Dear Sirs

REF: GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm

Proposed Site for Gypsies and Travellers

I wish to object to the above proposed site - GT03 at Barnwell Farm.

My concerns and comments are as follows:-

a. Access to Local Amenities - the nearest doctor's surgery has NO capacity for the influx of new patients and the nearest primary, junior and secondary schools are already at capacity.
b. Travel - The site is on a high risk travel route with more than 12 serious accidents in the last 3 years! There is currently no bus stop on the Fosse Way and providing one would be unsafe for road users. The Fosse Way is already a busy and dangerous road, with increased Jaguar Landrover traffic.
There is no pavement to walk anywhere and cycling is extremely dangerous on busy commuter routes. Children cannot be allowed to stand on a busy road waiting for transport to school.
c. Rural Environment/Other - The proposed site will have a visual impact from Harbury and Fosse Way.
The proposed site has no mains gas, mains sewerage or drainage.
I am also concerned about the damage to the wildlife and its habitat.
In addition to this, it is a flood risk area often flooding at the end of Middle Road, Harbury Lane and surrounding fields.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require verification of my objection.

see attached

This site fails to meet the councils Local Plan Requirements & its preferred options because-
Proximity to the Guide dogs breeding center could greatly increase the risk of communicable disease between animals given the difference between traditional traveller husbandry and contempory methods. Kennel cough being one such dieses that can spread like wildfire.
The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash are at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients.
The primary school in Bishops Tachbrook is already oversubscribed & the Catholic Primary in Whitnash, St Josephs' has even had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate.
Also the educational needs of many of these children will mean that should a place be found at a local school they will need additional help to catch up, and this should be provided. Is the council going to supply additional funds to help support these children's needs? Given that the parents of many of these children are unable to read & write themselves they are not in a position to help children with their own learning and this identifies yet another pressure point. As an adult not being able to read & write seriously narrows down the type of work you would be able to apply for, there are no employers within in the village of Bishops Tachbrook therefore there is no immediate local economy for them to join with. Most villagers have to commute to work.
There is no Dental care in Bishops Tachbrook.
There are no pavements between the proposed site and the nearest village and this would be a great danger especially during peak travel hours and school run times.
There are no bus stops and no safe place for a bus stop to be put in.
This would force more traffic thorugh the village of Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash & Additional traffic at the junction of Mallory Road & Banbury Road would put too much strain on an already busy junction onto a road where cars are travelling at speed, because of the north and southbound approaches to junction 13 of the M40. This is not an easy junction to get out of especially if you have to move slowly due to pulling a trailer or caravan.
Most of this plot does not have any Provision of Utilities
Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals? For instance a horse on the Banbury Road especially a loose one could end in fatalities.
.
It states in your Sites for Gypsies & Travellers page 9 last bullet point on section 7.4 the site should reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles ( whereby some travellers live & work from the same location hereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability. Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash would not be able to offer any traditional forms of income for travellers or gypsies. Next to this statement is an image of a draught horse. We are not a horse based community so farrier's would not be able to make a living here. Also my understanding is that traditional forms of employment also include door to door sales and this would be in stark contrast to advice given by police not to buy from door to door sales people. I fail to see how our community can support the traditional lifestyle of travellers.

