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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whitnash Town Council would like to see a plan for the development of Warwick
District which meets the real future needs of its people, enhances the environment
and improves the quality of life.
Whitnash Town Councillors understand the need for more housing in Warwick
District. However, Councillors are opposed to the density of the development sites
which have been identified in the Revised Development Strategy and the fact that
they are all located in the south of the district. There should be a more equal
distribution of development sites across the district. The impact on Whitnash Town
and its residents is great. Such an excess of proposed developments will be
detrimental to residents as well as the environment, and does not adhere to the
specific principles relating to the key elements of Sustainable Development as per
page 8 of the Revised Development Strategy.
Furthermore:
1. The level of housebuilding proposed may exceed the actual population growth
and demand within the District. The projected housing need of more than
12,000 new homes is too high. We are not convinced with the methodology
that has been used to predict the level of growth needed for the area. We also
feel that forecasting so far ahead cannot possibly give accurate numbers.
2. Building on yet more land around Whitnash will leave little green land left. The
current proposals would just merge our built-up areas and create a single
suburban sprawl. We don't want to lose our green fields. Green land here is
just as important as the Green Belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick,
and should be safeguarded just as strongly.
3. The increase in traffic on our roads will have a huge detrimental impact. With
so much development planned, there will be a phenomenal rise in cars and the
existing road network will be unable to support such an increase. This includes
the bridges over the River Avon which need to be crossed to get to the town
centres of Leamington and Warwick, as well as Warwick Hospital and many
other services. With so much housing concentrated to the south of the town
centres, roads will be severely congested. Access from this area is already
becoming extremely difficult due to already congested bottleneck river bridges.
4. Following on from the previous point, there is a need to improve the air quality
around Warwick and Leamington as it currently exceeds Government
standards. With the proliferation of cars, pollution will increase and air quality
will continue to decrease. This will have an impact on the general fabric of the
area and the long-term health of residents will be affected.
5. Infrastructure needs to be in place sooner rather than later when any
development has been agreed, in order to putt less pressure on already
stretched resources.
6. Whitnash Town Councillors object to the proposed development of land at
Woodside Farm:
a. In the current Local Plan, this is an area of restraint and we would like it
to remain so.
b. Woodside Farm is the highest point in Whitnash and any development
will have an adverse visual impact and also affect the character of the
area.
c. Woodside Farm is the last remaining green area attached to Whitnash
and the loss of this would have a significant impact on the rural
landscape when approaching Whitnash from the south.
d. The high volume of traffic will impact on entrances and exits in Whitnash.
Traffic access from Tachbrook Road is impractical due to the already
high volumes of traffic.
e. The steep incline of land at Woodside Farm, if developed, would mean
flooding of Tachbrook/Harbury Lane, areas that already flood despite it
being a modern junction.
f. Local schools and medical centres are already full.
7. Whitnash Town Councillors object to the proposed development of land south of
Fieldgate Lane:
a. In the current Local Plan, this is an area of restraint and we would like it
to remain so.
b. Development of the Fieldgate Lane site was refused before following
objections from the County Engineers about access from the Whitnash
Road/Golf Lane junction. Nothing has changed at the junction but the
traffic is now greater so the problem is worse.
c. Additional housing will have an impact on schools, medical centres and
local amenities in Whitnash.
d. Access to this development and increased traffic on Golf Lane and
surrounding areas is a major concern.
e. Flooding in the area is also a concern.
f. The Leamington and County Golf Club, has been in Golf Lane for over
100 years and part of the course runs alongside the Golf Lane extension
(a single lane track). If residential development is to go ahead, this track
would need to be widened which would have a negative impact on the
historic golf course. There is also the danger of wayward golf balls on
nearby residential properties.
8. The proposed sites for Gypsies and Travellers are also heavily concentrated in
the south of the district, giving little consideration to our environment and to the
impact on infrastructure. Referring specifically to the proposed site on Harbury
Lane (GTO4), its location does not meet the criteria:
a. It has no convenient access to public transport - it is not on a bus route
and there is no footpath.
b. It is adjacent to a site earmarked for development (Woodside Farm)
which is an area at risk of flooding.
c. Harbury Lane is a fast and busy road - cars often have to be guided off
the football ground site by a person standing across the road checking
when it is safe to manoeuvre.
d. None of these sites are within close proximity of schools, doctors or a
post office for them to change their benefit cheques.
Whitnash residents strongly oppose the Revised Development Strategy and have
voiced their opinions to the Town Council. They are also very concerned about the
severe impact the proposed developments will have on our town. As a Town
Council, we listen to our residents and do our best to support them and represent
them.
Referring to the letter we sent on 27 July 2012 in response to the preferred options
consultation, the comments we made in that letter are still applicable. Please find
attached a copy of that letter which we would like you to include as part of our
response to the Revised Development Strategy.
We feel that more consideration should to be given to views raised by Whitnash
Town Council, Whitnash residents and our neighbouring towns before the Local
Plan is finalised.

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
Is Bishops Tachbrook being penalised for having a part time GP surgery? It is extremely difficult to get an appointment within a week at the local surgery. More often than not I have to travel to Sydenham to the main full time surgery to get an urgent appointment. What will be the impact if 6 G&TS sites are created around Bishops Tachbrook. Will the GP surgery expand, including longer opening hours and more than 1 GP and 1 nurse as is the current standard?
Gypsies and Travellers experience the worst health status of any disadvantaged group in England. Life expectancy is 12 years less for a woman and 10 years less for men than amongst the settled community. Baring in mind these statistics this would suggest an increased usage of medical facilities
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 GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash are at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients. There is no dental care provision in Bishops Tachbrook.
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 proximityto 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.
The villagers choose to live with limited resources as they prefer the quiet friendly community feel of the village.
There are limited public transport options in the area with limited bus services and no train routes. Reaching a place of employment with public transport would be extremely difficult.

