This sites borders a very busy fast road with no pedestrian access. There would be a potential impact on the approach to Warwick for visitors could have an adverse effect on the local economy. There are currently listed buildings on this site which should be protected.

Not sustainable - no local services and adjacent to a major road with highway issues - this site would not be allowed for any other form of development being useful agricultural land.

This land is open countryside which is visible for local roads and is close to Bishops Tachbrook. It is not suitable for a gypsy site.

The proposed site does not have the facilities and infrastructure to support such a development. It will also place extreme pressure on our village and roads.

It will also have an adverse effect on the local wildlife that is present in this area.
There is no safe place for access into the field,due to the Banbury Road already being a very fast and busy road.Also Mallory Road in Bishops Tachbrook is extremely busy already as it is used as a cut through for work traffic.
The doctors surgery and school are already over subscribed.
I can't understand why the sites have to be allocated near villages that don't have the facilities required.
I am aware that the travellers have already stated that they would prefer to be located elsewhere.
I am also concerned that they are responsible for maintaining their own sites,as opposed to the local authority,which would result in a lot of problems with vandalism,fly tipping and the impact this would have on our community and countryside.
It says that the size of each site must be between 5 and 15 pitches,but there is no limit on how many people may live within these sites.

Would lead to increased activity in Oakley Wood, an important local Ancient Woodland, with adverse impacts on the wildlife and on the natural environment inside the Wood, jeopardizing WDC's own management plan which was started only recently. Highly insensitive to locate a site near the Crematorium in Oakley Wood, with potential for adverse effects on the tranquillity that we have a right to expect in such a place.

* Why did you decide not to disperse the houses over the whole of the district? The concentrated location of large pitches in few areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash lacks social cohesion which leads to anti social behaviour and poor education performance. This majority of sites are south of the rivers and are around Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow; what kind of community is likely to be born as a result of these new pitches, especially as these are in areas with poor transport links to the areas that give the most support to the under privileged i.e. the town centres.

* We think that such a number of new sites contradicts the vision that Warwick District Council has, "providing a mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parklands".

* Utilities, Services (Police, Dentists, and Doctors etc.) are all stretched to the limit now. With both the major hospitals only accessible across congested bridges over the river Avon, we fear for how long it will take emergency cases to get the medical resources they need and this additional traffic will add to the congestion.

* The proposed site will be detrimental to the Health care provision for the G&T community through their remoteness from suitable capacity and suitable provision of service. It is recognised that this community will need good access to Primary, General and Specialist healthcare.

* The increase in traffic and noise arising additional, often heavy vehicles in this area will result in further pollution and add to existing air quality problems in Warwick and Leamington town centres. At peak times the traffic along Europa Way (even as far as the J14 M40), Gallows Hill, Tachbrook Road and Tachbrook Park Drive are already grid locked, your proposed development will simply be adding to the congestion already experienced. So far you have failed to fix the current problems and there is no evidence on your part to suggest that you will, even for when this proposed development is complete.

* We see no sense in carpeting our green spaces with housing for a mobile population to travel elsewhere. Our remaining agricultural land should be preserved to feed future generations. The UK currently imports around 40% of its food - an untenable situation as identified by DEFRA's Food Chain Analysis Group in December 2006. To carry-out non-sustainable development and changing agricultural usage green field land to built environment seems irresponsible and foolhardy at a time when Climate Change, Food Security, Energy Security and the Global Economy are all at large and likely to be so for some considerable time.


* There are simply not enough schools in the area to cope with these sites; Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook Primary Schools and Myton Secondary School are already heavily oversubscribed. New and existing schools are controlled by Warwickshire County Council; therefore the District Council is unable to guarantee that the large number of school age children who will live in the proposed sites will be able to find a local school to attend. Therefore, the capacity of the Schools in the area to provide secure and stable education to families moving into/out of the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site will compromise the G&T families' capability to provide a secure education to their children. The local authority have a legal duty to educate children as do their parents.
* Is it practical to expect local schools to be able to take on children as and when required? Do they have the space? Do they have the funding for these children? Due to the itinerant nature of these families' lifestyles, the children will often have difficulty keeping up or catching up with other pupils and will need the provision of extra resources like special needs teachers.

* Parents may have to travel miles in order to take their children to and from school. Alternatively, children may be required to walk long distances to and from school, which is likely to lead to an increase in truancy. This time spent travelling to and from school could be better spent actually focusing on their studies or enjoying recreational activities.

* It is very likely that many gypsy and traveller parents will have to travel to school by car. Travellers will also have to travel by car in order to reach their places of work. This will create even more morning and afternoon congestion on roads that are already extremely busy during these times. At peak times, the traffic along Europa Way (even as far as J14 of the M40), Gallows Hill, Tachbrook Road and Tachbrook Park drive, are grid locked. Your proposed developments will directly impact these roads.