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


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

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

I attended the public meeting at Whitnash Primary School recently regarding the Local Plan. I have never attended a public meeting before & went with the idea that WDC & our local councillors would be working for the benefit of our community. Unfortunately when I left the meeting & on reading the documents I felt very disillusioned. The lead spokesperson for the council gave a long and drawn out introduction implying that we were all prejudist against the traveller community. I found it offensive, ill advised and very condescending. Where I appreciate all the hard work & effort that council employees put in and I appreciate that the directives regarding The Gypsy & Traveller sites are coming from 10 Downing Street and not Local council I found the attitude of the councils representatives quite staggering. The gentleman representing The Highways Agency had clearly not received any training in how to speak to people. He was interrupted at one point by a lady at the back of the hall who asked a question relevant to the comment he had just made. The gentleman from the Highways agency then lost his temper and threatened not to give us any information if he was interrupted again. I found this to be highly unprofessional and suggest that that gentleman needs to learn the difference between a heckle and a pertinent question. And for the record that lady asked 3 questions, non of them were answered. I was left wondering if this was because she didn't appear to be a councillor.
I also thought I was attending a public meeting but it appeared to be that the vast majority of people who were handed the microphone were councillors. I am very glad they were there but surely this was a place for the general public to have the chance to speak and to ask some questions supported by councillors?
Many people left that meeting about halfway through as they felt their voice was not being heard by the council. I found the whole experience depressing and frustrating. The gentlemen from the council set out their stall as a "you & us" situation and they seem to of forgotten that actually we are all supposed to be on the same side! We are able to understand directives from Downing Street and we should be questioning decisions that are projected onto our lives. Surely this is democracy? That meeting felt like the council had attended just to tick the box and that what they were suggesting should just be signed off. I am truly appalled.
I look forward to receiving the answers to my questions and trust my objections have now been logged.

We would like to make objection to the following proposed Gypsy & Traveller sites identified as potential locations by the Warwickshire District Council -

GT03.
GT05.
GT06.
GT09.
GT10.
GT15.

We are opposed to these locations as we feel the local infrastructure would not support the needs that such a site would require. We have numerous concerns which we feel would need to be addressed before even giving consideration for consent on these sites -

1. The effect on the Quality of Life to the village.
2. The safety & security of the village residents.
3. The potential effect on the Crime rates to the village.
4. The effect to the value of the House Prices.
5. The effect to the cost of House Insurance.

We are a small village & many of us have been bought up in this very friendly & happy community, and we are strongly opposed to having this jeopardised with the introduction of these traveller sites, which historically have caused misery to the local areas they have been placed by.

Please take our feelings into consideration. We look forward to your response.

See Attached.

Reference: GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way

Dear Sirs

Proposed Sites for Gypsies and Travellers

I wish to register my objections to the proposed site GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way for Gypsies and Travellers. My comments and concerns are as follows:

1.Access to Local Amenities
There are no local amenities within a reasonable walking distance and there is no access to public transport on the Fosse Way. There is little capacity in local schools and health facilities.

2. Travel
The roads surrounding the proposed site can at best be described as hazardous. There have been a high number of minor and major accidents in recent years, and even with the siting of speed cameras, the road is used at high speed by a great many drivers which adds to the risk to pedestrians and cyclists incurred by the lack of pavements and bike paths.

3. Utilities
The proposed site has no mains gas, mains sewerage or drainage. Telecommunications are poor with low speed and unreliable internet access, and weak mobile signal coverage.

4. Environmental
There are a number of areas of high risk of flooding along the portion of Fosse Way and Harbury Lane in question. Land within the proposed area has flooded on a number of occasions in recent years.


I confirm I am over 17 years old. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.

We protest at these sites being imposed on the hard working lawful citizens of our neighbourhood.
Many of us work 60+hours per week and pay our taxes to be able to live in a peaceful country area such as Bishops Tachbrook.

It is wrong that we can have these undesirable types thrust upon us in this manor, who choose to live by a set of parameters of their own making, few live within the law and pose a real threat to the peace and quiet that our village has enjoyed for many years.

There must be a piece of ground somewhere in Warwickshire which is far enough away from decent people and of no serviceable use that would better suit the locating of these untrustworthy individuals who are a unwanted rabble.

Dear Sirs

Proposed sites for Gypsies and Travellers

I wish to object against the proposal site GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm for Gypsies and Travellers.

My comments and concerns are as follows: -
1 Access to Local Amenities:
The nearest doctor's surgery has no capacity for the influx of new patients.
The nearest primary, junior and secondary schools are already at capacity

2 Travel
The site is on a High Risk travel route with more than 12 serious accidents in the last 3 years.
No bus stop is available and providing one would be unsafe for road users. The site borders onto The Fosse Way / "Blaken Knob" crossroads which is already extremely busy and dangerous, especially from increased Jaguar/Land Rover traffic and visibility is very limited in either direction.
Indeed I take my life into my own hands every time I use this crossroad as it is often used a racetrack by other road users.
There is no path or pavement to walk anywhere - either on the Fosse way or into Harbury - and cycling is dangerous on the busy commuter route.
Children cannot be allowed on a busy road to wait for transport to school.
.


