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.

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.

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

Development Strategy:

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

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

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

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


Gypsy and Traveller Sites:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Please see below my representations to WDC's Consultation Programme on the Revised Development Strategy for the Local Plan. I object to the proposals on the following grounds:

*The increase in the number of people associated with the developments would put undue pressure on the local hospitals and schools.

*The increase in the number of people associated with the developments would put undue pressure on the amenity services such as water and drainage.

There would be increased traffic congestion on all the roads in this area (for example: Banbury Road, Bridge End, Myton Road, Europa Way etc. and the knock on effects beyond). These roads do not cope well with current levels of traffic and any improvements to traffic flow would only improve it for that traffic and not for the vast increase in traffic flow associated with the proposed developments. All car and bus journeys in these areas would become much slower and the increase in the need for town centres car parking would be put under yet further pressure.

*The District Council has proposed the need to provide about 12,000 houses of which nearly half are to the south of Warwick and Leamington, even though the local need is for fewer than 6,000 new houses by 2030.

The combined sites result in a large loss of agricultural land when there is a need for more and cheaper food and the local farming community losing jobs from the rural economy.

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.

*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed sites and exploit those properly first.

*WDC should combine its 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 designate large areas of land the south of Warwick and Leamington including Warwick Castle Park and its surrounds, The Asps and proposed Gypsy and Traveller Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 as Greenbelt to protect the natural beauty of this part of the county (as it is to the north of the county) and to retain the identity and boundaries of the villages by surrounding them with Greenbelt to include proposed Gypsy and Traveller Sites 12, 16 and 20. This will spread the pressure around the county for new developments rather than focus it to the south.

*The proposal to build 70-90 new houses in Barford (a "Secondary Service Village")would 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 school would not be able to accommodate more school children associated with this additional housing and is therefore not sustainable.

Dear Miss Coldicott,

Further to our meetings, telephone conversations and emails, I confirm I emailed the responses submitted by my four clients, which you kindly acknowledged.
Brian and Angela Lewis, Hill Farm, Bishops Tachbrook.
Brian and Angela Smith, Red House Farm, Bishops Tachbrook.
Daniel and Elizabeth Sheehan, Park Barn Farm, Bishops Tachbrook.
Charles and Helen Hammond, Tollgate Poultry Farm, Bishops Tachbrook.

I would like to add an objection to all three sites GT05, GT09 and GT10 collectively as they are all adjacent to the B4100 highway and M40 motorway.

I have been land agent and agricultural surveyor to Messrs. Smith, Lewis and Hammond for over 30 years and more recently to Dan Sheehan. I know the area extremely well and I have dealt with the routing of the National Gas Pipeline, the construction of the M40 motorway and all the ancilliary work to do with motorway and highway construction.

This area of Warwickshire, is intensively farmed for livestock with very little arable area. The roads, particularly the B4100 are extremely dangerous with the volume of traffic expanding each year due to the development at Gaydon for Jaguar, Landrover and Aston Martin. Increased use of the two motorway junctions and more recently Warwick District Council are promoting Oakley Wood as an amenity area for lifestyle living.

We would therefore put forward strong objection to any Gypsy and Traveller Sites within GT05, GT09 and GT10 as the area is simply not appropriate for such sites.

Dan Sheehan is a farmer who farms in the East Midlands but Park Barn Farm is the farmstead, farm office and where the business is conducted from. My client has experienced Gypsy and Traveller Sites close to his farms in the East Midlands. The presence of such a site results in an increase in the theft of gates, metalware and other farm fixtures and fittings.

Further objection is on the following grounds:

Farming Enterprise and Agriculture
This part of Warwickshire is predominantly livestock breeding and fattening animals, suckler cow herds and calves, breeding ewes and lambs, free range turkey breeding and pheasant rearing. GT10 has a National Guide Dog Breeding Centre. Gypsy and Traveller Sites often have many many dogs of the lurcher/greyhound type and very often those type of dogs worry sheep and cattle and free range poultry. They are also liable to provide disease.

