined to be an attempt at wholly inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
My concern is exacerbated by my understanding that potential sites put forward by the local parish council to the Council on 8th April 2013 have not been included as options. I understand that the reasoning for the omissions include because sites have previously been identified as "a potential housing site in the Local Plan", and because sites are "promoted for residential use through the Local Plan and [are] too close to the urban area". It does not appear to me that these reasons are sufficient to justify the sites being excluded as options, particularly when one as obviously inappropriate as Kites Nest Lane is included as an option.

I look forward to hearing from you urgently and receiving your personal assurances that:
* the Kites Nest Lane site was included not because it is deemed suitable, but only because it was suggested in response to a public "Call for Sites";
* the executive shall recommend that the Kites Nest Lane "option" should not be considered as a viable option as a traveller and gypsy site; and
* you shall ensure that the list of sites proposed by FRoG is reconsidered and that they are included in the consultation paper

I was very concerned to see that Kites Nest Lane Site has been included in the above consultation document despite it being a green field site and the subject of two failed applications for planning permission and a refused Secretary of State appeal. Reading the criterior included in the consultation document it fails on every point I understand from FROG that the travellers themselves who of course have a vested interest have put the site forward and that other appropriate alternative sites submitted by the local parish council have been rejected on very flimsy grounds.
In view of the above can you confirm that the executive will be recommending that the Kites Nest Lane Site should not be considered a viable option and that reconsideration should be given to the list proposed by the Local Parish Council.

I received your flyer today with regards the revised development strategy and sites for gypsies and travellers.
Having lived in Kenilworth for 14 years now my wife and friends have experienced some awkward experiences with regards local gypsy fayres in terms of fighting and disruption in the town and security being added to local restaurants and pubs.
While I have no objections to travellers and gypsies settling where there would be sufficient amenities and services available to accomodate them, or if they contributed to council tax or local services.
However, if they were to be allowed to settle in Kenilworth, where clearly there have already been significant issues, I would have no alternative to move away. I regret that recent experiences have made this a non-debatle area and I hope it will not come this.

I returned home from work today to find a booklet from yourselves regarding a proposed Gypsie & Traveller site close to where i live with my small children in Leamington Spa.
I am totally against this proposal as it will bring nothing but trouble to the local neighbourhood as it did in Meriden!..
My children will not feel safe to play out like children should plus the local industrial estates close to the propoesed site will be at risk of damage etc.
I do hope our local Council will put the residents of Leamington Spa first before making a drastic decision that may put all our wonderful countryside at risk.
I hate feeling like I'm labeling these people for who they are but why should we take responcibility for them, i pay my taxes for more important things than trying to find them a place to take over and destroy.
Travellers should keep on travelling hence the name.

I think the proposal for gypsie and traveller sites in the warwick district is the worst idea yet and just asking for trouble. If travellers want to travel and not pay taxes then let them travel. Ireland sent their gypsies packing for a reason, unfortunately they came here. My family grew up around those gypsies in particular and they are not the kind of people i want any where near to me and my family. Nobody wants them living anywhere near to them, hence the latest community stand in at Meriden.
They do not want to intergrate in to society but they want the same as the rest of society, i do not know of a poor traveller or gypsie do you?
There's plenty of room on the moores send them there

I wish to record an objection to the proposed traveller site at Oaklands Farm, Birmingham Road.

1. The visual impact of this site on one of the main arterial roads into Warwick, would be detrimental to the image of Warwick portrayed to tourists visiting the area.

2. This proposed site will cause road safety issues due to the an increase in traffic towing trailers and caravans to and from the proposed site at Oaklands Farm on to the Birmingham Road. The daily activity of the site occupants seeking work using plant machinery stored on the site must also be considered.

3. The Hatton Stairway of Locks is one of the major pieces of Canal engineering that runs along the back of the proposed site .This is a tourist attraction for walkers and Narrow boat tourists visiting the area and using the Warwickshire loop Canal system. Again this would have a detrimental visual impact on the image of Warwick.

4. Oaklands Farm once had a Caravan storage area . Enforcement action was taken by the Council against the owner of the property expressing similar concerns.This was done at a considerable cost to the Tax payer and the storage facility was not permitted. I believe that as the population of Warwick has grown and the traffic flow has increased, the original grounds for the enforcement action are still if not more relevant due to the location of this proposed site at this time.

