Dear Sirs,

I have obtained from you and studied extensively the above document and would like to comment as follows:- Government policy is and has been for many years to aim for an integrated and inclusive society. Your document advocates exactly the opposite and if adopted, would lead to isolation and separation of the minority Gypsy and Traveller groups from mainstream society.

First let me comment on the pertinent details of your document:-
- You acknowledge that the numbers that HMG instruct you to accommodate are relatively small - somewhere between 23 and 33 depending on which paragraph on which page you read!
- The document calls for protection of the Green Belt.
- You call for sites that can be integrated into the landscape without
harming the area
- In paragraph 7.3 on page 9 you set out policy criteria on easy
access to schools, doctors, and public transport. Safe roads and provision of utilities, avoidance of flooding and many other
conditions.
- In paragraph 7.4 you talk about "integrated co-existence" and
"sustainability"

I submit that without exception, your chosen sites do not come close to fulfilling any of these requirements for the following reasons:-
- All sites are isolated from existing communities.
- Many are situated on extremely busy - and signed as - dangerous roads.
- All require new and bespoke infrastructures. Would planning
permission be granted and infrastructure provided for small private developments in these locations? No. I didn't think so.
- Isolation can never be sustainable. Integration stands more chance.
- Scattered communities are more difficult and expensive to manage.

Warwick District Council, like all other councils, are now required by HMG to embark on an extensive building and development programmes.
With a bit of lateral thinking and an abandonment of the rote - "we have always done it this way" - approach on development, I believe that Gypsy/Traveller accommodation can and should be incorporated into one or more of the extensive new estates that will need to be built in the near future.
I know you will respond, "but the Developers won't like it", but I remind you that we are not building for the benefit of developers, but for the benefit and stability of the country as a whole.
And there is an upside. This proposal does not affect anyone. If you don't want to live close to Gypsies, don't move on to the new estate.
Give people choices.
In addition, Local Authorities will be under greater scrutiny to ensure that the allocated sites are managed more effectively.

Councillors and Officers, think carefully what you wish for.

I trust you will also think carefully about the above submission.

I am opposed to these proposals for the following reasons:

* All of the sites have some ecological value and environmental issues which does not appear to have been assessed.
* WDC should revisit its Green Belt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure to allocate land for all forms of development during the new Local plan period to the south of the District.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 16: Development would have a significantly negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a 'Secondary Service Village' and its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Sites 12 and 16: Access to these sites is from the Barford Bypass (speed limit 60 mph). There have been a significant number of accidents on it, one of which was fatal. The existing access into the sites is completely inadequate.
* Site 16 is a flood compensation area and therefore clearly an inappropriate site.
* Site 12 is immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk.
* Sites 6,9, 10 and 20 are situated on historic landfill sites which, though not in use, may still release greenhouse gases and are therefore totally unsuitable for any form of permanent occupation.

Please find below some specific objections I have regarding the Local Plan related to SItes for Gypsies and Travellers.

Two general points:
1. I have little confidence in the analysis that underpins the proposals. There appears to be the potential for a significant level of double counting and inflating the requirement.
2. It seems disproportionate that the majority of the proposed sites are in the South of the District.
My specific objections are:
* Sites 5,6,9,12,16 and 20: All fail to meet the policy criteria of WDC Rural Area Policies.
* Sites 5,6,9,10,12 and 16: Development of these sites would have an adverse impact on the capacity of St Peter's School Barford.
* Site 16 is the flood compensation area and contains a central pond which is permanent and unsuitable for any development.
* Sites 12 and 16: Are adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk.
* Sites 12 and 16: Access to these sites is from the Barford Bypass. There have been a significant number of accidents on it, one of which was fatal. The existing access into the sites is completely inadequate.
* Sites 5,6,9,12,16 and 20 would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and consequently a loss of farming related employment opportunities.
* Based on information provided at the village meeting, it appears that 21 relevant families are already housed by WDC, begging the question why are these sites necessary.

Why should gypsies be given a site and not pay any of the taxes that we rate payers have to?

If gypsies want to be gypsies then they should be allocated a parking space at the side of the road(s) where they can stay overnight and then move on as they do

Why can't those gypsies in a permanent dwelling pay the same as the rest of us have to!!!

Are these so called proposals really proposals or is the deal really done how can we trust the councillors that are supposed to represent us!!!

I am disgusted by these proposals!

Dear Sirs,
I must object in the strongest terms to the plans to turn Sydenham, Whitnash, Warwick Gates, Bishops Tachbrook and South Warwick into one giant horrendous conurbation.
Who do expect to buy all of these houses?
The banks aren't lending and people aren't spending. There is a risk of building a ghost town.
We simply DO NOT NEED this many houses
I have lived on Warwick Gates since the early days in 1999. It is my observation that over half of the houses built were not occupied by local people, but people moving into the area because of its proximity to the M40 and convenience for commuting to Birmingham, London, Coventry, Banbury, Oxford etc. If you believe that there is a local housing shortage, this is not the answer. I guarantee you that the houses will be filled by people moving into the area. Now more people moving into the area might be great news for Morrisons who (for some reason) have been allowed to build yet another supermarket that we neither want or need, but it is terrible news for the current residents that you are supposed to be representing.
It's not fair
I heard in last week's meeting at Whitnash Primary School that just saying 'it's not fair' will be ignored even if it is blatantly true. However, as my representatives in local government, I firmly believe that being fair to local residents is absolutely your duty and your obligation. This ISN'T FAIR. I feel as though I am being told that I am going to get 10-20 years of disruption, development, dirt. Followed by permanent increases in pollution, traffic, destruction of countryside on a massive scale in a circle around my house! This IS NOT FAIR and MUST NOT be allowed to happen. If we really need the houses (which I dispute) then it is your duty to share them around the area, it cannot be OK to imprison our houses inside this planned circle of destruction.
Brownfield sites
In the presentation at Whitnash Primary school, we were told that the council is taking a 'Proactive approach to brownfield sites'. How can this be true when the biggest and best brownfield site in the area has been used to build yet another unnecessary supermarket. What a golden opportunity wasted to build in-town housing and start addressing the alleged housing shortage. Instead we get a plan to destroy more countryside. Your plan has no credibility.
Massive increase in traffic
There WILL be a huge increase in traffic. To be honest, just telling me that you have a computer model that says everything will be fine doesn't wash. The traffic congestion is already terrible. There is no way that throwing another 12,000 cars into the mix is going to be OK. Building dual carriageways to squeeze more cars in more quickly will clearly make everything worse.
Air pollution
I am told that air pollution in Warwick is already at unacceptably high (illegally high someone said?) levels. There is no way that throwing another 12,000 cars into the mix is going to be OK.
Emergency services
We heard that there are only 4 points to cross the river. All of which are single lane bottlenecks. All of the services are north of the river, yet you are proposing to massively increase the population South of the river. Not only would this ruin our countryside, our air, our roads, our views, but you will adversely affect our access to emergency services. On this plan I would expect to see a new hospital, a new fire station, a new police station south of the river to address the problem.
Further decay of Leamington town centre
I believe that the prospect of huge population growth south of Leamington is driving the expansion of the Shires retail park and surrounding area. Clearly Morrisons, Aldi, Debenhams, John Lewis etc would not be moving in without being pretty sure that the developments will go ahead. This will continue to drag shoppers away from the town centre and we will get yet more boarded up, closed down units.
Local community & identity
I fear that because I can't put a monetary value on quality of life, it doesn't matter to the planners. It does. Whitnash IS Whitnash, Warwick Gates IS Warwick Gates. This is our home, our identity, where we belong. It MEANS something to us. Your plans destroy all of that permanently and there will no going back.
Gypsies
If all of the above wasn't enough, I'm also being told that you plan to create 20 gypsy sites in Warwick District. Why is the vast concentration in a circle around my house again! You know this is unfair. Why must you keep dumping from a height on my area? ITS NOT FAIR. You cannot look at the plan and think that it's OK. You exist to look after the interests of the district - LOOK AFTER MY INTERESTS! It's not OK to keep dumping on one corner while the rest of the district do not take their share. Yes I am worried about crime, yes I am worried about house prices, insurance costs, quality of life and safety.
Final plea!
I can see that there is massive commercial pressure to build 1000s of new houses. It can't be a coincidence that we have more supermarkets being built a stone's throw from the 'proposed' developments.
I guarantee you that 99% of the local population do not want this. It is disturbing to think that it's probably going to happen anyway. This is supposed to be a democracy.
This madness has to stop. You can't just keep building more and more houses for ever. Enough is enough. Please be strong, please be brave. Fight central government, fight the big businesses, save our home.

To Development Policy Manager:

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

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

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

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

Addressing the 'Policy Criteria' in relation to GT03:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr Elliott,

We write with reference to the consultation for gypsy and traveller sites currently taking place.

We have considered the potential sites that have been put forward by the Council. We are extremely concerned by the inclusion of Kite's Nest Lane as a possible site (GT13). AS you are undoubtedly aware, this site has been the subject of two planning applications for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site. WDC have now decided twice that development of this site is inappropriate. The Secretary of State has also deemed it unsuitable for any form of development of this kind; even one Gypsy pitch would be inappropriate.