* Public Transport - There is very limited public transport available in this area. The proposed site would mean residents of the G&T settlement would in reality have no alternative but to use private vehicles to travel to/from the site. The limited availability comprises only a very limited bus service, therefore if a Gypsy and Traveller site were to be established on this site it would result in an increase in the use of cars and other vehicles in the local area. This opposes a number of Warwick District Council's policies. This should be avoided both for the safety of the drivers, and the safety of children at the site.
* The huge increase in traffic in the area will result in an incredible increase in pollution and contribute to the existing air quality problems in Warwick and Leamington. The Highways Transport Development Control has estimated the potential increase in traffic to be in the order of 9 to 11 movements per pitch. Resulting in an additional 45 to 55 movements (2 way) per day on our busy local roads.
* It is interesting that the council choose to use the word "pitch" when we are considering an application for 5 "units". I do not feel it is safe to assume that an estimate made on the basis of a "pitch" equates to the same basis for a "unit"
* Even if the two terms did equate, we have to take into account that the planning application is only an illustration, and not a restriction on the use of the land. It would be quite feasible to park another 2 caravans on each "unit", thereby doubling the potential amount of traffic. This would result in 90 to 110 movements (2 way) per day.
* In order for people living in the area to travel into the town centre, it is necessary to cross the River Leam. There are currently only 3 bridges that make this possible, and these bridges can already become highly congested. Residents who move into the proposed sites will also have to travel this way in order to reach the facilities in Leamington town centre. The District Council has no control over plans for new roads or bridges and, therefore, is unable to rectify the problems they will be creating.

* Such a large number of proposed new sites in the area contradicts the very vision that Warwick District Council claims to have:

"A mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parklands, that have been developed a grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics, and identities, contributed towards creating high quality safe environments with low levels of waste and pollution..." (The Preferred Vision for Warwick District to 2026: Point 1, Core Strategy document, June 2009).

* Of particular concern is the Southern area of Warwick, Leamington Spa and Whitnash as the Warwick Gates development of around 1,600 homes has already placed serious pressure on the roads and schools in this area and further development will seriously exacerbate the problem.
* Road Safety/Road Access - Road access to the site is via an extremely busy "A Road", where there have been a number of accidents over the years.

* If it becomes another suburb of Leamington Spa this will reduce the quality of life for the community here in Warwick Gates, Whitnash and in Bishops Tachbrook. The proposed site and associated facilities would not be suitable nor meet the needs of the gypsy and travelling community, nor the existing communities of Warwick Gates, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook. I believe that this site is completely unsuitable for members of the gypsy and travelling communities and would severely compromise peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.

* Employment - Employment opportunities within this area extremely limited with the demise of AP, Fords, IBM and other firms there is not the work available for incomers. Many people already leave the area to work elsewhere. A large proportion of people living on Warwick Gates commute up and down the M40 or by rail as far away as London. The proposed site would be therefore provide little opportunity for the G&T community to pursue careers and obtain employment.

* Foul Sewer: There is currently no provision on or near the site for the disposal of foul sewage into an adopted foul and surface water sewer system. Septic tanks only collect the solids, they are designed so that in principal, the foul water is allowed to overflow, run off slowly and be filtered as it passes through the ground. Septic tanks need emptying. An average septic tank is normally adequate for a family, and requires emptying once a year. This cost is normally paid for by the resident. It has not been made clear how the costs on the proposed site would be managed. In fact it is not clear if there is anyone responsible for emptying the tank. Failure to empty the tank would result in worse pollution than caused by the foul water run-off. We'd have to add solid sewage run-off to the problem. The provisions identified are considered inadequate and present an environmental threat to the area.

* Locating the site so near to residential areas would have a seriously detrimental impact on house prices. The increased risk of crime rates would also result in an increase in house insurance premiums.

* Flooding - The proposed site has a history of flooding. The proposed Gypsy and Traveller site will therefore compromise the G&T families' capability to provide a safe and pleasant living environment/habitat. I believe that the Task Force believe that the flooding issues can be simply resolved through use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; the cost of implementing SDS on this type of site is significant and not appropriate when public expenditure must be curtailed in response to the global recession/economic climate. This could potentially lead to unjustified and ill-directed resentment from the local community towards the residents of the "planning approved" site on the basis of funding/spend by the local authority when other more pressing needs in the area are currently facing severe budget cuts.

* I understand that the Gypsy community have stated that they wish to have sites located on the outskirts of towns, near schools, close to major roads and near to medical facilities. Therefore it is clear for the reasons outlined above that this G&T community needs. It would appear that there are other locations which are much more suitable.

* While there are grants to councils towards the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites, these are nowhere near enough to cover the costs. Most of this will have to be borne by local council tax payers.
* There are many people who use the local roads for walking, jogging, cycling, and horse riding. With the expected increase in traffic, as mentioned above, and the potential for an increased number of animals (e.g. dogs), these road users will be put at increased risk.
* This is an agricultural area. Since the local land is water-logged, movement of farm machinery often leaves the roads muddy. What would be considered normal traffic on a clean main road would be considered unsafe on our muddy roads, and the danger to road users will be compounded by movement of G&T site traffic.

* Why did you decide not to disperse the houses over the whole of the district? The concentrated location of large pitches in few areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash lacks social cohesion which leads to anti social behaviour and poor education performance. This majority of sites are south of the rivers and are around Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow; what kind of community is likely to be born as a result of these new pitches, especially as these are in areas with poor transport links to the areas that give the most support to the under privileged i.e. the town centres.

* We think that such a number of new sites contradicts the vision that Warwick District Council has, "providing a mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parklands".

* Utilities, Services (Police, Dentists, and Doctors etc.) are all stretched to the limit now. With both the major hospitals only accessible across congested bridges over the river Avon, we fear for how long it will take emergency cases to get the medical resources they need and this additional traffic will add to the congestion.

* The proposed site will be detrimental to the Health care provision for the G&T community through their remoteness from suitable capacity and suitable provision of service. It is recognised that this community will need good access to Primary, General and Specialist healthcare.