5. I understand that the council were offered land by the construction company where the site offices were situated for the recent A46 development at no charge.This land had all utility services and was a more suitable site that would cause minimum expense to the public purse.As i understand it this offer was declined.Why?

I understand the need for sites ,but the proposed site at Oaklands farm has not been a well thought through option.

To Development Policy Manager:

I have recently received a paper copy of the public consultation document and needed additional time to understand the document and its implications. As advised by Lorna Coldicott, Senior Planner I am responding within the week commencing 29 July.

Firstly, I would respond that to limit my objection to your already set criteria does not allow for other mitigating circumstances which lead to this objection and therefore I will include the following which directly relate to my objection of sites GT03 and GT04:

That the area of search for consultation is disproportionately centred around the South of Warwick District, in particular Whitnash/Bishops Tachbrook and that also the larger sites are disproportionately centred around these areas. In addition, there is currently a planning application by Richborough Estates outstanding for a development on land very close to GT03 which should be taken into consideration in terms of all of the criteria outlined by yourselves as being of significance.

Another issue which is not addressed by your criteria is that which relates to 'pitch' sizes. Nowhere in the consultation document can I find any reference to expected or limited occupancy numbers or measured land allocated per pitch which would then give meaning to your obtuse 'potential no. of pitches figure' of being 15 for each of GT03 and GT04. Or indeed which land falls into the various categories you give for 'consideration and comment'. Without a full disclosure of this information it is very difficult to raise objection with any hope of accuracy. This then directs any consultation towards subjectivity and opinion or at the very least limits your respondents to general statements. However, I will work with what is available at the present time.

Addressing the 'Policy Criteria' in relation to GT03:

1. GP surgery, school and public transport; the local GP surgeries are already at capacity. The local Primary schools are over-subscribed as is the Secondary school given as being for this priority area.

2. I am not aware of any flooding to this area.

3. Safe Access: accessing this site from the Golf Lane area means using a track - clearly identified on the ordnance survey map as such which is only partially tarmaced, full of pot-holes and has a very steep incline from the Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane bend. It is also a designated public footpath. In addition, Golf Lane itself has already seen the imposition of a bus route and has to cope with school traffic, additional traffic for a large nursing home which requires the necessary use of emergency vehicular access and the Golf Club itself which has regular functions and events which increase traffic. There already exists a development of static homes adjacent to the proposed site which operates a business from the site trading as 'Pro-surfacing Ltd' and which uses large plant machinery to carry out its trade adding further pressure to traffic use on Golf Lane. Therefore, this track cannot be considered a 'safe access' to the road network.

4. Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance: without the full facts relating to occupancy levels any response would be subjective.

5. Provision of utilities: permanent and therefore sanitary provision of water services would be cost-prohibitive due to the site's topography. Equally, environmental issues regarding fuel provision, types and building construction should be of consideration in line with local and national initiatives regarding 'new homes'; gypsy and traveller status should not preclude these.

6 & 7. Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence... Evidence: as recently as Thursday 11th July gypsies occupying land set 'woodland on fire' and left an area 'rubbish-strewn' in the Whitnash and Myton Fields areas (Leamington Observer, week 29, Thursday July 18th 2013, p1). Having lived near the Ryton site where elaborate static homes replete with porticoes and Grecian columns have an adverse impact on the natural environment with no restraint placed upon such building and directly experienced the negative impact this site has had it is not difficult to object to such sites near to the community in which I live. My children attended Bilton School (which was subject to repeat encampments) where dogs were encouraged by their owners to run at the school fencing to intimidate the students and who were also spat at and sworn at to the point where the school Leadership team banned students from using the school field. Gypsy and traveller sites do not want to integrate into the landscape nor the local community regardless of the notion of 'permanency' which has equal cultural meaning to both a settled community and formerly transient community but which are discrete and apposite to each other. Ryton is a clear example of this.

8. Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services: in relation to increased traffic, consideration should be given to the types of traffic which will place undue pressure on these. Large static homes require specialist transportation and installation which cannot be easily effected in any numbers via a steep farm track. In addition, the roads surrounding Golf Lane have traffic issues, double-parking and Golf Lane is now surrounded by speed humps which do not provide traffic calming measures but encourage erratic driving methods. To try and negotiate the surrounding roads and indeed the sharp bend at the top of Golf Lane/Whitnash Road with attendant speed humps would be dangerous. In addition, the already reduced services in terms of rubbish disposal to a fortnightly collection would be put under further pressure. The ongoing alliance between West Mercia and Warwickshire police has already led to large numbers of redundancies to police and support staff in an effort to meet budgetary constraints.

