And I would like you to re-raise the issue of there being no public meetings held in SWWarwick, yet it is the greater concentration of potential sites.
You list Warwick Gates, Baginton (Coventry), Sydenham, Bishops Tachbrook, Kenilworth (where there are no potential sites), North Leamington (again where there are virtually no sites), and Whitnash.
None of these provide an opportunity for the residents of SWarwick yet we have in one case four potential sites within 1000 metres of a large area of housing. Thus an unfair and biased process as we have no way of voicing opinion/ objection.
How biased is that?
There must be due and proper consultation. The plan you have for the public meetings does not provide this.

We are writing to express our concern at the level of proposed new housing in south leamington. We live in Bishops Tachbrook which has long fought to maintain its village status and we feel this is slowly slipping away. We feel very strongly that the amount of proposed new housing will have a tremendous negative impact on the area - the road system will not cope and nor will local facilities. Also we feel that North Leamington is escaping any of this upset and we feel the housing should be more evenly distributed - we also feel the amount of housing is far too high. How many houses in the area are let to students that could be used for the housing market. More purpose built accommodation could then be built for students ,which would greatly reduce the amount of land required.
There are also great concerns about the sites that are being looked at for traveller sites - alot of these are around Tachbrook and again north leamington is not to be inconvenienced!Why do the council have to supply 25 out of 31 pitches in the first five years and how do they expect local schools to cope with this? We hope you will listen to our concerns and think again about this plan.

It is unreasonable to push such a high percentage of proposed sites into the small no-Greenbelt area of WDC. Due consideration should be given to integrating G&T sites within larger general development areas both within and outside the current Greenbelt.

Proposals should state clearly what the required area per pitch is being assumed. A number of the potential sites identified would probably be large enough to meet the identified need alone. The trade-off between size of site and number implemented is worthy of careful consideration. Something else needing clarification is the degree of site supervision envisioned, the cost thereof and how it is to be funded, i.e. what charges if any will be levied on site users.

Has the area around Apps Farm on the Banbury Road out of Warwick been considered?
There appears to be a failed / closed caravan site there which would be worth exploring with the landowner as presumably it is set up for just this need

In any areas where schools, doctors and dentists are already oversubscribed is a mistake, this is particularly relevant on the south side of Warwick where access to the facilities required would be difficult. It would also place strain on the already overworked infrastructure by adding commuter type journeys. The site at Beausale is for consideration which has previously been denied planning permission, this could be reverted and a site made permanent allowing those travellers already in place to continue. A sensible solution.

I object to the identification of potential sites within the area of search being in the green belt. The NPPF states that inappropriate development in the green belt should not be permitted and therefore no sites within the green belt should be identified.

For the attention of the Development Policy Manager

I have attended recent planning meetings and have read the documents relating to the Local Plan and I am writing to you to object to the revised development strategy for the Local Plan.

Housing estimates

The projected demand for new houses is 12,300. This is a huge number of houses and would equate to 8 times the size of Warwick Gates. The Revised Development Strategy gives no justification for this demand either in terms of demographic changes or more importantly the future assessment for employment in the district.

From the recent local meetings, it appears that a realistic forecast of demand would mean that we already have the required five year supply of sites to fulfill the employment forecasts.

The National Planning Policy Framework specifically states that councils should take into account neighbouring schemes and yet no mention is made of the proposals by Stratford District Council to build a new 'village' of 4500 homes near Gaydon, which would be nearer to Warwick than Stratford. This is another 3 x Warwick Gates. There must be some overlap in the assumptions made for the demand in such a small area and the plan should not proceed until that demand is justified by realistic assumptions.
Any housing demand should be satisfied by smaller developments spread throughout the district, not huge developments located in the area south of Warwick. Since over 70% of the district is Green Belt , the future expansion of the whole district is forced into the relatively small area South of Warwick. This is a ridiculously unfair proposition and is within the power of the Council to change.

Transport

Warwick currently has major traffic congestion problems. The development of a huge number of new houses, equivalent to 11 x Warwick Gates, will create massive congestion around Warwick and there is no evidence to show that the proposed infrastructure changes will provide any significant improvements to ease that congestion.

Air Quality

The air quality issue is of great concern. I understand that air pollution levels in Warwick and Leamington already exceed the legal limit. The District Council is required to improve air quality. The expansion of the population and cars in the town will increase the levels of pollution and could well bring risk of significant health issues.


Warwick Hospital.

Continuing on the theme of health, Warwick hospital is a relatively small hospital just about coping with the needs of the current population. Add 8 x Warwick Gates (plus the likely effect of the Gaydon 'village' - 3 x Warwick Gates) and it is clear that the demands will exceed the capacity of the hospital to cope with the increased population. The national press is currently highlighting the damage to communities around the country where hospitals cannot cope with the local demand.

Historic Environment

There is no doubt that the plans will ruin the visual look of Warwick forever. The increase in traffic and people will deter visitors and affect the local economy. We need to conserve the beauty of Warwick not plan to destroy it.

Gypsy & Traveller Sites

Whatever the criteria used for the selection of sites, it appears that over half of the sites have been allocated to the relatively small area south of Warwick. (the same area which is proposed to take all the huge new housing developments ! ). Does it not seem inequitable that there is only one site near the north of Leamington; similarly inequitable that there are no sites at all in Kenilworth, Leek Wooton, Lapworth, Rowington and Shrewley. The identification of sites should be fair and equitable.

I would be most grateful if you would note my objections, which are based on my fear that our beautiful town of Warwick will be destroyed in the future.

I would like to lodge my objection to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocations (all of them) via this e-mail as the actual planning internet site is not working.

This is due to the stereotype of them being dirty, work-shy, tax evading, (some of them) criminal and bad for the community in terms of tourist. attraction.

I think we should keep Warwickshire as a well known 'Home' for tourism for the whole country.

I am sure my e-mail will make no difference at all to policy and the plans will be approved but thought I'd send it anyway.

Having recently received the above programme, I am amazed that so much effort and money is being spent when care for the elderly is far more critical. Why do these people require
'sites'. The clue is in the name 'Gypsy' and 'Tavellers'. They DO NOT need sites.

In my experience these people have been a cause of inconvenience,nuisance,disruption and a lowering standards and property values wherever they settle. They 'cock a snook' at
our society and many of our laws.

Councils throughout the country have been weak in dealing with Travellers, both Solihull council in relation to the Meriden problem and Warwickshire in relation to Beausale, clearly
illustrate the frustration felt by many. Why can these people move onto a site, in breach of the law, in under 48 hours and yet our equally weak courts give them weeks and sometimes
months to leave?

I object most strongly to these proposals in providing sites for such disruptive and unreasonable groups.

I feel that the quality of life in the UK has been allowed to deteriorate far too much already and it is time for some old fashioned discipline and common sense to be applied.

I strongly believe that the assumptions about housing need for the district are still flawed.
I support the concerns raised by Ray Bullen of Bishops Tachbrook and which are supported by many of the Parish Councils. I urge the Council to take full heed of this work and to revise proposals accordingly, and significantly reduce the proposed number of new houses.

Proposals for new infrastructure are simply not adequate for the level of development being suggested.
However, the correct level of infrastructure development would totally damage the district and ruin the historic market town of Warwick and the rural communities and countryside.
Ferncumbe School at Hatton is full and oversubscribed, yet the proposals are for further housing development around Hatton !
The A4177 is already gridlocked at peak times yet the proposals will generate further traffic!
It is understood that air quality in the district is already failing EC health limits and it is unacceptable to advance plans that will make this situation worse.
There is hard evidence of traffic accidents on the A4177 noted in Hatton Parish Plan.

Proposals to develop housing at Hatton Park are simply not in keeping with the heritage site of Hatton locks and canal. This site is an important tourist and historic site and all steps should be taken to prevent any adverse impact on or around this site. Housing development adjacent to the canal would be seriously detrimental.
The same argument would also apply to the siting of a traveller site anywhere in the environs of Hatton Locks or canal. Such a site could lead to anti social behaviour and security issues for boaters, walkers and cyclists using the canal and towpath. The District Council objected to the wood business at Oaklands Farm on the grounds of adverse visual amenity. It would now be perverse to consider a traveller site at the same location.

The Green Belt is as important now, if not more so, than when it was first introduced.
Urban sprawl is significant in the proposals, and there is now an even greater need to preserve the existing level of Green Belt land.

There is wide opposition to the Development Plan and I understand that the local MP's have raised serious concerns.
The Governments requirement for Localism seems to have been ignored, with this plan having little or no regard for the views and needs of local communities.

The suggested location on travellers near Harbury is ill thought through.

The Fosse Way which would run past the site is already congested at peak time and is a high risk route for accidents.

The medical availability is nil locally the GPs have full list .

Harbury infant school ( supposing the travellers with to send their children) is also full.

I would like to object to the proposed gypsy sites.
There are not enough local amenities eg GPs surgery's
It will add even more traffic to an already stretched road network.
It will have a damaging an financially negative impact on local area.
There are no gas or sewerage facilities and the area is prone to flooding.
Put this together with all the other potential development in the area, and Whitnash and the surrounding villages will be swallowed up!!!
I object.

We have read with interest the Local Plan on your website. We are aware of a potential site on Warwick Gates for development but find the plan vague with regards to Traveller sites in particular.
As residents living on Warwick Gates we are concerned about any further developments without extra infrastructure being provided.
There is no local school provision on Warwick Gates which has caused difficulties with gaining a place at a good local Primary school. We personally travel to Barford as with some other parents, to obtain a good standard of education for our children.
Other families we know are spread across schools in Harbury, Coten End, Woodloes etc. We are aware there are spaces at Whitnash Primary but there are lots of parents which would be unhappy to put their child in a school which recently has been in special measures. Briar Hill Primary School and St Margaret's our nearest school already oversubscribed.
The nearest catchment school for Secondary education (Myton) is also over subscribed which also puts additional pressure on the infrastructure.
It is unusual for us to take such a strong view and I am very liberal minded but we are especially against an local Traveller accommodation which as we specified above would put an impossible burden on our community and schools.
The recent difficulties which residents have had when Traveller sites have appeared on the edge of Warwick Gates has given us a direct insight to the problems which it can cause.
We know that it is a difficult decision on where to put these sites but next to an estate which is already under strain from adequate schools provision and which has first hand experience of living next to Travellers is not the place to consider this.