This site is in Green Belt: it is therefore inappropriate development. The site has been found not to be in keeping with its surroundings, which is open countryside. It is down a narrow country lane, with no footpaths or easy access to a main road network. These, and many other reasons, which have been discussed in detail at two Planning Inquiries, make it completely unsuitable. Of equal concern, however, is the fact that this site has been included at all. Significant resource has been expended by WDC already and the site has now, on two separate occasions, been found to be unsuitable. It is clear to us, therefore, that the Kites Nest Lane site should not be under consideration at all and we suggest it is withdrawn immediately and object in the strongest terms to any form of development there.

We believe that WDC should be looking outside of the Green Belt for all of its sites. However, we understand that a large part of the District is Green Belt. If it is not possible to identify enough sites outside of the Green Belt, we would suggest using Green Belt sites which have already had buildings on them. An example of this given in the consultation would be the Oaklands Farm site (GT19).

We have commented on the sites with which we are familiar and given reasons as to why we feel these would be suitable below.

GT15: This site is close to amenities and could easily be landscaped to integrate into its surroundings. It would be possible to provide appropriate access to the site.

GT17 and GT18: Taken together these two sites would provide a substantial number of pitches. This land has previously had buildings on it for many years and could easily be converted to providing Gypsy pitches without burdening Warwickshire Green Belt with additional development. They have good access to the main road network, which we believe is a requirement of the Gypsies and Travellers. Utilities will already be set up and these sites are close to Warwick town for access to services. Several houses lie along the A46 so clearly there would be no noise issues and the current design of the land means there is plenty of room for pulling on to and off the sites (there may even be slip roads already in place).

GT20: This site would provide excellent access to main roads and would be large enough to provide substantial integration of a Gypsy site into the landscape. A significant number of pitches could be created here, allowing Gypsies the chance to live in their extremely large family groups, as they often wish to.

Despite the positive features of these four sites, we still feel that land outside of the Green Belt should be the focus of this search. WDC has stated previously that any Gypsy Site allocations it makes do not necessarily have to be in Green Belt and we would urge WDC to carefully consider its position with regards to protecting the Warwickshire Green Belt. Indeed, the Secretary of State has recently announced his intentions to further protect Green Belt from Gypsy and Traveller developments and WDC should also be looking to safeguard its Green Belt from any kind of development.

We can confirm that this as our formal response to the consultation, and trust that WDC will consider this as appropriate.

SDC understands that this document is effectively a scoping consultation to provide a steer to Warwick District Council in order to assist them in identifying suitable specific sites for Gypsies and Travellers to meet their needs over the 15 year plan period. Following this consultation, Warwick District Council will further consult on its Preferred Options (i.e. sites). SDC draws Warwick District Council's attention to best practice and Government guidance, particularly in respect of optimum site size, use of strategic sites and the requirement for co-existence between the settled and traveller communities.

SDC supports the inclusion of a criteria-based policy for bringing forward suitable sites for Gypsy and Traveller pitches through a DPD. This should also apply to proposals bought forward via a planning application. However, SDC considers that this policy might be strengthened through the inclusion of further criteria, for example:
* The site will not be located on unstable or contaminated land that cannot be mitigated
* The site will have a good residential environment and be of good quality design
* The site will not adversely impact on neighbouring residential amenity
* Arrangements are put in place to ensure the proper management and retention of the site

The latter three criteria are particularly important given the close proximity of the broad locations to Stratford-on-Avon District. SDC considers that mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that the site identification approach takes account of the likely impacts on the wider locality, irrespective of administrative boundaries, and those residents in Stratford District affected by the proposals are engaged and consulted to the same degree as residents of Warwick District.

In respect of the broad locations, it is unclear how they have been identified since no assessment is provided and the benefits of these particular locations are not shown. This begs the question as to why these particular locations have been selected rather than, say, an adjacent parcel of land. Notwithstanding this, it is acknowledged that any Gypsy and Traveller site would only form a small parcel of land within any one broad location, and there would be only one site per broad location. SDC endorses this approach. However, some of the identified broad locations are in very close proximity with each other. SDC considers that some broad locations should be treated as mutually exclusive and the identification of actual sites in close proximity, albeit in separate broad locations, should be avoided. The following broad locations ought to be considered as mutually exclusive:
* sites GT03 and GT04
* sites GT05, GT09 and GT10
* sites GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT15
* sites GT12 and GT16

SDC is concerned at the proximity of many proposed sites where such a relatively high density of traveller facilities may create a disproportionately high concentration of caravan and temporary buildings that may impact adversely upon the openness and character of the landscape and otherwise impact on the balance between the settled and traveller communities. SDC note that many of the sites are for 12-15 pitches, which could result in 30 caravans plus facilities per site. Optimum site size is generally considered to be 5 pitches.

SDC is also aware that Warwick District Council is proposing two strategic allocations: the first to the south of Warwick and Witnash around the Europa Way and Harbury Lane junction, and the second to the south of Whitnash, east of the railway. Apart from broad location 15 which appears to abut the first on the A452, no broad locations are related to either strategic allocation. SDC considers that these options should be explored further given that locations in more rural areas may potentially be further away from services and facilities.

Until specific sites are identified as part of the Preferred Options consultation SDC, SDC does not consider it is in a position to provide specific comments on the suitability or otherwise of the broad locations. Notwithstanding this SDC would welcome the opportunity to work with Warwick District Council as part of the plan-making process. Finally, I draw your attention to a factual error. To avoid confusion, Site GT02 should be re-titled to read 'Land abutting the Fosse Way at its junction with the A425', not the B425 which is in Solihull.

We live on Chase Meadow and attended the meeting at Aylesford School on 15th July in order to learn more about the proposed sites, 4 of which are within a short distance from our estate.

We understand the requirement to meet Government guidelines regarding these sites but cannot accept that the selection of sites has to be so close to residential developments.

1)The response from residents of our estate has been overwhelmingly against any site in this vicinity. If one of the aims is to integrate the different communities, this is already doomed to failure because of the antagonism and hostility that is evident and was expressed at the meeting.

2)The town of Warwick is a tourist attraction and any site within close proximity to the town would have a detrimental effect because of the visual impact of such a development on entering a town of special interest.

3)The areas around Hampton Lane are prone to flooding and the already existing problem would only be exacerbated by further hard-standings and buildings.

4)We understand that the race-course have concerns about the risk to thoroughbreads stabled near the race-track, due to cross-infection from the travellers/gypsies livestock.

5)We are concerned about the management of the sites and what control the authority would have if they become over-subscribed or if the waste- management is not adequately dealt with. Would the rate payers have to foot the bill if the managers cannot make the sites sufficient economically viable to be properly maintained?

6)Of all the proposed sites, Hampton Lane/Budbrook Lodge is the most adjacent to a large housing development, which is continuing to expand rapidly with consequent pressures on schools, doctors and other facilities.

7) Have the travelling community been asked if they want to live near residential developments? The overall impression is that the travellers prefer a rural environment with their own closed communities and sense of privacy. They are mobile with cars and touring vans and can access the social facilities they need without being adjacent to them. For this reason, countryside plots would be more acceptible to both them and us.

8)Reading the objections to Kites Nest Lane, it appears that it is the enfringemnt of the Green Belt that is of most concern. If the practical issues of access, sewage, etc. can be resolved in the same way as they would have to be addressed in a new site, why cannot there be some compromise on the reclassification of the Green Belt for exceptional circumstances? This would apply not just to Kites Nest Lane but also to another area in the north of the district, as we are not talking about mass development but semi-rural use.

see attached

I'd like to say that after hearing various rumours about this proposal it was certainly refreshing to speak to a council representative at Asda on Sunday, after reading the literature handed to me, it seems quite a reasonable proposal.

He explained that over our whole district, we would only need to provide 31 pitches, which would mean 31 families. Considering the size of our district, I think it is extremely reasonable and can't see why anyone would have an issue with it.

1. First of all, I want to register my agreement with the proposed plan in principal which was discussed at the meeting - I agree that there were no exceptional circumstances which would allow for the inclusion of the green belt land to the North of Leamington Spa to be used for building purposes.

2. Queries:

2.1 With regard to the sites for gypsies and travellers, how does the Council propose to deal with the management and maintenance of the sites, collection of rent etc from the gypsies and travellers who will be using the sites.

2.2 As I understand that it is proposed that some of these sites might be allowing for permanent or semi-permanent sites for the gypsies and travellers and that schools, doctors etc. should be accessible to these sites, how is it proposed that the gypsies/travellers will be contributing to the cost of providing schooling etc. in the form of council tax and how will that be collected?

2.3 If it is the Council's intention for these sites to be used rent free/council tax free by gypsies/travellers, please explain to me why they should be allowed to have the use of these facilities (paid for by the local taxpayers) free of charge.