9. Traditional lifestyles: this is not peculiar to a traveller community; many people, from all professions, work from their home address including those with 'remote' offices or in craft industries. Therefore, sustainability in terms of location without specific examples of what constitutes 'traditional lifestyles' again would be subjective.

My objections to GT04 are equally relevant given the proximity of the sites with the exception of improved road access from Harbury Lane.

In closing, I would suggest that the required numbers of pitches to allow identified numbers of Gypsy and Traveller's permanent settlements are not 'bunched' into one area. Surely, the best scenario of this enforced situation is to spread integration and therefore avoid ghettos or creating undue disharmony in happy, 'settled' communities.

Dear sirs,

I feel the need to email my comments regarding recent consultations and the local plans for development and travellor sites within the Warwick area.
I have massive reservations to both the plans and have listed them below.
I hope that I am in time to make my objections heard within the consultation period.
I would like to comment that we were not informed properly, and only found out about these activities by doing research and talking to others in the local community. Having heard that wheely bins had flyers left on them (we don't have a wheely bin), local radio and supermarkets used as tools (we work long hours and are at work when this must have happened, I must admit I am very disappointed by the councils actions.
I do understand the needs and government requirements but wonder if all consequences have been taken into consideration, Warwick is a small chocolate box town which tourists flock to and local businesses need.

Local development plan
Over 6000 dwellings planned for construction

1- pollution
This area is already measured as above levels of pollution that are acceptable for townships, adding to the number of homes and cars will only increase this unacceptable level. This in turn increases the risks of asthma and other ailments in the young and frail. I would also like to point out that at least 20% of people who die from lung cancer have never smoked, a statistic that should not be ignored when planning to massively increase areas of population.

2 - road infrastructure
The road system around this area cannot sustain the number of vehicles that use the roads. Traffic build up, congestion and long ques are something that we all struggle with. It can often take 45 minutes to drive the few miles from Warwick to Leamington. This is also affecting properties and how stable they are structurally. The M40 junctions near Tachbrook and out to Gaydon already have long ques on the hard shoulder in the mornings where people have to wait hoping that nothing will happen to them whilst other drivers rocket past them at 70 miles an hour.
Surely this will also have an impact on local businesses, as they rely on people passing through for trade, and using the current road systems, I understand that plans to change traffic flows could mean a threat to our small beautiful town. Having had a car written off whilst it was parked outside my home, it is a worry to me that more cars will only mean more risk of damage, and worse.

3 - flood impact
This area does have problems with surface water collection, not technically flooding, but major issues are often seen. Surely new building areas will only increase these problems as there will be less natural land for water to discourse into.

4 - sewer systems
Can the current sewer system take the amount of new homes proposed? Considering that the water board don't have accurate plans for the sewer systems I wonder how this will be reported against and updated.

5 - entertainment for young people
We already have problems with vandalism (especially cars and during holiday periods) in the area and with an increase in homes, families and teenagers it seems only logical that without enterntainments to keep them occupied this will quite possibly increase. I wonder how many times my car will be keyed, bonnet jumped on, wing mirror smashed off, washer jet caps stolen again in the future. I don't have infinite funds to keep repairing damage caused, and would like to see some proper actions made to decrease these.

Travellor sites

1 - access to GP's, schools & public transport
The current population struggles with access to see GP's, and it takes over two weeks to have a scheduled appointment with a doctor or nurse unless you take the tact of it being urgent, an increase in people in the area will only make this worse.
Local schools are already too large, and are struggling with the numbers of children needing places, how can this be managed effectively?

2 - avoiding flood areas
Flood or surface water problems, as we do have surface water issues, which are not recorded and reported against. Making it a little inaccurate to use only a flood report to go on.

3 - noise and disturbance
Wherever there are groups of people there will be noise disturbance.

4 - undue pressure on local infrastructure
With all the activities planned it is clear that this will have an impact on an already fragile infrastructure.

5 - integration in local landscapes
Having seen how a site is left on television program's, I don't feel I understand how this is possible without proper management of sites, which I understand will not happen.

I know not a valid reason for complaint but it was discussed at a consultation meeting that council tax would be required to be paid, but I don't understand how this wil be collected, rates also fall into this.
I would also like to know who will fund the proposed utility blocks.
Could you advise what numbers of sites are required in adjoining wards, as it seems our green belt land percentage is massive and I do wonder if this has been considered.