I have a few objections to traveller sites but understand that they are needed. I am not anti-traveller. Most peoples opinions are based on the travellers themselves not the sites. I feel my following questions are necessary and I would like them to be considered and answered.
1) My main concern is who is allowed to use these sites? I own a campervan - can I use them? Are all the new EU travellers allowed to use them? The Romanian and Bulgarian travellers who are allowed to enter the UK soon have a fearsome reputation, as portrayed in news from the UK, Europe and the rest of the world. Are all people who travel here considered travellers? Will the number of sites continue to rise as our neighbours from Europe continue to enter? More and more UK/Irish born travellers are seeking permanent residences. Who are we catering for? Are these sites needed?
2) Why are the majority of the sites the south side of Warwick? I have looked at the map of considered sites and 14 of the 20 are clustered around Warwick. Warwickshire is a large county and I am unsure why the new sites are not evenly spread.
3) Who will clean up these sites once the travellers have moved on? Who will clean the communal sanitary facilities that are to be based on each site? Will each site be given waste and recycling bins for refuse collection? How will fly tipping/dumping be managed around the sites? Is this being taken into account in next years budget?
4) Will there be local police teams set up to manage typical public complaints and concerns - such as anti-social behaviour, petty crime, dog baiting, joy-riding, unlicensed drivers, doorstep selling etc.
5) Will local schools (specifically primary as few traveller children go to secondary school) be expected to take traveller children as they move around sites? I live near Wolverton School, Budbrooke, Ferncumbe CofE and Claverdon Primary School. These schools are already at maximum capacity with long waiting lists. Will children of local families who are on the waiting lists be ignored as Traveller children are put first? Everyone deserves an education but this concerns me greatly.
The suggested sites which are near motorways, or on the edges of towns should be considered over the rural village sites. They may also be more convenient and comfortable for the travellers themselves. Towns can absorb a greater number of people and have always been a melting pot for all ethnicities and races. Town services can cope with a fluctuating population of people far better than a rural village as there is more to go around. We are already struggling with stretched rural community services for doctors, nurses, schools, transport and emergency services. Traveller sites near or around villages will stretch some of these beyond breaking point. Affordable housing is needed in rural areas to stop depopulation, not traveller sites.

We, Rate/Taxpayers, do not provide public funds to subsidise these people's lifestyle.They are not taxpaying citizens. They pay nothing into society and so should not expect any special benefits.
It is of course true that not all gypsies are criminals, but as a general rule, their campsites create mess and foster petty crime, putting further pressures upon our hard pressed services.
Until the local council and government collect funds from travellers for services and rubbish clearing we should spent not a penny.
They should use a Campsite / Caravan Park like every other person who wants to travel. If they were willing to pay like everyone else the Private sector would be building these Campsites all over the country; but since they are demanding the rate/taxpayer provide these; at no cost to themselves, this isn't going to happen.
I would suggest any councillors voting for these proposals should buy a caravan, and become a traveller, because voters will not forgive or forget.

I would just like to ask how much the council spends each year cleaning up as a result of the traveller community.
I live on Warwick Gates and get angry every time they park there or thereabouts and leave a disgusting mess when they move on. Personally I would sent them back to Ireland where the majority have a house.
Let them pay to clear the mess up every time and maybe then and only then should we consider setting aside a permanent site

As a resident of the Chase Meadow estate for 19 years I wish to put on record that I am Totally opposed to any sites within close proximity of this estate. We have seen from experience over a number of years the mess this 'travelling community' generate and the disruption they cause to local businesses.It is us council tax payers who have to foot the bill for the clean up operation and there behaviour is not acceptable

I know it may be far too late/impossible, but with the radical changes being proposed and extension of building to the North of Radford Semele it might also be again prudent to consider (the viability of) a bypass to the village.
This opportunity for a bypass road seemed to have been lost when development begun around Asda without this being integrated into the plans for extending Sydenham, but there remains an insurmountable bottleneck to further major development outside Radford Semele because of the road diminution in the village, impact on the Village and surrounding listed buildings. The current main exit road through the village to Southam is not desirable, cutting the village in two with a major A road, although I am not sure now what alternatives remain given the Asda development which would have provided an opportunity to provide a relief road for lorries &c..
Notwithstanding this, there remains an argument for further reducing the speed limit through the village to 20mph, together with traffic calming measures, given proximity of residential buildings and, at least as I understand it, plans to further build in the village or its environs. If planning permission is granted for development, your seeking to determine the most practical of such measures and seeking costs from developers for their development could be of value.

Regarding the new local plan, there are various concerns I have with the plan itself and with how the plan itself has been presented to the local people of Warwick. My objections and concerns are as follows:

Firstly, as a resident of the Chase Meadow estate since 2005, we already live near a busy motorway junction with the obvious additional through traffic that comes with such nearby infrastructure. Since the initial link road was opened (linking up with the A429) we noticed a growth in traffic along Purser Drive, therefore also impacting upon the junction with Hampton Road. Thus, surely the proposed plan for a travellers' site will impact further on this traffic issue and then with the new link road we will see even more vehicles using these significant roads. As a parent with young children this is obviously a concern - we chose to live away from a main road and don't wish to see our estate roads become busier still. Furthermore, illogically, your own audit on sustainability queried the sense of placing the travellers near these roads with such significant usage already both in terms of how it would affect the families being placed on these proposed sites (who presumably would hope for quieter area suitable for children to be safe) and regarding the already heavy vehicular usage so this begs the question regarding the issue of road safety alone whether the proposed sites are in sensible locations for all concerned parties.

Another concern for me is with the flood plain issue, the proposed travellers' Hampton Road site is partially in the flood plain. Again the logic of this choice stuns me; in this time of increased nationalised flooding we should all be protecting our flood plains and ensuring they are strictly 'off limits' yet the proposed Hampton Road site would allow an area of this land to be changed in order to stand vehicles on for long periods of time - obviously this is going to affect the land's ability to absorb water! Once again this decision would impact upon the local residents of this area and the travellers who would be able to live there. How is an increased risk of flooding fair to the travellers family groups that would utilise this site? In addition to this, as someone who is deeply interested in sustainability of our eco-system, the fact that other sites are near to Green Belt areas worries me. These Green Belt areas are designated for a reason...they should not have building occurring nearby or have regular moving vehicles positioned near either. In my view all kinds of wildlife need to be effectively protected not merely in name only and therefore such proposed sites should not be so close to these areas of Green Belt land. There are other sites that could be chosen that will not negatively impact upon the wildlife that needs careful and watchful protection.

Lastly, it saddens me that this plan has not been effectively proposed or discussed in public. Being committed to local as well as national political discussion is important to ensure a healthy democracy yet it really feels as if the plan has been kept hidden or not discussed as openly as it could have been. In the public meetings held at Aylesford School and Warwick School, many councillors that sat around the table initially sorting out the various aspects of the local plan in its infancy- from road closures to new housing needs and proposed travellers' sites- were not present. Surely this suggests that they did not want to confront the potential concerns/issues that different groups within the Warwick District might need to clarify? Also, the lack of representation by the councillors that put forward the plan itself creates a degree of cynicism regarding the choices made about the proposed new housing and traveller sites. This concerns me and considering the bigger picture, it does not engender a positive co-existence between different community groups which normally I would say is one of the many things I love about living in Warwick (and I have lived in other counties in England where I haven't necessarily felt as harmonised a feeling between local and tourists or within the various communities living within the area itself). Adding to my personal view here, this current discord challenges one of the pre-requisites of just one aspect of the plan - the placing of the Traveller Sites -because in the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites it requires that a positive co-existence should be promoted through the proposals and discussion of such sites but this is not necessarily the case currently - this could have been prevented through a more effective presentation of the local plan.

I would like to comment on the local plan,i do realise that more housing is needed the number being suggested however is unbelievable,as a bishops tachbrook resident i attended a meeting recently and when a representative was asked how the roads can possibly cope with such a huge influx of traffic we were assured a study had been done and indeed the roads could cope if improvements are made.Making the the Greys Mallory island larger and making Europa Way into a dual carriage way will help trafic along but it is still all going to finish up at the Ford island where it will back up for miles [has anyone seen the traffic backing up down the slip road to the motor way?]I suspect this is of little interest as the housing cannot possibly be just for "locals"[money for greedy developers]so it wil be for commuters going in the opposite direction ie.towards the motorway.I doubt whther this area would be anywhere near as attractive for development if it was not for the motorway,add to all this the already poor air quality being polluted even more our only hospital bursting at the seams ditto doctors surgeries where are the sick going to go?People live in villages because they want to live in smaller community and avery fine one we have here,we therefore do not want to be joined up to some sprawling suburb.there is something else that seems puzzling why is that it was origionally thought we needed 15 more houses in tachbrook and now it is
100 when there will be hundrds built little more than a mile down the road.to add insult to injury we also learn we are to take the lions share of the traveller sights around here[people are already worring about losing thousands on the value of their homes]it is a shame we cannot decamp to the north end of the town!it appears to be the favoured end.People here are very annoyed that they have been ignored when their way of life could be changed forever.


i am sorry that i ommited my name on my previous e mail however after attending the recent meeting i can only say that my concerns are jutified.There is no possible way that the local roads will cope with the huge influx of traffic,widening and improving will not stop the bottle neck at the fords island,this is not housing for local people we were told 50%is for migration 40% is for afordable housing isuspect few of the people allocated social will be from any where near leamington or warwick they will be people from coventry or birmingham and their councils either cannot or do not wish to house them,the bulk of the rest will probably go to immigrants.tachbrook has always had a wonderful community feel many people have lived here all their lives and enjoy a "village" life this will all end when we are all joined together in the suburban sprawl that is about to come thanks to the parks that will join us all up.I cannot understand the need for 100 new houses in the village when there are thousands being built a mile down the road!even people with family in the village cannot mind travelling that short distance.one of the proposed sites is behind holt ave the field next to it is one of those suggested for travellers!
do the council really believe people wil buy a house next to a travellers sight?
local people feel absolutely impotent-we all know that no matter how much we complain our way of life and peace of mind is about to be destroyed forever; surrounded by housing and land bought up by travellers who pay nothing whatsoever into the system and get everything out for free,the local school will have to keep several places free for their children (the ones they say do not exist)keeping local children out.All in all it is a very depressing future for people who have worked hard all their lives to see the fruit of their toil lose thousands off its worth and live in a very less pleasant and safe place.