Highways and Safety Issues
GT05 and GT10 have a long frontage to the M40 motorway and in this particular section there have been a number of accidents where cars and lorries have gone off the motorway and crashed through the motorway fence. GT05 and GT10 also have a long frontage to the B4100 main road which is extremely busy with cars going to and from Gaydon Motor Centre where Jaguar/Landrover and Aston Martin are based. GT05 and the other neighbouring sites are adjacent to two half motorway junctions numbers 13 and 14. These junctions are extremely busy with all types of vehicles entering and leaving the M40 motorway with access to Leamington Spa, Warwick and elsewhere. The roads leading on to the B4100 are also potentially dangerous on the road safety angle. Gypsy Traveller Sites always have large towing caravans and anywhere along the B4100 and the adjoining roads provide a particularly dangerous hazard with slow moving vehicles entering or exiting a main road.

Services and Utilities
There is no main gas and no main drainage in the area

Rural Landscape
The area around GT05 is basically rural and agricultural and any proposed site will be a major invasion to the openess of the countryside.and therefore will be an irreversible urbanisation of the entire area.

Ecology and Wildlife Habitat
In close proximity to GT05 is Oakley Wood which is a 110 acre site owned and managed by Warwick District Council. It was purchased for amenity and lifestyle living. If a Gypsy and Traveller Site was provide in the area, then the very purpose and use of Oakley Wood could be jeopardised if lurcher dogs were loose and firewood was collected for traditional Gypsy and Traveller fires on the pitches. Oakley Wood therefore would be a fire hazard.


Objections to any Gypsy and Traveller Site options on GT09 - Land to the North East of M40

As my clients have lived in the area for over 30 years they are aware of Red House Farm which forms the majority of the land within GT09. My client wishes to support the objection of Brian and Angela Smith, owner occupiers of Red House Farm and the same remarks regarding Farming Enterprise and Agriculture, Highways and Safety Issues, Services and Utilities, Rural Landscape and Ecology and Wildlife Habitat


Objections to any Gypsy and Traveller Site Options on GT10 - Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre

Some of the land is owned and farmed by Charles and Helen Hammond. My clients wish to support the objection of Charles and Helen Hammond and the same remarks regarding Farming Enterprise and Agriculture, Highways and Safety Issues, Services and Utilities, Rural Landscape and Ecology and Wildlife Habitat

see attached


Where did you hear about this consultation: direct from Warwick District Council



Part B - Commenting on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Options

I Errol A. Mews FRICS, Consultant Surveyor with Tayler & Fletcher represent Mr. and Mrs. Brian and Angela Lewis Hill Farm, Banbury Road, Bishops Tachbrook, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV33 9QG and I set out below his objections to any Gypsy and Traveller Site options on GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm and sites on GT09 and GT10.

Brian and Angela Lewis live at Hill Farm, Banbury Road, Bishops Tachbrook which is within GT05 and partly within GT10 and in total is approximately 90 acres together with the farmhouse and agricultural farm buildings. Hill Farm is predominantly a livestock farm with suckler cows and calves, breeding ewes and lambs with fattening cattle and lambs for market. The Lewis family have been at Hill Farm for over 30 years.

Further objection is on the following grounds:

Farming Enterprise and Agriculture
This part of Warwickshire is predominantly livestock breeding and fattening animals, suckler cow herds and calves, breeding ewes and lambs, free range turkey breeding and pheasant rearing. GT10 has a National Guide Dog Breeding Centre. Gypsy and Traveller Sites often have many many dogs of the lurcher/greyhound type and very often those type of dogs worry sheep and cattle and free range poultry. They are also liable to provide disease.

Highways and Safety Issues
GT05 and GT10 have a long frontage to the M40 motorway and in this particular section there have been a number of accidents where cars and lorries have gone off the motorway and crashed through the motorway fence. GT05 and GT10 also have a long frontage to the B4100 main road which is extremely busy with cars going to and from Gaydon Motor Centre where Jaguar/Landrover and Aston Martin are based. GT05 and the other neighbouring sites are adjacent to two half motorway junctions numbers 13 and 14. These junctions are extremely busy with all types of vehicles entering and leaving the M40 motorway with access to Leamington Spa, Warwick and elsewhere. The roads leading on to the B4100 are also potentially dangerous on the road safety angle. Gypsy Traveller Sites always have large towing caravans and anywhere along the B4100 and the adjoining roads provide a particularly dangerous hazard with slow moving vehicles entering or exiting a main road.