2.4 In response to one of the questions raised at the Forum, the Council representative said that the Council has no say in how the builders will develop the sites and what they will build on them. This caused some consternation and confusion because of the following:

(a) of course the Council has to consider any planning applications and plans put forward by the builders and therefore has a significant power to agree, disagree or amend such plans;

(b) in the years before the slump in the housing market, a great deal of flats were either purpose-built or converted out of the old Victorian/Edwardian buildings - these were in the main bought by investors for rental purposes and there is a significant number of students as a result based in Leamington Spa/Warwick. In light of this there was general agreement in the room that amongst the properties to be built, the requisite proportion of affordable housing should not take the form of flats but should be freehold properties with a minimum of two bedrooms and with a garden. It was therefore disturbing when the Council representative indicated that the Council has no say in what the builders build.

(c) There was concern that in light of the current difficulties in first time buyers (or indeed generally) obtaining mortgage funds, there was a risk that a significant number the houses which are to be built might be bought by corporate or private investors (as they have easy access to funds) for rental purposes which could start another building boom and result in an increase in house prices to the continuing detriment of first time buyers. The question I wished to raise was what steps the Council might consider taking to ensure this could be avoided e.g. by requiring the builders to come up with a scheme to help finance the sale to first time buyers and perhaps take steps to discourage builders to sell houses en masse to investors i.e. require any buyer to be the owner/occupier of the houses.

I am writing to object to the proposed travellers sites in Warwick. Warwick is the most historical town in Warwickshire. These sites would have a dramatic and adverse impact on how the town is viewed and will negatively impact Tourism to the local area, particularly the Racecourse, and many local businesses who heavily rely on it for trade.

May I add one last comment. Why are traveller sites not being considered as an integral part of the possible new expansion settlements in the local plan. The new expansion settlements offer the opportunity to tackle design issues, to integrate traveller sites into a new master plan in a planned and coordinated way. The sites presented in the consultation suggest that WDC just want to bung the sites somewhere rural with no real strategy. Please embrace the design opportunities presented by the new settlements...if indeed they come forward at the scale currently proposed.

Dear Sir,

RE: Response to the Draft Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
My comments relate to sites GT3, GT4, GT5, GT6, GT9, GT10 and GT15.

I note with concern the disproportionate number of site options selected in the Bishop's Tachbrook boundary. While I understand the need for Warwick District Council to provide 31 pitches for the gypsy and traveller community it appears unreasonable that the rural community of Bishop's Tachbrook should have been selected for such a significant number when considering the size of the search area.
I do not believe that the 6 sites selected within Bishop's Tachbrook meet the site criteria set out in the Site for Gypsy and Travellers Consultation document and have set out my reasons below.
It appears that a large number of the potential site have been positioned along the motorway. I understand the need the Gypsy and Traveller Community to have access to good transport links but I don't believe that access to the motorway network is a key requirement. As stated in consultation document, the traditional lifestyle of this community means they prefer to live and work in the same location. It also states that the sites are to be permanent settlements and therefore I don't believe access to the motorway network is a key requirement of the Gypsy and Traveller Community.
Site 3 and 4 - object;
This site is very remote from local amenities such as schools, GP practices and public transport. As stated above, the traditional lifestyle of the Gypsy and Traveller Community often means they will live and work in the same location. They are not likely to have access to reliable transportation and a site that is not within walking distance of these essential amenities is not suitable for their needs. There is also no pedestrian access to these site, meaning access to public transport would be dangerous, which is my view is unacceptable.
The school in Bishop's Tachbrook is operating to capacity. A Department for Education and Skills (2005) report, Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils, reports that gypsy, Roman and traveller pupils are more likely to be identified as having special educational needs. Bishop's Tachbrook primary may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support these needs when it is already operating at capacity.
The site should be located in areas that avoid high risk of flooding. The Environment Agency designates this area as being at likely risk of flooding from rivers or sea without defences. There are a number of streams criss-crossing this area. The Tach Brook runs nearby which provides additional flooding risks.

Site 5 and 9 - object;
The only access onto site 5 and 9 is a very busy road, there is no pedestrian access;. this is completely unsuitable. Pedestrian access is a key requirement of the Gypsy and Traveller Community, not only to meet their lifestyle needs but to be able to be able to reach the key amenities that they need. It will also add to the sense of isolation and prevent the Gypsy and Traveller Community from integrating into the local neighbourhood. The consultation document highlight the link between the disadvantages the Gypsy and Traveller Community face and the shortage of good quality Gypsy and Traveller sites and I believe that a site without pedestrian access does not meet the requirement of a suitable site and will not solve the problems of disadvantage that the legislation is trying to prevent.
Historic Warwick is a major tourist attraction and brings great benefits to the local economy through the revenues that tourism brings. A Gypsy and Traveller site on the approach to Historic Warwick is not in keeping with the local surroundings and will have a negative visual impact on the on this area. The approach to Historic Warwick gives visitors a perception about the area and a negative visual impact may decrease tourism and have a very damaging affect on the local economy.
The site also contains listed buildings. I believe it is very important to preserve these building and their surrounding area and I believe that the visual impact a Gypsy and Traveller site will have will cause a detrimental impact on this area.
The school in Bishop's Tachbrook is operating to capacity. A Department for Education and Skills (2005) report, Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils, reports that gypsy, Roman and traveller pupils are more likely to be identified as having special educational needs. Bishop's Tachbrook primary may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support these needs when it is already operating at capacity.
Site 6 - object;
The only access onto site 6 is a very busy road, there is no pedestrian access; this is completely unsuitable. Pedestrian access is a key requirement of the Gypsy and Traveller Community , not only to meet their lifestyle needs but to be able to be able to reach the key amenities that they need. It will also add to the sense of isolation and prevent the Gypsy and Traveller Community from integrating into the local neighbourhood. The consultation document highlight the link between the disadvantages the Gypsy and Traveller Community face and the shortage of good quality Gypsy and Traveller sites and I believe that a site without pedestrian access does not meet the requirement of a suitable site and will not solve the problems of disadvantage that the legislation is trying to prevent.
This site is also very remote from main centres. As set out in the consultation document the disadvantage that this group faces is due to the poor provision of suitable sites with access to amenities such as schools and GP practices. This site is not suitable as these facilities are not within easy access and will prevent the Gypsy and Traveller Community from accessing the services that are vital to reduce the disadvantage.
The school in Bishop's Tachbrook is operating to capacity. A Department for Education and Skills (2005) report, Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils, reports that gypsy, Roman and traveller pupils are more likely to be identified as having special educational needs. Bishop's Tachbrook primary may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support these needs when it is already operating at capacity.
Site 10 - object;
This site is located very close to the M40. As set out in the consultation document the sites selected should avoid areas where there is potential for noise disturbances. The level of noise pollution at this site would be very high and the accommodation favoured by the Gypsy and Traveller Community will not have suitable defences against this noise. The noise caused by the motorway continues throughout the night and it will lead to a poor quality of life if located in this area.
The site is also very close to the Guide Bogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre.
The site is not within walking distance of supermarkets, a town centre or any other essential amenities. The small rural community of Bishop's Tachbrook does not have a school that is suitable to accommodate the extra 20 to 30 children that could be living at this site as the school is already at capacity. The village only has 1 shop which supplies only basic essentials and is not suitable for a family to use as its main weekly shop. The facilities within walking distance are not suitable for the Gypsy and Traveller Community and I believe that they will require these amenities within walking distance if they are to live in the traditional lifestyle.
The school in Bishop's Tachbrook is operating to capacity. A Department for Education and Skills (2005) report, Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils, reports that gypsy, Roman and traveller pupils are more likely to be identified as having special educational needs. Bishop's Tachbrook primary may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support these needs when it is already operating at capacity.
Site 15 - object;
This site is located on the bank of the Tachbrook. The Gypsy and Traveller Community wish to live and work in the same location and therefore it is very likely that the Tachbrook will become contaminated if this is used as a place of work. I believe this is unacceptable.
I don't believe this site would meet the criteria that states that site should be integrated into the local landscape without harming the character of the area. Bishop's Tahbrook is a small rural community and this site, if selected, would not visually integrate into the local landscape. At present this site is a picturesque area at the entrance to the village, this is something that should be protected.
The school in Bishop's Tachbrook is operating to capacity. A Department for Education and Skills (2005) report, Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils, reports that gypsy, Roman and traveller pupils are more likely to be identified as having special educational needs. Bishop's Tachbrook primary may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support these needs when it is already operating at capacity.
Bishop's Tachbrook;
Bishop's Tachbrook is a small rural community with one primary school that is operating at capacity, a small GP branch surgery with very limited opening hours and very limited access to other amenities. I don't believe this area is suitable to meet the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community.
The documentation provided by the council does not sufficiently outline the impact that the site would have on the local community. The documentation provides guidance about the Gypsy and Traveller community and the disadvantages they face but does not state what impact this would have on the local area. However, I note from the consultation document that the sites selected should promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community and there is very strong local opposition to siting a gypsy and traveller site in this location as evidenced by the local meeting held on 17th July 2013.

Dear Sir

Gypsy and Traveller Site Options Consultation

The NFU is a professional body which represents the interests of approximately 75% of all farmers and growers and has 850 businesses in membership in Warwickshire. We have compiled the following comments in response to your consultation on your Gypsy and Traveller Site Options Consultation. Our views are on behalf of the farming and land management sector in general and follow discussion with local members. A group of NFU members recently met with Chris Elliott, Chief Executive of WDC together with officers from the Planning
and Economy teams and discussed the consultation paper.