I oppose the above for a number of reasons, 1)Amenities are already stretched to the limit around here
2) traffic is already awful, the roads around here can't cope with the traffic now! I haven't seen plans to build more major roads
3) you are planning to build on green belt land!
4) most of the houses are to be built around whitnash, this is unfair and the plans should show proportional representation
5) too many houses proposed full stop!
6)are there not too many gypsy sites proposed - how will this be managed? this is a concern for us as generally when a small amount of gypsies camp up in whitnash there is a police presence, which we would expect! Are you planning on a constant police presence? How much is this going to cost? Is there Enough resource To cope with this increased police presence? Council tax is already too high Rise in crime Anti-social behaviour

Whitnash has always been a nice place to live, if this proposal goes through we will look to move!

I am writing to register my support for any plan which is acceptable to the travelling people for temporary and permanent sites in the district.

The criteria of proximity to public services ( especially education and health ) and public transport are in my view crucial to the plan.

Sites for Gypsies and Travellers Consultation Document
29th July 2013
1. Meeting the Need for Sites for the Gypsy and Traveller Community
a) The Parish Council understands both the issues facing the Gypsy and
Traveller community as set out in Section 4 of the consultation
document and the District's legal obligation to provide for that need.
b) In order to meet those needs it is very important that the final sites
selected fully address the Issues and completely meet the site
requirements as set out in Section 7.
c) In summary with the level of information provided, the sites proposed
fall far short of meeting the site requirements and will therefore fail to
address the underlying issues to the extent required. Therefore the
Parish Council cannot support any of the sites within its boundary.
Namely GT03, GT05, GT06, GT09, GT10, and GT15.
d) Please refer to the attached report commissioned by the Parish Council
from its consultants LinkUK ref DM1292, dated 29th July which sets out
the areas of concern in more detail.
2. Comments on Consultation
a) It is a concern to the Parish Council that the Gypsy and Traveller Site
Document not listed as a "consultation document" on the WDC website.
It is listed in the supporting documentation list. It is also noted that it is
listed at the bottom of the New Local Plan page as "Other
consultations" but is not given equal billing with the RDS. Many
residents have said that they were not aware of the proposals or
consultation and this may be a factor.
b) The Parish Council is very concerned at the Gypsy and Traveller site
consultation document is misleading, as most of the photos are taken
at touring caravan sites and do not accurately portray typical visual
impact of a permanent traveller site. There are no photos depicting
mobile homes, commercial vehicles and plant which are all very typical
of this type of development. It is very important that consultation
documents represent the proposals accurately. Thought must be given
to how this rectified to give residents a realistic picture of what these
developments can look like so that consultees can make a realistic
assessment of visual impact.
c) The Parish Council is concerned that the consultation process is so
brief in comparison to the new local plan. Consequently, apart from
setting out the background and site selection requirements little has
been done so far to help residents understand what to potential
impacts on a local settled community are and how sites would
allocated and be taken up.
i) Are there specific Gypsy and Traveller Groups that have been
identified and are on a waiting list for sites?
ii) Wouldn't it be useful for community representatives to be given the
opportunity to meet representatives of these groups and the WDC
liaison officer?
1. The Salford University Study, commissioned by Warwick District
Council states in its Final Report Gypsy Traveller and Travelling
Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment (GTTSANA
Nov.2012) dated November 2012, states:
Policy A of 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' states that in
assembling the evidence base necessary to support their
planning approach, local planning authorities should: pay
particular attention to early and effective community
engagement with both settled and traveller communities
(including discussing travellers' accommodation needs with
travellers themselves, their representative bodies and local
support groups)
The event organised earlier this year by WDC was a tentative
start, but it was not held against the backdrop of specific sites.
2. It is therefore seen as a major negative that 8 months after the
publication there has been no engagement with the local
community on the specifics of the consultation.
d) Residents have expressed concerns to the Parish Council, fuelled by
the media including a recent TV documentary. The WDC consultation
has not assisted in reassuring residents about these concerns.
e) The consultation to date has focused entirely on planning issues of the
government requirements and site selection. There has been no focus
on the people issues outlined above. The Parish Council believes that
WDC should be going to far greater lengths during this consultation
process to help residents understand the reality of living close to a
Gypsy or Traveller Site. In doing this WDC may help to alleviate some
of the concerns expressed by residents.
3. Proposed Operating Model for Gypsy and Traveller Sites
a) No assurances are given about how sites would be managed day to
day. Each pitch is very large. Whilst a 5 pitch site would be allocated to
house 5 families, there appear to be no controls to prevent the
numbers on the site swelling to many times this number. It has been
said that planning enforcement can deal with this. However there could
be a continuous stream of visiting families pitching up on the plots that
are sized to take touring caravans and other vehicles along with a
permanent mobile home. Planning enforcement processes would not
necessarily be triggered and if they were, can take years to take effect.
b) There are also concerns that if the sites are managed entirely by
market forces, requirement to meet the provision of a permanent site
for all Gypsy families may not be met, due to the high level of rents that
may be charged. The Districts own study GTTSANA Nov.2012 points
to this.
7.14......One respondent in the survey commented on the general
issue of affordability, but also the lack of sites in the area: "I have
two sons and when they get married there are no sites round here.
Some of the travelling men who own sites want to charge too much
rent, that's why we're in a house. We need more council sites".
c) The districts proposed operating model of self management by a
Gypsy landlord is very weak in this regard and presents a high risk to
the successful long term management of a site and the WDC
objectives being met.
d) The Parish Council therefore objects strongly to the District preferred
self management operating model, and would require WDC to manage
to site(s) day to day, or to devolved the operation to a housing
associated or RSL, to ensure that rents are affordable and occupation
levels are maintained the consented levels.
4. Independent Assessment - Initial Feedback
a) The Parish Council has commissioned specialist consultants LinkUK to
undertake and independent assessment of the sites within the
boundary of Bishops Tachbrook Parish. The report is appended. The
Parish Council wishes to adopted all recommendations which can be
summarised as follows:
i) At this early stage there is insufficient evidence to make a valid
judgement on the suitability of the sites identified within the parish
boundary.
ii) Sites should be assessed and rated in accordance with the Issues
identified as affecting the Gypsy and Traveller Community and with
enhanced weighting given to the most concerning issues, access to
health and education
iii) Therefore is not possible to give further consideration to these sites
until the further studies and evidence highlighted has been made
available
b) The initial assessment by Link UK will be supplemented with a
Planning Consultant opinion. The Parish Council will be in receipt of
that report towards the end of August and will forward as a
supplementary submission.
5. Specific Concerns Identified So Far.
a) Impact on Infrastructure and Services
i) It is not set out in the proposals where children, living on any of the
proposed sites in the future, would go to school.
(1) Bishops Tachbrook Primary School is a single form entry school.
The Parish Council is extremely concerned the that special
education needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community, as set
out in Section 4 of the consultation document cannot be properly
met at a small school. Therefore one of the most critical
objectives in the provision of a place for permanent residence
will not be met.
(2) Because the significant additional support required will not be
funded by the County, (except for the minimal budget
supplement provided to those receiving free school meals,
which there is no guarantee will apply in this case) there is also
the potential for a drop in the educational standards across the
school.
(3) It is considered a basic right of all families with young children to
be able to walk safely to and from school. All of the sites
proposed within Bishops Tachbrook Parish do not meet this
requirement. If the ability to walk to school is not met by the
selected site(s) this will result in further road congestion around
the school. The proposals do not set out how this would be
mitigated.
(4) The Bishops Tachbrook Primary School, whose catchment is
the parish boundary, is over subscribed every year, with the
result that children already on catchment have to be turned
away. It is a concern that the further demand created for
insufficient school places will lead to tension between the settled
community and the Gypsy and Traveller community.
6. Further initial evidence on site suitability will be submitted to Warwick
District Council as supporting information following receipt from Bishop's
Tachbrook's planning consultant in late August 2013.
Appendix
Link UK Initial Assessment 29th July 2013
INTERIM REPORT BY
LINK SUPPORT SERVICES (UK) LTD
ON BEHALF OF
BISHOP'S TACHBROOK PARISH COUNCIL RELATING TO THE
INCLUSION OF SITES WITHIN THE PARISH BOUNDARIES AT REVISED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSULTATION STAGE OF THE WARWICK
DISTRICT COUNCIL GYPSY AND TRAVELLER LOCAL PLAN.
SITES CONSIDERED IN THIS REPORT INCLUDE:
GT 03 Land at Barnwell Farm, Harbury Lane - 15 potential pitches
GT 05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm Banbury Rd - 15 potential pitches
GT 06 Land at Park Farm Spinney Farm - 15 potential pitches
GT 09 Land to the North East of the M40 AND South of Oakley Wood Rd
- 15 potential pitches
GT 10 Land adjacent to Tollgate House and the Guide Dogs National
Breeding Centre - 8 potential pitches
GT15 Land to East of Europa Way - 4 potential pitches
AUTHOR: DAVID McGRATH BA (HONS)
MANAGING DIRECTOR
LINK SUPPORT SERVICES (UK) LTD
29TH July 2013
Our Ref: DM1292
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Link Support Services (UK) Ltd (Link) has been instructed by Bishop's
Tachbrook Parish Council to carry out an interim assessment of the
Link Support Services (UK)
Ltd
Innellan House
Eaves Green Lane
Meriden
Warwickshire
CV7 7JL
01676 522775
07802 640159
Linkukltd@aol.com
appropriateness of six potential Gypsy/ Traveller sites within the Parish
Boundaries
1.2 Link is a VAT registered company, formed in 1994 and is led by the Managing
Director Mr David McGrath. Link provides a range of services to Local
Authorities and community groups in the UK. Services include: training for
elected members and senior officers (Planning, scrutiny and community
engagement) and specialist services relating to the evaluation of proposed
developments - often but not exclusively - related to the development of
traveller sites and strategies thereto. Our associate network includes a range
of legal and planning and other experts who have represented travellers,
organisations and community groups in their search for lawful, plan led
accommodations solutions whilst protecting the environment from
inappropriate development
1.3 The context for this report is that Warwick District (WDC) has published a
report in November 2012 which shows a need for 31 permanent pitches to be
provided over the life of the Local Plan (15 years), 25 within the first five years
and 6-8 further transit pitches over the Plan period. 'Areas of search' have
been selected by officers within which it is believed that there could be
potential for a Gypsy and Traveller site, outside the Green Belt, close to the
road network and within easy reach of local facilities (schools and doctors etc.).
The result of the council's research is published to allow for public consultation
and comment. Warwick District Council is now consulting widely on their
revised development strategy which includes potential site options for new
Gypsy and Traveller sites.
1.4 With regards to travelling show people, the recent GTAA has shown that
provision already exists in the district (meeting current and future needs) so no
new pitches are required within the life of the Local Plan
1.5 The full list of sites was produced by a 'call for sites' exercise. Six potential
permanent Gypsy and Traveller sites have been identified within the Parish
Council boundaries which are the subject of this report
1.6 This Report is produced on an interim basis to comply with the consultation
timescales and will constitute the substantive interim response by the Parish
Council. It has been produced through detailed discussions with Parish
Council members, a Registered Town and Country Planner (who specialises
in Gypsy and Traveller Planning matters) and is also based on available
research data. The final report of the Parish Council relating to this stage of
consultation will however be produced following a visits to all sites by our
Planning Consultant (on his return from annual leave) and we therefore
reserve the right to amend comments contained within the report in light of the
site visits and further scrutiny of the issues herein
1.7 A particularly relevant document that we will refer to in this report is the
Warwick District Council Local Plan Final Interim Sustainability Assessment
(SA) Report (June 2013) hereinafter referred to as WDCLPSA. This was
produced by Enfusion - environmental planning, management and
sustainability consultants acting for WDC
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Following our interim assessment we would recommend that the Parish
objects to all of the proposed traveller site options listed above
2.2 We have looked at each site individually and we are able to conclude that at
each proposed location there are significant and problematic site specific
issues which casts major doubt as to the viability of each site (e.g. flood risk,
poor access to transport and or services, noise et al). Without further
information from WDC as to levels of new or proposed infrastructure
investment and/ or quantification of site related risks along with mitigation
measures, the sites cannot currently be considered as viable. We also
recommend that key partners (e.g. English Heritage) should be involved in this
stage of the consultation process as a further key test of the viability of the
proposal. It is known, for example, that some of the sites affect the setting of
Listed Buildings, Parkland and a Scheduled Monument