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. As could loose dogs.
No pedestrian access and to create any would be dangerous. There are also no pavements between this site and the village, nor the main Banbury Road. For any children living on this site the walk to school will be extremely dangerous. There are no bus stops in the immediate vicinity and nowhere safe to put one. Cycling would be hazardous
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
This site does not provide utilities. There are no gas, sewerage or drainage facilities.
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?
Where will the Gypsy and Traveller community find work locally? All the sites suggested are too remote from employment and facilities and so are unsuitable for this type of development.
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!
Your brochure has not been laid out in a way that makes for easy & understandable reading. For instance sites GT05 & GT09 in reality face each other on opposite sides of the Banbury Road yet in your document the numbers on the map are shown as far away from each other as possible and are shown in map form pages apart from each other & at different scales & angles. This also occurs for site GT06 which is opposite GT09. You are failing to make your documentation easy to read & this is inexcusable.
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.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

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

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

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


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

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

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

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 Morrisons roundabout on the Myton Road, I shudder to think of the implications there. The proposed removal of parking in Smith Street would adversely effect the viability of the shops in this street.

Projected Housing

The projected 12,300 homes is 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 and these should 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 unjustified 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.

Parks

I understand that the new Local Plan does not have any policy to protect our parks. When this is adopted there will be no protection for our parks from developers - only National Planning Policy Framework which I believe is insufficient. This could mean that developments could go ahead on exceptional circumstances (which was the basis for the Gateway application).

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?

Consultation Process

I was most concerned to hear at the meeting that these plans had been pushed through by councillors who do not live in the area and that politics were possibly involved in the decision making?

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 have serious concern over many of the proposals made in this plan.
The stated aim of this New Local Plan is "to make Warwick District a Greater Place to Live, Work and Visit." I was born in Leamington and have lived all my life here. However over the years I have seen many lost opportunities, and mistakes, to make the area more environmentally acceptable.
While I have to accept that areas regarded as Urban Brownfield Sites should be developed for Housing and some of the smaller Greenfield Land, ie Kenilworth (Thickthorn) and East Whitnash provide natural extension of existing housing areas. However the overdevelopment of the area South of Leamington could eventually become a planning disaster.
Taking the Plans objectives in a slightly different order:-
Work
The outlook for British Industry will not be as it was in the past. Large Industrial Plants, like Automotive Products will not be sited in this area of comparative affluence. The Government, no matter who is in power, will provide incentives for any such major plants in area of high unemployment. The future for Industry in this area will be in small to medium units supplying other major manufactures. One only has to see the units on the old AP site are Distribution Warehouses and the many empty units on the Heathcoat, Sydenham and Queensway sites. In fact the Queensway site is being cleared of existing Industrial units to build retail units (Aldi) and Housing Association Units. If there is a demand for Industrial Units why have the planned units on the Ford Foundry site been abandoned?
One has to question why we want all the new Housing Developments. Even with the large number of available factory units the Unemployment Rate for the area is 1.7%, some 1,340 people. It could be assumed that even a modest improvement in the Economy would absorb most of the people.
"A Grater Place to Live"( Traffic)
The Projected 12,300 new homes are much too high. Particularly when one considers that the majority of this building will be on the south of both Leamington and Warwick. This in itself will cause traffic problems but when combined with Stratford District Councils plans to expand LIghthorne Heath, KIneton, Southam and Wellesbourne by a total of 4,800 dwellings which will all used Leam/Warwick for many of their shopping, recreational and school journeys, the increase in traffic will be considerable.
The ability of all this traffic moving about is seriously restricted by the number of bridges that cross the Avon and the Leam. There are 4 in Leamington, Willes Road, Victoria Terrace, Adelaide Road and Princees Drive. Of these Bridges the first 3 have reasonably free flowing traffic as they are not directly connected to the north/south route through the Town. However the Princes Drive Bridge is another matter, being directly link to the M40 by Europa Way. It is further complicated by the restricted height involved in the 2 Railway Bridges that are in the vicinity of the Bridge. This junction with its "unique" road makings which are open to various interpretations, within days extra mini cones had to be installed to prevent illegal turns. In addition the misleading lane markings that results in Europa Way traffic having to get back into the correct lane has resulted, so far, in only minor collisions. The congestion coming into the area therefore funnels a large amount of traffic onto the Banbury Road Bridge over the Avon at Warwick. How long this Bridge will withstand this traffic is a matter of conjecture but it must be a matter of concern to the Highways Department. (To appreciate the possible volumes of congestion you only have to witness the problems in Warwick when there is a road accident in the vicinity of Warwick on the M40 or the A46.)
While Air Pollution in Leamington is at a Low Level at the present during a holiday period with the Schools closed, a spike in the level of Nitric Oxide have occurred in the last week, Nitrogen Dioxide has been recorded at 30 m/metre cubed and Particular Matter 40m/metre cubed. (Ricardo AEA). If the full number of projected house were to be built it could conservatively be consider that an extra 20,000 private vehicles would be added to the daily movement which at peak times of the day would escalate the volumes of pollution.
Studies across the World have linked short term exposure to Air Pollutants to the increased admissions to hospital and increased cases of Heart Failure. (The Lancet)
A Great Place To Visit
While in the process of composing this letter I had to travel through Warwick from the Stratford Road to the Banbury Road, at midday on a Summer Friday. It was chaos, Jury St was packed from end to end with one must assume on a summers day were visitors to the Town. It would have been quicker to walk from West Gate to East gate. There were 3 delivery vans parked half on the pavement, and as I approached East Gate an Ambulance had to force its way through the traffic taking the opposite carriageway.
It is indicated that Traffic Improvements are to be made to the Jury St, Butts, Smith St, road junction. Well practically what can be done, nearly all the Building are Grade 1, or 11 Listed, and whichever way the traffic is going it passes into a further restricted highway.
The remaining life blood of Warwick is its Tourism. Over my lifetime I have watched it disintegrate from a thriving Market Town of great charm with many interesting streets and shops. It is now has County Hall and the Castle with limited parking, which on any reasonably busy day most tourists have to park in Myton Fields and walk into the Town.
Surely Warwick is a place that many Tourists only visit once, and do not recommend to their friends. The building of more Factory Units and Residential areas south of the Town can only make the situation worse.
Location of Traveller and Gipsy Site south of Warwick and Leamington
Anybody who has a plot of unfenced land lives in dread of this problem. I have had personally experience of the disruption, filth and sheer antisocial result of a Travellers site. I presume that the situation at Meriden in the last few of years has resulted in the pressure to accommodate a site in this area of the County. If the County Council is forced by Law to make provision for such a site why is it necessary to have 3 sites in this area and so many of the potential sites in the area south of Warwick and Leamington?
Conclusion
It is the nature of our society that the building of dwelling places is cheaper on open land. The fact that the land to the South of Warwick and Leamington, while being good agricultural land is not designated as Green Belt, and therefore can be developed with minimal legal restrictions. This is unfortunate because the expansion of our small conurbation over the Harbury Lane towards the M40 I feel is a mistake. The Government has applied pressure for reason that I will not explore to make more sites available for building and this wrongly has been taken as a the easiest option without the infrastructure to support the addition buildings successive Administrations have always taken the easier, and above all cheapest option. Hospitals, Schools and Main Services can be adapted and enlarged after the expansion of our Towns. If the Heathcote area produces flooding of the Myton Road after a thunderstorm the drainage can be modified.
However once the Application is approved, the increased traffic starts moving there is no going back. The health and quality of life of Warwick and Leamington will be forever irreparably damaged.