Services and Utilities
There is no main gas and no main drainage in the area

Rural Landscape
The area around GT05 is basically rural and agricultural and any proposed site will be a major invasion to the openess of the countryside.and therefore will be an irreversible urbanisation of the entire area.

Ecology and Wildlife Habitat
In close proximity to GT05 is Oakley Wood which is a 110 acre site owned by Warwick District Council. It was purchased for amenity and lifestyle living. If a Gypsy and Traveller Site was provide in the area, then the very purpose and use of Oakley Wood could be jeopardised if lurcher dogs were loose and firewood was collected for traditional Gypsy and Traveller fires on the pitches. Oakley Wood therefore would be a fire hazard.


Objections to any Gypsy and Traveller Site options on GT09 - Land to the North East of M40

As my clients have lived in the area for over 30 years they are aware of Red House Farm which forms the majority of the land within GT09. My client wishes to support the objection of Brian and Angela Smith, owner occupiers of Red House Farm and the same remarks regarding Farming Enterprise and Agriculture, Highways and Safety Issues, Services and Utilities, Rural Landscape and Ecology and Wildlife Habitat


Objections to any Gypsy and Traveller Site Options on GT10 - Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre

Some of the land is owned and farmed by Charles and Helen Hammond. My clients wish to support the objection of Charles and Helen Hammond and the same remarks regarding Farming Enterprise and Agriculture, Highways and Safety Issues, Services and Utilities, Rural Landscape and Ecology and Wildlife Habitat

Please acknowledge this objection

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.

We are writing to register our objections and give our views on the suitability of the following Gypsy and Traveller Site Options together with the Revised Development Strategy.

GT05 - Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury Road - (Site 5)
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles 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.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* 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 provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Warwick District Council 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 site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

Cont/d .....

GT06 - Land at Park Farm, Spinney Farm - (Site 6)
* This site is situated on historic landfills which though closed still has the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.
* This site sits immediately approximate to the Asps which Warwick District Council decided, after further research regarding the landscape and transport impact of development, that the 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.
* 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 this site and beyond.
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors' surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles 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.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* 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 provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Warwick District Council 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 site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


Cont/d .....

GT09 - Land to the north east of M40 and south of Oakley Wood Road - (Site 9)
* This site is situated on historic landfills which though closed still has the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.
* This site sits 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 9 and 6 for the same reasons.
* 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 this site and beyond.
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* 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 provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Warwick District Council 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 site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

Cont/d .....

GT10 - Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre - (Site 10)
* This site is 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.
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* 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 provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

GT12 - Land at north and west of Westham Lane (area of search) - (Site 12)
* This site sits within (part) and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk.
* 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.
* There are inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village.
* Vehicular access to this site 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 site is entirely inadequate.
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* 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 provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Warwick District Council 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 site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.
Cont/d .....
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


GT15 - Land to east of Europa Way - (Site 15)
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


GT16 - Land to north of Westham Lane and west of Wellesbourne Road, Barford - (Site 16)
* This 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.
* This site sits within (part) and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk.
* 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.
* There are inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village. Vehicular access to this site 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 site is entirely inadequate.
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* 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 provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Warwick District Council 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 site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.


Cont/d .....
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


GT17 - Land of Southbound carriageway of A46 (former Little Chef) - (Site 17)
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


GT18 - Land on Northbound carriageway of A46 (former Little Chef) - (Site 18)
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


GT20 - Land at J15 M40/A46 - (Site 20)
* This site is 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
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* Warwick District Council 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 site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

Availability
Only 3 of the sites listed are available, namely sites 15, 17 and 18. By definition the remaining sites are not deliverable.

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

Warwick District Council 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 ad 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.

Warwick District Council 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, doctors surgery and shops which are accessible on foot, on bike, by bus and by car.

Warwick District Council 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.

Warwick District Council should consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington including The Asps and Sites 5, 6, 9 and 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 allowed to be "swallowed up" by Warwick and Leamington over time.

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,

RE: Response to the Draft Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
My comments relate to sites GT3, GT4, GT5, GT6, GT9, GT10 and GT15.