* The increase in traffic and noise arising additional, often heavy vehicles in this area will result in further pollution and add to existing air quality problems in Warwick and Leamington town centres. At peak times the traffic along Europa Way (even as far as the J14 M40), Gallows Hill, Tachbrook Road and Tachbrook Park Drive are already grid locked, your proposed development will simply be adding to the congestion already experienced. So far you have failed to fix the current problems and there is no evidence on your part to suggest that you will, even for when this proposed development is complete.

* We see no sense in carpeting our green spaces with housing for a mobile population to travel elsewhere. Our remaining agricultural land should be preserved to feed future generations. The UK currently imports around 40% of its food - an untenable situation as identified by DEFRA's Food Chain Analysis Group in December 2006. To carry-out non-sustainable development and changing agricultural usage green field land to built environment seems irresponsible and foolhardy at a time when Climate Change, Food Security, Energy Security and the Global Economy are all at large and likely to be so for some considerable time.


* There are simply not enough schools in the area to cope with these sites; Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook Primary Schools and Myton Secondary School are already heavily oversubscribed. New and existing schools are controlled by Warwickshire County Council; therefore the District Council is unable to guarantee that the large number of school age children who will live in the proposed sites will be able to find a local school to attend. Therefore, the capacity of the Schools in the area to provide secure and stable education to families moving into/out of the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site will compromise the G&T families' capability to provide a secure education to their children. The local authority have a legal duty to educate children as do their parents.
* Is it practical to expect local schools to be able to take on children as and when required? Do they have the space? Do they have the funding for these children? Due to the itinerant nature of these families' lifestyles, the children will often have difficulty keeping up or catching up with other pupils and will need the provision of extra resources like special needs teachers.

* Parents may have to travel miles in order to take their children to and from school. Alternatively, children may be required to walk long distances to and from school, which is likely to lead to an increase in truancy. This time spent travelling to and from school could be better spent actually focusing on their studies or enjoying recreational activities.

* It is very likely that many gypsy and traveller parents will have to travel to school by car. Travellers will also have to travel by car in order to reach their places of work. This will create even more morning and afternoon congestion on roads that are already extremely busy during these times. At peak times, the traffic along Europa Way (even as far as J14 of the M40), Gallows Hill, Tachbrook Road and Tachbrook Park drive, are grid locked. Your proposed developments will directly impact these roads.

* Public Transport - There is very limited public transport available in this area. The proposed site would mean residents of the G&T settlement would in reality have no alternative but to use private vehicles to travel to/from the site. The limited availability comprises only a very limited bus service, therefore if a Gypsy and Traveller site were to be established on this site it would result in an increase in the use of cars and other vehicles in the local area. This opposes a number of Warwick District Council's policies. This should be avoided both for the safety of the drivers, and the safety of children at the site.
* The huge increase in traffic in the area will result in an incredible increase in pollution and contribute to the existing air quality problems in Warwick and Leamington. The Highways Transport Development Control has estimated the potential increase in traffic to be in the order of 9 to 11 movements per pitch. Resulting in an additional 45 to 55 movements (2 way) per day on our busy local roads.
* It is interesting that the council choose to use the word "pitch" when we are considering an application for 5 "units". I do not feel it is safe to assume that an estimate made on the basis of a "pitch" equates to the same basis for a "unit"
* Even if the two terms did equate, we have to take into account that the planning application is only an illustration, and not a restriction on the use of the land. It would be quite feasible to park another 2 caravans on each "unit", thereby doubling the potential amount of traffic. This would result in 90 to 110 movements (2 way) per day.
* In order for people living in the area to travel into the town centre, it is necessary to cross the River Leam. There are currently only 3 bridges that make this possible, and these bridges can already become highly congested. Residents who move into the proposed sites will also have to travel this way in order to reach the facilities in Leamington town centre. The District Council has no control over plans for new roads or bridges and, therefore, is unable to rectify the problems they will be creating.

* Such a large number of proposed new sites in the area contradicts the very vision that Warwick District Council claims to have:

"A mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parklands, that have been developed a grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics, and identities, contributed towards creating high quality safe environments with low levels of waste and pollution..." (The Preferred Vision for Warwick District to 2026: Point 1, Core Strategy document, June 2009).

* Of particular concern is the Southern area of Warwick, Leamington Spa and Whitnash as the Warwick Gates development of around 1,600 homes has already placed serious pressure on the roads and schools in this area and further development will seriously exacerbate the problem.
* Road Safety/Road Access - Road access to the site is via an extremely busy "A Road", where there have been a number of accidents over the years.

* If it becomes another suburb of Leamington Spa this will reduce the quality of life for the community here in Warwick Gates, Whitnash and in Bishops Tachbrook. The proposed site and associated facilities would not be suitable nor meet the needs of the gypsy and travelling community, nor the existing communities of Warwick Gates, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook. I believe that this site is completely unsuitable for members of the gypsy and travelling communities and would severely compromise peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.

* Employment - Employment opportunities within this area extremely limited with the demise of AP, Fords, IBM and other firms there is not the work available for incomers. Many people already leave the area to work elsewhere. A large proportion of people living on Warwick Gates commute up and down the M40 or by rail as far away as London. The proposed site would be therefore provide little opportunity for the G&T community to pursue careers and obtain employment.

* Foul Sewer: There is currently no provision on or near the site for the disposal of foul sewage into an adopted foul and surface water sewer system. Septic tanks only collect the solids, they are designed so that in principal, the foul water is allowed to overflow, run off slowly and be filtered as it passes through the ground. Septic tanks need emptying. An average septic tank is normally adequate for a family, and requires emptying once a year. This cost is normally paid for by the resident. It has not been made clear how the costs on the proposed site would be managed. In fact it is not clear if there is anyone responsible for emptying the tank. Failure to empty the tank would result in worse pollution than caused by the foul water run-off. We'd have to add solid sewage run-off to the problem. The provisions identified are considered inadequate and present an environmental threat to the area.