I have attended a number of local meetings regarding the local plan and do recognise the difficult position elected members and officers have been placed in in pulling this document together. However I continue to feel that it is unfair and untenable.

Just because North Leamington residents got together quickly and financed themselves into a position to lobby and discredit the first plan option of building between Milverton and Blackdown should not mean that there is no development north of the district. One key reason for building affordable family homes in the north was to re-invigorate a fossilising community. The demographic trend in Milverton, Cubbington and beyond is for older people and this is storing up problems for the future. Neighbourhoods and villages work best with a good spread of community - old and young sharing services and supporting each other. An additional reason to re-consider some development in the north of the district is with the successful Coventry/Warwick Gateway developments application. I note officers stated that this will open up jobs for Coventry people more that Warwick District residents but I also believe many will come from and/or want to live in Warwickshire. Because of this late- in-the -day decision I do feel planners should go back to the drawing board on developments north of Warwick district.

In terms of developing close to villages - particularly Hampton Magna - it is now apparent that families purchasing homes here need to have special land checks completed and organise specific insurances to cover the fact that some homes are built on landfill. (When we purchased 37 years ago we believed the site was Budbrooke Barracks but further investigation is showing a land fill sites also). The development land proposed on the outskirts of Hampton Magna could well feature ex-landfill sites and therefore become more expensive tracts to build on or develop. Additionally the local school and doctors surgery are full to capacity and would struggle to cope with additional demands on services - particularly having recently coped with influx of residents from Hatton Park and Chase Meadow.

Feedback on the proposed gypsy and traveller sites includes the unfairness of just how many sites are located around the county town of Warwick. I, and most people I know, recognise that sites need to be developed but again these need to be fairly distributed around Warwick District not only for current residents but also for travelling families to have some choices of where they settle. Planners may well quote that fairness is not a legal requirement but it is certainly a community requirement. I don't believe the developments alongside the A46 (ex Little Chef sites North and South) are appropriate. Not only is one site on green belt land - they are both immediately adjacent to a very fast road and have poor or no walkways or public transport access. Families and domestic animals should not be placed so closely to a fast road and they should have access to available services (see above for lack of school and GP capacity).

I feel the Racecourse site is also inappropriate due to it being placed on a major gateway into the County town and this site is also a transient site for travelling circus/fairground people through out the year - again making this choice an unfair one. Sites such as Barford and Kytes Nest Lane are significantly more appropriate due to their locations. I am also surprised that Radford Semele has little or no development proposals. There is capacity in the school there as well as good road and public transport links.

Please carefully consider all the above. I look forward to the next round of suggestions.

1. I object to the proposals to allocate 70-90 additional houses on Hatton Park set out in the Revised Development Strategy June 2013.

2. In the document, Hatton Park is defined as a Secondary Service Village. Para 4.3.13 states that information on the approach to demonstrating a robust and justifiable approach to the establishment of a settlement hierarchy is contained in the technical paper Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report 2013.

3. Secondary Services Villages are defined in that Report as ..."offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities.."

4. I do not consider that Hatton Park is sustainable in terms of offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities - particularly by public transport and no evidence is provided in the Revised Development Strategy nor the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report and Appendix 5 of that Report. I do not consider, therefore, that this is a fair, transparent and accessible consultation. I also have concerns over the safe access to the road network particularly given the additional trips that would be generated by the proposed additional houses.