2.3 There is also a large amount of 'unknowns' about many of the potential sites
(e.g. their ecological and archeolological value) and also whether it is indeed
possible for any site design to overcome the harm to the openness and
character of the rural and historic environment. Without this information a
precautionary principal is urged and the sites should be opposed
2.4 There is also no information as to the potential cumulative effects of locating a
number of sites close together (i.e. GT05, 06, 09 and GT15). This could
include the impact of new sites on the environment or services and the new
challenges that would be faced by the settled and travelling communities in
attempting to access these services
2.5 It is not possible, in our view, to come to any other reasonable conclusions
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Link Support Services has (a) discussed the sites with the Chairman of the
Parish Councillor and a representative of a residents group (b) reviewed
Council documentation produced relating to these sites and (c) reviewed
documentation produced by other organisations relating to these sites. To
produce the final version of interim report we will also (d) carry out a walking
and photographic survey of the six proposed sites and (e) produce a final
report which advises the Parish Council as to the potential for any of the
potential locations identified above to become a sustainable Gypsy and
Traveller site. The final report will supersede this report
3.2 There follows a summary of the key points relating to each site and our interim
recommendations. This document is not meant to be exhaustive and Link
reserves the right to add or amend information relating to future submissions,
challenges and appeals made on behalf of the Parish Council
3.3 Our starting point for the assessment of each site relates to selection criteria
published by Warwick District Council and the Preferred Options of the Local
Plan suggested the following draft policy which contains the criteria by which
sites would be assessed for suitability:
* Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
* Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
* Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and
servicing on site
* Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other
disturbance
* Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)
* Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important
features of the natural and historic environment; and
* Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the
character of the area.
In addition
To fully accord with the provisions of 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites',
additional criteria need to be incorporated so that the policy:
* promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the
local community
* avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
* 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.
3.4 Link Support Services would also contend that two factors in particular could be
given additional weight (positively or negatively) in the consideration of the
location of a potential traveller site. Many Councils (correctly in our view) place
greater emphasis on the need to locate sites which can access and address
serious health and educational inequalities often experienced in the travelling
communities. This translates as enhanced weighting for these factors. The
assessment and scoring system used - for example by Central Bedfordshire
Council - to identify sites has been revised to allow the presence of educational
facilities to attract additional weight. A similar case could be made for health
facilities
3.5 There follows a site by site interim evaluation of the potential sites as identified
above
4. SITE BY SITE INTERIM ANALYSIS. SITE GT 03
LAND AT BARNWELL FARM HARBURY LANE - 15 POTENTIAL
PITCHES - CLOSE TO B4455 (FOSSE WAY)
4.1 Overall conclusion
A fifteen pitch traveller site development is a relatively large proposition
and any potential developer should seek to ensure that optimal
conditions exist for such a development. In short this is NOT an ideal
traveller site location and it is recommended that this should be
OPPOSED by the Parish Council on the grounds shown in our overall
interim concluding comments for this section
Our comments relating to the site based on WDC's own assessment
criteria follow:
4.2 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
Although the site has good access to public transport leading into the
nearest town (having a bus stop adjacent to the site). Local services
are however approximately 4.8 kilometers away. It can be argued
therefore that the site affords little opportunity for walking (there are no
well defined footpaths to local schools for example) or cycling to local
services. It is therefore possible that the distance of the site to key
facilities and employment will promote car (and other vehicle)
dependence. A 15 pitch site could generate in the region of 100 plus
trips per day (business, personal, school) with some opportunity to
offset this through use of local bus services (in the event that the
services are available)
We note that
(a) The nearest Doctors surgery is in Harbury (4km)
(b) The nearest primary school is Harbury C of E Primary School (4km)
(c) The nearest secondary school is Campion (7km)
All parents will be aware that residing within the priority area does not
guarantee an offer of a place at that school. These effects are long term
and a substantial negative against the proposal
4.3 Concerns regarding accessibility to services is also noted in the Warwick
District Plan Final Interim SA Report (June 2013) (Hereinafter referred to
as WDCLPSA) which states
'The site is just under 3 miles away from the nearest local services and
community facilities and although the site has good access to public transport,
the distance to and from these services are considered to be quite far. The
effects are considered to be permanent but minor negative in nature'.
We would disagree that this is a 'minor negative' given the need to place
particular emphasis on the need for good access to health and educational
facilities to address significant health and educational inequalities often faced
by the travelling community. Our review of site reflects this fact
4.4 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
It is known that
'Fifty per cent of the site is located on an area of high to medium flood risk
(Flood zones 2 and 3) and would pose a significant risk to caravans which are
considered to be particularly sensitive development to flooding. Development
should be directed away from areas of flood risk. There is the potential for a
significant short to medium term negative effect on SA objective 11 (climate
change adaptation -flood risk) depending on which areas of the site are used.
(WDCLPSA)
4.5 Our recommendation is that the proposal should not be advanced
further until a full Flood Risk Assessment is undertaken to (a) test the
viability of a site being located anywhere within the GT03 curtilage (b)
identify the level of mitigation required to ensure that any proposal can
be implemented within acceptable risk parameters and (c) whether
such mitigation constitutes an economically viable proposition (e.g.
mitigation vs cost)
4.6 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking,
turning and servicing on site
Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other
disturbance
Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste
disposal, etc)
We may wish to comment on these issues after our site visit although it is
acknowledged that given that detailed plans are not available it is difficult to
provide precise comment on these issues
4.7 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important
features of the natural and historic environment
It is known that
'There is a Scheduled Monument adjacent to the site and although
unlikely to be directly affected by the allocation, because of its
presence, there could be potential for archaeology on the site which
could be directly affected' WDCLPSA
The presence of nearby Chesterton Roman Town and the Fosseway are
major persuaders that any development should adopt a precautionary
principle regarding the potential destruction or erosion of a nationally regarded
Heritage Site and its environs. The Chesterton town site consists of 'a
defended enclosure and an extensive extramural area of roads, buildings and
boundaries. Occupation appears to run from the 1st to 4th century AD'
(Warwickshire Museum Time Trial). We recommend that support is not given
to this potential development until the precise impact on 'potential
archaeology' is understood
It is also strongly recommended that WDC seek a detailed dialogue with
English Heritage on this matter - even advertising the proposal as affecting
the setting of a scheduled monument . English Heritage (2 C) sets out their
requirements where they must be consulted in the event that
A development (is) likely to affect the site of a scheduled monument
(Schedule 5 paragraph (o) of the Town and Country Planning
(Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010)
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
(Ref. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/consult-planning-listedbuilding-
conservation-area-consent/eh-notification-checklist.pdf)
4.8 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming
the character of the area.
The WDCLPSA notes that:
'The effects on SA objectives relating to the prudent use of land, landscape
and air, water & soil quality are considered to be a minor negative. This is
because the site is located on Greenfield land outside of main settlements in
the open countryside and it contains a site of industrial pollution where
emissions are regulated. It would be recommended that existing hedgerows
are maintained and that additional screening/ landscaping is inserted where
appropriate to help blend the allocation into the landscape.
4.9 It is also recommended that
'A survey of the activities on the industrial site is carried to determine levels of
pollutants and suggest appropriate mitigation.
We recommend that the Parish Council object to this facet of the development
on a precautionary basis until such time as detailed evidence is available as
to the levels of pollutants/ emissions and the cost and viability of any
associated mitigation proposals
We would also recommend that The Parish Council objects to this site option
given that there is the potential for the development to undermine the
character and openness of the rural environment. Any developer - even at
the earliest stages of consideration would need to suggest how this potential
harm could be mitigated and such proposals are not available
4.10 Will the proposed site:
Promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the
local community
There is currently no evidence to suggest that site occupants could not
peacefully co-exist with the settled community. We do, however, anticipate
widespread concern from the settled and travelling communities over a range
of issues which undermine the viability of the site (flood risk, pollutants,
access to services) as well as other issues such as the potential impact on
heritage assets
4.11 Avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
This is currently unknown although given the location of the site (and the
likelihood of car dependency) this will contribute further to pressure on the
road infrastructure
4.12 Reflect 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.
This is unknown as no site specific proposals have been produced. The
Parish Council will wish to clarify whether it is WDC's intention to promote
'residential only' sites or whether an element of 'business use' or parking of
commercial vehicles associated with business use is envisaged (along with
the storage of plant, equipment and other materials)
4.13 Overall interim conclusions
The unknown levels of potential mitigation measures (and the viability of these
measures) regarding
I. Flooding
II. Archaeology and
III. Potential pollutants
Combined with the sub optimal provision of accessible and viable
IV. Health and
V. Educational provision and
VI. A lack of choice of modes of transport (supporting sustainability)
provides serious and significant barriers to the development of GT03 as a viable
traveller site. No further consideration should be given to this site without the
necessary evidential data to quantify the risks and costs associated with mitigation
of items I to lll Notwithstanding this items 1V - V1 weigh strongly against this
proposed site
5. SITE BY SITE INTERIM ANALYSIS. SITE GT 05
LAND AT TACHBROOK HILL FARM BANBURY ROAD - 15 POTENTIAL
PITCHES
5.1 Overall conclusion
A fifteen pitch traveller site development is a relatively large proposition and
any potential developer should seek to ensure that optimal conditions exist for
such a development. In short this is NOT an ideal traveller site location and it
is recommended that this should be OPPOSED by the Parish Council on the
grounds shown in our overall interim concluding comments for this section
Our comments relating to the site based on WDC's own assessment criteria
follow:
5.2 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
The WDCLPSA states that:
'The site is just under 3 miles away from local services and facilities and with
the lack of access to public transport and safe pedestrian walkways, the
negative effects are considered to be permanent in nature and therefore a
major negative'.
It is therefore highly likely that the distance of the site to key facilities and
employment will promote car (and other vehicle) dependence. A 15 pitch site
could generate in the region of 100 plus trips per day (business, personal,
school) with no opportunity to offset this through use of local bus services
We note that:
(a) The nearest Doctors surgery is in Bishop's Tachbrook (1.5km)
(b) The nearest primary school is Bishop's Tachbrook (1.5km)
(c) The nearest secondary school is Campion (7km)
Local knowledge suggests that Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is 'always
oversubscribed' and that often 'children within the catchment area are turned
down'. This school is also only a single form entry and it is likely that it would
not be able to provide for additional requirements generated by a new
development
All parents will be aware that residing within the priority area does not
guarantee an offer of a place at that school. These effects are long term and
a substantial negative against the proposal
We agree that this is a 'major negative' given the need to place particular
emphasis on the need for health and educational facilities to address
significant health and educational inequalities often faced by travellers.
5.3 The WDCLPSA states that:
'It would be recommended to insert strong transport requirements for this
particular site to ensure that the right level of improvement and upgrade is
achieved'
We recommend that the Parish Council does not support this proposal until
such time as clear, costed, proposals are shown which would mitigate this
'major negative' (Transport) AND identify how sufficient access to education
services could be guaranteed
5.4 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
The site is not known to be in an area of 'high risk of flooding' although local
checks should be made to clarify whether there are any issues of surface
water flooding and whether a Flood Risk Assessment (mitigation etc) is
required
5.5 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking,
turning and servicing on site
Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal,
etc.)
We may wish to comment on these issues following our site visit although it is
acknowledged that given that detailed plans are not available it is difficult to