3 Rural environment/Other
The proposed site will have a visual impact from Harbury and The Fosse Way.
The proposed site has no mains gas, mains sewerage or drainage.
There would be damage to wildlife habitats.

It is a flood risk area often flooding at the end of Middle Road, Harbury Lane and fields.

The smells that permeate from Barnwell Chicken Farm are awful and would be a health risk.

There are many other issues already listed to include in my objection including local businesses, archaeology and heritage, urbanisation agriculture and rural landscape, including Chesterton Windmill which is nearby and is a well known and well loved heritage site and would overlook the proposed site GT03 at Barnwell Farm.

Is it not possible to find some brown area sites that would not take away from prime farm land and also brown area sites that would not involve the danger from speeding traffic, flooding etc to put the lives of any children and families on this site in danger?

As a local resident I wish to object t the proposed traveller site , ref GT04.

As we have seen when travellers have used the football fields off Harbury lane as a base on several recent occasions , these sites become wastelands with all kinds of rubbish and excrement abandoned without a care.

The increase in traffic in this area would not only be unsuitable but dangerous .

Where would these people use schools, Doctors etc ? All the existing ones are over capacity as it is.


This development unwanted , unneeded and completely unnecessary .

Please would you note my objection to this site on the following points.
1) The Fosseway is a very busy road. Especially at the 2 times of day when all the Jaguar traffic is going to and from Gaydon. The Fosseway is already known as a high crash risk area and another junction at this point will increase the risk.
2) The area has a record of flooding and this area of road espeacially
3) Harbury School is already at full capacity and has a waiting list.
4) The G P Surgery is also at full capacity
5) The proposed site has no water and toilet facilities that I know of.

Please would you note my objection to this site on the following points.
1) The Fosseway is a very busy road. Especially at the 2 times of day when all the Jaguar traffic is going to and from Gaydon. The Fosseway is already known as a high crash risk area and another junction at this point will increase the risk.
2) The area has a record of flooding. A few years back my car got stuck in 2 feet of water at the junction on Middle Lane and the Fosseway.
3) Harbury School is already at full capacity and has a waiting list.
4) The G P Surgery is also at full capacity
5) The proposed site has no water and toilet facilities that I know of.

I object to site GTO4 on the following grounds:-

1..Location on Fosse Way / Harbury Lane in an area which has a history of serious accidents in recent years. Visibility at junctions is poor and, despite the presence of speed cameras, the current 50mph limit is still dangerous at the road junctions.

2..No footpaths / cycleways exist.

3..Local schools are at capacity. Education of local children will be compromised by the needs of children who will come and go at random times - evidence at Tredington village school which is local to a traveller`s site.

4.. Local doctor`s surgeries at capacity.

5.. Lack of mains services especially sewerage and drainage.

6.. The access to the site from the north corner is an unmade bridle way leading into a public footpath unsuitable for trucks and caravans on a regular basis.

7.. This site is adjacent to the railway line with inadequate security fencing - hazardous for children and teenagers in particular.

Re: Proposed plan GT04 Dear Sir ,

As a resident living close to the above proposed sight I would like to register my Objection to the development. The Fosse Way and Harbury Lane are already dangerous roads with a high volume of traffic and many traffic incidents despite the 50mph limit.The chaos caused by the Leamington Football Club Events and when the gates for the Recreation Field are locked already proves the point.

There is no footpath and cycling along these roads is at best hazardous not to mention the environmental impact to a rural area.