5. Warwickshire is experiencing a significant growth in pupil numbers and demand for places is currently outweighing availability. Notably, in 2012, there was a consultation on proposals to increase the Published Admission Number (PAN) of The Ferncumbe CE Primary School from and to re-allocate the Hatton Park development across the priority areas for Budbrooke Primary School and The Ferncumbe CE primary School to help the Local Authority to meet its statutory duty to ensure a sufficiency of places. Without these changes, children from the Hatton Park development could have to travel some considerable distance to secure a school place and a large number of 'in-area' children will be unable to secure admission to their priority school.

6. I consider that the proposed 70-90 additional houses will place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services - particularly local schools and the road network and particularly when there are options for two Gypsy and Traveller sites in the vicinity as set out in Warwick District Council's document Sites for Gypsies and Travellers (June 2013).

I am a resident of Bishops Tachbrook, where I live with my wife and family.
We have lived in the village for 9 years and chose the location because we wanted to live in a quiet village location 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 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 developed 250 homes back to use under this strategy and further homes have been identified. http://www.emptyhomes.com/ identified approximately 1350 empty homes in the Warwick district in 2012, 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 into RDS.

Warwick District currently has a very low unemployment rate, with only 1.6% unemployment (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 a employment opportunity which would require homes for employees moving to the area. However, the WDC RDS does not take account for 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 resident 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 to solutions to these problems. There are major problems for traffic trying to get into Leamington on weekday mornings when the traffic backs up all the way onto the main carriage way on the M40. 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 car 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 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 but huge pressure on surrounding schools and thee is still and 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. Also many of the properties on both of these developments are rented out and therefore not lived in by the people who bought them.

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 the Air Quality is covered by the Air Quality Regulations 2000 (amended 2002) and the Environment 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 Heath of the children who use these facilities could be at risk if this goes ahead without a full assembly of the potential impact of such a large development. I seriously worry about the effect on my children's health and other children in the area. In my opinion this 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 dog 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. Mallory road leading to the Banbury road is also prone to flooding and has sometimes been impassable. There have been no improvements made to the road systems or pavements 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 wide reaching impact of large scale housing developments on existing infrastructures. If the proposed develop goes ahead it will increase the volume of traffic through Bishops Tachbrook and that will increase the risk to 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 and infrastructure issues I echo what I have said in the above paragraphs.

Why are we insistently building on prime agricultural land? Surely this land is needed to feed the ever growing population of the country or we will become more reliant on importing food and pushing prices up even further. Obviously the developers prefer this option as it's easier and means more profit for them.

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 and is prone to flooding.
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 am also concerned about the negative impact these sites will have on local house prices and increases in house and car insurance. Statistics show a rise in crime rates.

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.

see attached

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

This plot does not have any Provision of Utilities

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

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


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

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

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

OBJECTIONS TO
Identified Gypsy & Traveller Site GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm
Objector: Mrs Rachel Adams, 16 Seven Acre Close, Bishops Tachbrook, CV339SG

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

The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document.
There is a potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. This will damage the Tourist Industry which accounts for a large proportion of business transactions for both Large and Small & Medium Enterprises alike.
Therefore a site in this location will put undue pressure on local infrastructure & services.
I picked up the council's document "Sites for Gypsies & Travellers" Local Plan helping shape the district.
How is it those 15 sites are all placed south of Warwick & Leamington? The small village of Bishops Tachbrook has 6 of these within a mile of it, 2 are on its immediate doorstep. Potentially all of these sites could be approved and the very nature of our community and how the approach to our village would look would be irrevocably changed & the effect would be devastating to our way of life. This is not acceptable nor a reasonable request for the council to make.
There is no statement from the Gypsy Council of Great Britain or any other organising body on behalf of the Gypsy & Traveller community, within your brochure/document, that they wish to join our community in Warwickshire or anywhere else. Odd that. Perhaps this is because they have no desire to permanently live here? What evidence does the council have that the gypsy & traveller community wish to use these sites as a permanently settled site with a fixed maximum number of 15 Pitches? You also do not state how many people are able to live within a pitch or who is responsible for the site. Due diligence has not taken place here. I appreciate that you state the Regional Spatial Strategy & commissioned Salford University to produce a report but you have failed to put any meaningful back up data into this document . Therefore I have to question the validity of the study as you have not put it in the information you are handing out. Where is the proof that so many sites are needed? Much needed data is missing here & the council are remiss in leaving it out.
You also state that the Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment shows a need for 31 pitches, 25 within the first five years & a further 6-8 transit pitches over the Plan period. Yet the brochure you have produced is only showing 19 of these. Why are you not identifying where all these sites will potentially be? Are you planning to use these larger identified areas to put up multiple sites? Please be clear & honest!

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

I believe that you have devised a plan to destroy Warwick and, as a resident of the town, I strongly object to its implementation. Here are my objections in more detail:

Housing and Traffic

Warwick is not geographically suited to cope with large housing developments around its periphery - we have a river with only two crossing points and an historic town with narrow streets which means that traffic movement is always going to be severely restricted. On these grounds alone, additional housing development around the outskirts of the town should be avoided at all costs if the quality of life of Warwick is to be preserved for future generations.

There is no point planning dual carriageways to carry the traffic to and from the new estates because when it gets to the town it will come to a halt causing horrendous congestion and increased traffic pollution. The situation now in 2013 is bad - Warwick is famous for its traffic congestion being much worse than Leamington or Kenilworth. For example, work colleagues refuse to drive into Warwick when we lift share because of the traffic problems here so I always have to drive out to meet up with them somewhere else.