provide precise comment on this issues
5.6 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important
features of the natural and historic environment
The WDCLPSA states that:
'Although there are no Conservation areas or Scheduled Monuments on or
adjacent to the site, there is a listed building within the site. The allocation has
the potential to affect the setting of the Listed Building. In addition, the
potential for archaeology is unknown'
Our previous comment regarding the presence of nearby Chesterton Roman
Town and the Fosse Way apply and we remain committed to the need for the
WDC to carry out more detailed work to identify the potential for archaeology
and the impact thereon. We recommend that support is not given to this
potential development until the precise impact on 'potential archaeology' is
understood
With regards to the development having the 'potential to affect the setting of a
Listed Building'. It is also strongly recommended that WDC seek a detailed
dialogue with English Heritage on this matter - even advertising the proposal
as affecting the setting of a listed building. English Heritage (2 A) set out their
requirements where they must be consulted in the event that a:
Development which in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority affects the
setting of a grade 1 or 11* Listed Building
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
(Ref. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/consult-planning-listedbuilding-
conservation-area-consent/eh-notification-checklist.pdf)
5.7 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming
the character of the area.
WDCLPSA notes that:
'There are no international, national or local nature conservation designations
on or adjacent to the site but the presence of protected species and the
ecological value of the site in not known at this stage. It would be
recommended that strong environmental policies are developed to protect and
encourage enhancement of the natural environment and include provision for
green infrastructure.
The ecological status of the site could change dramatically if detailed
evidence was available regarding protected species or even the overall
ecological value of the site. It is therefore recommended that the Parish
Council applies a precautionary principal and objects to this element of the
proposal until such time as a detailed ecological assessment is carried out
We would also recommend that The Parish Council objects to this site option
given that there is the potential for the development to undermine the
character and openness of the rural environment. There is the potential for
negative visual impact on the countryside surrounding one of the main routes
into Historic Warwick. Any developer - even at the earliest stages of
consideration would need to suggest how this potential harm could be
mitigated and such proposals are not available
5.8 Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other
disturbance
WDCLPSA notes that:
'Part of the site is adjacent to the M40 (noise effects on sensitive residential
development)......and.... In addition, it is recommended that a
noise assessment is carried out to identify possible noise impacts and
suggest appropriate mitigation.
WDC will be aware that noise effects can be a significant obstacle for
development and this may be reflected in any Examination in Public. An
Inspector making a decision to reject a traveller site remarked:
'This approach is fundamentally flawed (i.e. that a proposal could not be
rejected on noise grounds) and flies in the face of the guidance given in TAN
11 Noise24. This requires the Noise Exposure Category (NEC) of the site to be
assessed. Two of the NECs carry an assumption against permitting
residential development. I see no justification for the view that residential
caravans should not be treated as noise sensitive development in the same
way as permanent dwellings or that their occupants should be allowed to be
exposed to higher levels of noise than considered acceptable for other sectors
of the community. Caravans are a form of housing, as often stressed, but
more vulnerable since usual noise mitigation measures cannot be built in to
them. Appeal Decision (APP/A6835/A/12/2172161),
The harm from noise therefore clearly needs to be assessed and quantified
and as such the proposal should be opposed until such data is available and
the harms (and acceptability or otherwise) known
It is also recommended that
'A survey of the activities on the industrial site is carried to determine levels of
pollutants and suggest appropriate mitigation.
5.9 Will the proposed site:
Promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the
local community
There is currently no evidence to suggest that site occupants could not
peacefully co-exist with the settled community. We do, however, anticipate
widespread concern from the settled and travelling communities over a range
of issues which undermine the viability of the site (noise, poor access to
transport/ local services) as well as other issues such as the potential impact
on heritage assets
5.10 Avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
It is noted that the current consultation proposal include four Gypsy and
Traveller sites in close proximity i.e. GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT15 - with a
total of 49 pitches being proposed. We therefore have additional concerns
about the cumulative effects on sustainable transport; the need to travel; local
services and community facilities and other factors described hereto. We
therefore recommend that The Parish Council should object to the potential
cumulative effect of these proposals (in addition to site specific issues raised
in this report) until such time as information is provided by WDC as to how
individual and cumulative issues will be addressed
5.11 Reflect 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.
This is unknown as no site specific proposals have been produced. The
Parish Council will wish to clarify whether it is WDC's intention to promote
'residential only' sites or whether an element of 'business use' or parking of
commercial vehicles associated with business use is envisaged (along with
the storage of plant, equipment and other materials)
5.12 Overall interim conclusions
The level of potential mitigation measures required (and the viability of these
measures) regarding
VII. Transport
VIII. Archaeology and Ecology
IX. Noise pollution
Combined with the sub optimal provision of accessible and viable
X. Health and
XI. Educational provision and
XII. A lack of choice of modes of transport (supporting sustainability)
provides serious and significant barriers to the development of GT05 as a viable
traveller site. No further consideration should be given to this site without the
necessary evidential data to quantify the risks and costs associated with mitigation
of items Vll to lX. Notwithstanding this items X - Xll substantially undermine this
proposal
6. SITE BY SITE INTERIM ANALYSIS. SITE GT 06
LAND AT PARK FARM, SPINNEY FARM - 15 POTENTIAL PITCHES
6.1 Overall conclusion
As with the previous sites considered, it is noted that (a) a fifteen pitch
traveller site development is a relatively large proposition and (b) this site
forms one of a cluster of proposed sites in close proximity. As such, any
potential developer should seek to ensure that optimal conditions exist for
such a development both as a sustainable individual site and with regards to
wider sustainability issues regarding other potential nearby sites. In short this
site fails - we contend both tests given a number of factors (and a variety of
unknowns) which have yet to be addressed even at an early consultation
stage. It is therefore recommended that this site should be OPPOSED by the
Parish Council on the grounds shown in our overall interim concluding
comments for this section (below)
Our comments relating to the site based on WDC's own assessment criteria
follow:
6.2 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
WDCLPSA states that:
'With regard to the SA objectives relating to sustainable transport; the need to
travel and access to local services & community facilities, the effects are
considered to be major negative at this stage. This is due to the location of the
site being nearly 3 miles away from the nearest local services and community
facilities (school and medical) and that there is currently no access to public
transport or safe pedestrian walkways. In addition, the A452 adjacent the site
to the east, experiences high volumes of traffic'
It is therefore highly likely that the distance of the site to key facilities and
employment will promote car (and other vehicle) dependence in an area
already noted for 'high volumes of traffic'. A 15 pitch site could generate in the
region of 100 plus trips per day (business, personal, school) with no
opportunity to offset this through use of local bus services
We note that
(a) The nearest Doctors surgery is in Bishop's Tachbrook (2.5km)
(b) The nearest primary school is Bishop Tachbrook (2.5km)
(c) The nearest secondary school is Campion (4.5km)
Local knowledge suggests that Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is 'always
oversubscribed' and that often 'children within the catchment area are turned
down'. This school is only a single form entry and it is likely that it would not
be able to provide for additional requirements generated by a new
development
All parents will be aware that residing within the priority area does not
guarantee an offer of a place at that school. These effects are long term and
a substantial negative against the proposal
We agree that this is a 'major negative' given the need to place particular
emphasis on the need for health and educational facilities to address
significant health and educational inequalities often faced by travellers. This
is therefore a point of objection by the Parish Council
WDCLPSA states that:
'It would be recommended to insert strong transport requirements for this
particular site to ensure that the right level of improvement and upgrade is
achieved'
We recommend that the Parish Council does not support this proposal until
such time as clear, costed, proposals are shown which would mitigate this
'major negative' (Transport) AND identify how sufficient access to education
services could be guaranteed
6.3 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
The site is not known to be in an area of 'high risk of flooding' although local
checks should be made to clarify whether there are any issues of surface
water flooding and whether a Flood Risk Assessment (mitigation etc) is
required
6.4 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking,
turning and servicing on site
Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal,
etc)
We may wish to comment on these facets following our site visit although it is
acknowledged that given that detailed plans are not available it is difficult to
provide precise comment on this issues
6.5 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important
features of the natural and historic environment
WDCLPSA states that:
'Although there are no listed buildings, Conservation areas or Scheduled
Monuments on or adjacent to the site, there is a Registered Historic Park and
Garden adjacent to the site. The allocation has the potential to affect the
landscapes' special character'
With regards to the development having the 'potential to affect the
landscape's special character', It is also strongly recommended that WDC
seek a detailed dialogue with English Heritage on this matter - even
advertising the proposal as affecting the setting of a historic landscape.
English Heritage (2 D) set out their requirements where they must be
consulted in the event that a:
'Development (is) likely to affect any garden or park of special historic interest
which is registered in accordance with section 8C of the Historic Buildings and
Ancient Monuments Act 1953 (register of gardens) and which is classified as
Grade I or Grade II* (Schedule 5 paragraph (p) of the Town and Country
Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010)
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
(Ref. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/consult-planning-listedbuilding-
conservation-area-consent/eh-notification-checklist.pdf)
6.6 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming
the character of the area.
An associated issue is the impact of any development on the ecology and
archaeology of the area
WDCLPSA notes that:
'There are no international, national or local nature conservation designations
on or adjacent to the site but the presence of protected species and the
ecological value of the site in not known at this stage. It would be
recommended that strong environmental policies are developed to protect and
encourage enhancement of the natural environment and include provision for
green infrastructure.
As with the previous site, the ecological status of the site could change
dramatically if detailed evidence was available regarding protected species or
even the overall ecological value of the site. It is therefore recommended that
the Parish Council applies a precautionary principal and objects to this
element of the proposal until such time as a detailed ecological assessment is
carried out
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
6.7 Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other
disturbance
WDCLPSA notes that:
'The site is adjacent to the Warwick by-pass (A452)and the M40 (noise effects
on sensitive residential development) and..... In addition, it is recommended
that a noise assessment is carried out to identify possible noise impacts and
suggest appropriate mitigation.
WDC will be aware that noise effects can be a significant obstacle for
development and this may be reflected in any Examination in Public (see
previous note to traveller site appeal decision.
The harm from noise therefore clearly needs to be assessed and quantified
and as such the proposal should be opposed until such data is available and
the harms (and acceptability or otherwise) known
It is also recommended that
'A survey of the activities on the industrial site is carried to determine levels of
pollutants and suggest appropriate mitigation.
This survey should be published and risks/ mitigation measures made clear
as a further test of the viability of the site
Will the proposed site:
6.8 Promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site
and the local community
There is currently no evidence to suggest that site occupants could not
peacefully co-exist with the settled community. We do, however, anticipate
widespread concern from the settled and travelling communities over a range
of issues which undermine the viability of the site (noise, poor access to
transport/ local services) as well as other issues such as the potential impact
on heritage assets
6.9 Avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
It is noted that the current consultation proposal include four Gypsy and
Traveller sites in close proximity i.e. GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT15 - with a
total of 49 pitches being proposed. We therefore have additional concerns
about the cumulative effects on sustainable transport; the need to travel; local
services and community facilities and other factors described hereto. We
therefore recommend that The Parish Council should object to the potential
cumulative effect of these proposals (in addition to site specific issues raised
in this report) until such time as information is provided by WDC as to how
individual and cumulative issues will be addressed
6.10 Reflect 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.
This is unknown as no site specific proposals have been produced. The
Parish Council will wish to clarify whether it is WDC's intention to promote