We have a number of concerns relating to the consultation paper. We do make our comments in the knowledge that the Council is under a duty to assess the need for Gypsy and Traveller sites in its area, and is under pressure to plan for sites over a reasonable timescale.

Our primary concern is that the site selection process has been undertaken without a thorough and well-reasoned assessment, we are seriously concerned about the level of engagement that has been undertaken with the owners who's sites have been identified as potentially suitable locations. We are pleased to note that the Council would only resort to compulsory purchase as a last resort and very much hope that a solution can be identified that avoids this approach.

The document does not include enough information on the basis for selection on of each of the sites. For example we would expect that there should be information on access to local facilities such as GPs, health services and schools for each of the sites shown in the document. We would also like to see information on how these sites would affect local infrastructure and the nearest settled community.

The local farming community must be fully consulted on sites and given access to information on site selection. It must be remembered that farmers are running businesses like other commercial property owners on their land and that they also have long term plans for the future. Sites must be selected so that they take consideration of the practical aspects of running a farm business for example by avoiding sites with close proximity to livestock units. They should avoid using high quality agricultural land.

The sites are an intensive residential use, and there are legitimate fears that it would give rise to problems of the sort all too frequently experienced in peri-urban locations where high-density residential uses abut farmland. Policy H Para 23 of Planning Policy for Travellers Sites seeks to strictly limit new sites in open countryside away from existing settlements.
We would also like to know what the Council has done to assist Gypsy and Traveller families to find land in order to provide their own sites. Self-provided provision on private sites could be an appropriate way of providing sites, provided the necessary planning permissions are sought before the sites are occupied.

Can you also outline what steps were taken to ensure that the GTAA was not carried out in isolation and had regard for the strategies of neighbouring authorities? Has the GTAA had regard for the needs of people who travel between neighbouring authorities and have steps been taken to ensure that their needs are not catered for twice. We would also like to ask whether all the gypsy and travellers in the district are only prepared to live in caravans. Did the GTAA (carried out last year) identify whether there was a need for any other accommodation types in the area?

Having looked at the Local Plan and attended recent public meetings I am writing to you to indicate my many concerns and total dissatisfaction with the revised development strategy for the Local Plan.

Air Quality

In particular, the air quality issue is of great concern. I understand that air quality in Warwick and Leamington is already above the legal limit. The District Council is required to improve air quality. The scale of planned houses will make it worse. I also note that Stratford Council have their own plans for even more houses south of Warwick, has this development been taken into consideration?

Transport

I believe the strategy is car based and will push even more congestion onto the existing road network. It is obvious that building a dual carriageway to the river Avon bridge will just bring increased traffic to a halt. Also the current bridge was not built to take the potential amount of traffic. Parking in Warwick is already difficult enough, this plan will make matters far worse. As for traffic at the Morrison roundabout on the Myton Road, I shudder to think of the implications on the bridge overlooking the most beautiful view of the castle in Warwick.

Projected Housing

The projected 12,300 homes are extremely high and I understand that less than half that number would meet local needs. also, there are a large number of empty houses in Warwick and Leamington, could these be used to house people instead of just building more new ones?

Could we not build on brownfield and infill sites already within each towns infrastructure.

Should there not be a slower phasing in of housing based on estimated local demand releasing land as demand grows rather than an optimistic estimate so far into the future?

Historic Environment

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

Funding

With the current and projected Government cutbacks, will Warwick District Council have the funding to expand the needed infrastructure to support 12,300 homes?

National Planning Policy

From the meetings I attended it appears that a realistic forecast of need would mean that we already have the required five year supply of sites when you balance housing with employment growth forecasts vs the housing market. Why has this not been taken into consideration in the local plan?

Gypsy Sites

They seem to have all been crammed into the same area. Could they not have been spread out more fairly within the area?


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

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

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

We wanted to provide some general feedback on the plethora of information available related to the New Local Plan. Over recent years we have attended two meetings in Hampton Magna. We are aware of some of the issues that residents are concerned about. We will aim to outline the main issues below and also include our own personal thoughts. However, these are not exhaustive and we strongly encourage you to speak to your representatives, who attended all of your meetings, to get their feedback on issues that were raised.

We strongly object to the development of additional housing on land connected to Hatton Park (i.e. R115). Please see below for a detailed explanation as to why we oppose this development at site R115: a) Birmingham Road would not cope with the considerable congestion that this would cause; b) transport links are already stretched; c) it would have a significant impact on our wildlife that is established on this land; d) our local primary schools would not have capacity; e) impact on drainage; f) impact of current residents quality of life; and g) impact on child development through added pressure on transportation to schools.

We also object to the development on R125 & R75. Our main reason for this objection is that, although we are highly supportive of finding a suitable site for travellers, being near a main road and locks on the canal worries us, as this presents danger if young children are residing on this site. The Birmingham Road is already highly congested and difficult to cross. The canal has many deep locks and at night the lack of lighting presents considerable danger. A more safe location should be identified quickly for this important community.
.
Evidence base
We are extremely concerned that the available documents are still not fully engaged in "evidence-based" consultation. Specifically, it is our concern that there are limitations in the methodology used to develop the Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation. This is an important foundation to any research, report and future recommendations. The consultation documents still lack transparency in terms of the employed methodology. We strongly encourage you to document how you plan to utilise the information gathered at meetings across the district. This is a valuable opportunity to gather qualitative evidence on people's acceptability, satisfaction and attitudes towards the plans. There has been a lot of frustration voiced at meetings related to the apparent failure to consider, appreciate, and operationalize people's views. There is a need to inform people how their views are going to be considered and synthesised to inform your decisions. For example, large scale questionnaires have been undertaken with residents by local parishes (Hatton Park and Hampton Magna) which provide valuable information. These state clearly that the majority of respondents strongly oppose any further development on sites connected to Hatton Park (i.e. R115). People need to feel listened too. At the meetings in Hampton Magna we were assured that housing development would not take place in Hatton Park. I feel extremely disappointed that our voices and views were not taken on board. It is important to allow people to voice their opinions and acknowledge how they will be considered. You need to empower people. Your research will then be richer and more representative. At present it is not representative and lacks the rigour on which you are planning to make decisions.

We are extremely concerned about the generalizability of your 'research' / 'evidence base' to date. There are clear weaknesses in the rigour and robustness of your methodological approach and evidence base which need to be considered again. How you synthesise the data already collected is crucial. If you have lots of meetings and don't report all the views at these meetings, then your data gathering is confounded and flawed - I am sorry to say, this appears to be the case.

Housing on land adjacent to Hatton Park (R115)
From a personal point of view we need to express our upmost disapproval over expanding housing adjacent to Hatton Park (R115) on green belt land. There is considerable worry and upset among residents who live on Hatton Park and surrounding areas about potential increased housing on this site. This would significantly impact on their quality of life. These small communities are already overburden by through traffic (e.g. Birmingham Road) and schools are at capacity. Please work closely with parishes and residents before considering any expansion in these areas.

Schools and early year care:
There needs to be greater focus on how schools will be expanded. For example, as you are aware, Budbrooke Primary is at capacity and it takes children from Chase Meadow & Hatton Park. The Ferncumbe Primary School at Hatton is over capacity. How much expansion is needed? Further growth in R115 would result in more children having to travel to schools outside the catchment area, resulting in greater pressure on families and impact on their quality of life. If you go ahead with development on R115 you would force people to leave the area and take their businesses elsewhere due to the likely impact on commuting, links to the A40 and transport to schools. This would certainly be the case with my family. Children are already having to set off earlier and earlier to get to school on time - again this is likely to have an impact on their maturational development and quality of life. I cannot take this risk for my family.

Early-year care needs careful consideration at an affordable price. Already many nurseries are at capacity or in considerable demand. The costs are also unmanageable for many parents wanting to return to work after maternity leave. Added housing would place increased demand on these services.

Respecting our green spaces and green belts:
The wildlife on the land occupying R115 needs to be respected and the natural habitats for our wildlife maintained. Housing on this planned site has resulted in considerable frustration and objection at meetings we have attended. Consult with residents please. Please note that Muntjac deers, bats, birds of prey, pheasants, and many small mammals reside on R115. I feel strongly about destroying their habitat. Protecting our natural flora and fauna is important. Adding just a small number of houses will have a high price on our wildlife which will not be repairable.

Transport:
Expanding our road networks is going to be important to deal with the increasing cars on our roads. Birmingham road is already heavily congested. People on the Hatton Park estate are being required to set off earlier and earlier to avoid the congestion which results every morning. We also need to consider the impact this will have on noise and air pollution for residents already residing in places of growth. How will this impact on their quality of life? Consult with residents please.

Public Transport:
There needs to better public transport in areas of expansion. More regular bus services, in particular, to train stations and Universities are needed.

Parking:
More affordable parking in town centres and at train stations are urgently needed,

Drainage:
We are extremely concerned about how the current drainage system will cope with expansion on R115. The costs this could involve should not be overlooked. This small expansion could cause considerable problems (e.g. Hatton Park). Caution is needed and careful mapping of the current foundations is essential.

