see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

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

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

General considerations.

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

GT10 - Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre

We are writing to object to the "Gypsy and Traveller Site Options" outlined in the Draft Local Plan concerning the site at GT10 - Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre.

The reasons we object to these plans are:
* Although there is a GP surgery and school in Bishops Tachbrook, these are only accessible by car as pedestrian access is only via the busy Banbury Road and narrow country lanes with no footpaths. The site is very remote from major amenities.
* The access to the site would be from the extremely dangerous and busy Banbury Road. There is no street lighting on this stretch of road and slowing down and turning is already extremely dangerous.
* A site in this location is only accessible by car, there are no local amenities (shops, schools, doctors etc.) which are accessible on foot.
* There is considerable noise from the Banbury Road, especially during peak hours. The noise from the M40 is also audible from our house.
* There is unlikely to be adequate provision of utilities without significant investment. There is no mains gas and we have no mains drainage.
* Developing a site in this location would place undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services, particularly the provision for health and schools in the local area.
* The proposed site is close to the Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre. The development of a site in this location would introduce a new population of pet dogs of unknown health and vaccination status which could carry diseases and therefore bring a serious risk of infection to the breeding stock and guide dog puppies. The National Breeding Centre site was chosen to be away from existing built up areas and other dog populations.
* All of the proposed sites are concentrated in the South of the county.18 of the sites are situated south of Warwick and Leamington Spa rather than being distributed more evenly through the county.

Taking all of the above into account it is very hard to see how the site has come to have been chosen as a possible site for travellers. It appears to fail the relevant criterion if correctly applied, and would not be in the best interests of the travellers or the local residents alike. In the above circumstances I would most strongly urge you and your colleagues to look at alternative sites which would be better equipped and suited for travellers since the site is wholly inappropriate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

see attached

SEE ATTACHED

see attached

Dear Sir,
As a resident of Bishops Tachbrook, I wish to place on record my strong objections to the proposed plans within the area near to Bishops Tachbrook. As a council tax payer I hope that my objections will be heard and taken into consideration as there are potentially seven sites within the local area which seems very un- proportionate. Are the district council trying to force unwanted sites on small local communities which may be unable to defend the locals wishes?
In accordance with the considerations for site requirements I would comment as follows.
Site 4) Is very remote from major developments.
Site 5) Has access only on to a very busy road, no pedestrian access and a potential visual impact on the approach to Historic Warwick. Listed Buildings are also on the site.
Site 6) Very remote from main Centres and no means of pedestrian access.
Site 9) Has access only on to a very busy road, no pedestrian access and a potential visual impact on the approach to Historic Warwick. Listed Buildings are also on the site.
Site 10) Close to guide dogs for the blind national breeding centre with potential disruption to valuable life changing work done by this organisation.
Site 15) Site located on the banks of the Tachbrook which could lead to a potential chance of contamination, given that the proposed Gypsy Traveller site may be used as a place of work.
In general these plans being looked to be forced upon the residents of Bishops Tachbrook are unsuitable due to the remoteness of the sites, away from major centres. The access are on major roads with no means of pedestrian access. The site could place undue pressure on infrastructure and services. Bishops Tachbrook School is always at capacity and may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support the needs.
I wish to strongly object to these plans and place my views on record.

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

This plot does not have any Provision of Utilities

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

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


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

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

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

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

Dear Sirs

Gypsy and Traveller Site Options

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

Part A

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

Part B

Commenting on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Options.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to comment on the local plan,i do realise that more housing is needed the number being suggested however is unbelievable,as a bishops tachbrook resident i attended a meeting recently and when a representative was asked how the roads can possibly cope with such a huge influx of traffic we were assured a study had been done and indeed the roads could cope if improvements are made.Making the the Greys Mallory island larger and making Europa Way into a dual carriage way will help trafic along but it is still all going to finish up at the Ford island where it will back up for miles [has anyone seen the traffic backing up down the slip road to the motor way?]I suspect this is of little interest as the housing cannot possibly be just for "locals"[money for greedy developers]so it wil be for commuters going in the opposite direction ie.towards the motorway.I doubt whther this area would be anywhere near as attractive for development if it was not for the motorway,add to all this the already poor air quality being polluted even more our only hospital bursting at the seams ditto doctors surgeries where are the sick going to go?People live in villages because they want to live in smaller community and avery fine one we have here,we therefore do not want to be joined up to some sprawling suburb.there is something else that seems puzzling why is that it was origionally thought we needed 15 more houses in tachbrook and now it is
100 when there will be hundrds built little more than a mile down the road.to add insult to injury we also learn we are to take the lions share of the traveller sights around here[people are already worring about losing thousands on the value of their homes]it is a shame we cannot decamp to the north end of the town!it appears to be the favoured end.People here are very annoyed that they have been ignored when their way of life could be changed forever.


i am sorry that i ommited my name on my previous e mail however after attending the recent meeting i can only say that my concerns are jutified.There is no possible way that the local roads will cope with the huge influx of traffic,widening and improving will not stop the bottle neck at the fords island,this is not housing for local people we were told 50%is for migration 40% is for afordable housing isuspect few of the people allocated social will be from any where near leamington or warwick they will be people from coventry or birmingham and their councils either cannot or do not wish to house them,the bulk of the rest will probably go to immigrants.tachbrook has always had a wonderful community feel many people have lived here all their lives and enjoy a "village" life this will all end when we are all joined together in the suburban sprawl that is about to come thanks to the parks that will join us all up.I cannot understand the need for 100 new houses in the village when there are thousands being built a mile down the road!even people with family in the village cannot mind travelling that short distance.one of the proposed sites is behind holt ave the field next to it is one of those suggested for travellers!
do the council really believe people wil buy a house next to a travellers sight?
local people feel absolutely impotent-we all know that no matter how much we complain our way of life and peace of mind is about to be destroyed forever; surrounded by housing and land bought up by travellers who pay nothing whatsoever into the system and get everything out for free,the local school will have to keep several places free for their children (the ones they say do not exist)keeping local children out.All in all it is a very depressing future for people who have worked hard all their lives to see the fruit of their toil lose thousands off its worth and live in a very less pleasant and safe place.

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.