* Locating the site so near to residential areas would have a seriously detrimental impact on house prices. The increased risk of crime rates would also result in an increase in house insurance premiums.

* Flooding - The proposed site has a history of flooding. The proposed Gypsy and Traveller site will therefore compromise the G&T families' capability to provide a safe and pleasant living environment/habitat. I believe that the Task Force believe that the flooding issues can be simply resolved through use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; the cost of implementing SDS on this type of site is significant and not appropriate when public expenditure must be curtailed in response to the global recession/economic climate. This could potentially lead to unjustified and ill-directed resentment from the local community towards the residents of the "planning approved" site on the basis of funding/spend by the local authority when other more pressing needs in the area are currently facing severe budget cuts.

* I understand that the Gypsy community have stated that they wish to have sites located on the outskirts of towns, near schools, close to major roads and near to medical facilities. Therefore it is clear for the reasons outlined above that this G&T community needs. It would appear that there are other locations which are much more suitable.

* While there are grants to councils towards the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites, these are nowhere near enough to cover the costs. Most of this will have to be borne by local council tax payers.
* There are many people who use the local roads for walking, jogging, cycling, and horse riding. With the expected increase in traffic, as mentioned above, and the potential for an increased number of animals (e.g. dogs), these road users will be put at increased risk.
* This is an agricultural area. Since the local land is water-logged, movement of farm machinery often leaves the roads muddy. What would be considered normal traffic on a clean main road would be considered unsafe on our muddy roads, and the danger to road users will be compounded by movement of G&T site traffic.

I think its totally unsuitable and unacceptable,
I will not feel as safe as we do now if these plans go ahead in the locality.
The provision of these sites will also have an adverse effect on quality of life within the village, it does not help when;

the maximum number of travelers per site has NOT been specified.
The likely loss of value to the homes.
possible increase of crime.
increase cost of home insurance.
the local services are already not adequate, and this proposal will just exasperate the problem.
These sites will also have a massive ( detrimental ) visual impact on the village.

It is too close to a very busy road.
There is no pedestrian access.
There is a potential visual impact on the approach to Historic Warwick - so it isn't integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.
There are listed buildings on the site.

This site has access onto a very busy road with no pedestrian access. There will be a visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. listed buildings are also on the site and therefore this proposed site does not meet many of the site requirements as laid out in the relevant consultation document.

Potential visual impact on approach to Warwick.Listed buildings on site.
Access onto very busy main Banbury road-no pedestrian access (RE:"Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site").

It would be great to be able to offer sessional youth work support to the young people on the sites. The Warwickshire Association of Youth Clubs would be interested in offering such support if funded by say the Community Levy

Alongside both the A452 and M40 divorced from any settlement, very noisy and access impossible. Adding slow moving vehicles onto this very busy road network would be unsafe. No utilities on site. Does not agree with Planning Policy as it does not promote peaceful co-existence with any local community.

This site does not offer convenient access to a GP surgery, school or public transport. There are no utilities within the area. this is a greenfield site and removed from any settlement and would not be successfully integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area and its value as a backdrop to the historic Warwick Castle Park

I would like to make the following comments regarding the proposals particularly for the sites around Bishops Tachbrook where I live.


The school at Bishops Tachbrook is already over subscribed where on occasion siblings cannot get into the same school as their elder brother or sisters.

The doctors surgery in the village is already heavily used and I question if they can handle any more patients.

The interviews indicate that the gypsies do not admit they have children as they do not send them to schools so if we offer gypsy children places at school and they do not attend they are denying another child a place.

I question your numbers how can they be 11 in 2008 from a West Midlands assessment, going up to 23 from the regional spatial strategy date unknown then increasing again to 31 in 2012 from the Salford University. Why do you not try one small site and see how it goes.

The government is going by the regional spatial strategy so I question why you spent additional monies on the Salford report.

What consideration has been given to the costs of all the proposed sites usually when you are purchasing something and have options costs is one of the first considerations. What funding do you have for these sites?

The value of our properties would go down as no one wants to live near to a gypsy site. I have heard of the blatant theft of items from the Co op shop on Warwick Gates by gypsies from more than one source.

I do not believe site 10 is suitable as it is so close to the guide dogs breeding ground and gypsy dogs could enter the site and spread disease to the breeding dogs.

Plot 5 is also too close to the dogs also and to the village of Bishops Tachbrook.

My concern is that other areas who have made provision for gypsies have had an increase in the number of gypsies in that area

I wish to register our objections to the proposed traveller sites in South Warwickshire

I would like to voice my strong objection to the proposals laid out in the revised development plan for traveller sites at the following locations.

Land at the Warwickshire Exhibition Centre, Fosse Way GT02
Land at Barnwell Farm, Harbury Lane GT03
Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way GT04
Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury RoaGT05
Depot site to the west off Cubbington Hill Farm GT08

I live on the Fosse Way, near to the exhibition centre. I feel that, having three times recently become the victim of burglary, these locations further degrade the security and safety my family and the local residents.
I also believe it would add further blight to those already affected by HS2. If the exhibition centre site goes through I will have the train to one side of my property and the Gipsy site to the other. This, I believe will render my property unsellable.