Employment:
Greater housing expansion requires more employment. Expansion in the health, retail and educational sector presents good opportunities.

Emergency services:
An increase in the population of the District will lead to an increased need for community policing and an increase in the number of local "incidents" to which the policing service will be required to respond. We need to make sure residents are protected from crime.

Healthcare:
Ensuring that GP surgeries and hospitals can cope with the housing expansion will be of upmost importance. GP surgeries are already struggling to cope.

To reiterate, we strongly object to the development of additional housing on land connected to Hatton Park (i.e. R115).

We appreciate your careful consideration of these issues and would like to receiveclearlly communicated feedback on how these issues will be addressed.
We appreciate your careful consideration of these issues and would like to receive clearlly communicated feedback on how these issues will be addressed.

We should also encourage you to think very carefully about how access will be made to any planned housing on Hatton Park (i.e. R115). Accessing directly from Birmingham Road would cause even more havoc and significant congestion. Some people are already considering moving off Hatton Park because of the problems with traffic and the inability to access Birmingham Road. If traffic was intending to enter Birmingham Road and turn right from R115, they would be waiting for a very long time during rush hour periods. It can sometimes take me over 20 minutes to get from Hatton Park to the end of the Birmingham Road. If traffic control measures were implemented, this would result in even longer cues of traffic in both directions on the Birmingham Road (plus greater air polution problems which will impact on our protected rural souroundings). This would create a huge problem for commuters getting to work, accessing schools and in cases of emergencies getting to local hospitals (which for me, is a very significant concern). If there were plans to develop an alternative access via Ebrington Drive, this is simply not possible as traffic parks along this road from neighbouring houses, this has resulted in it being a single lane road during almost all times in the day and night. This would cause extreme difficulties for contractors and for any new residents. I strongly encourage you to retract this ludicrous plan and focus on other larger scale housing developments in other areas. Please refer to our other considerations below.

Please note there is a great deal of concern among residents on Hatton Park that the local government is not listening to our objections. Please confirm that you have received and read this email.

Unfortunately I was unable to attend the presentation of the Warwick Local District Plan on 15 July but I have had feedback on the meeting and am concerned that the Council are not actually listening to the residents of Warwick in respect of this plan. It sounds as if the meeting was less of a consultation and more of this is what we have decided will happen. I have serious concerns about the consultation process and the politics of the situation but will concentrate on issues that relate to the planning process. I have sent a copy of my concerns to The development Policy Manager at Warwick District council.

My particular concerns with regard to the plan are as follows:

HOUSING PROJECTION AND LOCATION

The projected housing need of 12,300 new homes to be built seems far too high for the area. While the National Planning Policy Framework requires the approval of 'sustainable development' which meets an established housing need, planning applications already made, or imminent, for much of the land meet neither of these criteria. A realistic forecast of need would mean that the District already had the required five-year supply of sites, balancing housing with employment growth and matching the housing market. I feel it is inappropriate to forecast so far into the future and to allocate greenfield land now. This will allow uncontrolled growth leaving developers to decide what to build and when.

Also, it has been reported that Stratford District Council have approved a "draft" strategy to build a new 4000 home "town" in the Lighthorne area just south of Warwick. If that goes ahead it would also have some effect on the infrastructure requirements, (as mentioned below), within the Warwick Local Plan; yet no mention is made of that scheme has been taken into account when preparing the Warwick Local Plan.

The land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook is rural and agricultural and present policies respect this. Building on it would merge our built-up areas, making them a single suburban sprawl. The green land is as important as the Green Belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick and should be safeguarded.

I feel there are better ways of ensuring there is adequate housing to meet local needs, especially for houses which people can afford such as gradually releasing land for development as demand grows, giving priority to using brownfield and infill sites near schools, shops and railway stations, building homes close to jobs and co-operating with other local authorities, instead of competing with them for development.
ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE:
Much is made in the plan of the proposed improvements to road junctions, new traffic lights, etc. to enable traffic to move faster into Warwick & Leamington, but no solution is given to the problems caused when the cars reach the towns. Warwick has natural "bottlenecks" in The Butts, Jury St., High St., Smith St., Nicholas Church St. Friars St., Hampton St., and Theatre St. etc. etc. Contrary to transport policies, it would make walking and cycling less attractive, and would have serious implications for public transport. No solution to this is offered in the "Plan" and needs to be prior to any approval for new houses.

I feel the historic environment, which attracts so many people to Warwick, would be damaged by the increase in traffic and by wide new junctions cluttered with traffic lights and signs at beautiful places, e.g. Bridge End in Warwick, Castle Bridge, Castle Hill and St John's.

AIR POLLUTION
Pollution from vehicle exhausts in many streets in Warwick and some in Leamington is already worse than is legally permitted. The District Council is required to improve air quality, but the plan and its transport strategy would worsen it. Noise and vibration would also be constant, businesses and tourism would be damaged and the long-term health of residents of these streets would be even more threatened. The revised plan does not address these problems.

HEALTH
Apart from the additional health problems that can be caused by any increased traffic congestion there is no mention of the capacity of Warwick Hospital to cope with a massive increase in population. The present hospital is surrounded by housing and cannot expand, can it cope with such an increase as is projected by the "Plan"?

SITES FOR GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS
The need for such sites is recognised and the concept supported. However, even a casual glance at the Plan shows a marked imbalance of the distribution of the possible sites over the whole of the District. Of the 20 possible sites listed only four are in the northern part of the District with the remaining 16 in the southern part, with the biggest cluster just south of Warwick. This should be re-examined to ensure a more equitable spread of the burden on the residents of the District. Again, it seems so much protection is given to the green Belt and so little to our other green land.
CLOSING OBSERVATIONS
The above points are general rather that specific but clearly indicate a need for a more "in-depth" approach to what the District as a whole needs. From the information provided the people who have drawn up the Plan do not seem to have considered all the facts nor how to overcome, or at least alleviate, the problems that will be created by placing the bulk of the predicted new dwellings into one main location. To gain the support and the trust of the residents of Warwick District more openness and consultation than in the past is now required. In addition, serious consideration should be given to giving equal protection to open land to the south of Warwick and Leamington as that given to the "green belt" area located to the north of the towns so that all the open "greenfield" sites can be considered equally and the load spread more equitably.

As one of our elected representatives, I do hope that you will do all that you can to ensure that these concerns are addressed.

Unfortunately I was unable to attend the presentation of the Warwick Local District Plan on 15 July but I have had feedback on the meeting and am concerned that the Council are not actually listening to the residents of Warwick in respect of this plan. It sounds as if the meeting was less of a consultation and more of this is what we have decided will happen. I have serious concerns about the consultation process and the politics of the situation but will concentrate on issues that relate to the planning process. I have sent a copy of my concerns to The development Policy Manager at Warwick District council.

My particular concerns with regard to the plan are as follows:

HOUSING PROJECTION AND LOCATION

The projected housing need of 12,300 new homes to be built seems far too high for the area. While the National Planning Policy Framework requires the approval of 'sustainable development' which meets an established housing need, planning applications already made, or imminent, for much of the land meet neither of these criteria. A realistic forecast of need would mean that the District already had the required five-year supply of sites, balancing housing with employment growth and matching the housing market. I feel it is inappropriate to forecast so far into the future and to allocate greenfield land now. This will allow uncontrolled growth leaving developers to decide what to build and when.

Also, it has been reported that Stratford District Council have approved a "draft" strategy to build a new 4000 home "town" in the Lighthorne area just south of Warwick. If that goes ahead it would also have some effect on the infrastructure requirements, (as mentioned below), within the Warwick Local Plan; yet no mention is made of that scheme has been taken into account when preparing the Warwick Local Plan.

The land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook is rural and agricultural and present policies respect this. Building on it would merge our built-up areas, making them a single suburban sprawl. The green land is as important as the Green Belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick and should be safeguarded.

I feel there are better ways of ensuring there is adequate housing to meet local needs, especially for houses which people can afford such as gradually releasing land for development as demand grows, giving priority to using brownfield and infill sites near schools, shops and railway stations, building homes close to jobs and co-operating with other local authorities, instead of competing with them for development.
ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE:
Much is made in the plan of the proposed improvements to road junctions, new traffic lights, etc. to enable traffic to move faster into Warwick & Leamington, but no solution is given to the problems caused when the cars reach the towns. Warwick has natural "bottlenecks" in The Butts, Jury St., High St., Smith St., Nicholas Church St. Friars St., Hampton St., and Theatre St. etc. etc. Contrary to transport policies, it would make walking and cycling less attractive, and would have serious implications for public transport. No solution to this is offered in the "Plan" and needs to be prior to any approval for new houses.

I feel the historic environment, which attracts so many people to Warwick, would be damaged by the increase in traffic and by wide new junctions cluttered with traffic lights and signs at beautiful places, e.g. Bridge End in Warwick, Castle Bridge, Castle Hill and St John's.