I hope these reasons can be taken into consideration as being genuine and relevant concerns.

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.

Why are we being compelled to pay for the comfort of these "travellers"?. Why is our money being wasted on a bunch of n'er-do-wells and spongers?
Did we force them to choose the life they lead? NO! Do they provide any benefit to society? NO! If they choose the travelling life then they should TRAVEL. If they want to live in one place, then let them do as the rest of us do and pay through the nose for the privilege. If they choose to live a life outside of decent society, then decent society should not be compelled to fund it in any way shape or form. Why should the pleasant Warwickshire countryside be polluted by these untrustworthy ragamuffins? Have you seen the state that the land is left in when these scum finally deign to "travel" again? Who cares that they have shorter lives, are less well educated etc. If they want these benefits then they should PAY for them, just like the rest of us do and live healthier lifestyles. In short the Council should be doing everything in its power NOT to provide any facilities. Why should any normal, honest citizens of Warwickshire have to put up with this dross living next door to them?. Why should the value of the properties that they have worked so hard to pay for be drastically reduced due to their unfortunate proximity to these sites?.
I therefore say NO to any sites ANYWHERE in the country being provided for these people.

Dear Sir / Madam:

I am writing to express my objections to the suggestions contained within the New Local Plan, specifically the proposals in respect of provision for Gipsy and Traveller sites within the Warwick area.

Several areas around Warwick have already undergone significant development over the past decade, one such example being the Chase Meadow estate which has already placed a burden on the local infrastructure and amenities. Current and future development will place an even greater burden on the local schools, doctors, roads and recreational / social facilities; this would only be exasperated by the locating of Gypsy and Traveller sites in close proximity.

Further to this the locating of Gypsy and Traveller sites will have a huge negative impact on the town of Warwick, especially tourism and the many local businesses that rely upon this. You only have to look at the example set by many shop / restaurant owners who close early when there is an influx of Gypsies and Travellers for the Bank Holiday race meeting.

I do hope that the views of the Warwick population are considered seriously during this review and that common sense prevails and that the historical town of Warwick can continue to be the wonderful place it is to live and raise families.

Dear Sirs,

The Town Council has considered the proposals and sites set out in the Consultation document published June 2013 and endorses the approach taken by the District Council in providing adequate land for accommodating Gypsies and Travellers in the Local Plan.

Dear District Council
We wish to object to the proposed local plan on the following grounds:
* There is excessive new housing. The housing allocations in the plan should cater for "indigenous" growth, perhaps with a small growth for economic growth purposes. But not this huge amount of new housing.
* The land proposed for employment is also excessive, especially given the amount of vacant employment sites, some of which have been vacant for many years.
* The plan does not take into account the proposed growth outside of the district in the Lighthorne/Gaydon/Kineton area.
* The plan concentrates housing to the south of Warwick and Leamington. No consideration has been given to minor modifications to the green belt to provide a more equitable distribution of growth to the north and south of these two town centres.
* The impact on transport north-south through Warwick and Leamington will be severe, especially given the limited number of river crossings.
* Warwick and Leamington town centres will suffer from congestion and poor quality air. This will make them less attractive to visitors and shoppers.
* The proposed gypsy/traveller sites are,again, concentrated to the south of Warwick and Leamington rather than being distributed more evenly through the district.

see attached

It is a fact that there are plenty of Caravan and camping sites in Warwickshire already authorised to take Touring and Static vans (Stratford upon Avon and Warwick Racecourse being just two of several in Warwickshire). If people want to stay in Warwickshire for 1 nights or even several months (or on a residential basis) there are established Caravan and Camping sites (with all of the facilities named on your document e..g toilets, showers, car parking etc) that are already set up for exactly that purpose. There are already laws in place to prevent owners of these sites turning people away on grounds of ethnicity if that was a reason for thinking these sites were not suitable. There are also many more pitches than the 30+ you are seeking to accommodate.

With regards to the two sites referred to in your document.

The current site on Kites Nest Lane is in breach of planning law and was occupied in very bad faith (Bank Holiday weekend when the planning office was shut etc). To even suggest legalising it by including it in the consultation document sends a terrible message to the residents of that site and anyone else thinking that way to get their own way is to do something illegal and then resist the law until such time as the law changes to suit them.