You need to devise a plan that will reduce or at least not worsen traffic congestion and I'm afraid this means that out of town housing developments will need to be 'off the menu'.

Why do we need all these extra houses when many of the homes built on the old Potterton site are still on the market after several years?

Air Quality

The District Council is required to improve air quality which at present is above the legal limit, therefore the increased traffic from the new housing developments will diminish the quality of the air even further. How will you improve the air quality with this plan in place?

Gypsies

I object to the plan for so many gypsy sites in the area with so much council tax payers money being spent on a group of people who do not contribute to the economy of the district. It seems the council is bending over backwards to help this non-tax paying group whilst the council tax payers are getting the thin end of the wedge - could it be that the gypsies shout louder than the so-called 'settled community' (tax paying residents)? That certainly seems to be the case looking at the astounding number of proposed gypsy sites in the plan.


If the council needs to raise funds for new schools, improving infrastructure etc, I would be grateful if it would not sell the soul of the town it is meant to be representing to housing developers in order to achieve this. Please come up with a fresh Plan that honestly looks after the interests of the town and its inhabitants and which centres on quality of life in Warwick rather than a money grab that will blight the lives of future Warwick residents.

see attached

see attached

Dear Sirs

Gypsy and Traveller Site Options

Firstly may I apologise for not submitting an online consultation form. The process took longer than expected with multiple problems online and extremely difficult to use hence the version by letter.

Part A

The information required in addition to my address is:
Telephone number: 01926 624455 / 07767 767565
Email: Amanda.griffin@expom.co.uk
Would you like to be made aware of future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites - YES
Gender: Female
Ethinic origin: White British
Age: 45 - 54
Method of learning about consultation: newspaper

Part B

Commenting on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Options.

I would like to refer my comments specifically to the following sites:
GT05, GT06, GT09, GT10, GT12, GT15, GT16, GT17, GT18, GT20.

I would like to OBJECT to the proposal of all these sites for the reasons stated below. I have based my objections on the suitability and sustainability criteria used in the WDC consultation document.

* Site 16 - is actually the flood compensation area from the Barford bypass build and contains a permanent central pond and is unsuitable for any form of development. No one from WDC can have surveyed this possible location ahead of consultation.

* Sites 6 and 9 - sit immediately approximate to the Asps which Warwick District Council decided, after further research regarding the landscape and transport impact of development, that site should remain open due its value as a backdrop to the historic Warwick Castle Park. The Revised Development Strategy, therefore, excludes the Asps and should also exclude the adjoining sites 6 and 9 for the same reasons.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - the sites are not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. None of the sites offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycle routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would place further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.

* Sites 12 and 16 - sit within (part) and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk. Extensive flooding has taken place in both sites earlier this year.


* Sites 6 and 9 - These sites are situated on historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

* Sites 10 and 20 - These sites are situated adjacent to historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 16 - development would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a "Secondary Service Village" and it's likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.

* Sites 12 and 16 - a number of residents have reported the existence of water voles in and immediately adjacent to these sites. Water voles are, of course, now a legally protected species.

* Sites 6 and 9 - there have been a number of reported wild deer sightings on this land and there is a population of deer that roam freely across the Castle grounds on to these 2 sites and beyond.

* Sites 12 and 16 - there is inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - the development of all of these sites could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the sites.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites). In all respects the sites fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - are not locations which allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (eg site 12) totally unviable.

* Sites 12 and 16 - vehicular access to these sites is from the A429 trunk road which was constructed as a bypass to Barford. It is a 60 mph speed limit road and there have been a significant number of accidents on it since its opening, including a fatality. The existing access into the sites is entirely inadequate.


* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - vehicular access to these sites is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.

My general comments relating to ALL of the above sites are:

* WDC should have identified brownfield sites within the existing urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington for Gypsies and Travellers. These sites would be more suitable and sustainable, and would enable better integration in to the local community. Despite such sites existing, they are all being proposed for redevelopment for more valuable uses.

* WDC should consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington including The Asps and Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 as Greenbelt to provide a 'buffer' to the proposed developments to the south of Warwick and Leamington and/or to extend the proposed Bishops Tachbrook Country Park as far as the Banbury Road near to Warwick Castle Park. This would ensure the villages in the south of the District retain their identity and are not 'swallowed up' by Warwick and Leamington over time.

* Availability - only 3 of the sites listed are available, namely sites 15, 17 and 18. By definition the remaining sites are not deliverable. A compulsory purchase order would be extremely lengthy, costly and unviable compared to other options.

* WDC should be requiring Gypsy and Traveller sites are delivered within the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington where 12,300 houses are proposed. This would ensure that the sites could be properly designed in a sustainable fashion and be fully integrated into a local community which will provide facilities such as a school, a doctors surgery and shops which are accessible on foot, on bike, by bus and by car.

* WDC should revisit its Greenbelt 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.

* Ecology and Environment - all of the sites have some ecological value and environmental issues which does not appear to have been assessed.

The consultation document published by WDC June 2013 misrepresents proposed size and visual impact of a completed site! Pictures used on page 3 and page 4 are from holiday caravan sites. The proposal of each pitch being 500 sqm each in size is omitted from the document and is misleading. Approved, licenced Gypsy and Traveller sites do not look like that in WDC 's consultation document.

I would be grateful if you could register my objection to the New Local Plan, in particular my objections to the proposed gypsy and traveller sites GT11, GT17, GT18 and GT20 in the New Local Plan.

South West Warwick has been so heavily developed in recent years and there is so much ongoing development, especially on the Chase Meadow Estate and Tournament Fields Business Park, that there is already an overburden on roads, schools and doctors.