AIR POLLUTION
Pollution from vehicle exhausts in many streets in Warwick and some in Leamington is already worse than is legally permitted. The District Council is required to improve air quality, but the plan and its transport strategy would worsen it. Noise and vibration would also be constant, businesses and tourism would be damaged and the long-term health of residents of these streets would be even more threatened. The revised plan does not address these problems.

HEALTH
Apart from the additional health problems that can be caused by any increased traffic congestion there is no mention of the capacity of Warwick Hospital to cope with a massive increase in population. The present hospital is surrounded by housing and cannot expand, can it cope with such an increase as is projected by the "Plan"?

SITES FOR GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS
The need for such sites is recognised and the concept supported. However, even a casual glance at the Plan shows a marked imbalance of the distribution of the possible sites over the whole of the District. Of the 20 possible sites listed only four are in the northern part of the District with the remaining 16 in the southern part, with the biggest cluster just south of Warwick. This should be re-examined to ensure a more equitable spread of the burden on the residents of the District. Again, it seems so much protection is given to the green Belt and so little to our other green land.
CLOSING OBSERVATIONS
The above points are general rather that specific but clearly indicate a need for a more "in-depth" approach to what the District as a whole needs. From the information provided the people who have drawn up the Plan do not seem to have considered all the facts nor how to overcome, or at least alleviate, the problems that will be created by placing the bulk of the predicted new dwellings into one main location. To gain the support and the trust of the residents of Warwick District more openness and consultation than in the past is now required. In addition, serious consideration should be given to giving equal protection to open land to the south of Warwick and Leamington as that given to the "green belt" area located to the north of the towns so that all the open "greenfield" sites can be considered equally and the load spread more equitably.

As one of our elected representatives, I do hope that you will do all that you can to ensure that these concerns are addressed.

I am a resident of Bishops Tachbrook, where I live with my husband and 2 children (aged 4 & 6). We have lived in the village for 8 years and chose the location because we wanted to raise our family in a village setting, away from the town centre.

I have read the WDC Revised Development Strategy (2013) and I have attended a public meeting, where I viewed the WDC RDS PowerPoint presentation. What follows is my considered response to the proposed housing developments and Gypsy Traveller sites.

The RDS completely contradicts WDC's strategic vision "to make Warwick District a great place to live, work and visit" (RDS 3.1).
An increase of 12300 homes will not achieve this vision and will, in fact, have the opposite effect for a number of reasons:
The actual number of homes required to meet the projected population growth in the district is 5400. This is based on factual information derived from the national census statistics, and allows for migration. Where is the evidence to support WDC's claim that 12300 homes are required?
The WDC presentation states that; in order to provide for growth of the local population (RDS 3.5), sites for 550 new homes per annum would need to be identified. Over an 18 year period this totals 9900 homes. Where does this number fit in with the 12300 WDC claim are needed to meet growth?

Why has the WDC empty home strategy not been included in the 5 year plan? WDC has redeveloped 250 homes back to use under this strategy and further homes have been identified. In 2012 www.emptyhomes.com identified approximately 1350 empty homes in the Warwick district. Why isn't more work being done around this type of development of existing homes, rather than proposing large scale new developments. There does not appear to be any mention of empty homes in the RDS.

Warwick District currently has a very low unemployment rate, with only 1.6% of the population claiming JSA. If some of the proposed development is about economic growth where is the evidence to show that people moving into the area will be able to find work?
Much of the employment land in the district has not been fulfilled and may subsequently become land for housing, but where are the jobs for the people moving into the area?
I have heard the growth of Jaguar Land Rover cited as an employment opportunity, which would require homes for employees moving to the area. However, the WDC's RDS does not take account of the fact that Stratford District Council are in the process of consulting on a proposed development of 4800 homes in the Gaydon and Lighthorne area. This would be closer to the JLR than any of the Warwick District developments in terms of homes for JLR employees.
Why have WDC and SDC not communicated about their development plans when they are so close? As a Bishops Tachbrook residents we will also be affected by the SDC plans, as any commuters and/or visitors to Warwick and Leamington from the new developments will increase the traffic and associated problems, noise/ air pollination etc.

The visual impact on the view from Bishops Tachbrook, Harbury Lane, Tachbrook Valley, Gallows Hill will be hugely significant for existing residents but also visitors to the area. No amount of 'country park' can make up for the loss of beautiful countryside and open fields, which would be lost to thousands of homes and the associated environmental impacts such as noise and light (from houses, cars and street lighting). The planning inspector who reviewed the current plan in 2006 said that Woodside Farm should not be built on then or in the future. The WDC's own landscape consultant, Richard Morrish, said in the Landscape Area Statement (2009) referring to the land south of Gallows Hill " this study area should not be considered for urban extension and the rural character should be safeguarded from development". The RDS goes against this recommendation, why?


The local infrastructure cannot support such a significant number of houses in one area. The Southern Site already has significant issues in terms of volume and flow of traffic. The RDS does not contain any evidence to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements would alleviate any of the problems that would come with such a large development. No number of dual carriage ways will improve the flow of traffic through the 'pinch points' such as crossings of canals, rivers and railways and the RDS does not provide any realistically deliverable solutions to these problems. Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 Assessment shows traffic speeds of only 0-10 mph in large parts of Warwick. Any increase in traffic, never mind the exceptionally large numbers proposed in the RDS, will make this situation worse. Rather than increasing trade in the town centre it is likely that people would be put off visiting the shops because of the volume of traffic. This view was supported by the Chairperson of the Warwick Chamber of Trade, who echoed this point at the public meeting I attended.

A lot can be learnt from previous developments in terms of the volume of traffics. The Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow developments prove that the people who move onto these developments will use their cars to commute to/from work and to/from shops and town centres. The bus services serving these developments are not self funding and rely on subsidies to run. It would be naive and idealistic to think that this would be any different on new developments. Most houses have more than one car and most people will drive to work. The location of the Southern Site development would require most residents to commute to work.
A lot can also be learnt about sites identified on development plans for facilities such as schools and play areas, which are not followed through. The Warwick Gates plans contained a site for a school, which was never built. This subsequently put huge pressure on surrounding schools and there is still an annual scrabble for places amongst the Warwick Gates residents, who have a nervous wait to see if their child will get their preferred option. Therefore, I have no faith that if the proposed plans go ahead the schools will come to fruition. Similarly, the Chase Meadow development had a playground site on the plans and again this was not built.

One of my main concerns is the health implications. I have read the Local Air Quality Progress Report (2011) and the areas already identified in this report as 'Air Quality Management Areas' will be affected by an increase in traffic volume as a result of the proposed developments. As Air Quality is covered by the Air Quality Regulations 2000 (amended 2002) and the Enviornment Act 1995, as well as various other legislation, I cannot understand why a full Health Impact Survey has not been commissioned. How does WDC know that the proposed developments will not take air pollution levels above the legal limits? It is not acceptable to just go ahead and worry retrospectively when we are talking about serious health implications. Many schools, nurseries and parks are in the vicinity of the Southern Site and the health of the children who use these facilities could be at risk if this goes ahead without a full assessment of the potential impact of such a large development. I seriously worry about the affect on my children's health and other children in the area. In my opinion this issue should take priority over everything else and I am extremely disappointed that WDC are not giving due consideration to this aspect of the impact on local residents.
In terms of Bishops Tachbrook, the village is already a cut through for many vehicles on their way to/ from the M40. When I walk my children to school in the morning there is a disproportionate amount of traffic travelling through the main roads in the village, in comparison to the number of residents. Speeding along these roads has always been an issue and the speed reduction measures are ineffective. There have been no improvements made to the road systems or pavements in Bishops Tachbrook since the development of Warwick Gates and I see no acknowledgement of this need in the RDS. This is yet another example of WDC failing to recognise and consider the wider reaching impact of large scale housing developments on existing infrastructures. If the proposed development goes ahead it will increase the volume of traffic through Bishops Tachbrook and that will increase the risk to the residents of Bishops Tachbrook, as there are no proposed improvements.

The housing proposed for village settlements has categorised Bishops Tachbrook as the largest type (100-150 homes). The Bishops Tachbrook housing needs survey identified a need for only 14 homes. Again, where is the evidence to support the need for 100-150 homes? Why would this many houses be needed in the village when 3400 homes are proposed for the Southern Site development? With regards to the visual, environmental health and infrastructure issues I echo what I have said in the above paragraphs.

I have read the criteria for the sites for Gypsy and Travellers from the consultation document. I do not think that the proposed sites are distributed evenly around the district and again the south contains a disproportionate number. All of the above points I have raised would also apply to the development of a Gypsy and Traveller site in this area.
In terms of the relevant criteria I do not consider the following sites to be suitable:
Site 3: this site is very remote and does not have easy access to facilities, access, pedestrian access.
Site 4: as above.
Site 5: The access is onto a very busy road and there is no pedestrian access. There would be a visual impact on the approach to Warwick and there is a listed building on the site. There would be undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services of such a small village.
Site 6: has no pedestrian access and is very remote in relation to distance from main centres and services.
Site 9: there would be a visual impact on the approach into Warwick and there are listed buildings on the site. The access is onto a busy road and there is no pedestrian access.
Site 10: Too close to the Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre.
Site 15: This site is located on the banks of the Tachbrook. As the proposed site may be used as a place of work there could be a risk of contamination.