I note with concern the disproportionate number of site options selected in the Bishop's Tachbrook boundary. While I understand the need for Warwick District Council to provide 31 pitches for the gypsy and traveller community it appears unreasonable that the rural community of Bishop's Tachbrook should have been selected for such a significant number when considering the size of the search area.
I do not believe that the 6 sites selected within Bishop's Tachbrook meet the site criteria set out in the Site for Gypsy and Travellers Consultation document and have set out my reasons below.
It appears that a large number of the potential site have been positioned along the motorway. I understand the need the Gypsy and Traveller Community to have access to good transport links but I don't believe that access to the motorway network is a key requirement. As stated in consultation document, the traditional lifestyle of this community means they prefer to live and work in the same location. It also states that the sites are to be permanent settlements and therefore I don't believe access to the motorway network is a key requirement of the Gypsy and Traveller Community.
Site 3 and 4 - object;
This site is very remote from local amenities such as schools, GP practices and public transport. As stated above, the traditional lifestyle of the Gypsy and Traveller Community often means they will live and work in the same location. They are not likely to have access to reliable transportation and a site that is not within walking distance of these essential amenities is not suitable for their needs. There is also no pedestrian access to these site, meaning access to public transport would be dangerous, which is my view is unacceptable.
The school in Bishop's Tachbrook is operating to capacity. A Department for Education and Skills (2005) report, Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils, reports that gypsy, Roman and traveller pupils are more likely to be identified as having special educational needs. Bishop's Tachbrook primary may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support these needs when it is already operating at capacity.
The site should be located in areas that avoid high risk of flooding. The Environment Agency designates this area as being at likely risk of flooding from rivers or sea without defences. There are a number of streams criss-crossing this area. The Tach Brook runs nearby which provides additional flooding risks.

Site 5 and 9 - object;
The only access onto site 5 and 9 is a very busy road, there is no pedestrian access;. this is completely unsuitable. Pedestrian access is a key requirement of the Gypsy and Traveller Community, not only to meet their lifestyle needs but to be able to be able to reach the key amenities that they need. It will also add to the sense of isolation and prevent the Gypsy and Traveller Community from integrating into the local neighbourhood. The consultation document highlight the link between the disadvantages the Gypsy and Traveller Community face and the shortage of good quality Gypsy and Traveller sites and I believe that a site without pedestrian access does not meet the requirement of a suitable site and will not solve the problems of disadvantage that the legislation is trying to prevent.
Historic Warwick is a major tourist attraction and brings great benefits to the local economy through the revenues that tourism brings. A Gypsy and Traveller site on the approach to Historic Warwick is not in keeping with the local surroundings and will have a negative visual impact on the on this area. The approach to Historic Warwick gives visitors a perception about the area and a negative visual impact may decrease tourism and have a very damaging affect on the local economy.
The site also contains listed buildings. I believe it is very important to preserve these building and their surrounding area and I believe that the visual impact a Gypsy and Traveller site will have will cause a detrimental impact on this area.
The school in Bishop's Tachbrook is operating to capacity. A Department for Education and Skills (2005) report, Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils, reports that gypsy, Roman and traveller pupils are more likely to be identified as having special educational needs. Bishop's Tachbrook primary may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support these needs when it is already operating at capacity.
Site 6 - object;
The only access onto site 6 is a very busy road, there is no pedestrian access; this is completely unsuitable. Pedestrian access is a key requirement of the Gypsy and Traveller Community , not only to meet their lifestyle needs but to be able to be able to reach the key amenities that they need. It will also add to the sense of isolation and prevent the Gypsy and Traveller Community from integrating into the local neighbourhood. The consultation document highlight the link between the disadvantages the Gypsy and Traveller Community face and the shortage of good quality Gypsy and Traveller sites and I believe that a site without pedestrian access does not meet the requirement of a suitable site and will not solve the problems of disadvantage that the legislation is trying to prevent.
This site is also very remote from main centres. As set out in the consultation document the disadvantage that this group faces is due to the poor provision of suitable sites with access to amenities such as schools and GP practices. This site is not suitable as these facilities are not within easy access and will prevent the Gypsy and Traveller Community from accessing the services that are vital to reduce the disadvantage.
The school in Bishop's Tachbrook is operating to capacity. A Department for Education and Skills (2005) report, Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils, reports that gypsy, Roman and traveller pupils are more likely to be identified as having special educational needs. Bishop's Tachbrook primary may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support these needs when it is already operating at capacity.
Site 10 - object;
This site is located very close to the M40. As set out in the consultation document the sites selected should avoid areas where there is potential for noise disturbances. The level of noise pollution at this site would be very high and the accommodation favoured by the Gypsy and Traveller Community will not have suitable defences against this noise. The noise caused by the motorway continues throughout the night and it will lead to a poor quality of life if located in this area.
The site is also very close to the Guide Bogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre.
The site is not within walking distance of supermarkets, a town centre or any other essential amenities. The small rural community of Bishop's Tachbrook does not have a school that is suitable to accommodate the extra 20 to 30 children that could be living at this site as the school is already at capacity. The village only has 1 shop which supplies only basic essentials and is not suitable for a family to use as its main weekly shop. The facilities within walking distance are not suitable for the Gypsy and Traveller Community and I believe that they will require these amenities within walking distance if they are to live in the traditional lifestyle.
The school in Bishop's Tachbrook is operating to capacity. A Department for Education and Skills (2005) report, Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils, reports that gypsy, Roman and traveller pupils are more likely to be identified as having special educational needs. Bishop's Tachbrook primary may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support these needs when it is already operating at capacity.
Site 15 - object;
This site is located on the bank of the Tachbrook. The Gypsy and Traveller Community wish to live and work in the same location and therefore it is very likely that the Tachbrook will become contaminated if this is used as a place of work. I believe this is unacceptable.
I don't believe this site would meet the criteria that states that site should be integrated into the local landscape without harming the character of the area. Bishop's Tahbrook is a small rural community and this site, if selected, would not visually integrate into the local landscape. At present this site is a picturesque area at the entrance to the village, this is something that should be protected.
The school in Bishop's Tachbrook is operating to capacity. A Department for Education and Skills (2005) report, Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils, reports that gypsy, Roman and traveller pupils are more likely to be identified as having special educational needs. Bishop's Tachbrook primary may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support these needs when it is already operating at capacity.
Bishop's Tachbrook;
Bishop's Tachbrook is a small rural community with one primary school that is operating at capacity, a small GP branch surgery with very limited opening hours and very limited access to other amenities. I don't believe this area is suitable to meet the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community.
The documentation provided by the council does not sufficiently outline the impact that the site would have on the local community. The documentation provides guidance about the Gypsy and Traveller community and the disadvantages they face but does not state what impact this would have on the local area. However, I note from the consultation document that the sites selected should promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community and there is very strong local opposition to siting a gypsy and traveller site in this location as evidenced by the local meeting held on 17th July 2013.