I have concerns that having the large numbers of gypsy and traveller pitches so highly concentrated in these areas will have a negative impact on property prices, and on the pool of people who are willing to purchase. I am worried about the negative effect that an influx of travelling children will have on any one school. It is unlikely that these children will be at the same stage of learning as others the same age and their integration into the existing classes will require additional support from the teachers and teaching assistants. I don't see how this can have anything but a negative effect on the standard of teaching and learning that can be delivered without extra support being provided to the schools.

While I appreciate that sites needs to be provided, I think there should be some assurance that there will not be more than one site within a given radius, such as a 5 mile radius. I also think that sites should be no larger than 5 pitches, as this might feel more acceptable to people living close by. I personally have major concerns about management of the proposed sites. How will you prevent the expansion of any existing site? This is especially worrying where the proposed site has a large area for growth such as GT11.

I am most concerned with the proposal GT11 for the following reasons:

1. The local infrastructure is not in place to cope with even more development in this area, in particular the school, doctors and surrounding roads. I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
2. There is a massive amount of discontent and unhappiness with the proposed site within the local community, this indicates that the site will not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community, I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
3. I believe that this site will have a negative impact on Warwick, in terms of house prices, desirability, tourism and ultimately businesses especially linked to tourism. This goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
4. The sites are located close to major interchanges and major arterial roads that already take huge numbers of vehicles. The councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.
5. This site sits in part within the Flood plain. There is also particular concern of extremely close proximity of the sites to Green Belt land. Any further hard standing within the area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain.
6. This site is located very close to the stable block that the Racecourse has built for the owners to prepare their horses, I have heard that there is a potential risk of disease from non-vaccinated animals. The racecourse brings many people into the town, this should not be put at risk.
7. GT11 is situated within a large area of land. I do not believe that there is any way of preventing illegal or legal growth at this site.

I have concerns with the proposal GT17, GT18 and GT20 for the following reasons:

1. The local infrastructure is not in place to cope with even more development in this area, in particular the schools, doctors and surrounding roads. I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
2. There is a massive amount of discontent and unhappiness with the proposed sites within the local community, this indicates that the sites will not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence between the sites and the local community, I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
3. I believe that these sites, all visible on major routes into Warwick, will have a negative impact on Warwick, in terms of house prices, desirability, tourism and ultimately businesses especially linked to tourism. This goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
4. These sites are located close to major interchanges and major arterial roads that already take huge numbers of vehicles. The councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.

I also have objections to the proposed numbers of new homes detailed in the New Local Plan. It is unrealistic to expect the infrastructure in Warwick to support 6,630 new homes without significant negative impact on Warwick town. It is dangerous and unrealistic to ask people to travel to Leamington via the M40 as this results in queuing on the motorway. I appreciate that Warwick town could be developed to allow for slightly better traffic flow, but this will most likely spoil the beauty of historic Warwick and thereby ruin the town as a tourist attraction. It may also result in people not wishing to settle or remain in Warwick which will rather defeat the need for expansion.

My thoughts on the revised development strategy and sites for gypsies and travellers:
1) I live in Hampton on the Hill. The older properties have been here for some 150 years and the front of some properties is right on the road, as it would have been a cart track for horses in the 19th century. The road gets very busy at certain times of day with commuters using the village as a short cut to Warwick / The M40 in one direction, and Warwick Parkway / Coventry / A46 in the other direction. The road and village was never laid out with modern traffic in mind, and being a parent of very young children I am constantly worried about the speed and volume of traffic. This does not encourage the environmentally friendly use of walking / cycling to get around, so further use of motor vehicles is the result to protect children from the risk (be it real or imagined) of road traffic accidents. Increasing the number of houses in nearby Hampton Magna will only make this worse. The Budbrooke road between Hampton Magna and Hampton on the Hill is also unsuitable for the current volume of traffic, let alone any increase.

We moved to Warwickshire 7 years ago and the unspoilt countryside around here with open, green spaces were one of the major attractions to us. I strongly believe that any increase in house numbers should be built where there is already a recent precedent for building new houses, i.e. new housing estates where the amenities and infrastructure have already been created and can cope with more residents. A major point would be that Hampton Magna school is already heavily subscribed, and the addition of new houses or pitches for travellers / Gypsies will put a huge strain on what is currently a successful school.

I would like to respond to the current local plan consultation.

Whilst fully appreciating the challenge faced by WDC Officers and Members in compiling such a plan I believe the current version to be of real concern.

The issues are as follows:

Green belt
The position on the green belt whilst based upon current legislation, should be revisited or the planning process halted until changes are made to the national policy. The proposals to provide almost the entirety of the districts housing allocation within 20% of the district, must I would expect fall into 'exceptional circumstances'.

I also speculate over the impact that HS2 has had on the decision to move the initial development from this area and and the attractiveness of it to developers.


Infrastructure
I do not believe the considerations around infrastructure to be sufficient. As a resident of Barford I would also be deeply concerned about the impact of people finding 'rat runs' and alternatives to the 'expected routes' in and around Warwick and Leamington and seek considerable reassurance that such matters would be addressed in any future stages


Gypsy & traveller sites
In relation to he Gypsy and Traveller sites, whilst again recognise WDC's position, I believe that if these sites should go ahead they should be to integrated within the proposed new developments (should they go ahead)


It is not one specific issue, but the combination of these which I believe to be ultimately detrimental to the District. This should be considered when reviewing feedback on individual elements.