'residential only' sites or whether an element of 'business use' or parking of
commercial vehicles associated with business use is envisaged (along with
the storage of plant, equipment and other materials)
6.11 Overall interim conclusions
The level of potential mitigation measures required regarding
XIII. Transport
XIV. Archaeology and Ecology
XV. Noise pollution
Combined with the sub optimal provision of accessible and viable
XVI. Health and
XVII. Educational provision and
XVIII. A lack of choice of modes of transport (supporting sustainability)
provides serious and significant barriers to the development of GT05 as a viable
traveller site. No further consideration should be given to this site without the
necessary evidential data to quantify the risks and costs associated with mitigation
of items Xlll to XV. A detailed assessment is also required as to the potential
cumulative effect of this site on services, infrastructure etc as described above.
Notwithstanding this items XVl - XVlll substantially undermine this proposal
We would also recommend that The Parish Council objects to this site option
given that there is the potential for the development to undermine the
character and openness of the rural environment. There is the potential for
negative visual impact on the countryside surrounding one of the main routes
into Historic Warwick. Any developer - even at the earliest stages of
consideration would need to suggest how this potential harm could be
mitigated and such proposals are not available
7. SITE BY SITE INTERIM ANALYSIS. SITE GT 09
LAND TO THE NORTH EAST OF THE M40 AND SOUTH OF OAKLEY
WOOD ROAD - 15 POTENTIAL PITCHES
7.1 Overall conclusion
As with sites GT05 and GT06 considered, it is noted that (a) a fifteen pitch
traveller site development is a relatively large proposition and (b) this site
forms one of a cluster of proposed sites in close proximity. As such, any
potential developer should seek to ensure that optimal conditions exist for
such a development both as a sustainable individual site and with regards to
wider sustainability issues regarding other potential nearby sites. In short this
site fails - we contend - both tests given a number of factors (and a variety of
unknowns) which have yet to addressed even at an early consultation stage.
It is therefore recommended that this site should be opposed by the Parish
Council on the grounds shown in our overall interim concluding comments for
this section (below)
Our comments relating to the site based on WDC's own assessment criteria
follow:
7.2 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
WDCLPSA states that:
'There is the potential for significant negative effects on sustainable transport
and access to local services and facilities as the site is nearly 2.5 miles away
from the nearest local service or community facility (schools and medical) and
that there is currently no access to public transport or safe pedestrian
walkways. There is also the potential for a negative effect on SA3 (reduce the
need to travel). In addition, at this stage, little detail is known about existing
traffic and transport issues and how the allocation will affect them '
It is therefore highly likely that the distance of the site to key facilities and
employment will promote car (and other vehicle) dependence in an area
already noted for 'high volumes of traffic'. A 15 pitch site could generate in the
region of 100 plus trips per day (business, personal, school) with no
opportunity to offset this through use of local bus services
We note that
(a) The nearest Doctors surgery is in Bishop's Tachbrook (2.5km)
(b) The nearest primary school is Bishop's Tachbrook (2.5km)
(c) The nearest secondary school is Campion (5.5km)
Local knowledge suggests that Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is 'always
oversubscribed' and that often 'children within the catchment area are turned
down'. This school is only a single form entry and it is likely that it would not
be able to provide for additional requirements generated by a new
development
All parents will be aware that residing within the priority area does not
guarantee an offer of a place at that school. These effects are long term and
a substantial negative against the proposal
We regard this is a 'major negative' given the need to place particular
emphasis on the need for health and educational facilities to address
significant health and educational inequalities often faced by travellers.
WDCLPSA states that:
'It would be recommended to insert strong transport requirements for this
particular site to ensure that the right level of improvement and upgrade is
achieved'
We recommend that the Parish Council does not support this proposal until
such time as clear, costed, proposals are shown which would mitigate this
'major negative' (Transport) AND identify how sufficient access to education
services could be guaranteed
7.3 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
The site is not known to be in an area of 'high risk of flooding' although local
checks should be made to clarify whether there are any issues of surface
water flooding and whether a Flood Risk Assessment (mitigation etc) is
required
7.4 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking,
turning and servicing on site
Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)
We may wish to comment on these facets following our site visit although it is
acknowledged that given that detailed plans are not available it is difficult to
provide precise comment on this issues
7.5 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important
features of the natural and historic environment
WDCLPSA states that:
'There is a few listed buildings within the site. The allocation has the potential
to affect the setting of the Listed Buildings'
With regards to how the development has the 'potential to affect the setting of
the listed buildings', It is strongly recommended that WDC seek a detailed
dialogue with English Heritage on this matter - even advertising the proposal
as affecting the setting of a historic landscape. Listed buildings such as
Grays Mallorys House are important - historically, architecturally and in terms
of the local landscape - and English Heritage (2 A) set out their requirements
where they must be consulted in the event that a:
'Development which in the opinion of the local planning authority affects the
setting of a grade I or II* listed building'
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
(Ref. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/consult-planning-listedbuilding-
conservation-area-consent/eh-notification-checklist.pdf)
7.6 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming
the character of the area.
An associated issue is the impact of any development on the ecology and
archaeology of the area
WDCLPSA notes that:
'In addition, the potential for archaeology is unknown'
and
'There are no international, national or local nature conservation designations
on or adjacent to the site but the presence of protected species and the
ecological value of the site in not known at this stage. It would be
recommended that strong environmental policies are developed to protect and
encourage enhancement of the natural environment and include provision for
green infrastructure.
The ecological or archaeological status of the site could change dramatically if
detailed evidence was available regarding potential archaeology, protected
species or even the overall ecological value of the site. It is therefore
recommended that the Parish Council applies a precautionary principal and
objects to this element of the proposal until such time as a detailed ecological
assessment is carried out
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
We would also recommend that The Parish Council objects to this site option
given that there is the potential for the development to undermine the
character and openness of the rural environment. There is the potential for
negative visual impact on the countryside surrounding one of the main routes
into Historic Warwick. Any developer - even at the earliest stages of
consideration would need to suggest how this potential harm could be
mitigated and such proposals are not available
7.7 Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other
disturbance
WDCLPSA notes that:
'The site is adjacent to the Warwick by-pass (A452)and the M40 (noise effects
on sensitive residential development) and..... In addition, it is recommended
that a noise assessment is carried out to identify possible noise impacts and
suggest appropriate mitigation.
WDC will be aware that noise effects can be a significant obstacle for
development and this may be reflected in any Examination in Public (see
previous note to traveller site appeal decision.
The harm from noise therefore clearly needs to be assessed and quantified
and as such the proposal should be opposed until such data is available and
the harms (and acceptability or otherwise) known
It is also recommended that
'A survey of the activities on the industrial site is carried to determine levels of
pollutants and suggest appropriate mitigation.
These surveys should be carried out and the level and viability of mitigation
measures quantified before further consideration is given to these sites. This
should form one of the early grounds for objection by the Parish Council
7.8 Will the proposed site:
Promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the
local community
There is currently no evidence to suggest that site occupants could not
peacefully co-exist with the settled community. We do, however, anticipate
widespread concern from the settled and travelling communities over a range
of issues which undermine the viability of the site (noise, poor access to
transport/ local services) as well as other issues such as the potential impact
on heritage assets
7.9 Avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
It is noted that the current consultation proposal include four Gypsy and
Traveller sites in close proximity i.e. GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT15 - with a
total of 49 pitches being proposed. We therefore have additional concerns
about the cumulative effects on sustainable transport; the need to travel; local
services and community facilities and other factors described hereto. We
therefore recommend that The Parish Council should object to the potential
cumulative effect of these proposals (in addition to site specific issues raised
in this report) until such time as information is provided by WDC as to how
individual and cumulative issues will be addressed
7.10 Reflect 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.
This is unknown as no site specific proposals have been produced. The
Parish Council will wish to clarify whether it is WDC's intention to promote
'residential only' sites or whether an element of 'business use' or parking of
commercial vehicles associated with business use is envisaged (along with
the storage of plant, equipment and other materials)
7.11 Overall interim conclusions
The level of potential mitigation measures required (and viability of such measures)
regarding
XIX. Transport
XX. Archaeology and Ecology
XXI. Noise pollution
Combined with the sub optimal provision of accessible and viable
XXII. Health and
XXIII. Educational provision and
XXIV. A lack of choice of modes of transport (supporting sustainability)
provides serious and significant barriers to the development of GT05 as a viable
traveller site. No further consideration should be given to this site without the
necessary evidential data to quantify the risks and costs associated with mitigation
of items XlX to XXl. Notwithstanding this items XXll - XXlV substantially undermine
this proposal as does the potential cumulative effect of other nearby suggested sites
8. SITE BY SITE INTERIM ANALYSIS. SITE GT 10
LAND ADJACENT TO TOLLGATE HOUSE AND THE GUIDE DOGS
NATIONAL BREEDING CENTRE - 8 POTENTIAL PITCHES
8.1 Overall conclusion
An eight pitch traveller site development is a medium sized proposition and
any potential developer should seek to ensure that optimal conditions exist for
such a development. In short this is NOT an ideal traveller site location and it
is recommended that this should be OPPOSED by the Parish Council on the
grounds shown in our overall interim concluding comments for this section
Our comments relating to the site based on WDC's own assessment criteria
follow:
8.2 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
WDCLPSA states that:
'There is the potential for significant negative effects on sustainable transport
and access to local services and facilities as the site is nearly 2.5 miles away
from the nearest local service or community facility (schools and medical) and
that there is currently no access to public transport or safe pedestrian
walkways. There is also the potential for a negative effect on SA3 (reduce the
need to travel). In addition, at this stage, little detail is known about existing
traffic and transport issues and how the allocation will affect them '
It is therefore highly likely that the distance of the site to key facilities and
employment will promote car (and other vehicle) dependence in an area
already noted for 'high volumes of traffic'. An 8 pitch site could generate in the
region of 50 plus trips per day (business, personal, school) with no opportunity
to offset this through use of local bus services
We note that
(a) The nearest Doctors surgery is in Bishop's Tachbrook (3.5km)
(b) The nearest primary school is Bishop's Tachbrook (3.5km)
(c) The nearest secondary school is Campion (7.5km)
Local knowledge suggests that Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is 'always
oversubscribed' and that often 'children within the catchment area are turned
down'. This school is only a single form entry and it is likely that it would not
be able to provide for additional requirements generated by a new
development
All parents will be aware that residing within the priority area does not
guarantee an offer of a place at that school. These effects are long term and
a substantial negative against the proposal
We regard this is a 'major negative' given the need to place particular
emphasis on the need for health and educational facilities to address
significant health and educational inequalities often faced by travellers.
WDCLPSA states that:
'It would be recommended to insert strong transport requirements for this
particular site to ensure that the right level of improvement and upgrade is
achieved'
We recommend that the Parish Council does not support this proposal until
such time as clear, costed, proposals are shown which would mitigate this
'major negative' (Transport) AND identify how sufficient access to education
services could be guaranteed
8.3 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
The site is not known to be in an area of 'high risk of flooding' although local
checks should be made to clarify whether there are any issues of surface
water flooding and whether a Flood Risk Assessment (mitigation etc) is
required
8.4 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking,
turning and servicing on site and
Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)
Our site visit may comment on these facets although it is acknowledged that
given that detailed plans are not available it is difficult to provide precise
comment on this issue
8.5 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important
features of the natural and historic environment
WDCLPSA states that:
'Potential effects on historic environment are considered to be minor negative
at this stage. Although there are no listed buildings, Conservation areas or
Scheduled Monuments on the site, there is a Scheduled Monument and a few
listed buildings adjacent to the site'