As a ratepayer I also have a selfish interest in the effect on the value of my property,

I hope these objections will be taken into account in your deliberatations,

We wish to register our objection to Option site GT03 & GT04 and do this in light of the following documents:

i. Department for Communities & Local Government document 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites', March 2012
ii. The Government's good practice guide - designing Gypsy and Traveller sites
iii. National Planning Policy Framework

Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, paragraph 4, demonstrates the government's aim being to ensure traveller sites are developed in appropriate locations (providing accommodation from which easy access can be gained to education, health, welfare, & employment) and strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements.

The good practice guide, paragraphs 3.7 to 3.12, discusses the relationship of potential sites to surrounding land use and advises that where possible sites should be developed near to housing for the settled community as part of mainstream residential developments.

The National Planning Policy framework goes on to refer to Rural Exception sites, which are 'small sites used for affordable housing in perpetuity, where sites would not normally be used for housing' - are sites GT03 & GT04 classed as these sites? If so, 'these sites seek to address the needs of the local community by accommodation households who are either current residents or have an existing family or employment connection'

Are the proposed individuals current residents, have existing family or employment connections to the area closest to these sites?


In light of these documents we object to the proposed siting of sites at GT03 & GT04

1. Access to a GP surgery, schools & public transport:

- This is outside the catchment of the Harbury surgery and the Warwick Gates Surgery is approx. 2 miles away.
- Outside of the Harbury catchment area for schools & Whitnash Primary School, which is over two miles away, has capacity limitations.
- Public transport is very limited - there is a bus stop on the Harbury Lane for the football pitch but this has a very limited timetable for football match days. This will increase the reliance on private vehicle usage and go against sustainable development.

2. Areas with high risk flooding

- There are variety of areas on this patch of land, given the heaviness of the ground, that are susceptible to flooding and has been seen with the more extreme climate in recent years.
- Harbury Lane is still prone to flooding at various points during the year even after the remedial work carried out in recent times by the County Council and the additional traffic movements that will be added at these times of year will further inflate the problems currently experienced.

3. Safe access to the road network & provision for parking, turning, servicing on site
- No comment to make.

4. Avoiding areas with potential for noise & disturbance
- There is a large intensive broiler site at GT03, which was intentionally sited away from any residential dwellings, so as not to cause any significant nuisance of smell or noise to residents. The broiler site generates an estimated 166 traffic movements in each 10 week cycle - with a number taking place throughout the night which may potentially cause noise disturbance.
- The automated heating & ventilation systems operate 24 hours a day and can give rise to further noise disturbance.
- Odour is generated by the very nature of the process and the original assessment for purposes of the planning permission demonstrated the wind direction generally travelling in an easterly direction which would affect both sites (further information available on request)
- Whilst the land is largely agricultural there is a large industrial area with a reclamation and scrap yard close to both sites which again can lead to noise pollution.

5. Provision of utilities

- Both sites don't have mains sewerage, drainage, gas and water supply (GT03 obtains its water supply is from a bore hole) - this would mean significant infrastructure being required.

6. Avoiding areas where there may be an adverse impact on important, features of natural & historic environment.

- Both sites are very close to the Fosse and with the specific reference to GT03 there may be archaeological remains which need to be investigated
- The visual impact from the Grade 1 listed building, Chesterton Windmill, and Chesterton Hill would be significant to both sites.
- There would need to be considerable landscaping to 'hide' the development from the public view therefore adding to cost of the project and the area of land required. Extensive landscaping was involved when building the broiler site at GT03, suggesting that the same would have to occur in the construction of traveller sites.


7. Sites which can be integrated in to the landscape without harming the character of the area.

- There would be a definite visual impact in the provision of caravans & other vehicles on site from Chesterton Hill and the light pollution generated at night time would affect the rural environment around the site.

8. Promote peaceful & integrated co-existence between the site and the local community:

- The site at GT03 currently only has 1 dwelling, so the proposed 15 pitches would be disproportionate for the current community.
- Given the rural location of this spot and the local town/village of Whitnash & Harbury being over 2 miles away this will be hard to achieve - the properties that are located closest by are spread out and this will be hard to get an integrated existence within the community!

9. Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure & services.