Having lived and worked in the south of the District for over 30 years the scale, location and nature of these and those relating to gypsies and travellers are of such a gravity that I would give serious consideration to moving away should they be approved.


I therefore register my discomfort and deep concern with the current proposals.

I wish to object to some of the proposals to be placed in the Local Plan's Revised Development Strategy for Warwick District Council.

I feel very strongly that the Gateway Development on green belt land between Baginton and Bubbenhall is unsuitable and inappropriate for the proposed location. It does not satisfy the very special circumstances necessary to dictate the change of land use and furthermore I do not believe it will ever attain the projected job numbers. I therefore request that the Local Plan should remove all references to the Gateway and amend its projections accordingly.

The target of 70-90 houses outlined for the village of Baginton in the Local Plan seems highly ambitious to me for the size and scope of the settlement and its amenities. Furthermore it does not take into account the Parish Plan or Housing Needs survey completed which suggest a maximum of 20 new build houses would be desirable for the village. Under the Localism act I would wish to see the number of properties revised to this lower number to reflect the Parish Plan and Housing Needs survey.

With regard to the proposed Gypsy and traveller sites in Baginton (ref G101 and G107) I feel this is further development (on top of new housing and Gateway) that the village can not sustain and is also inappropriate use of green belt land. The cumulative effect of all these additional developments on the village will dramatically change the character and atmosphere of the area for the worse having considerable adverse effects on visual landscape quality, noise, pollution and environment.

The sites are not within easy reach of local facilities and there is poor provision of public transport. There are already three traveller sites within a few miles of those proposed, at Siskin Drive, Brandon Lane and Oxford Road. These additions would not satisfy the Local Plan strategy of 'distributing development across the district'.

I also feel it is unacceptable to adversely impact the successful plant nursery business when there are more suitable sites such as those proposed to the south of Warwick District. These have better access to facilities, are outside green belt and would fulfil the requirement to appropriately distribute the development.

Baginton is a historic Doomsday village that deserves to have its integrity maintained, supported by a Local Plan that respects its heritage and the wishes of its community. I would urge you reconsider the current proposals for the Local Plan that will adversely affect our village and amend the details accordingly.

On behalf of Warwick Chamber of Trade I am objecting to the potential siting of a permanent travellers site on land at Budbrooke Farm/Racecourse. This is too near the centre of town and we have grave reservations about the impact on crime levels in the town. We know that the police already advise some businesses to shut when the Easter Race meeting is on and the travellers visit. There is already a reduced level of policing in the town centre due to their budgetry restrictions.
We also think the number of sites proposed around this area of Warwick is unreasonable and should be spread fairly across the district even if this means encroaching on a small amount of green belt land.
Travellers all have vehicles so have the means to access school and medical facilities from anywhere in the district.

see attached

Please register my objection to the New Local Plan, in particular my objections to the proposed gypsy and traveller sites GT11, GT17, GT18 and GT20 in the New Local Plan.

South West Warwick has been so heavily developed in recent years and there is so much ongoing development, especially on the Chase Meadow Estate and Tournament Fields Business Park, that there is already an overburden on roads, schools and doctors.

I have concerns that having the large numbers of gypsy and traveller pitches so highly concentrated in these areas will have a negative impact on property prices, and on the pool of people who are willing to purchase. I am worried about the negative effect that an influx of travelling children will have on any one school. It is unlikely that these children will be at the same stage of learning as others the same age and their integration into the existing classes will require additional support from the teachers and teaching assistants. I don't see how this can have anything but a negative effect on the standard of teaching and learning that can be delivered without extra support being provided to the schools.

While I appreciate that sites needs to be provided, I think there should be some assurance that there will not be more than one site within a given radius, such as a 5 mile radius. I also think that sites should be no larger than 5 pitches, as this might feel more acceptable to people living close by. I personally have major concerns about management of the proposed sites. How will you prevent the expansion of any existing site? This is especially worrying where the proposed site has a large area for growth such as GT11.

I am most concerned with the proposal GT11 for the following reasons:

1. The local infrastructure is not in place to cope with even more development in this area, in particular the school, doctors and surrounding roads. I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


2. There is a massive amount of discontent and unhappiness with the proposed site within the local community, this indicates that the site will not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community, I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


3. I believe that this site will have a negative impact on Warwick, in terms of house prices, desirability, tourism and ultimately businesses especially linked to tourism. This goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


4. The sites are located close to major interchanges and major arterial roads that already take huge numbers of vehicles. The councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.


5. This site sits in part within the Flood plain. There is also particular concern of extremely close proximity of the sites to Green Belt land. Any further hard standing within the area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain.


6. This site is located very close to the stable block that the Racecourse has built for the owners to prepare their horses, I have heard that there is a potential risk of disease from non-vaccinated animals. The racecourse brings many people into the town, this should not be put at risk.


7. GT11 is situated within a large area of land. I do not believe that there is any way of preventing illegal or legal growth at this site.

I have concerns with the proposal GT17, GT18 and GT20 for the following reasons:

1. The local infrastructure is not in place to cope with even more development in this area, in particular the schools, doctors and surrounding roads. I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


2. There is a massive amount of discontent and unhappiness with the proposed sites within the local community, this indicates that the sites will not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence between the sites and the local community, I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


3. I believe that these sites, all visible on major routes into Warwick, will have a negative impact on Warwick, in terms of house prices, desirability, tourism and ultimately businesses especially linked to tourism. This goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


4. These sites are located close to major interchanges and major arterial roads that already take huge numbers of vehicles. The councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.