Similarly, the site near the Shell Garage in Hatton has been breaching the law for years with Caravans being occupied on that site in spite of it not being a licensed camping ground. To legalise this send a similarly bad message.

I am very disappointed in your approach which in my opinion gives support to those carrying out illegal activities.
Caravan and camping sites are not suitable for permanent residential use and planning permission for such a site is distinctly different to that for a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site. There are often reasons why a caravan and camping site may not be suitable for long term residents such as being located on a former landfill site or contaminated land. The Gypsy and Traveller community has a large number of 'homeless' people in that they have nowhere that they can locate their home legally. The Council is obliged to provide accommodation to meet the needs of all its residents (and those who wish to live in the district, but do not have a permanent base). Gypsy and Traveller sites are considered to be 'affordable housing' and as such attract a similar rent, council tax etc. to that of a Council rental property.

With regard to the site at Kites Nest Lane, it has been included in the consultation document as we have included all sites that have been suggested to us as potential sites for Gypsies and Travellers by the landowners themselves. The landowner here has suggested that this is a site for consideration and we have therefore, to be fair to all landowners, included it within the consultation document. This does not suggest that the site is supported by the Council and indeed it has consistently refused planning applications on the site at Beausale and pursued enforcement action, including through the courts. Officers have, once again, defended the refusal of planning permission at the second appeal recently.
The site on Birmingham Road is, as far as I can tell, a certified site that a number of other unauthorised uses have taken place at this site, however, these have been dealt with. The site has been proposed as it meets many of the criteria required for a suitable site for the use of Gypsies and Travellers. However, the results of the consultation and further work into its suitability will decide whether it is included in the next stage of provision.

Having lived in and enjoyed living in Hampton Magna for almost 20 years I am of course concerned about what goes on locally, and this seems to be the biggest single thing so far. We have had proposals to turn the former Warwickshire Regiment parade ground into a mini-industrial site (now a livery stable, much more in keeping with the surroundings), a telephone signal mast on the verge of a blind bend (thankfully not materialised) and of course the reality of Warwick Parkway Station. This is a very useful facility, although I am dismayed at the way the car park is gradually creeping across the land on the other side of the road, and of course the surrounding promised landscaping never happened (weeds galore instead of properly planted and maintained grounds by the station building). The other issue is that complaints regarding commuter parking in Hampton Magna are not taken seriously. Further afield there is Chase Meadow and Hatton Park - the land is considerably less green than when we first moved here and thought how nice it was to be living in the countryside. The green belt has been eaten into enough around here in the last 20 years - what's the use of it if you keep allowing it to be built on?

Moving on to the proposed housing. Whilst not really wanting any change personally, I agree with the broad principle that new housing, both large and affordable homes, are needed locally and that all communities should be prepared to accept some new housing. The problem I have with the current plan is the percentage scale compared with the size of the existing community of Hampton Magna. Up to 150 new houses added to the current 600 is actually a 25% increase in the size of the village as a whole. This seems to me an unreasonable increase - for a village whose residents are used to open fields and countryside around them an increase of 25% is breathtaking. An increase of any size is unwelcome, but in line with my view above an increase of 5% - 10% would show that we are not "nimbys" and are prepared to shoulder our fair share of the burden. There lies the word - FAIR - 25% is NOT.

The other worry I have is local access and services. Wherever you see new housing the local services are slow to follow - bus services, extra school places, community facilities all take a ridiculous second place. How long have the first houses been up at Chase Meadow? They are just getting their community centre now. It isn't good enough. Hampton Magna needs a new community centre to replace the current tired and cramped building - how about these developers should replace this first as a gesture to the community in return for destroying so much green belt land for their profits? The school is full to bursting with current and future known students, never mind the extra ones from the proposed new houses - again the developers should help to pay for new school buildings to cope, and at the same time ease the burden on us taxpayers.
Hampton Magna suffers from restricted access due to the 2 sets of traffic lights and the road narrowing out onto the Birmingham Road - it can take 15 minutes to leave the village at peak travel times, and this by all logic will only get worse with 10% more housing, never mind 25%. At the latter percentage and two cars per house that's an extra 50% increase in traffic every day. We already have a considerable amount of "rat run" traffic, the roads have blind bends, narrowings etc. and really do not need more cars. Going out the other way through Hampton on the Hill is no better - blind bends, more narrowings, a blind summit and a fairly dreadful junction out on to the Henley Road.