- There is very limited infrastructure in place currently
- The local surgeries and schools have capacity concerns at the present times.
- There are no street lights nearby and the Harbury Lane poses large risk when walking back/cycling back from anywhere - particularly at night, as there are no footpaths or cycle paths on the Harbury Lane or Fosse Way.

Other issues:

Effect on existing businesses
The Evans family operate 3 businesses from Harbury Lane employing over 35 people. We provide secure storage for domestic and commercial customers. Travellers sites have a perception which could be detrimental to the operation of these businesses. We have already received negative comments from some customers about the potential for a site on GT03 (these have been unprovoked comments from customers who are aware of the current proposals) which is a cause of great concern to us.

Agriculture
Any proposed sites around here will lead to a loss in agricultural land away from the extension to the town in the proposed local plans that are being consulted on.

For these reasons we would urge you to re-consider your proposal to include these areas of land.

Regards

Les Evans

I wish to object against the proposed site GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm for Gypsies and Travellers.
My comments and concerns are as follows:
1. Access to Local Amenities:
The nearest doctor's surgery has no capacity for the influx of new patients.
The nearest primary, junior and secondary schools are already at capacity.
2. Travel:
The site is on a High Risk travel route with more than 12 serious accidents in last 3 years.
No bus stop is available on the Fosse Way and providing one would be unsafe for road users. The Fosse Way is already busy and dangerous, especially from increased Jaguar/Land Rover traffic.
No path or pavement to walk anywhere and cycling is dangerous on busy commuter routes. Children cannot be allowed to stand on a busy road to wait for transport to school.
3. Rural Environment / Other:
The proposed site will have a visual impact from Harbury and The Fosse Way.
The proposed site has no mains gas, mains sewerage or drainage.
Damage to wildlife habitat.
It is a flood risk area often flooding at the end of Middle Road, Harbury Lane and fields

Dear Sir/Madam,
Ref: Proposed site GT04

I wish to express my concern about the proposal by WDC to establish a traveller site at the above situation. It would not seem to be an appropriate site for travellers to have a permanent site for the following reasons:

1. The nearby Fosse Way is an extremely busy route, as a result of the LandRover Jaguar and Aston Martin traffic accessing the works entrance at Gaydon on the Warwick-Banbury road. It is difficult to cross the Bendigo-Mitchell cross roads at most times of the day and becomes even more of a problem when workers are driving to and from the engineering works at peak times.
There have been many casualties at the above cross-roads in recent years and a sign has been erected on all approaches to warn of the danger.
All the roads leading to the Fosse Way, from all directions, have no suitable pedestrian pavements or bus stops, which would create difficulties for anyone without transport, wishing to go to Leamington or Warwick.

2. In recent years, there has been severe flooding in fields alongside the Fosse Way, which has consequently proved impassable to many vehicles - from the Fosse Way roundabout on the Leamington-Southam road and almost up to the cross roads leading towards Leamington FC grounds.
The site referred to in the above proposal, has no access to services, including electricity and would therefore be a potential safety threat at night-time, whilst the lack of proper sanitation would pose a health problem

3. The local facilities for schooling and G.P. services are already stretched, so it might be necessary to seek education and NHS practioners in the nearby towns for any persons seeking to reside at the above site.

It would not appear from the observations I have made in this letter that it would be a suitable site on which to establish a traveller site, as there are too many obstacles to overcome to ensure that it would be an appropriate place on which to locate travellers and their families.

I hope that it might be possible to find an alternative situation for travelling families, which would not incur too much additional cost for Warwick District Council, as might be required by the above proposal, but would provide all the amenities which are clearly lacking at the above site.

I am writing to let you know that I am not happy with the proposal or the location for the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site.