I would ask that you rethink these proposals.

I would like to voice my strong objection to the proposals laid out in the revised development plan for traveller sites at the following locations.
Land at the Warwickshire Exhibition Centre, Fosse Way GT02
Land at Barnwell Farm, Harbury Lane GT03
Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way GT04
Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury RoaGT05
Depot site to the west off Cubbington Hill Farm GT08
I live on the Fosse Way, near to the exhibition centre. I feel that, having three times recently become the victim of burglary, these locations further degrade the security and safety my family and the local residents.
I also believe it would add further blight to those already affected by HS2. If the exhibition centre site goes through I will have the train to one side of my property and the Gipsy site to the other. This, I believe will render my property unsellable.
I would ask that you rethink these proposals.

See attached

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

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

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

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

* Site 16. This is a flood compensation area and is cannot be used for any form of development.
* Sites 12 and 16. These are within areas which have been identified by The Environment agency of having significant flood risk
* Sites 12 and 16. Water Voles have been reported in areas immediately adjacent to these sites. Water Voles are a legally protected species.
* Sites 12 and 16. There are inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village.
* Sites 6 and 9. These sites are situated on historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gasses and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.
* Sites 10 and 20. Both are adjacent to historic landfills which, though closed, may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.
* Sites 6 and 9. Both sit immediately approximate to the Asps which WDC decided after further research regarding the landscape and transport impact of development, that the site should remain open due to its value as a backdrop to the historic Warwick Castle Park, The Revised Development Strategy, therefore, excludes the Asps and should also exclude the adjoining sites 6 and 9 f or the same reasons.
* Sites 6 and 9. There have been a number of reported wild deer sightings on this land and there is a population of deer that roam freely across the Castle grounds to these 2 sites and beyond.
* Sites 12 and 16. Vehicular access to these sites is from the A429 trunk road which was constructed as a bypass to Barford. It is a 60 mph speed limit road and there have been a significant number of accidents since its opening, including a fatality. The existing access to the sites is entirely inadequate.
* Sites 5, 6,9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20. Vehicle access to these sites is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* Sites 5,6,9,10,12,15,16,17,18 and 20. The sites are not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. None of these sites offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors etc) on foot or bike via a pedestrian footpaths or cycle routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would place further pressure on the locak highway infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Sites 5,6,9,12,16 and 20. Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (eg site 12) totally unviable.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 16. Development would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a 'Secondary Service Village' and its likely requirement to meet 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20. WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPS1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and Caravan sites). In all respects the sites fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of the development.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 16 and 20. The development of all these sites could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the sites.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20. These are not locations which allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.
* Availability. Only 3 if the sites listed are available, namely 15, 17 an 18. By definition the remaining sites are not deliverable.
* WDC should have identified brownfield sites within the existing urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington for Gypsies and Travellers. These sites would be more suitable and sustainable, and would better enable integration in to the local community. Despite such sites existing, they are being proposed for redevelopment for more valuable uses.
* WDC should be requiring Gypsy and Traveller sites are delivered within the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. This would ensure that the sites could be properly designed in a suitable fashion and be fully integrated into a local community which will provide facilities such as school, a doctors surgery and shops which are accessible on foot, on bike, by bus and by car.
* Ecology and Environment. All of the sites have some ecological value and environmental issues which does not appear to have been assessed.
* WDC should revisit its Greenbelt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure to allocate land for all forms of development during the new Local Plan period to the south of the District.
* WDC should also consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington including The Asps and Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 as Greenbelt to provide a 'buffer' to the proposed developments to the south of Warwick and Leamington and/or to extend the proposed Bishops Tachbrook Country Park as far as the Banbury Road near to Warwick Castle Park. This would ensure the villages in the south of the District retain their identity and are not swallowed up by Warwick and Leamington over time.


Mark Mitchell
Barford Resident

Firstly we would like to express how disappointed we are by the 'consultation' methods used by WDC regarding the proposed local plan and Gypsy and Romany Traveller sites.

Hooking a flyer onto the handle of a wheelie bin is an inadequate way of passing information on to the public. Many had blown off in the wind, many were not even glanced at as people assumed they were more information about recycling.

There was one small paragraph in a local paper which is not even a free paper, so unless people purchase it, there was no chance is seeing the information.

Considering Barford has a number of proposed sites, perhaps a consultation meeting could have been organised within our village rather than our residents having to organise one ourselves.

We would like to object to the following G and RT sites as follows based on the criteria used for locating suitable spaces. We have tried to use the WDC objection sheets, however it is not the easiest method to use when wanting to object to multiple sites.

Our objections are as follows.

All sites will have an impact on wildlife and environment. There are water voles in the area of site of sites 12 and 16 . Numbers are declining and they are under threat.

Site 5,6,9,10,12 and 16. Impact on local schools will be an issue. Barford St Peters is an already over subscribed SMALL village school. It has already been indicated in the local plan that more housing in the area will be built. The school will not cope with increase in numbers of pupils.
Also with a transient population this could affect attendance and impact on school's OFSTED results.

Site 6 and 9 have wild deer inhabiting land. This should be considered.

Sites 6 and 9 are very close to proposed building within local plan, road networks will struggle.
Sites 5,6,9, 12,16 and 20. Loss of farmland impacting on local rural businesses and employment

Site 5,6,9,10,12,15,16,17 18 and 20 - these areas are not close to local communities and do not allow ' peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community'

Site 5,6,9,10,12,15,16,17,18 and 20 - access by vehicles will be difficult and dangerous. Potential safety issue.