I also have objections to the proposed numbers of new homes detailed in the New Local Plan. It is unrealistic to expect the infrastructure in Warwick to support 6,630 new homes without significant negative impact on Warwick town. It is dangerous and unrealistic to ask people to travel to Leamington via the M40 as this results in queuing on the motorway. I appreciate that Warwick town could be developed to allow for slightly better traffic flow, but this will most likely spoil the beauty of historic Warwick and thereby ruin the town as a tourist attraction. It may also result in people not wishing to settle or remain in Warwick which will rather defeat the need for expansion.

The residents of Baginton are understandably alarmed at the recent planning decisions and proposals which appear to be made without any regard to the quality of the village or the life of its inhabitants.
Firstly the Gateway Development - an immense industrial development dwarfing and overshadowing Baginton village and effectively cutting it off from access to major roads and instead drowning it in massive day-to-day movement of people and traffic.
Secondly the rejection of the school application - a scheme which would have cleaned up and improved an unsightly area and upgraded the village.
Now this proposal to turn Smiths Nurseries into a camping site for Travellers is totally inappropriate for many reasons & I state the following as part of my objection to this proposal:
1. Smiths Nurseries is a well-managed family business, has been in the village for generations and is an asset to the village, providing local employment etc - to shut it down or compromise it would be preposterous.
2. The Travellers are by definition - travellers - on the move, with vehicles / caravans etc and need to be sited near the main roads. The Gateway development effectively cuts off Baginton and deliberately makes access from the A45 & A46 difficult.
3. The site on Siskin Drive - ref. GT01 - is well placed for access and should be developed further. Also with the huge Gypsy site on the Oxford Road (A423) there is already disproportionate provision made for them in this area. If this is still considered insufficient, then include them at the A45 end of the Gateway development.
4. Baginton is a small village and wants to keep its status and character. It has no Doctor's surgery / Chemist / shops (other than the one small village shop) or facilities for the travelling community (all facilities deemed necessary in your 'Local Plan' package).
We know planners have to make difficult decisions, but not at the expense and expectations of the communities you are employed to serve.

We write as residents of Barford in connection with the Local Plan Revised Development Strategy and Sites for Gypsies and Travellers.

Development Strategy:

Our main concerns relate to the increase in traffic congestion that would be the result of any significant local residential development and the consequent increased risk of injury to pedestrian/equestrian and cycling persons. This would particularly relate to the local school children on their way to school during the morning peak time.
Church St/Bridge St, during the school term is particularly prone to congestion as the village is used as by vehicles leaving the M40 motorway in particular,in order to by pass the local motorway junction to access south Warwick/Leamington.

Because of parked vehicles in Church St large queues regularly develop on its approaches. This does cause some frustration to drivers who, we are aware, dangerously mount the pavement on the village green side of Church St to progress their journey. This situation is exacerbated by those children who are schooled in Barford and live outside of the village and whose parent(s) access the village by car and need to park up at the same time as the commuters to south Leamington are trying to pass through. The school we believe is also fully subscribedand operating at maximum child numbers. Any significant increase in local population would then require major costly redevelopment of the school.

The local plan identifies major housing development to the south of Leamington and Warwick to include new schools. To eliminate the risks (and major costs) identified above, would it not be sensible to increase the sizes of the PD sites 6 and 7 identified in the LP strategy brochure to accommodate any perceived development requirement for Barford say together with increasing the school capacity in those areas?

If the village is forced eventually to increase residential dwelling capacity, at the same time could some consideration be given to amending local roads and junctions and M40 motorway junction capacity/arrangements in order to deter Barford being used as a "rat run"from M40 and elsewhere? Perhaps in addition some meaningful traffic calming measures in Wellesbourne Rd/Bridge St, might also deter morning vehicle movement through the village from M40 and hopefully reduce what is at most times their excessive speed of travel.


Gypsy and Traveller Sites:

Our response relates to both the list of criteria in the WDC Response Form and the guidance on the government's aims in respect of traveller sites.

Our first comment, however, relates to how the WDC is expecting responses to be provided:-ie that Part B sheets are expected to be completed for each site. We really do not see why a generic response by letter as we are now doing is inappropriate.
There are many sites around Barford (in fact most of those in the southern area could be relevant to Barford. 15 no?) and to expect persons to return multiple documents would appear to be trying to put people off from responding.

From the outset we would confirm that we are against any gypsy/traveller sites in or around the village of Barford.

In our opinion there is not a homeowner who would agree to having a gypsy/traveller site established adjacent or near to theirexisting home. For any sites chosen close to existing residential developmentwe consider that peaceful and integrated coexistence between the two communities is unlikely to prevail. This is why we believe the sites near to Barfordidentified for further investigation (3,4,5,6,9,10,12,16,20) have been sited remotely from existing communities.
Is not the apparent remoteness of sites, however, at variance with proposals for integration and with the criteria that there is convenient access to a GP surgery (which Barford does not have), school and public transport, or provision of utilities, services, waste disposal etc. Is it not also at variance with avoiding areas that could have adverse impact on the natural environment or sites that can be integrated without harming the character of the area? The sites identified are all natural rural areas and their character will be badly affected.
For the reasons described why not locate the traveller sites within the proposed developments 6 and 7 around Warwick and 8 and 10 elsewhere.
In this way local existing communities will be minimally affected, all the "services" including schools etc will eventually be nearby to the traveller sites and the proposed integration could be better effected and sustainability will also be enhanced.
In addition the engineering aspects of drainage/flooding, safe road network etccan also be provided.
We understand that the location of traveller sites within some proposed developments has been successfully introduced by some London councils.

Can you advise also as to whether the WDC is liaising with other local councils in the provision of traveller sites.

see attached