The basis for my objection is as follows:-

* The local amenities in the area are already over stretched with the local school already full to capacity.
* Appointments needed at the Surgery result in a 1 to 2 week delay and often means travelling to Bishops Itchington. This is difficult for those without transport.
* The road are suffering already with poor maintenance with pothole left un-repaired for months on end. You only need look at Constance drive as the junction has laid un-repaired for several months and is a danger to cyclists.
* The locations indicated on the map appears to not consider the high levels of traffic that have already resulted in injury and fatalities in a relativity short period of time.
* I may be wrong but a site was established a short distance away on the Prince Thorpe to Coventry road. To date this has still not been fully utilised.
* There is also a site on the road to Stow that remains less than half filled.
* Last year and several years before, we experienced sever flooding in this proposed area that resulted in the main road being closed for a long period of time and this area was under water.
* Harbury has already taken more than their fair share of new housing putting excessive loads on the sewer, water and power systems. We are already experiencing lower water pressure even though we were told at the time of the new dwelling development at Bush Heath lane that there would no effects on us. The sewers I understand has already had to be modified.

Before we start tearing up farm land, all other sites should be fully utilised. I am a tax payer and do not feel that this plan has been thought through very well. If we have spare cash for poorly thought out schemes like this this, spare cash should first be used to provide the services we have already been charged for within our rates and the employment tax we pay as PAYE.
Last year we experienced floods and this area was under water. You my think that it was a one of, but this has been happening quite regular. Poor location of site could result in the cost of re-homing/housing flood victims putting additional strain on the already stretched resource.

I wish to object against the proposed site GT03 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way for Gypsies and Travellers.
My comments and concerns are as follows:
1. Access to Local Amenities:
The nearest doctor's surgery has no capacity for the influx of new patients.
The nearest primary, junior and secondary schools are already at capacity.
2. Travel:
The site is on a High Risk travel route with more than 12 serious accidents in last 3 years.
No bus stop is available on the Fosse Way and providing one would be unsafe for road users. The Fosse Way is already busy and dangerous, especially from increased Jaguar/Land Rover traffic.
No path or pavement to walk anywhere and cycling is dangerous on busy commuter routes. Children cannot be allowed to stand on a busy road to wait for transport to school.
3. Rural Environment / Other:
The proposed site will have a visual impact from Harbury and The Fosse Way.
The proposed site has no mains gas, mains sewerage or drainage.
Damage to wildlife habitat.
It is a flood risk area often flooding at the end of Middle Road, Harbury Lane and fields.

Having read this document, I note that consideration is being given to two permanent Gypsy and Traveller sites (GT03 and GT04) at Harbury Lane. This email refers to the reasons why I am objecting to consideration of these sites.
Before I begin my formal objection, I should point out that I believe that it is everyone's inalienable right to live somewhere, regardless of the lifestyle which they chose to follow. However, such rights must be balanced against the rights of those who are already living in an area. My objection therefore is based on this premise
Background
I have lived in Harbury for over 30 years and during that time a small amount of additional housing has been built for local users. Prior to consideration of any new building, a huge amount of detailed information was gathered which revolved around village demographics, the effects of additional numbers on health facilities, education facilities, transport, congestion, parking, recreational amenities etc.
I note that the WDC has not sought to ask Harbury village residents the same questions before it placed GT03 and GT04 on its list of potential permanent settlements located near Harbury village. I would have thought that such research would be essential BEFORE any consideration is given to any site which would result in increased use of those facilities.

My Objections:
1) Both GT03 and GT04 are located next to a busy commuter route (Harbury Lane and Fosse Way). It is also a known high risk accident spot and because of this, public transport would not be able to stop near the sites. There is no separate provision for pedestrians or cyclists on either Harbury Lane, Fosse Way or Middle Road. Thus, at neither site is there any safe way for children to get to Harbury School without vehicular assistance. This would mean that the site would exacerbate parking and obstruction problems at the school, which have only recently been overcome by ensuring village parents walk their children to school. Increased vehicular traffic would also increase the risk to those very children. It should also be pointed out that driving young children to school has also been blamed for the rising obesity levels, and I feel sure WDC would not endorse any plan that made driving the only method to get children to school.(See: Safe routes to school- an American document which nevertheless holds true for the UK http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/resourcecenter/quick-facts )

2) Even if (1) could be overcome at reasonable cost, the current village school is already oversubscribed and is likely to remain so given the current village demographic.