Gypsy sites - oh such an emotive subject, and quite rightly so. Again logic says if they are so keen to be called travellers why do they need permanent sites? Who pays for them to be built, maintained and administered? I think I can probably make a shrewd guess of the answer on this one. What do travellers get on these permanent sites? Do they pay rent whilst they are there in residence? Are there penalties imposed for misuse? You should provide a lot more information to us permanent, sitting-duck, tax- and council-tax, national insurance, private pension-paying residents so that we can see why you are so keen to accommodate these people on our doorsteps. Just saying central government has told us to doesn't impress I'm afraid. I am not in favour at all, especially as the Hampton Magna/Budbrooke/Hatton area has the majority of the proposed sites, but maybe I would be a bit more flexible if I could be assured that I would not be driving past a dirty smelly tip passing for a residential complex on a daily basis. My experience of travelling people is not happy - a fight amongst 6 year olds at my childrens' primary school within 2 weeks of travelling children being temporarily enrolled, having to park at work after travellers illegally used it as a place to live and left behind all manner of disgusting and unnecessary mess, and the burglary of a neighbour's house where I used to live directly linked to travellers in the area.

All in all, I am not in favour of your local plan as it stands - please at least decrease the number of houses Hampton Magna is expected to take and insist that developers make a significant contribution to local infrastructure before they build. Please distribute the gypsy sites fairly throughout the area - we should really only have to put up with one small one like everyone else if we have to have any at all.

Regarding the travellers sites, I have spoken with my SNT sergeants none of the locations on the list stick out as particularly worse or better than the others from a crime and disorder point of view.
We only have the one site which is relatively small and remotely located at Beausale and we have no evidence to suggest that this has had an impact on crime levels. We have good relations with the people on the site who are always friendly and polite. I can't speak for anywhere elsedisorder point of view.

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.

I am writing to you this morning to express my concerns and dissatisfaction regarding your proposals for Gypsy and Traveller Sites in and around the Warwick area - in particular, the proposed site on Hampton Road by the racecourse.

I am a resident in Warwick Chase estate, located extremely near to this proposed site. I have only recently moved into the area in the last year and have a small family (my daughter was born last October).

Whilst I'm extremely happy with the local facilities in terms of their close proximity and convenience, I can already see an impact on surrounding roads, Doctors and local facilities due to the large number of people moving into the area. This area has undergone significant development over the last few years and there is definitely an overburden on the area.

I'm particularly concerned regarding schools too - it won't be long before I send my daughter to school and I am already concerned about how difficult this may become due to the higher number of applicants.

I'm extremely concerned that allowing these sites will only exacerbate the issues I've just outlined. I believe the local infrastructure will simply not be able to support one or more of these sites and after reading your planning policy, this appears to be in direct conflict with the policy.

Also, the proposed site on Hampton Road is extremely close to green belt land and sits within part of the flood plain. I believe green belt land should be protected where possible and also, any further building work / hard standing within that area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain and put that area at further risk - severely impacting us local residents.

Taking all of these reasons into account, I strongly object to your proposals and would ask that you take serious thought in re-considering / reviewing your original proposals.

After having talked to many people I know living locally, I can assure you their sentiments are the same - there is an overriding feeling of strong objection and this is shared widely across the local area.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find below my various representations with regard to the proposed site options.

In line with the report I wish to make representations on a number of points as detailed below.

1. Introduction

No comment

2. Background

No comment

3. Who are Gypsies and Travellers?

No comment

4. What are the Issues?

No comment

5. Policy Background

SUPPORT

National policy is correct in advocating that (1) local planning authorities work together to identify sites and (2) that decision-taking protects Green Belt from inappropriate development and makes enforcement more effective.

On Point (1) it is therefore extremely worrying that Warwick District Council (WDC) is no longer working with other authorities to consider plans on a cross-authority basis, which it has a duty to do under the 2011 Localism Act. On point (2) WDC makes no distinction between Green Belt and non-Green Belt sites in its policy criteria so again contradicts national policy.

6. Evidence Base

No comment

7. Local Plan Requirements

OBJECT

The policy criteria listed by WDC are sensible.

However they omit crucial aspects of national guidance including (1) that plan-making and decision-taking should protect Green Belt from inappropriate development and (2) sites must be in appropriate locations. Why?