We turn to how the development has the 'potential to affect the setting of the
listed buildings' we do not regard this as a minor negative. It is strongly
recommended that WDC seek a detailed dialogue with English Heritage on
this matter - even advertising the proposal as affecting the setting of a historic
landscape. English Heritage set out their requirements where they must be
consulted in the event that a:
'Development which in the opinion of the local planning authority affects the
setting of a grade I or II* listed building'
And where
'Development (is) likely to affect the site of a scheduled monument (Schedule
5 paragraph (o) of the Town and Country Planning (Development
Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010'
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
(Ref. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/consult-planning-listedbuilding-
conservation-area-consent/eh-notification-checklist.pdf)
8.6 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming
the character of the area.
An associated issue is the impact of any development on the ecology and
archaeology of the area
WDCLPSA notes that:
'There are no international, national or local nature conservation designations
on or adjacent to the site but the presence of protected species and the
ecological value of the site in not known at this stage. It would be
recommended that strong environmental policies are developed to protect and
encourage enhancement of the natural environment and include provision for
green infrastructure.
In addition, we have found no published data regarding the presence or
absence of archaeology. We therefore conclude that the potential for
archaeology is unknown
As with the previous sites, the ecological or archaeological status of the site
could change dramatically if detailed evidence was available regarding
potential archaeology, protected species or even the overall ecological value
of the site. It is therefore recommended that the Parish Council applies a
precautionary principal and objects to this element of the proposal until such
time as a detailed ecological assessment is carried out
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
8.7 Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other
disturbance
WDCLPSA notes that:
'The site is adjacent to the M40 (noise effects on sensitive residential
development) and..... In addition, it is recommended that a noise assessment
is carried out to identify possible noise impacts and suggest appropriate
mitigation.
WDC will be aware that noise effects can be a significant obstacle for
development and this may be reflected in any Examination in Public (see
previous note to traveller site appeal decision.
The harm from noise therefore clearly needs to be assessed and quantified
and as such the proposal should be opposed until such data is available and
the harms (and acceptability or otherwise) known
8.8 Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre
The potential site would also be located close to the Guide Dogs National
Breeding Centre. Where it can be supposed that a potential new
development would involve occupiers who have a culture of keeping and
breeding dogs (such as travellers) a full risk assessment would need to be
carried out to ensure the integrity of both sites (and any potential costs
thereto) - and their respective activities in relation to animals - could be
maintained. The Parish Council therefore maybe minded to object to the site
on this ground until such a risk assessment is carried out satisfactorily
Will the proposed site:
8.9 Promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site
and the local community
There is currently no evidence to suggest that site occupants could not
peacefully co-exist with the settled community. We do, however, anticipate
widespread concern from the settled and travelling communities over a range
of issues which undermine the viability of the site (noise, access to services)
as well as other issues such as the potential impact on heritage and
ecological assets
8.10 Avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
This is currently unknown although given the location of the site (and the
likelihood of car dependency) this will contribute further to pressure on the
road infrastructure
8.11 Reflect 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.
This is unknown as no site specific proposals have been produced. The
Parish Council will wish to clarify whether it is WDC's intention to promote
'residential only' sites or whether an element of 'business use' or parking of
commercial vehicles associated with business use is envisaged (along with
the storage of plant, equipment and other materials)
8.12 Overall interim conclusions
The level of potential mitigation measures required (and viability of the those
measures) regarding
XXV. Transport
XXVI. Archaeology, historic buildings and Ecology
XXVII. Noise pollution
XXVIII. Potential site integrity issues (National Guide Dogs Breeding Centre)
Combined with the sub optimal provision of accessible and viable
XXIX. Health and
XXX. Educational provision and
XXXI. A lack of choice of modes of transport (supporting sustainability)provides
serious and significant barriers to the development of GT10 as a viable
traveller site. No further consideration should be given to this site without the
necessary evidential data to quantify the risks and costs associated with
mitigation of items XXV to XXVlll. Notwithstanding this items XXlX - XXXl
substantially undermine this proposal
We would also recommend that The Parish Council objects to this site option
given that there is the potential for the development to undermine the
character and openness of the rural environment. It is for the developer to
clearly demonstrate how this potential harm will be mitigated in any proposals
9. SITE BY SITE INTERIM ANALYSIS. SITE GT 15
LAND ADJACENT TO EAST OF EUROPA WAY - 4 POTENTIAL PITCHES
9.1 Overall conclusion
A four pitch traveller site development is a relatively modest proposition (albeit
future plans may include requests for expansion to accommodate family
growth) and therefore any potential developer should seek to ensure that
optimal conditions exist for such a development and any future associated
development/ expansion.
9.2 At first review, there are always factors which weigh in favour of a
smaller traveller site proposal such as less impact on the environment and
services. At GT15 it is also the case that the site enjoys
* Reasonable access to local services and
* There are no issues relating to the effects of the proposal on listed or
other historic assets
9.3 However, for such a site - even of modest proportions - to be viable,
key factors have to be present - we will argue - to provide the basis for a
subsequent planning applications or assessment via Examination in Public.
These factors are considered below and our comments relating to the site
based on WDC's own assessment criteria follow:
9.4 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
WDCLPSA states that:
'With regard to SA objectives relating to sustainable transport; the need to
travel; and access to local services & community facilities, the effects are
considered to be uncertain/ minor negative at this stage. This is because
although the site has good access to local services and facilities within 2
miles, it currently has no access to public transport or safe pedestrian
walkways and at this stage, little detail is known about existing traffic and
transport issues and how the allocation will affect them. Mitigation is provided
to a certain extent by national planning policy but the effectiveness of the
mitigation will depend on design and layout at the development management
level. It is recommended that there are strong public transport infrastructure
requirements for this site to ensure that the right level of improvement and
upgrade is achieved'.
It is therefore highly likely that the distance of the site to key facilities and
employment will promote car (and other vehicle) dependence in an area
already noted for 'high volumes of traffic'. A 4 pitch site could generate in the
region of 25 plus trips per day (business, personal, school) with no opportunity
to offset this through use of local bus services
We note that:
(a) The nearest Doctors surgery is in Bishop's Tachbrook (3km)
(b) The nearest primary school is Bishop's Tachbrook (3km)
(c) The nearest secondary school is Campion (4km)
Local knowledge suggests that Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is 'always
oversubscribed' and that often 'children within the catchment area are turned
down'. This school is only a single form entry and it is likely that it would not
be able to provide for additional requirements generated by even a modest
new development
All parents will be aware that residing within the priority area does not
guarantee an offer of a place at that school. These effects are long term and
a substantial negative against the proposal
We regard this is a 'major negative' given the need to place particular
emphasis on the need for health and educational facilities to address
significant health and educational inequalities often faced by travellers.
WDCLPSA states that:
'It would be recommended to insert strong transport requirements for this
particular site to ensure that the right level of improvement and upgrade is
achieved'
We recommend that the Parish Council does not support this proposal until
such time as clear, costed, proposals are shown which would mitigate this
'major negative' (Transport) AND identify how sufficient access to education
services could be guaranteed
9.5 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
The site is known to be in an area of risk of flooding. From our interim
research it appears to be the case that just under half of the site is within a
flood risk area
(http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/93E97855-F61C-4BF7-BF61-
3E4FBAF88771/0/ReducedLeamingtonandWarwickPropMapSeptember2010.
pdf)
WDC should therefore carry out a full Flood Risk Assessment to understand
the level, type and cost of mitigation required. The Parish Council should
object to this proposal also based on the potential for flood risk
9.6 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking,
turning and servicing on site and
Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)
Our site visit may wish to comment on these facets although it is
acknowledged that given that detailed plans are not available it is difficult to
provide precise comment on this issue
9.7 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important
features of the natural and historic environment
WDCLPSA states that:
'There are no listed buildings, Conservation Areas or Scheduled Monuments
on or adjacent to the site'
9.8 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming
the character of the area.
An associated issue is the impact of any development on the ecology and
archaeology of the area
WDCLPSA notes that:
'There are no international, national or local nature conservation designations
on or adjacent to the site but the presence of protected species and the
ecological value of the site in not known at this stage. It would be
recommended that strong environmental policies are developed to protect and
encourage enhancement of the natural environment and include provision for
green infrastructure.
In addition, we have found no published data regarding the presence or
absence of archaeology. We therefore conclude that the potential for
archaeology is unknown
As with the previous sites, the ecological or archaeological status of the site
could change dramatically if detailed evidence was available regarding
potential archaeology, protected species or even the overall ecological value
of the site. It is therefore recommended that the Parish Council applies a
precautionary principal and objects to this element of the proposal until such
time as a detailed ecological assessment is carried out
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
9.9 With regards to 'Avoiding areas where there is the potential for
noise and other disturbance'
WDCLPSA notes that:
'The site is adjacent to the Warwick by-pass A452 (noise effects on sensitive
residential development) and..... In addition, it is recommended that a noise
assessment is carried out to identify possible noise impacts and suggest
appropriate mitigation.
WDC will be aware that noise effects can be a significant obstacle for
development and this may be reflected in any Examination in Public (see
previous note to traveller site appeal decision.
The harm from noise therefore clearly needs to be assessed and quantified
and as such the proposal should be opposed until such data is available and
the harms (and acceptability or otherwise) known
Will the proposed site:
9.10 Promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site
and the local community
There is currently no evidence to suggest that site occupants could not
peacefully co-exist with the settled community. We do, however, anticipate
widespread concern from the settled and travelling communities over a range
of issues which undermine the viability of the site (noise, access to services)
as well as other issues such as the potential impact on ecological assets and
the cumulative effects on infrastructure from other potential nearby sites
9.11 Avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
This is currently unknown although given the location of the site (and the
likelihood of car dependency) this will contribute further to pressure on the
road infrastructure. This could have an enhanced negative effect if this was
combined with the potential effect of other nearby proposed Gypsy and
Traveller sites
9.12 Reflect 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.
This is unknown as no site specific proposals have been produced. The
Parish Council will wish to clarify whether it is WDC's intention to promote
'residential only' sites or whether an element of 'business use' or parking of
commercial vehicles associated with business use is envisaged (along with
the storage of plant, equipment and other materials)
Overall interim conclusions
The level of potential mitigation measures required regarding
XXXII. Flood Risk
XXXIII. Transport
XXXIV. Unknown archaeological and ecological status
XXXV. Noise pollution
Combined with the sub optimal provision of accessible and viable
XXXVI. Health and
XXXVII. Educational provision and
XXXVIII. A lack of choice of modes of transport (supporting sustainability)
provides serious and significant barriers to the development of GT15 as a
viable traveller site. No further consideration should be given to this site
without the necessary evidential data to quantify the risks and costs
associated with mitigation of items XXX11 to XXX1V. Notwithstanding this
items XXXV - XXXVI1 substantially undermine this proposal
It is noted that the current consultation proposal include four Gypsy and
Traveller sites in close proximity i.e. GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT15 - with a
total of 49 pitches being proposed. We therefore have additional concerns
about the cumulative effects on sustainable transport; the need to travel; local
services and community facilities and other factors described hereto. We
therefore recommend that The Parish Council should object to the cumulative
effect of these proposals in addition to site specific issues raised in this report
until such time as information is provided by WDC as to how individual and
cumulative issues will be addressed
We would also recommend that The Parish Council objects to this site option
given that there is the potential for the development to undermine the
character and openness of the rural environment. It is for the developer to
clearly demonstrate how this potential harm will be mitigated in any proposals