The school in Bishops Tachbrook has one class of approximately 30 children per intake. A GT site of 5,10 or 15 could be home to 10, 20 or 30 children. As Bishops Tachbrook is a small school already at capacity is could not support the needs of the site. There are other schools in the district that are not at capacity that could support the need.

The sites around Bishops Tachbrook are too remote to support the development and the village and its facilities are not big enough to support such an increase in population, in terms of infrastructure and facilities.

I understand the requirement for WDC to provide 31 pitches but I strongly feel that a larger number of smaller sites evenly distributed across the district in areas where the existing facilities can accommodate the need is the most appropriate way to meet the requirements.

As someone who has grown up and worked in and around Warwick since 1970, I am shocked and concerned when I read the proposals, especially the development of 12,300 houses to the south of Warwick. Why isnt there more development to the North?
I object to these proposals. I submit my main concerns as follows;
Traffic
Needing to travel at peak times through Warwick, I'm concerned that the massive increase in traffic flows would cause even more chaos to an already stretched traffic system. Often I see emergency vehicles struggle through the chaos, made worse by the recent changes to the high street. And as for WCC admitting the multi lanes in Banbury Road and Myton Road will not be successful in overcoming the overall mass impact of thousands of additional vehicles, why do it? All of the proposed traffic travelling over the Castle Bridge and into Warwick between 7 and 9.30 a.m. or 3.15 and 6.30 p.m on any term time week day is absolute madness to an already struggling system.
Pollution
With the increase in traffic brings an increase in pollution. I'm concerned this will mean my son wont be able to walk to school due to raised pollution levels and the increase of danger with the increased volume of traffic? Warwick Town is so lovely I'm concerned these proposals will destroy the town and push shoppers away due to the disruption an increase in traffic will bring.
Infrastructure
Working at the hospital, it is stretched at the moment without adding another 30 or 40 thousand people. I have been to a recent public meeting at Ayelsford school, wanting to hear more about the proposals and the impact to our area. Unfortunately, from that meeting I was not reassured that you have our best interests at heart.
Travellers' sites
I object to having a site on the Hampton road, I realise they need homes but not in such a sensitive area. Maybe there could be more sites made available in the north of the county?
Please can you re-consider the proposals and distribute the development more fairly across the county?

The Town Council meeting on 17 July 2013 voted unanimously to reject the latest Local Plan proposal and to support Leamington and Warwick's MP, Mr Chris White in his call for the District Council to rethink its ill-conceived proposals.

Additionally, there was considerable surprise and concern that the District Council had chosen only to note the clear advice given by Mr Andrew Langley MP, Leader of the House of Commons, in answer to issues raised by Chris White MP in the House of Commons, that residents of his constituency felt that their voice was not being respected, regarding the Local Plan Consultation.

The advice was that in the formation of the Local Plan, and that in the expectation of the Localism Act 2011, the District Council should not only apply the National Planning Policy Framework, but do so in the context of local decision making by local people.

Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook residents deserve to be heard, as were the residents of North Leamington, and their clear preference was that south Warwick District should not become a single urban sprawl, with the loss of those green areas, which define the boundaries of those parishes, but that housing should be limited to levels which the community and residents were able to support.





The greenfield sites, which are of considerable importance to the towns and villages affected, and which the Local Plan proposes for some 4,300 houses and flats, have been roundly rejected not only in the context of the current plan, but also in respect of the 'Core Strategy'. The strong local objection was known to the District Council before work commenced on this Local Plan and entirely ignored.

The importance of the green rural and agricultural land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook has been entirely discounted on the grounds that it was not Green Belt, but these green areas are as important to those residents, as the Green Belt in Kenilworth or Leamington Spa, is to those residents.

Indeed the loss of this green land is being dictated by;
i) The apparent willingness to provide developers with land to develop and to massively over provide for the housing needs of the Warwick District.
ii) The direction from Warwickshire County Council, confirmed by County Councillors, that in order to achieve maximum funding from development, that development needed to be allocated in large blocks.

In the Town Council's view local need can justify only approximately half the number now proposed and the Local Plan proposal provides for uncontrolled growth within the South of the District, which will lead to even greater congestion onto the existing road network and will impose intolerable traffic congestion in Warwick and Leamington Town Centres and the approach roads over the river crossings on the Avon.

The levels of traffic from some 4,300 houses and flats, based upon census findings, will generate in excess of 7,000 additional vehicles and which will worsen the levels of air pollution in the Town Centre of Warwick, when levels already exceed the legal limits imposed by the Air Quality Regulation (England) 2000.

That the levels, are exceeded was determined by the District's own officers, and formed the District Council's policy to work in proactive a manner to reduce the existing levels of unacceptable air pollution. Nothing in the Local Plan addresses the need to reduce the existing levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution in Warwick Town Centre and residents' health will suffer.

The traffic solutions outlined in the Local Plan and the mass of development proposed by the plan will seriously damage the setting of the Town, and consultants have previously recommended that the land south of Gallows Hill, which provides an historic setting for the Town and Castle, and Castle Park, should be protected from development. This area appeals to residents and visitors alike and is an important factor in the Town's tourism economy.

That impact on the tourism economy and the vitality of the Town will be made worse by the increase in traffic and wide junctions with traffic lights, in historic and sensitive locations in the Town, which will turn Warwick into a Town to be avoided by visitors. A further impact on the vitality of the Town and directly impacting on the Town's economy.

The issues regarding traffic congestion and pollution will be exacerbated by Stratford District Council's proposal to build 5,000 houses at Gaydon and in the Town Council's view, it is impossible to continue with a Local Plan, which already generates housing greatly in excess of local needs, when development directly intended to provide for employment needs is to be provided in Gaydon, effectively providing for the employment needs of the area, and in relative close proximity to the major development proposed in south Warwick.

Discussions must take place with Stratford District to produce a rational solution, for a new town type development at Gaydon, will directly reduce houses needed in Warwick District and demand for employment land. The take up of the latter has been so reduced that the District Council has already released designated employment land for the other users.

House building in Gaydon will greatly impact on the need for housing for employment migrants into Warwick District.

Notwithstanding, the large scale development in the south of the District centred in such large numbers will generate high levels of infrastructure from roads to sewage provision and water supply, schools, policing, doctor's surgeries, hospital demands and all health care facilities. Funding has been outlined in the Local Plan, but at this time the District Council cannot demonstrate that funding levels to be generated will meet the costs of such infrastructure.

There is also the doubt as to the deliverability of needed infrastructure and it will not be lost to the District, of the failures and delays regarding the provision of infrastructure at Chase Meadow, for the traffic scheme is not yet complete and sports playing fields have never been provided.

The Town Council does believe that there is a better alternative to the present Local Plan and one which local people would support. That alternative would be to reduce the total number of houses to that required to meet local need and in particular affordably social housing. Then if LPA allocation of employment land is taken up, additional land could be released to meet housing demand with development concentrated on brownfield and infill sites and near to schools and other needs.

Additionally a greater co-operation with adjoining authorities and in particular Stratford would allow for a joint approach, rather than a competition for jobs and houses.

The Local Plan has located a high number of possible Gypsy and Travellers sites in the south of the District and the Town Council consider that if the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller communities are to be met, then more rural sites should not be ignored, rather than the District Council just repeat the decision to ignore local representation and concentrate Gypsy and Traveller sites in Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook.

Regrettably therefore the Town Council finds itself in the position of repeating its objections to previous consultations objections, which have been ignored along with the views of local people.

The Town Council's objections are:

1) The projected housing development does not reflect local needs and the plan as proposed offers uncontrolled growth, and is a charter for developers,
2) The plan does not provide for development evenly throughout the District.
Almost total protection is given to Green Belt, as demonstrated by the decision to delete land at Old Milverton.

No concern is given to the importance of the greens areas between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook and 4,300 houses and flats will spill over the historic boundaries to create a single urban sprawl.

3) Local views are being ignored, despite the support of Leamington and Warwick's MP.

4) The impact on traffic has not been assessed as an impact on the Town's tourism and commercial economy. Warwick would become less attractive for residents and visitors, if large traffic light controlled junctions were constructed and even greater congestion was created.

5) No thought is given to transport policies relating to cyclists and pedestrians.

6) Traffic generation will further increase the existing excessive air pollution and not reduce the pollution as provided by the Districts policy. Residents' health will suffer.

7) The historic environment would be directly damaged and the plan makes no provision to protect those historic buildings or the Conservation Area.

The purpose of the Local Plan is to develop Warwick District as a great place 'to live, work and visit' and the Local Plan should be assessed to ensure that this aim is met, throughout the District, and not just in parts.