Site 16 is not suitable due to it being a pond and not suitable for development

Site 12 and 16. Significant flood risk which has already been identified by Environment Agency in the past.

Sites 10 and 20. Historic landfill sites, not suitable for occupation.

Site 12 and 16. Very dangerous for pedestrians to access local facilities when crossing main road which has already been the site of fatal accidents.

Site 5,6,9, 10,12,15,16,17,18 and 20. Sites do not have access to local amenities such as doctors surgeries, schools etc. people would need to use a vehicle which adds more pressure to roads and impact on environment.


Site. We have a policy within our village for affordable housing, only people who have some links to the village are entitled to access the affordable housing stock. We do not understand how this can be completely ignored when allowing sites to be chosen. We fought very hard to remain in the village as we have had four generations living within Barford. It is unreasonable and unfair for this policy to be completely disregarded.

Please accept these objections as 2 separate people objecting, therefore each of above should be counted twice.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to make my objections to the Gypsy and Traveller Site (G&TS) options clear.
It is clear that when considering G&TS's the following must be considered:
Convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport
Is Bishops Tachbrook being penalised for having a part time GP surgery? It is extremely difficult to get an appointment within a week at the local surgery. More often than not I have to travel to Sydenham to the main full time surgery to get an urgent appointment. What will be the impact if 6 G&TS sites are created around Bishops Tachbrook. Will the GP surgery expand, including longer opening hours and more than 1 GP and 1 nurse as is the current standard?
Gypsies and Travellers experience the worst health status of any disadvantaged group in England. Life expectancy is 12 years less for a woman and 10 years less for men than amongst the settled community. Baring in mind these statistics this would suggest an increased usage of medical facilities
In 2007, 2.7% of children of Gypsy/Romany origin and 8.4 % of traveller children of Irish heritage achieved 5 or more A* to C grades or equivalent exams including English and Mathematics in England compared to a national average of 45.4%. 8% of Gypsy and Traveller mothers have experienced the death of a child compared to less than 1% of the settled community. This could put a major strain on the already overworked education and medical facilities already available in the area.
The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash are at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients. There is no dental care provision in Bishops Tachbrook.
The Catholic Primary in Whitnash, St Josephs' has had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate. Is the council going to supply additional funds to help support these children's needs? Given that the parents of many of these children are unable to read & write themselves they are not in a position to help children with their own learning and this identifies yet another pressure point. As an adult not being able to read & write seriously narrows down the type of work you would be able to apply for, there are limited employers within in the village of Bishops Tachbrook therefore there is no immediate local economy for them to join with.
Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
Field on the corner of Mallory Road, Banbury Road floods on each side whenever there is a significant rainfall. Sites GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT10 are all prone to flooding.
Provision of utilities
Who would be expected to provide this? Sites GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT10 do not have adequate provision of utilities such as sewerage, drainage, gas and water.
Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site
Sites GT05,GT06, GT09 and GT10 are all on very major roads with no means of pedestrian access. There are no bus routes and they are all fast moving roads.
Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance
Banbury Road is the main road off the M40 for people travelling from both the North and the South. GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT10 are all bordering the M40 meaning that these sites will be very noisy for occupants. GT05 is in extremely close proximityto residents of Bishops Tachbrook and so any noise from this site would have a major effect on current residents.
Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment
St Chads church in Bishops Tachbrook has many historical features. It is mentioned in the Domesday Book. GT05 and GT09 are both situated on the approach to Bishops Tachbrook and would be the first visual sight that visitors would see of the village.
Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.
It is difficult to think of any area at all that would meet this criteria. The character of the area around GT05, GT09 and GT10 is agricultural farm land. I fail to see how a G&TS would integrate into this landscape without harming the character of the area.
Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and local community
I would suggest this is highly unlikely due to the level of local disagreement with the proposed sites, in particular GT05, GT09 and GT10. I have concerns over the level of noise that any sites may incur, both from the inhabitants and also the local community expressing their objections. Local residents have discussed various methods of protest if these plans are to go ahead. Various residents have offered financial assistance regarding legal advice. The press and local MP's have been engaged and shown their support.
Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
Will additional funding be provided to the village school to support with the proposed number of children likely to attend? If not will a new school be built to support in this area? Will this cause a change in the catchment areas for the school? It would be unfair for tax paying residents to be moved out of the catchment area to accommodate these new developments.
The school in Bishops Tachbrook is single form entry and is already oversubscribed. G&TS of 5,10 or 15 are likely to provide homes for 10,20 or 30 children. A small school which is always at capacity is unlikely to be able to provide the infrastructure required to support the needs of the proposed sites. The school does not have the resource to support children that have received very little if any formal education. They will struggle to integrate into the local school environment.
The school also relies on the parent teacher working relationship meaning that parents support the school by giving up their time to help teach and read with pupils. It is known that 81% of Gypsy and Traveller children's parents are illiterate. This will mean no support for the school. It will also mean that these children will require even more support from existing parents. The extra support that these children will need will put the current children at a disadvantage. The school is simply not equipped to deal with the needs of these children.
There are already concerns that the secondary schools in the area are oversubscribed and that there is not adequate provision for the current population of the parish. Any additional strain on these numbers will only make the situation worse.
There is a grade 1 listed church and a sports and social club built through local fund raising. There is a small local shop, a hairdresser and one public house. That is it.
The villagers choose to live with limited resources as they prefer the quiet friendly community feel of the village.
There are limited public transport options in the area with limited bus services and no train routes. Reaching a place of employment with public transport would be extremely difficult.

Reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location thereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability
I would suggest that it is a small minority of Gypsy and Travellers that live and work from the same location. I would be interested to see the evidence to show how a Gypsy and Traveller site can support local sustainability in this area.
Specific sites
GT05, GT09- Vehicle access is onto a very busy main road, with vehicles travelling at speed. To introduce caravans and mobile homes turning into the site would be dangerous. Additional traffic at the junction of Mallory Road & Banbury Road would put too much strain on an already busy junction onto a road where cars are travelling at speed, because of the north and southbound approaches to junction 13 of the M40. This is not an easy junction to get out of especially if you have to move slowly due to pulling a trailer or caravan.
Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals? For instance a horse on the Banbury Road especially a loose one could end in fatalities. As could loose dogs.
No pedestrian access and to create any would be dangerous. There are also no pavements between this site and the village, nor the main Banbury Road. For any children living on this site the walk to school will be extremely dangerous. There are no bus stops in the immediate vicinity and nowhere safe to put one. Cycling would be hazardous
The potential visual impact would be devastating on the approach to the Historical Warwick town and could discourage visitors and tourists. There are listed buildings on this site in need of protection. The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document. It would be the first thing that people see when travelling into the village from the M40
This site does not provide utilities. There are no gas, sewerage or drainage facilities.
GT06 - Very remote from main centres and no means of pedestrian access
GT10 - Close to the Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre. The risk of disease from any unvaccinated animals belonging to Gypsies and Travellers could be devastating. Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals? For instance a horse on the Banbury Road especially a loose one could end in fatalities. As could loose dogs.
Vehicle access is onto a very busy main road, with vehicles travelling at speed. To introduce caravans and mobile homes turning into the site would be dangerous.
The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document.
GT15 - site located on the banks of the Tachbrook. There could be a chance of contamination, given that the proposed site may be used as a place of work. Europa Way is an already congested road and adding further traffic to this mix could be devastating.
Sites GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT10 are currently homes to many forms of farm and wildlife animals. They are also working farm land.
Other considerations
6 out of the 20 sites have been proposed around the small unique village of Bishops Tachbrook.
Are the sites identified in and around Bishops Tachbrook too remote from the main infrastructure of Leamington Spa or Warwick to be suitable for this type of development?
On behalf of Warwick District Council, Salford University has determined that there is a requirement for 25 pitches initially expanding to 31. Why the need for so many propsed sites then?
Who will monitor the sites. It is my understanding that the sites will be operated by Gypsy and Travellers and not Warwick District Council. If this is the case how can concerns such as noise pollution land pollution and overcrowding be controlled?
Recommendations state that the size of each site must be between 5 and 15 pitches but does not specify how many people can populate this sites. What plans have been put in place to ensure that what happened at Dale Farm does not happen again. This was where a legitimate site expanded?
What about the effect on house prices in the general area around these sites?
What will be the visual impact on Bishops Tachbrook village and surrounding area. Will it have an impact on tourism in the area?
Where will the Gypsy and Traveller community find work locally? All the sites suggested are too remote from employment and facilities and so are unsuitable for this type of development.
All proposed sites are on busy roads where it would be a danger for any children to wait for transport to school.
Why are 15 of the proposed sites in the south of Warwick & Leamington? The small village of Bishops Tachbrook has 6 of these proposals within a mile of it, 3 are on its immediate doorstep. Potentially all of these sites could be approved and the very nature of our community and how the approach to our village would look would be irrevocably changed. The effect on Bishops Tachbrook would be devastating to our way of life. This is not acceptable nor a reasonable request for the council to make.
There is no statement from the Gypsy Council of Great Britain or any other organising body on behalf of the Gypsy & Traveller community, within your brochure/document, that they wish to join our community in Warwickshire or anywhere else. Perhaps this is because they have no desire to permanently live here? What evidence does the council have that the Gypsy & Traveller community wish to use these sites as a permanently settled site with a fixed maximum number of 15 Pitches? You also do not state how many people are able to live within a pitch or who is responsible for the site. Due diligence has not taken place here. I appreciate that you state the Regional Spatial Strategy & commissioned Salford University have produced a report but you have failed to put any meaningful back up data into this document . Therefore I have to question the validity of the study as you have not put it in the information you are handing out. Where is the proof that so many sites are needed? Much needed data is missing here & the council are remiss in leaving it out.
You also state that the Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment shows a need for 31 pitches, 25 within the first five years & a further 6-8 transit pitches over the Plan period. Yet the brochure you have produced is only showing 19 of these. Why are you not identifying where all these sites will potentially be? Are you planning to use these larger identified areas to put up multiple sites? Please be clear & honest!
Your brochure has not been laid out in a way that makes for easy & understandable reading. For instance sites GT05 & GT09 in reality face each other on opposite sides of the Banbury Road yet in your document the numbers on the map are shown as far away from each other as possible and are shown in map form pages apart from each other & at different scales & angles. This also occurs for site GT06 which is opposite GT09. You are failing to make your documentation easy to read & this is inexcusable.
Sites GT05, GT06, GT09, GT10 are all next to each other meaning that of all these sites are successful there would be a huge Gypsy encampment in a small area.
The images you are using on your front cover, page 3 & page 4 are clearly stock images of holiday camping sites. They are not permanent sites and they are certainly not Gypsy & Traveller sites. Why is the council not using real images from existing successful sites to give an honest & truthful photographic representation of how these sites will look?
Proposals
Has the area next to the police site on the west side of Europa Way in between GT06 and GT15 been considered. This could have access onto one of 4 roads and would have a high Police presence.
A further alternative site and one that is a much more suitable at addressing the issues that are set out in Section 4 of the consultation document is on the opposite side of Stratford Road, Warwick to Aylesford School. This site is located within walking distance of medical, educational and recreational facilities.
It is located on a straight section of road with good sight lines and a 40 mph speed limit. It is served by bus routes and has wide pedestrian footpaths. This site is also set back from the road so would provide some protection from any negative visual impact.
Other comments
The instructions for this plan are very unclear. I have been advised that a separate letter needs to be submitted for each proposed site but I can not see anywhere that this is mentioned for email responses, this is unclear. If that is the case I have grave concerns that this consultation has not achieved its legal goal of "improving the efficiency, transparency and public involvement in large-scale projects or laws and policies" as people do not know how to respond in the correct manner.