Hi:

I am very much against the proposal for Gypsy and traveller sites in Warwickshire, in particular close to Chase Meadow, for the reasons sighted below:

1. House prices will fall / houses will become hard to sell, this is notable from looking at some national statistics where traveller sites are located, just look at the 3+ acre plot of land in Pathlow Stratford upon Avon, this plot has planning permission, however as it's located near a traveller site it's been on the marker over two years at a reduced price, elsewhere this would have commanded twice the asking price.

2. It will be detrimental to the incoming view of Warwick when coming in from Calverdon direction, this could affect local tourism.

3. The local doctors surgery in Warwick is very busy already, will it be able to cope with additional families, don't forget the Chase meadow is expanding.

4. finally, can you please confirm how much council tax the traveller site families will pay? will this be in accordance with other residence that utilise the services in Warwickshire.

I am not a resident of Warwick District, however two of the sites (GT03 and GT04) under consideration that I wish to comment on are very familiar to me and are situated on the boundary with Stratford Upon Avon District Council.

In view of the nature of sites for gypsys and travellers and the area of interest under consideration I contend that a joint approach should be undertaken by the two council's to achieve satisfactory allocations.

Looking at site GT04 I contend that the location fails the test of being near to an existing settlement with access to local services, doctor, shops schools etc. There is no indication at this stage of assessment of capacity or consideration of the services and facilities offered.

My primary concern relates to traffic and safety, particularly on the Fosse Way B4455. The Highway Authority have signs erected warning that it is a high accident risk route. Any new vehicular access to the highway between Middle Road and Harbury Lane would be detrimental to road safety unless extensive highway works were undertaken to safely accommodate turning vehicles. Furthermore there are no footways alongside the B4455, Harbury Lane or Middle Road; if the proposed site is to accommodate families then it would be essential for suitable footways to be provided to enable young persons in particular to access the nearest 'facilities' in safety.

I note that Your own Consultants Final Interim Sustainability Appraisal Report on the gypsy and traveller sites draws attention to the fact that at this stage very little is known about traffic and transport and how allocations will affect these. It is a major and vital aspect requiring careful consideration.

see attached

I am horrified by the response of my village, Harbury, to the proposed Gypsy Traveller site along the Fosse Way. I object most strongly to the racist material that is on public display, prominent in local pubs and pushed through my and other letter boxes. I can not imagine any other ethnic, racial, religious or gender group being targeted in such a manner without police action, nor can I imagine how it must feel to be a member of the Gypsy Traveller community and have to live with such public displays of animosity.

In view of the vehemence of the campaign to marshal objections to the proposed site; including village meetings and support to submit complaints.; I suggest that a number of people who do not share this view might well feel too intimidated to say so, and therefore that the objections will not accurately reflect public feeling.

I also contend that public feeling is no basis on which to decide public policy. At the risk of resorting to the same emotional level as the protesters, if it were we would still have have public hangings.

You website suggests that Warwick District Council is only considering the sites because it is its statutory duty. I strongly suggest it is our moral duty to make decent provision for a group that has suffered appallingly through public policy over the past few decades, if not longer. Gypsy Traveller sites, both semi-permanent and seasonally used, that existed in the past have long since been destroyed or made uninhabitable and the possibility of friendly co-existence between communities made almost impossible by this sort of campaign; thus leading to a self-fulfilment of the prediction of problems.

My final point is to note that the campaign literature I have seen to date is all anonymous.

Assuming the sites chosen are acceptable to the community they are to serve and have been identified in collaboration with that community I strongly support their creation

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.

see attached