My comments relate to sites GT4, GT5, GT6, GT9, GT10 and GT15.

Site GT4 - OBJECT

Convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport: Bishop's Tachbrook only has a branch GP surgery open mornings only Monday, Wednesday and Friday and afternoons only Tuesday and Thursday. Gypsies and travellers are known to have poorer health and higher health needs than the settled population so site GT4 would put undue pressure on an already busy surgery.

Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is a single form entry. Gypsy and traveller families are typically larger than the settled population and so a site with 5, 10 or 15 homes are likely to contain 15, 30 or 45 children. A Department for Education and Skills (2005) report, Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils, reports that gypsy, Roman and traveller pupils are more likely to be identified as having special educational needs. Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is always at capacity and so may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support these needs.All the sites identified which lie within Bishop's Tachbrook parish are too remote from major centres with all journeys requiring a motor vehicle.

Public transport is limited within the parish and with no pavements joining the sites to other urban areas, pedestrian access would be dangerous. Gypsies and travellers already have a lower life expectancy than the settled population so introducing them to additional known hazards would be a serious undertaking.

Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding:The Environment Agency designates this area as being at likely risk of flooding from rivers or sea without defences. There are a number of streams criss-crossing this area. The Tach Brook runs nearby which provides additional flooding risks.

Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site: Site GT4 is on a main road with no pedestrian access making safe access to the road network dangerous.

Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc): As this area is very remote from major amenities, the provision of utilities would be more problematic than for other sites.

Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment: GT4 is close to the Chesterton Windmill site which is of local importance.

Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area: GT4 is close to the Chesterton Windmill site which is of local importance.

Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community: There is very strong local opposition to siting a gypsy and traveller site in this location as evidenced by the local meeting held on 17th July 2013.

Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services: Harbury Lane is a very busy route into Warwick and Leamington which already has queues at the Harbury Lane/Oakley Wood Road junction at peak times. There are few local services nearby and so those that do exist are likely to be put under undue pressure by a large gypsy and traveller site.

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:Site GT4 has a number of streams criss-crossing the area and is very close to the Tach Brook. There is therefore a risk of contamination given that the proposed gypsy and traveller site may be used as a place of work.

 
Site GT5 - OBJECT

Convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport: Bishop's Tachbrook only has a branch GP surgery open mornings only Monday, Wednesday and Friday and afternoons only Tuesday and Thursday. Gypsies and travellers are known to have poorer health and higher health needs than the settled population so site GT4 would put undue pressure on an already busy surgery.

Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is a single form entry. Gypsy and traveller families are typically larger than the settled population and so a site with 5, 10 or 15 homes are likely to contain 15, 30 or 45 children. A Department for Education and Skills (2005) report, Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils, reports that gypsy, Roma and traveller pupils are more likely to be identified as having special educational needs. Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is always at capacity and so may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support these needs. All the sites identified which lie within Bishop's Tachbrook parish are too remote from major centres with all journeys requiring a motor vehicle.

Public transport is limited within the parish and with no pavements joining the sites to other urban areas, pedestrian access would be dangerous. Gypsies and travellers already have a lower life expectancy than the settled population so introducing them to additional known hazards would be a serious undertaking.

Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site:Site GT5 is on a main road with no pedestrian access making safe access to the road network dangerous.

Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance:Site GT5 is very close to the M40 which could negatively impact on the residents' well-being through noise and traffic fumes.

Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment:There is a strong potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. There are also listed buildings on the site.

Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area:There is a strong potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. Tourism in Warwick is very important to the local economy and any impact would severely damage the town.

Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community:There is very strong local opposition to siting a gypsy and traveller site in this location as evidenced by the local meeting held on 17th July 2013.

Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services:The A452 is the main route off the M40 motorway into Leamington from the south. It is such a busy and dangerous route that a 50mph speed limit was introduced in 2009. There are few local services nearby and so those that do exist are likely to be put under undue pressure by a large gypsy and traveller site.

 
Site GT6 - OBJECT

Convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport: Bishop's Tachbrook only has a branch GP surgery open mornings only Monday, Wednesday and Friday and afternoons only Tuesday and Thursday. Gypsies and travellers are known to have poorer health and higher health needs than the settled population so site GT4 would put undue pressure on an already busy surgery.

Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is a single form entry. Gypsy and traveller families are typically larger than the settled population and so a site with 5, 10 or 15 homes are likely to contain 15, 30 or 45 children. A Department for Education and Skills (2005) report, Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils, reports that gypsy, Roma and traveller pupils are more likely to be identified as having special educational needs. Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is always at capacity and so may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support these needs. All the sites identified which lie within Bishop's Tachbrook parish are too remote from major centres with all journeys requiring a motor vehicle.

Public transport is limited within the parish and with no pavements joining the sites to other urban areas, pedestrian access would be dangerous. Gypsies and travellers already have a lower life expectancy than the settled population so introducing them to additional known hazards would be a serious undertaking.

Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site:Site GT6 is on a main road with no pedestrian access making safe access to the road network dangerous. It is surrounded on three sides by very busy main roads.

Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance:The traffic noise from being surrounded by three very busy main roads would be detrimental to the residents' well-being.

Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc):There isonly one farm on this site and as such the provision of utilities is limited.

Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment:Both the A425 and the A452 run alongside this site. This means the potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick is doubled as visitors leaving the motorway both northbound and southbound would see the site as they enter Warwick.

Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area:Both the A425 and the A452 run alongside this site. This means the potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick is doubled as visitors leaving the motorway both northbound and southbound would see the site as they enter Warwick. Tourism in Warwick is very important to the local economy and any impact would severely damage the town. It is close to Castle Park which is an important historical area of Warwick.

Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community: There is very strong local opposition to siting a gypsy and traveller site in this location as evidenced by the local meeting held on 17th July 2013.

Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services:The A452 and the A425 are the main routes off the M40 motorway into Leamington from the north and south. They are such busy and dangerous routes that a 50mph speed limit was introduced on both in 2009. There are few local services nearby and so those that do exist are likely to be put under undue pressure by a large gypsy and traveller site. 
Site GT9 - OBJECT

Convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport: Bishop's Tachbrook only has a branch GP surgery open mornings only Monday, Wednesday and Friday and afternoons only Tuesday and Thursday. Gypsies and travellers are known to have poorer health and higher health needs than the settled population so site GT4 would put undue pressure on an already busy surgery.

Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is a single form entry. Gypsy and traveller families are typically larger than the settled population and so a site with 5, 10 or 15 homes are likely to contain 15, 30 or 45 children. A Department for Education and Skills (2005) report, Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils, reports that gypsy, Roma and traveller pupils are more likely to be identified as having special educational needs. Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is always at capacity and so may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support these needs. All the sites identified which lie within Bishop's Tachbrook parish are too remote from major centres with all journeys requiring a motor vehicle.

Public transport is limited within the parish and with no pavements joining the sites to other urban areas, pedestrian access would be dangerous. Gypsies and travellers already have a lower life expectancy than the settled population so introducing them to additional known hazards would be a serious undertaking.

Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site:Site GT9 is on a main road with no pedestrian access making safe access to the road network dangerous. It is surrounded on all sides by very busy main roads (A452 and M40).

Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance:The traffic noise from being surrounded by A452 and M40 both very busy main roads would be detrimental to the residents' well-being.

Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc):The site is rural and therefore has limited access to utilities.

Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment:There is a strong potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. There are also listed buildings on the site.

Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area:There is a strong potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. Tourism in Warwick is very important to the local economy and any impact would severely damage the town.

Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community: There is very strong local opposition to siting a gypsy and traveller site in this location as evidenced by the local meeting held on 17th July 2013.

Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services:The A452 is the main route off the M40 motorway into Leamington from the north and south. The M40 junctions already have large queues at peak times. The A452 is such a busy and dangerous route that a 50mph speed limit was introduced in 2009. There are few local services nearby and so those that do exist are likely to be put under undue pressure by a large gypsy and traveller site.

 
Site GT10 - OBJECT

Convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport: Bishop's Tachbrook only has a branch GP surgery open mornings only Monday, Wednesday and Friday and afternoons only Tuesday and Thursday. Gypsies and travellers are known to have poorer health and higher health needs than the settled population so site GT4 would put undue pressure on an already busy surgery.

Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is a single form entry. Gypsy and traveller families are typically larger than the settled population and so a site with 5, 10 or 15 homes are likely to contain 15, 30 or 45 children. A Department for Education and Skills (2005) report, Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils, reports that gypsy, Roma and traveller pupils are more likely to be identified as having special educational needs. Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is always at capacity and so may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support these needs. All the sites identified which lie within Bishop's Tachbrook parish are too remote from major centres with all journeys requiring a motor vehicle.

Public transport is limited within the parish and with no pavements joining the sites to other urban areas, pedestrian access would be dangerous. Gypsies and travellers already have a lower life expectancy than the settled population so introducing them to additional known hazards would be a serious undertaking.

Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site:Site GT10 is on a main road with no pedestrian access making safe access to the road network dangerous.

Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance:The Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre is on this site. The noise from dogs barking is likely to be detrimental to residents' well-being.

Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc):The site is rural and therefore has limited access to utilities.

Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment:There is a strong potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. Tourism in Warwick is very important to the local economy and any impact would severely damage the town.

Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area:There is a strong potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. Tourism in Warwick is very important to the local economy and any impact would severely damage the town.

Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community: There is very strong local opposition to siting a gypsy and traveller site in this location as evidenced by the local meeting held on 17th July 2013.

Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services:The Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre is on this site. Gypsies and travellers often have dogs and the issues with cross breeding could be detrimental to the sustainability of the charity. There may also be illnesses or viruses carried by residents' dogs who have brought them from far away and which, if caught by the guide dogs, could be damaging to the charity's work.

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:The potential for cross breeding or cross contamination with the guide dogs may be damaging to the charitable work undertaken at the site.
Site GT15 - OBJECT

Convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport: Bishop's Tachbrook only has a branch GP surgery open mornings only Monday, Wednesday and Friday and afternoons only Tuesday and Thursday. Gypsies and travellers are known to have poorer health and higher health needs than the settled population so site GT4 would put undue pressure on an already busy surgery.

Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is a single form entry. