see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

I am writing to make my objections to the local plan Revised Development Strategy clear. My main objection is to reference number 6 on the Revised Development Strategy, particularly the area south of Harbury Lane, between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook. The small pocket at Heathcote does not form part of my objection nor the Heathcote Hill Farm area. I believe that the area between Europa Way and Oakley Wood road, incorporating Grove Farm should never be built on as it provides a green space barrier between town and village.
Local need
It is my understanding that the local need for housing is for less than 6,000 new homes by 2030, but that it is proposed that 12,000 new homes be built, with the vast majority (4,500) of them being South of Warwick and Leamington Spa. From looking at the plans it appears that a huge amount of the proposed housing will be on farmland. I would like to know why existing brownfield industrial sites are not being used?
It is my understanding that using projections based on natural growth of the population with an allowance for migration this would mean a total of 5,400 homes would be required. This information was taken from a paper prepared by Ray Bullen in July 2012 that was updated using 2011 census data in 2013.
I also understand that Warwick District Council's own consultants, GL Hearn, gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast study in December 2012 in which they arrived at a figure of 4405 houses required.
Warwick District has a low unemployment level of 1.7% and so increasing the housing to meet job needs is not an issue. The 2012 Strategic Housing Market Assessment said that overall "Warwick District had a very good jobs-homes balance.
Why is the local plan proposing more than twice the amount of homes identified as being required?
Medical facilities
If this were to go ahead it would put a huge strain on the already stretched resources available. Warwick Hospital already struggles to see Accident and Emergency patients within 4 hours and I struggle to get an appointment at my doctors within the same week. The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash are at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients.
There are no dental care facilities in Bishops Tachbrook.
Utilities
The current water supplies, drainage and sewerage would not cope with an extra 12,000 homes. Will Severn Trent water be upgrading their current systems to cope with the extra demand?
Transport
The population of any new housing developments would be car dependant as there is no provision for jobs within the immediate vicinity of the proposed housing. Indeed, if the plans were to go ahead as proposed then the major employment area being built near Baginton will require a commute either through the already congested Leamington Spa town or back towards the Europa Way/M40/A46 which again struggles to cope at peak periods already. What are the plans for dealing with the major improvements that will be required for the roads in and around the proposed housing areas? Europa Way and the area around Leamington Shopping Park is often gridlocked at present. With the possibility of an extra 20,000 vehicles being added into the mix this would make it an unacceptable journey. It would in fact discourage visitors and tourists to the town areas as well as people looking to buy property.
I have seen Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 assessment where it shows the major issues this plan will cause in 2028. The large areas of 0-5mph average speed during the morning rush hour are unacceptable. How can you expect people to want to live in an area where their daily commute has to deal with this? Would people be looking for other routes to avoid the nasty congestion? Will smaller streets and village routes be used as rat runs for this this creating an unsafe environment for our children and elderly folk?
The impact on 'pinch points', crossings of the canal, river and railways shows no realistically deliverable solution to the problems posed by the proposals. I note it states possible park and ride facilities. I would suggest that this needs to be definite park and ride facilities in place prior to any building work commencing. There is no evidence within the plan to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements can or will be delivered by the Developer in Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy.
What is the cost of the proposed traffic measures? Who will pay for this? The taxpayer or the developers, and if it is the developers is it a condition of sale or just a desirable measure?
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DC7 states:
"Policy DC7 goes onto highlight that development will not be permitted where it generates significant road traffic movements, unless mitigation measures are used to avoid adverse impacts."
These developments will generate significant road traffic movements, and I do not believe that mitigation measures will alleviate the problem, certainly on a local level. If all the developments in the area are given the go ahead as part of the Local Plan, the situation will become untenable.
Pollution
In those areas most affected by the 'snails pace traffic' pollution will increase. It is my understanding that Warwick District Council are required by law to reduce the pollution from vehicle exhausts. This plan would significantly increase the volume of traffic thus increasing the levels of vehicle exhaust pollution. Those people that choose to walk or cycle will have to fill their lungs with the increasing pollution levels. Who would want to live next to or in these areas of high pollution? What provisions have Warwick District Council made to adhere to their responsibilities by law to reduce pollution from vehicle exhausts?
Have any studies been done on the impact the proposed measures will have on local residents health?
Noise pollution from the significant increase in traffic will increase
People choose to live in a village for many reasons, one of which is a better air quality. With the proposed increase in housing and traffic, air quality will be compromised, with the long term impact being an increase in the requirement for medical intervention.
Flood risk
Areas of Whitnash, Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook are already prone to flooding. The area between Grove Farm and Windmill Hill is prone to flooding according to the Environment Agency website. What provisions have been made for this? Will there be flood defences as part of the plan?
Education
What about schools? I notice it says that there will be 3 primary schools South of Leamington and a 'possible' secondary school. I would respectfully suggest that the secondary school would need to be guaranteed and in place along with the primary schools BEFORE the majority of any housing is built in order to protect the current pupils in the area and their education. I would also expect that people moving into the proposed housing would be reluctant to do so until adequate educational facilities are available.
It does not seem fair that people that live in certain areas to ensure a placement at a specific school should end up with a less desirable option for their children when newcomers to the area will get the advantages that should be provided to the loyal local residents. Will the current catchment areas change? I suspect so. How is this fair on current residents? What about siblings that will be applying in the future? This could result in siblings attending different schools and could have further impact on working families as well as further traffic implications.
The Catholic Primary school in Whitnash, St Josephs', has had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate. Bishops Tachbrook school is already at capacity.
Bishops Tachbrook
The housing planned between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook would turn a beautiful piece of rolling scenery into a view of a housing estate. The whole character of Bishops Tachbrook will be lost. The unique desirability of the village will be lost. It will merely be an extension of Leamington Spa and Warwick Gates. The visual impact of the beautiful landscape around the village and the unique character of this village will be destroyed. Have you had a look at the view from Bishops Tachbrook looking towards Warwick Gates, between which some of the planned housing is proposed. The planned housing will be clearly visible leaving just a field between it and Bishops Tachbrook. The visual impact will be devastating.
If the 100/150 proposed homes within the envelope of Bishops Tachbrook are propsed to be built on the Windmill Hill side of the village it will leave virtually no green space between the village and Warwick Gates.
Large areas of the landscape south of Leamington and Warwick are considered to be uniquely beautiful, a rolling landscape with far reaching views. Given the overriding concerns about the excessive numbers of new houses proposed is it right that this landscape should be lost forever?
It should also be noted that the planning inspector who reviewed the current local plan in 2006 stated that Woodside Farm should never be built on.
Warwick District Council's landscape consultant Richard Moorish referred to the land south of Gallows Hill and concluded "the study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development" in the Landscape Area Statement of 2009. Why has Warwick District Council gone against this recommendation?
Current residents
There seems to be no consideration in this plan for the people already living in the area. The emphasis seems to be on the new people requiring homes. What about those of us who have worked hard to pay for a house in a quiet village, substituting facilities for a peaceful and safe environment? We choose to live in a village with limited facilities and accept that as we gain in other areas. This plan will take away the reason for us living here. For many they will have no option but to stay as their houses will not be worth as much or they may be too old to contemplate moving.
There is a considerable impact on current residents and those people choosing to live in a village with limited facilities.
Country Park
What will this look like? There are few details about this area, will it be secured from future development? Who will provide the upkeep of this area and at what cost? In order to make an informed decision about the proposals we really need to know all of the information. Will a further consultation be conducted with further details of this plan?
Agriculture and local businesses
The land south of Harbury Lane is predominantly high grade agricultural land. Is it sensible for high quality land producing multiple crops per year to be built upon. Wouldn't it be better to allow these farmers to improve their businesses thus making them more sustainable and creating further job opportunities for local residents? What about those farmers and land owners that have to face compulsory purchase orders? How is fair for land that is rightfully theirs to be purchased against their will? This could be their retirement fund or their inheritance for their children that they have spent years building up and attempting to make a profit.
Green space
This plan will devastate Bishops Tachbrook with the loss of green fields and green space around it. It will effectively lead to significant urban sprawl. The unique rolling green fields will be lost forever and the historic Bishops Tachbrook (mentioned in the Domesday Book) will merely become an extension of Leamington Spa.
Proposals
I would suggest that these plans need to be scrapped and that the planners should look to set a level of new housing which meets the population growth for local needs. Any homes required should then be built in areas where people will want to live as the infrastructure is in place to meet their needs without impacting hugely on the current population.
To minimise the impact on local residents I propose that any new housing developments should be smaller developments spread evenly throughout the district and neighbouring local authorities. I understand that there is a major development proposed around the Gaydon area. If this is to be supported by the correct infrastructure then surely increasing this will help to absorb some of the previously mentioned problems. Has consideration been given to a new town/village similar to that proposed near to Gaydon?
This revised local plan unfairly places the bulk of the proposed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick/Leamington. What about North Leamington? If the planned major employment site is to be near to Baginton and therefore North of Leamington Spa, shouldn't the housing also be in this area so as to reduce the transport/commute required? The local plan states that the 22.5 hectares of new employment land is to meet local need over the next 15 years but it would appear that this is not the case as I suspect the vast majority of it will go to newcomers to the area.
It would appear that North Leamington has been largely left alone from these proposals and local concern is that this is due to the wealth of the people that live in North Leamington. It would make more sense to have the majority of the housing in the North of Leamington, Kenilworth and Cubbington areas as they are closer to the planned major employment area and do not have any greenfield areas separating them. They are already a continuous sprawl of housing. This would mean less of a commute and better air quality. The area to the North East of Kenilworth would seem a sensible option.
Using brownfield sites for as much of the development as possible would be a better option thus reducing the impact on greenfield sites and local villages.
Ensuring the housing developments are close to peoples work, schools and recreational facilities to negate the need for commuting and traffic congestion and pollution is essential. Ensuring that there are good facilities to reduce commuting - more cycle lanes, bus lanes, better bus and train services etc
Ensuring that the correct level of infrastructure is provided. This must include better transport links and better traffic management to reduce congestion to an acceptable level. Also must include educational facilities, health care facilities, leisure and shopping facilities.
Ensure clear boundaries are kept between towns and villages thus ensuring the area does not become a continuous sprawl of housing.
Identifying existing housing that is derelict or currently unoccupied and utilising this.
There is an area of non green belt land to the left of the racecourse in Warwick. It already has a park and ride facility, is near to a secondary school and access to the A46 reducing the need for traffic to drive through the already congested Leamington Spa and Europa Way areas. There are also pockets of space around the new estate near to Aylesford School that could be used stretching across towards Barford. These sites would provide much better transport links and would reduce the need for traffic to travel through Leamington. There is also the field on the opposite side of the motorway to Longbridge.
A further unexplored site is the area between the A452 and the A425 near to the Police site.
Is there capacity to increase the development at reference number 7?
Other comments
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DP2 states:
"that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents and/or does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users / occupiers of the development."
I understand that new housing is required but this must be in the right numbers and the right places with the necessary facilities and infrastructure to support it, and without the irrepairable damage to the life of the existing community.
Please reconsider the scale of the housing proposed and also the positions. Without the correct infrastructure to support this plan Leamington Spa will become nothing more than a sprawling town with no character, major traffic problems, poor medical and educational facilities and an altogether undesirable place to live.
It seems wholly unfair that the small parish of Bishops Tachbrook is to be the subject of what feels like a 3 pronged attack. Proposals for 3195 new homes will effectively join the village to Leamington Spa and mean that it will no longer have the community feel for which it is famous. The proposals for 7 Gypsy sites will add to the impact of the housing along with the further 150 houses within the village. There are large areas of Leamington (predominantly in the wealthy North greenbelt) that have no proposals for any of these three things.
Applications have already been submitted for land that is earmarked to be part of the Local Plan, before the Local Plan has been fully agreed and approved. This is unacceptable. Such applications should not even be considered until such time as the Local Plan has been clarified and the public consultation completed.
I really am disgusted at the lack of information provided as part of this consultation. In order to provide a considered response we require all information. It would appear that this is not the case.
I would appreciate a response to the questions raised as part of this letter and hope that you will consider my objection, concerns and proposals properly before making any firm decisions on mine and my childrens futures.

I am writing to raise and log my objections and concerns to the Warwick District Local Plan.

I am a resident of Bishops Tachbrook and feel the proposals will have a detrimental effect of the health and well being of many residents, not only in the Village itself but in the surrounding areas of Whitnash and including Warwick and Leamington Spa.

Firstly I would like to raise an objection to the number of houses that is currently in the plan. 12, 300 homes seems very extreme. Projections (based on 2011 Census data in 2013) seem to suggest that around 5,400 homes would be needed in the area, allowing for migration and natural growth of the population. Warwick District council's own consultant Gil Hearn gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast Study in December 2012. In this study only 4,405 new homes were needed.
These figures indicate the housing figures in the Local Plan is more than double what is actually needed..

The current Local Plan bases most of the homes in the South of the District. As it stands it would fill a vast area of rural and agricultural land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook. Building here would just merge our built areas, making them a single suburban sprawl. Currently there is a rolling landscape with far reaching views. I understand a country park would be planned at the border of Bishops Tachbrook but this is felt to be ineffective as the excessive new homes would be highly visible and the beautiful views we currently enjoy would disappear.

The majority of the housing is proposed to the South of the town centres. This will have a massive impact on congestion making it even more severe at crossings over the canal, river and railway in the area where there is no available solution to the current infrastructure. The current locations of this housing would encourage an even greater car- dependent culture, increasing traffic and worsening congestion on the two north and south routes through Leamington Spa and Warwick.

The concentration of these homes will, I believe, have a detrimental effect on Bishops Tachbrook. There will no doubt be an increase in the traffic on the minor road through the village (Mallory Road). This is already used as a cut through by speeding cars trying to avoid the already overloaded road network. This will have dramatic effect on the community, putting people's lives at risk crossing a much busier road with motorists driving at speed, whilst trying to access the village's facilities such as the local shop, doctors surgery, community/playing facilities and the primary school. The village could be split in two by this road and go from a community where local children are allowed some freedom and independence to access our excellent play facilities to a community where social isolation is prevalent as they are terrified by a very busy road. An increase in the amount of vehicles passing through will also increase the risk to the health of villager's especially the children with an increase of air pollution.
Indeed the increased number of cars 12, 300 homes will bring will have far reaching consequences for our air quality. Already pollution from car exhausts in many streets in Warwick town centre and some in Leamington is already worse than legally permitted. Air quality is needed to be improved on by Warwick District Council but this Local Plan and its transport strategy would exacerbate it further. Long term health of residents would be even more threatened with damage being brought to the local economy as businesses and tourism would damaged by the Plan .There would no longer be the beauty currently found in historic Warwick or the spa town of Leamington.

There is the consideration of other infrastructure, in theory there is funding for this. However in reality this could surely not be enough. I am aware that times are tough currently in the NHS with services being reconfigured and cut to save money. Services are stretched to capacity now so a further 12, 300 homes some perhaps with families living in them would push our healthcare facilities beyond breaking point.

The Proposed Gypsy and Travelers sites are again concentrated in the same area. There are several sites proposed around Bishops Tachbrook. One site situated on Banbury Road/ Mallory Road is extremely unsuitable as it is so near a busy main road (will be increasingly busier with many more homes just down the road!!) so is not suitable for the travelers and their families in terms of safety or access. It also currently floods and floods down through the Village through the back gardens of where I currently live. I feel that hard standing for proposed travelers site will create less surface area for the water to soak away and increase the volume of water flooding down through the Village, instead of just flooding gardens, it will flood through homes.
These sites would also impact on the local facilities, the school is already at capacity and the GP practice is just a branch surgery with limited opening hours. At the time that Warwick Gates was build we were promised a school on Warwick gates. This never happened putting a further strain on the schools in the area. Now the children from Bishops Tachbrook are no longer eligible for Myton School, they have to pass Myton School and carry on several miles further to Aylesford School. This makes me feel what we are going to lose this time.

I feel that the points I have raised just add up to a poorer quality of life and health for those who reside in the south of the District.

I feel there are better alternatives such as lower housing numbers to meet local need, a gradual releasing of land for development as and when demand grows, priority being given to use brown field sites nearer to schools, shops and railway stations, homes being built close to jobs and cooperating with other local councils instead of competing with them over development.

I am writing to raise my objections and concerns to the Warwick District Local Plan.

I am a resident of Bishops Tachbrook and feel the proposals will have a detrimental effect on the health and well being of many residents, not only in the Village itself but in the surrounding areas of Whitnash and including Warwick and Leamington Spa.

Firstly I would like to raise an objection to the number of houses that is currently in the plan. 12,300 homes seems very extreme. Projections (based on 2011 Census data in 2013) seem to suggest that around 5,400 homes would be needed in the area, allowing for migration and natural growth of the population. Warwick District council's own consultant Gil Hearn gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast Study in December 2012. In this study only 4,405 new homes were needed.
These figures indicate the housing figures in the Local Plan is more than double what is actually needed.

The current Local Plan bases most of the homes in the South of the District. As it stands it would fill a vast area of rural and agricultural land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook. Building here would just merge our built areas, making them a single suburban sprawl. Currently there is a rolling landscape with far reaching views. I understand a country park would be planned at the border of Bishops Tachbrook but I feel this would be ineffective as the excessive new homes would be highly visable and the beautiful views we currently enjoy would disappear.

The majority of the housing is proposed to the South of the town centres. This will have a massive impact on congestion making it even more severe at crossings over the canal, river and railway in the area where there is no available solution to the current infrastructure.The current locations of this housing would encourage an even greater car- dependent culture, increasing traffic and worsening congestion on the two North - South routes through Leamington Spa and Warwick.

The concentration of these homes will, I believe, have a detrimental affect on Bishops Tachbrook. There will no doubt be an increase in the traffic on the minor road through the village (Mallory Road). This is already used as a cut through by speeding cars trying to avoid the already overloaded road network. This will have dramatic effect on the community, putting peoples lives at risk crossing a much busier road with motorists driving at speed, whilst trying to access the villages facilities such as the local shop, doctors surgery, community/playing facilities and the primary school. The village could be split in two by this road and go from a community where local children are allowed some freedom and independence to access our excellent play facilities to a community where social isolation is prevelant as they are terrified by a very busy road. An increase in the amount of vehicles passing through will also increase the risk to the health of villager's especially the children with an increase of air pollution and the diseases this is associated with such as lung cancer and asthma.

Indeed the increased number of cars 12,300 homes will bring will have far reaching consequences for our air quality. Already pollution from car exhausts in many streets in Warwick town centre and some in Leamington is already worse than legally permitted. Air quality is needed to be improved on by Warwick District Council but this Local Plan and its transport strategy would exacerbate it further. Long term health of residents would be even more threatened. The local economy with local businesses and tourism would damaged by the Plan .There would no longer be the beauty currently found in historic Warwick or the spa town of Leamington.

There is the consideration of other infrastructure, in theory there is funding for this. However in reality this could surely not be enough. I am a NHS healthcare worker so can see that times are tough currently in the NHS with services being reconfugured and cut to save money. Services are stretched to capacity now so a further 12,300 homes some perhaps with families living in them would push our healthcare facilities beyond breaking point.

The Prosposed Gypsy and Travellers sites are again concentrated in the same area. There are several sites prosposed around Bishops Tachbrook. One site situated on Banbury Road/ Mallory Road is extremely unsuitable as it is so near a busy main road ( will be increasingly busier with many more homes just down the road!!) so is not suitable for the travellers and their families in terms of safety or access. It also currently floods and floods down through the Village through the back gardens of where I currently live. I feel that hardstanding for proposed travellers site will create less surface area for the water to soak away and increase the volume of water flooding down through the Village, instead of just flooding gardens, it will flood through homes.
These sites would also impact on the local facilities, the school is already at capacity and the GP practice is just a branch surgery with limited opening hours.

I feel that the points I have raised just add up to a poorer quality of life and health for those who reside in the south of the District.

I feel there are better alternatives such as lower housing numbers to meet local need, a gradual releasing of land for development as and when demand grows, priority being given to use brownfield sites nearer to schools, shops and railway stations, homes being built close to jobs and cooperating with other local councils instead of competing with them over development.

I would very much appreciate a reply to the objections I have raised.

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

see-attached

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 hence the version by letter.

Part A

The information required in addition to my address is:
Telephone number: 01926 624224 / 07970 058316
Email: jennifersheard@aol.com
Would you like to be made aware of future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites - YES
Gender: Female
Ethnic origin: White British
Age: 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.

* 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.

* 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 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.

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

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

* WDC should be requiring Gypsy and Traveller sites are delivered within the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. 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.

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

* 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 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.

* 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.


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.

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

Dear Sirs

Revised Development Strategy Response

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

Part A

The information required in addition to my address is:
Telephone number: 01926 624224 / 07801 787891
Email: mikesheard6@gmail.com
Would you like to be made aware of future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites - YES
Gender: Male
Ethnic origin: White British
Age: 56
Method of learning about consultation: newspaper


Part B

Commenting on the Revised Development Strategy.

In response to: Southern Sites: Sites South of Warwick & Whitnash. Map 3, pages 32 & 32.

I would like to OBJECT to the proposed development of approximately 3,500 houses in this area. The key reasons for objection are:

The volume and number of properties is disproportionate to the local road infrastructure in and around Leamington and Warwick. There is no evidence to support the sustainability of road junctions and traffic hours in the local area without severe congestion and impact on the public transport system.

The new proposals make no provision for allocation of Gypsy and Traveller sites into these developments. Any new housing area should seek to include ALL Gypsy and Traveller sites into those new developments so that they offer better quality of environment, local services and integration into community. Such schemes have been




successfully implemented near Watford and Milton Keynes areas. This would ensure better forward planning of proposed G&T sites with land developers rather than splitting G&T sites up and around the county.

There is little evidence to support the production of the total overall requirement of over 12,000 houses in the overall Local Plan.

The Green belt should not be eroded further and should be used only within government policy
In exceptional circumstances.

The plan portrays a want to consider Green belt and protect open spaces and countryside
Yet villages "washed over" by Green belt may have their village envelopes redrawn.

The scale of development is inappropriate in relation to the existing village population.

Hampton Magna has suffered its share of Green belt erosion and growth/development
On all sides in recent years.
Warwick Parkway, "considerably extended"
Hatton Park Estate
Chase Meadow
IBM site development.

Contrary to the plan services in the village are fully utilised and do not need further "sustaining''
Through population growth.
The School is expanding but this is needed to resolve current stretched classroom numbers.
The train station and its facilities are fully utilised.

Another large influx of families will create more traffic congestion particularly on the main
Access to and from Hampton Magna at the light controlled single line traffic under the Railway
Bridge.
We are against the compulsory purchase of private land to facilitate Gypsy sites,
We feel these sites should not take precedence over house building on them.

Barford St Peter's Primary School has a current admission number of 20 places that are consistently fully subscribed with 54 applications made for 2013-2014, of which 29 placed the school as first choice.
The proposed development of 70-90 houses would inevitably generate extra numbers of children to be accommodated by the school. In addition, several areas around the catchment area for the school have been identified as potential sites for gypsies and travellers. The school is already oversubscribed and any additional children from either of these sites would be a great strain on the school.
The Preferred Options identifies the school to become a Single Form Entry school and hence accommodate 30 pupils per year/intake. This is not possible with the current infrastructure and staffing levels. There needs to be a clear strategy to ensure adequate funding to provide essential provision of built infrastructure and staff to accommodate pupils generated from new housing and potential travellers site whilst not disadvantaging current residents, pupils and their families.
Although the School has not been informed of the Proposals directly, it is understood that they have been put out for consultation. This Letter is the School's response to that present consultation. Please note that if the Proposals proceed further, the School needs to be directly consulted at each stage.

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

See attached (needs attaching)

We are writing to express out disagreement with the proposed plan for further housing in Hampton Magna which we consider is over development of this area and seems to have been chosen for expediency - there are a lot of areas of derelict land and other places which could be far better utilised. Hampton Magna is a pleasant place to live with a strong community spirit and when we bought our house we did so on the grounds that the surrounding land was green belt and would not be built on and the development would be within the confines of the historic barracks. We recognise that it was originally attended for the village to be bigger but by the time most of the residents moved in these plans had been shelved and we are horrified that 43 years on these are being revived. The effect of the loss of valuable farm land and the damage to all the varied and fascinating wildlife that currently occupies this land is incalculable and once land is built on it cannot be reclaimed.