3) The village surgery is also running at capacity and has, as far as I have been able to ascertain, not been consulted by WDC to see if it could take additional patients.

4) As far as I can tell, sites GT03 and GT04 have no running water, mains sewerage, drainage or mains gas supply. Whilst the later can be overcome with the use of Butane gas cylinders, the former are essential for public health and the prevention of pollution of local water courses. Such pollution is likely to damage local wildlife, grazing livestock and be a health hazard.

5) I note that your document mentions that sites should not have a high risk of flooding. The sites mentioned DO have a risk of flooding given that they are affected by water run off from Harbury.

I believe that the incorporation of sites GT03 and GT04 was done with little research of their impact on the local community, the local wildlife and habitat. I also note that the majority of sites for discussion are located right on the edges of the WDC area with none located in the centres of main population of Leamington Spa, Warwick and Kenilworth. I am not sure why this is.

Please accept this email as a formal objection. I have included my personal information which is not to be released publicly without my express permission.

I am objecting to the gypsy sites surrounding the bishops tachbrook area.

Site 3. Very remote from major amenities
Site 4 Very remote from major amenities
Site 5. Access onto a very busy road, no pedestrian access. Potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick, putting off tourists.
Site 6. Very remote from main centres and no pedestrian access.
Site 9. Access onto a very busy main road, no pedestrian access. Potential visual impact to approach to historic Warwick, putting off tourists.
Site 10. Close to guide dogs for the blind national breeding centre.
Site 15. Site located on the banks of the tachbrook, so possible contamination if site used for business.

General considerations.

Remoteness. Are the sites identified in bishops tachbrook parish are too remote from the major centres to be suitable for this type of development.
Access. All sites are on very major roads with no pedestrian access.
Undue pressure on infrastructure and services. The school in bishops tachbrook is a single form entry. Even small gypsy sites could have many children that the school wouldn't be able to cope with. Are children that are local to the area with ties to the community such as mine who attends the preschool and the church, to be pushed out for gypsy site children that have no such ties to the community? this seems extremely unfair and totally wrong.

see attached

I would like to object to the gypsy and traveller site options near Bishops Tachbrook. I have tried to do this online but although I can find the documents to read, I cannot find where to click to object. If this email is not enough to register my objection, please reply with an exact link.

see attached

I wish to register my objection to the traveller sites across South Warwickshire as I believe that the local community will be seriously impacted due to the excess cars, caravans etc

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

Site GT03
We write to object strongly to the use of this land as a Gypsy and Traveller Site. There is no need to repeat the arguments ably summarised by Warwick District Council - lack of suitable health and education facilities, problems with road traffic and utilities, environmental impact and damage to the local economy, etc. - as to why the site is unsuitable.

We strongly oppose the use of this land for such a purpose.

I am objecting to the gypsy sites surrounding the Bishops Tachbrook area.

Site 3. Very remote from major amenities
Site 4 Very remote from major amenities
Site 5. Access onto a very busy road, no pedestrian access. Potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick, putting off tourists.
Site 6. Very remote from main centres and no pedestrian access.
Site 9. Access onto a very busy main road, no pedestrian access. Potential visual impact to approach to historic Warwick, putting off tourists.
Site 10. Close to guide dogs for the blind national breeding centre.
Site 15. Site located on the banks of the tachbrook, so possible contamination if site used for business.

General considerations.

Remoteness. The sites identified in Bishops Tachbrook parish are too remote from the major centres to be suitable for this type of development.
Access. All sites are on very major roads with no pedestrian access.
Undue pressure on infrastructure and services. The school in Bishops Tachbrook is a single form entry. Even small gypsy sites could have many children that the school wouldn't be able to cope with.

To Development Policy Manager:

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

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

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

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

Addressing the 'Policy Criteria' in relation to GT03:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An intention to avoid areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment is to be welcomed (para 7.3) as this echo's the requirements of the NPPF.