Objection to the number of proposed allocations of gypsy and traveller sites in unspoiled Warwickshire countryside

References:
1. Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, Communities & Local Government, 2113371, March 2012
2. WDC Local Plan, Sites for Gypsies and Travellers, June 2013

Reference 1, Paragraph 14 states that traveller sites in Green Belt areas are inappropriate.
Of the proposed sites identified in Reference 2 for consideration as gypsy and traveller sites, 40% are within Green Belt areas. These are GT01, 7, 8, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 20. 40% is stretching the spirit of Reference 1 and this is objected to. The remaining 60% are mostly away from schooling and health centres except GT16. GT16 has no proper drainage as yet. Drainage or not, I would be concerned about the river regarding water quality downstream of this proposed site. Ditto GT01, GT09 and GT10.
If travellers meet the definition of a traveller given in Annex 1 of Reference 1, how does WDC know whether the travellers are "within their area"? Some explanation would be welcomed.

There are 20 proposed gypsy and traveller sites in one small corner of Warwickshire. Paragraph 23 of the Government Planning Policy (Reference 1) states that local planning authorities should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside. I object to Reference 2 in its entirety because it very much appears to be in direct conflict with the Paragraph 23 of this Government Planning Policy.

End.

As new residents of Baginton, my wife and I would like to take a moment to raise a few objections in regard to proposed development plans for the village. We realise you will have heard these comments already from the Baginton Parish Council, but we just wish to confirm that we share these opinions and that we are concerned for the future of our community.
Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy
The Gateway is unsustainable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt with no very special circumstances. We agree with the BPC's request to remove references to the Gateway and associated projections from the Local Plan.
70-90 additional houses is far too big an increase for a village this size. The Localism Act should be considered and the outcomes on the Parish Plan and Housing Needs Survey should be used to gauge additional housing requirements.
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options (G101 and G107)
The proposed sites are (like the Gateway) inappropriate use of Green Belt land and we agree with the negative effects cited in the consultation documents. Amenities are not within easy reach and public transport links are inadequate. Three sites already exist within a few miles of the proposal, which therefore in its objective to distribute development across the district. The Stoneleigh Road site is privately owned and Smith's nursery is a well-regarded and popular local business, which would be unfairly impacted by this development. The other proposed sites to the south of Warwick are preferable because the issues outlined here do not apply.

I felt that I needed to contribute my objections on certain areas of the local plan.

The overdevelopment South of the river seems very excessive given the total imbalance between North and South. Previous suggestions including developing North of Warwick seem to have been discounted. I know the argument for "Green Belt" but surely if the times require such a large expansion of the house building requirement, the "green belt" becomes of secondary importance compared to the relevance of the county town and access to and around it. It is inevitable that employment will be attracted to the Coventry Gateway scheme and I note also the proposed Thickthorn development, if the vast majority of housing is situated South of these then surely a very great strain will be added to the already overburdened road infrastructure in and around Warwick. I DO note the proposals for improving the traffic flow but you cannot escape the fact that there are only a limited numbers of crossing points of the river and there do not appear to be any proposals to increase this, hence you perhaps move the traffic to the chokepoints more quickly but there is then still the increased delay due to the limitations of the crossing points. If the view is that employment is more likely to move from North to South then the same arguments apply in reverse! Given the very poor air quality in Warwick itself, I believe higher than medically acceptable, the situation will inevitably get worse particularly in light of the almost complete absence of any form of policing of bad, inconsiderate or illegal parking. In short I object to the housing plan as it is unfairly distributed, will be unable to cope with the increase in traffic and that peoples health will suffer as a result.

Turning to the suggested development around my own village of Hampton Magna, I consider the proposed site unacceptable and the additional burden on our local infrastructure unfair. The land in question may well have been landfill in a previous era and insufficient research has been done to verify this or re-assure the local resident that this was not so. Current property transactions are being affected by this and additional insurance seems to now be required before a transaction can be completed. In addition our local school has already had the burden of Hatton Park placed upon it and the attendant problems with parents driving children to and from school and their very frequently discourteous, inconsiderate, downright dangerous and often illegal parking will only get worse along with those who use the railway station but park in our village. I assume that consideration of the capacity and capability of the Doctors surgery have been duly considered?

The vexing question of "traveller" sites is with us yet again and I note that two sites being considered are those on the A46. Surely it is inappropriate that slow moving vehicles and caravans are allowed to enter and leave these sites on an already overburdened major road which is only a dual carriageway in any case at those points. This MUST be dangerous. The proximity of young children to such a major road is unthinkable and again it will place an additional burden on our local schools and medical services. I leave aside the obvious worries of these sites proximity to the local houses and the inescapable fact that some of these "travellers" are less than honest, it must surely have been considered?

Dear Sirs,

In response to the proposal to create a new site for the travelling community at Oaklands Farm on the Birmingham Road, we object for the following reasons:

Lack of infrastructure
Although the area around Hatton Park does have a bus service, this only runs once per hour and not at all on Sundays. Such a poor service will hardly encourage travellers to use public transport in order to get into Warwick or Leamington, with the result that they will either drive or travel on foot along a busy road (A4177), having to cross the A46 roundabout in the process, adding to local congestion.

Hatton Park has one small, local shop to service the residents. It is not adequate and will struggle to cope with any influx of new residents.

The local school at Ferncumbe is already oversubscribed, with the result that local children are unable to be accepted. It is obviously highly desirable for all local children to receive an education, but many of the local schools are unable to cope with present numbers, let alone with an increase in numbers. Apparently expansion has been explored and found to be impossible so where will any new children be schooled?

Likewise the local hospital is already at full capacity with no further room for expansion. It would find it very difficult to cope with an additional group of people with their own needs, including maternity care, health visits, etc. There is no dentist or GP surgery at Hatton Park at present so any new residents will be forced to turn towards Warwick, where services are already strained.

There are no other amenities on Hatton Park for new residents to use, which scarcely seems to fulfil the criteria set out for the travelling community.

Road safety
The proposed site at Oaklands Farm is right beside a main road (A4177), plus it is sited fairly close to a bend in the road and close to existing access points to the Shell garage and the turn into the lane leading to Ugly Bridge. The road becomes extremely busy, particularly at rush hour, and these points are already under heavy pressure. The road will struggle to support the additional traffic here. Access for large, slow-moving trailers will be particularly poor and lead to an increased risk of accidents.

In addition, any children located on this proposed site will be right beside a busy road, which they will have to cross to reach Hatton Park or walk along in order to reach Warwick. The danger of accidents will rise accordingly.

Canal safety
The proposed site at Oaklands Farm is right beside the canal. In fact, the site is penned in between the main road and the canal. Again, if children are present on the site then they will inevitably be attracted to the area beside the canal when playing and this will involve a greater risk of accidents and potential drownings.

Impact on local community
Apparently the council has already objected to the existing site and its current use as a farm. Whilst most of its activities seem to be entirely in keeping with a rural/agricultural way of life, it appears that some objections have been raised to some aspects. If the farm is converted into a site for travellers, surely this will only worsen matters. The travellers will need to work and to use this land for their employment, which will in all likelihood be more industrial than the existing fairly rural activities and which will inevitably have some impact on the surrounding area and the appearance of the site.

We will have little control over any environmental impact on a beautiful amenity in the form of the canal. It is very heavily used both by locals and visitors, especially in summer and fine weather. Any deterioration in the visual appearance of Oaklands Farm will have a huge impact on the attractiveness of the canalside and towpaths, resulting in a reduction in the numbers of visitors to the stretch and making use of the facilities such as the cafe and the pub.

The countryside should generally be protected from changes which will have such a huge impact on the natural and historic features of the community. The canal in particular will be seriously affected by such a change in its intended use, and this will have serious repercussions further up the canal towards the Hatton Arms & visitor centre if it is allowed.

The development will have a particularly serious impact on the local houses and roads leading towards the junction for Warwick Parkway. The small cluster of houses on the roadside near Oaklands Farm will be in serious danger of being taken over by the travellers' site. The new site will be separated from the existing houses by only one small field and there must be a huge risk of danger of encroachment with such a small buffer between the two plots, in addition to noise pollution from any activities carried out by the travelling community which will be to the detriment of the current residents. The size of the proposed site will unfortunately overpower the small number of houses in their community.

Finally, although relevant information is available on your website, it is difficult to find. At first, we were unable to find any guidance on how best to register our views, or an indication of any criteria which will be used to evaluate each individual site. Generally, there appears to be a lack of disclosure or transparency in the procedure which we find immensely frustrating since we are very proud of our community and want to be actively involved in its future development.

I am a Bagington resident and object to the proposals in your consultation document as follows:

1 Gateway Proposals The erosion of Green Belt that would be occasioned by this development does not seem to be justified by exceptional circumstances. The case has not been made for the necessity of a distribution centre of the size proposed. It is important that Green Belt be preserved, especially round a village so close to Coventry city.

2 The number of new houses proposed is completely disproportionate to the size of Baginton village. A smaller number (e.g. no more than 20) would be acceptable and contribute to the sustainable viability of the local services without adversely affecting the character of the village community.

3 The proposal for gypsy and traveller sites within Baginton parish boundary would seriously affect the Green Belt and again needs justification given the close vicinity of three other sites within a few miles. The proposal to create a site on private land adjacent to Smith's nursery and requiring part of their land is unfair and unacceptable.

4 I believe the options of traveller and gypsy sites south of Warwick district would help to spread the load and minimise the affect on local businesses.