I request to know the name of the authorised Gypsy site shown in your brochure.
Whilst I appreciate that WDC are under instruction to provide sites I would suggest that the proposed sites around the Bishops Tachbrook area are in the wrong places. This community is already stretched to capacity. I fail to see how the G &T could contribute to our small community.

I am opposed to these proposals for the following reasons:

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

Dear Sir/Madam,


I am writing to register my representations regarding two aspects:
* the WDC Consultation on the Development Strategy for Sites for Gypsies and Travellers, and
* the Revised Development Strategy for the Local Plan

For the Revised Development Strategy for Sites for Gypsies and Travellers, I object to the proposals to Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 20 for the following reasons:

Site 5
* Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a lot of fast travelling cars, and lorries.
* No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site ( see point above)
* WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
* Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and farmland.
* The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
* WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
* WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
* WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.

Site 6
* This land adjoins land (The Asps) which the WDC has previously concluded should remain undeveloped from a transport and landscaping perspective with the views surrounding the Warwick Castle and its historic park.
* This site is situated on historic landfills and therefore not suitable for building homes and habitation.
* This is an area supporting a range of wildlife (I frequently see deer along this stretch of Flat Rabbit Road) whose habitat would disturbed or removed as a result of this site.
* WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
* No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
* Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and farmland.
* Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a lot of fast travelling cars, and lorries.
* This site is so close to Barford, that it would likely have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children.
* The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
* WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
* WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
* WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.

Site 9
* This site is situated on historic landfills and therefore not suitable for building homes and habitation.
* This land adjoins land (The Asps) which the WDC has previously concluded should remain undeveloped from a transport and landscaping perspective with the views surrounding the Warwick Castle and its historic park.
* This is an area supporting a range of wildlife (I frequently see deer on land next to this areas of land - Site 6) whose habitat would disturbed or removed as a result of this site.
* WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
* Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a lot of fast travelling cars, and lorries.
* No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
* Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and farmland.
* This site is close to Barford, and would likely have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children.
* The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
* WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
* WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
* WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.

Site 10
* Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a lot of fast travelling cars, and lorries.
* No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
* The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
* WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
* WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
* WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.

Site 12:
* Part of this site is within and certainly directly next to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk. It is therefore completely inappropriate for building houses and any occupants.
* Barford village residents have reported seeing water voles on this site which are a legally protected species.
* The A429 bypassing Barford is a very dangerous section of road carrying a lot of fast travelling cars, and especially a large volume of lorries to and from Wellesbourne. There have also been several serious accidents and a recent fatality, which makes pedestrian and vehicle access to the proposed site unsafe.
* No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
* This site would not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.
* WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
* Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an enormously adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and river around Barford, Wasperton and Sherbourne.
* This site immediately adjoining Barford would likely have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children and not able to cater for additional capacity.
* The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
* WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
* WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
* WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.

Site 16
* The proposed site is actually the flood compensation area from the Barford bypass build and contains a permanent central pond and is unsuitable for any form of development.
* Part of this site is within and certainly directly next to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk. It is therefore completely inappropriate for building houses and any occupants.
* Barford village residents have reported seeing water voles on this site which are a legally protected species.
* The A429 bypassing Barford is a very dangerous section of road carrying a lot of fast travelling cars, and especially a large volume of lorries to and from Wellesbourne. There have also been several serious accidents and a recent fatality, which makes pedestrian and vehicle access to the proposed site unsafe.
* No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
* This site would not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.
* WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
* Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an enormously adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and river around Barford, Wasperton and Sherbourne.
* This site immediately adjoining Barford would likely have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children and not able to cater for additional capacity.
* The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
* WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
* WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
* WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.

Site 20
* Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a massive amount of heavy traffic including fast travelling cars, and lorries.
* No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the already busy and congested roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
* This site would not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.
* WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
* Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and farmland.
* The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
* WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
* WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
* WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.

Dear Sirs

Gypsy and Traveller Site Options

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

Part A

The information required in addition to my address is:
Telephone number: 01926 624224 / 07970 058316
Email: jennifersheard@aol.com
Would you like to be made aware of future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites - YES
Gender: Female
Ethnic origin: White British
Age: 54
Method of learning about consultation: newspaper

Part B

Commenting on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Options.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

* WDC should revisit its Greenbelt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure to allocate land for all forms of development during the new Local Plan period to the south of the District.

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


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

Dear Sirs

Gypsy and Traveller Site Options

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

Part A

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

Part B

Commenting on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Options.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

* WDC should revisit its Greenbelt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure to allocate land for all forms of development during the new Local Plan period to the south of the District.

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


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

Can you please confirm receipt of this response for my records.

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.

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