We do not feel the existing infrastructure and amenities could cope with another 100 houses, the once considerable number of local shops has already shrunk down to just 3. There are frequently problems with drainage and the sewerage system will be put under particular strain, as will other services. Additional housing has already been developed at Chase Meadow, which is ongoing, and at Hatton Park, it is difficult therefore to see the necessity for even more at Hampton Magna. There are also a number of other villages which could better be developed locally, possibly Bubbenhall etc etc

We also have concerns about road safety as the school is at full capacity and the surrounding roads are now an absolute nightmare when parents come to drop off and collect their children creating some very dangerous situations, there is also an impact with amount of traffic using the railway station and people using the road round the village as a short cut which will be further exacerbated. A large number of driving schools use the major roads around Hampton Magna which also adds to traffic problems.

On the subject of the proposed gypsy encampments, we are still bemused that a local farmer at Beausale once offered land for us by travellers which was turned down by the council although it had traditionally been used by Gipsies for years we would perhaps like to see this being revisited and new solutions sort as we cannot imagine the kind of site currently being looked at will be conducive to the safety and wellbeing of travellers. Also the incidence of litter and damage that follows on from these sites is most concerning. Also has anyone consulted with the gipsies/travellers to find out what they think, I don't think we want another fiasco like the one we had when the site that is now the Parkway Station was considered as a gipsy site which was very unsuitable with its proximity to the canal and the railway line and difficult entrance from the road which the Gipsies themselves rejected and did not want. This is also yet another strain on the school.

We would like to think that the views of Hampton Magna residents are fully considered and this is not just a case of 'rubber stamping' something that has already been decided.

1. The increase in housing estimates from 10,800 to 12,300 is without foundation, being still subject to review against adjoining authorities (e.g. Coventry and Stratford) and being based on challengeable methods. Indeed an alternative authoritative report by Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council suggests a likely requirement of 5,400 homes, less than half the WDC estimate. Even this number will add over 10,000 people and some 15,000 vehicles to the area, resulting in additional traffic congestion and air pollution, both already at unacceptable levels.
2. An increase from 100 to 150 new homes has been included for Hampton Magna, resulting in additional population higher than the total at this time in the adjoining village of Hampton on the Hill. Amenities for these villages are already overstretched. The single road through these villages is a "rat run" by speeding traffic to Warwick Parkway and the M40. More and urgent attention should be given to improving the existing infrastructure.
3. The alternative estimate of 5,400 homes requires no development to take place in the villages mentioned in the Plan, thereby protecting the Green Belt and the Rural nature.
4. Local MP Chris White has written to Cllr. Doody on 24 June 2013 expressing concerns about the housing estimate and urging WDC to "respect the views of local residents".
5. The selection of 20 proposed sites for Gypsies and Travellers has caused unnecessary alarm among residents. Six of the sites are within two miles of Hampton on the Hill and Hampton Magna, an area with already overstretched amenities. The 31 pitches required should be placed on the fringes of other, much larger, proposed housing developments, which will provide convenient access to better amenities.

1. The increase in housing estimates from 10,800 to 12,300 is without foundation, being still subject to review against adjoining authorities (e.g. Coventry and Stratford) and being based on challengeable methods. Indeed an alternative authoritative report by Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council suggests a likely requirement of 5,400 homes, less than half the WDC estimate. Even this number will add over 10,000 people and some 15,000 vehicles to the area, resulting in additional traffic congestion and air pollution, both already at unacceptable levels.
2. An increase from 100 to 150 new homes has been included for Hampton Magna, resulting in additional population higher than the total at this time in the adjoining village of Hampton on the Hill. Amenities for these villages are already overstretched. The single road through these villages is a "rat run" by speeding traffic to Warwick Parkway and the M40. More and urgent attention should be given to improving the existing infrastructure.
3. The alternative estimate of 5,400 homes requires no development to take place in the villages mentioned in the Plan, thereby protecting the Green Belt and the Rural nature.
4. Local MP Chris White has written to Cllr. Doody on 24 June 2013 expressing concerns about the housing estimate and urging WDC to "respect the views of local residents".
5. The selection of 20 proposed sites for Gypsies and Travellers has caused unnecessary alarm among residents. Six of the sites are within two miles of Hampton on the Hill and Hampton Magna, an area with already overstretched amenities. The 31 pitches required should be placed on the fringes of other, much larger, proposed housing developments, which will provide convenient access to better amenities.