There is also the fact that WDC is no longer working on a cross-authority basis to provide sites. Again, why when much of WDC is covered by Green Belt (80%)? Surely by definition travellers are nomadic and the requirement for pitches should not be restricted to Warwick District?

8. Identification of Potential Sites

OBJECT

Section 8.1 is inadequate. WDC should list all sites within it's ownership and explain why it considers each site to be unacceptable.

Section 8.3, in which WDC is seeking to identify sites itself is a total dereliction of its duty under the 2011 Localism Act. WDC contains a high proportion of Green Belt and the Council should be looking to share supply of sites in appropriate locations with other authorities.

Site listing criteria should distinguish first whether locations are appropriate according to national and local planning policy. This is a planning document and land ownership (and willingness to sell) should not be a concern due to CPO powers.

9. Sites for consideration and comment
10. Table of Sites

GT01 Land adjacent to the Colbalt Centre, Siskin Drive

No Comment

GT02 Land abutting the Fosse Way at its junction with the B425

No comment

GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm

No comment

GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way

No comment

GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm

No comment

GT06 Land at Park Farm, Spinney Farm

No comment

GT07 Land at Stoneleigh Road

No comment

GT08 Depot to the west side of Cubbington Hill Farm

No comment

GT09 Land to the north east of M40

No comment

GT10 Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre

No comment

GT11 Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road

No comment

GT12 Land north and west of Westham Lane (area of search)

No comment

GT13 Kites Nest Lane, Beausale

OBJECT

Kites Nest Lane, Beausale is totally inappropriate as a site for this purpose because:

1. It is a greenfield site in the open countryside within the Green Belt and any use for this purpose (or residential etc) is inappropriate development. The National Planning Policy Framework protects the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

2. Adopting it as a possible site would legitimise the long-running unauthorised applications to impose this illegal use at this site. WDC has rightly objected to such applications (although achieved nothing in removing the illegal settlement) and allowing development through this process would set an extremely damaging precedent in this and other areas that will attract significant public disapproval. National policy supports effective enforcement against unauthorised developments.

3. Access to local services is limited.

4. Its rural location means that this use cannot be integrated in the landscape without harming the character and amenity of the area in terms of aesthetic appearance and noise.

GT14 Warwick Road, Norton Lindsey

No comment

GT15 Land east of Europa Way

No comment

GT16 Land to north of Westham Lane and west of Wellesbourne Road, Barford (small site)

No comment

GT17 Service area west of A46 Old Budbrooke Way

No comment

GT18 Service area east of A46 Old Budbrooke Way

No comment

GT19 Land off Birmingham Road, Budbrooke, Oaklands Farm

OBJECT

Land at Oaklands Farm, Birmingham Road is totally inappropriate as a site for this purpose because:

1. It is in the Green Belt and any use for this purpose (or residential etc) is inappropriate development. The National Planning Policy Framework protects the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

2. Access to the road network is not safe - Birmingham Road is 2-way and heavily congested, particularly during peak times. There was a fatal traffic accident immediately outside the proposed site in 2010.

3. It is adjacent to the Grand Union Canal running locally between Warwick and Hatton offering views of Warwick Castle and St Nicholas Church.

As stated on numerous websites including Hatton Parish Council, the Canal & River Trust and Enjoy Warwick, (to name but a few), Hatton is home to one of the most picturesque spots on the Grand Union Canal.

The famous Hatton Flights, otherwise known as "The Stairway to Heaven" contains 21 locks in less than two miles, raising or dropping the Grand Union Canal by 146.5 feet. They are an excellent example of original and recent canal engineering providing two hundred years of waterways history at a key location on the Grand Union canal.

As part of a Heritage Lottery Funded Working Boats Project, a pair of restored working boats that once worked this route are moored on the Hatton Flights. A recent Heritage Lottery funded project has also made some of the local history available to visitors through information panels, leaflets, a family wildlife trail along the Hatton Flights, education packs and picnic benches.

This is a very popular towpath for boaters, walkers, runners and cyclists alike whose amenity will be greatly impacted by the occupation/development of this site.

Its location will further impact on the visual amenity of the Grand Union Canal.

4. The site may be prone to flooding due to its location next to a water network.

GT20 Land at Junction 15 of M40

No comment

Do you have any other suggestions for land within this district that you think would be suitable for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site?

No comment

I look forward to receiving your comments and trust that the Council will make a well informed and well researched decision when it comes to sites to be considered in greater detail.