The following brief observations relate to those sites with the potential to be inconsistent with this objective. Further more careful assessment should be considered to understand how the proposed G&T sites relate to the significance of the heritage assets affected and whether the G&T developments would harm that significance. As I have been unable to consider whether any undesignated assets of importance or wider historic landscape matters are affected (Warwickshire Historic Landscape Characterisation, WCC) you should consider such matters when/if assessing the sites further.

GT03 Roman settlement close by at Windmill Hill. Issue of setting and potential for related archaeology.
GT05 Circa 17C barn. Impact on significance?
GT06 Adjacent to Grade 1 Castel Park (please refer to my comments to you re RDS July 2013).
GT07 Adjacent to Baginton Castle, associated settlement remains, ponds and mill sites.
GT09 Close to Warwick Castle Park; and includes West Lodge and Greys Mallory listed buildings
GT10 Potential for undiscovered archaeology relating to Oakley Wood Camp.
GT12/16 Setting of Barford Conservation Area. Potential for undiscovered archaeology.
GT15 Consider historic association with Castle Park.

I look forward to a refined version in due course. Please do contact me to discuss further if that would help.

Having read this document, I note that consideration is being given to two permanent Gypsy and Traveller sites (GT03 and GT04) at Harbury Lane. This email refers to the reasons why I am objecting to consideration of these sites.
Before I begin my formal objection, I should point out that I believe that it is everyone's inalienable right to live somewhere, regardless of the lifestyle which they chose to follow. However, such rights must be balanced against the rights of those who are already living in an area. My objection therefore is based on this premise
Background
I have lived in Harbury for over 30 years and during that time a small amount of additional housing has been built for local users. Prior to consideration of any new building, a huge amount of detailed information was gathered which revolved around village demographics, the effects of additional numbers on health facilities, education facilities, transport, congestion, parking, recreational amenities etc.
I note that the WDC has not sought to ask Harbury village residents the same questions before it placed GT03 and GT04 on its list of potential permanent settlements located near Harbury village. I would have thought that such research would be essential BEFORE any consideration is given to any site which would result in increased use of those facilities.

My Objections:
1) Both GT03 and GT04 are located next to a busy commuter route (Harbury Lane and Fosse Way). It is also a known high risk accident spot and because of this, public transport would not be able to stop near the sites. There is no separate provision for pedestrians or cyclists on either Harbury Lane, Fosse Way or Middle Road. Thus, at neither site is there any safe way for children to get to Harbury School without vehicular assistance. This would mean that the site would exacerbate parking and obstruction problems at the school, which have only recently been overcome by ensuring village parents walk their children to school. Increased vehicular traffic would also increase the risk to those very children. It should also be pointed out that driving young children to school has also been blamed for the rising obesity levels, and I feel sure WDC would not endorse any plan that made driving the only method to get children to school.(See: Safe routes to school- an American document which nevertheless holds true for the UK http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/resourcecenter/quick-facts )

2) Even if (1) could be overcome at reasonable cost, the current village school is already oversubscribed and is likely to remain so given the current village demographic.

3) The village surgery is also running at capacity and has, as far as I have been able to ascertain, not been consulted by WDC to see if it could take additional patients.

4) As far as I can tell, sites GT03 and GT04 have no running water, mains sewerage, drainage or mains gas supply. Whilst the later can be overcome with the use of Butane gas cylinders, the former are essential for public health and the prevention of pollution of local water courses. Such pollution is likely to damage local wildlife, grazing livestock and be a health hazard.

5) I note that your document mentions that sites should not have a high risk of flooding. The sites mentioned DO have a risk of flooding given that they are affected by water run off from Harbury.

I believe that the incorporation of sites GT03 and GT04 was done with little research of their impact on the local community, the local wildlife and habitat. I also note that the majority of sites for discussion are located right on the edges of the WDC area with none located in the centres of main population of Leamington Spa, Warwick and Kenilworth. I am not sure why this is.

Please accept this email as a formal objection. I have included my personal information which is not to be released publicly without my express permission.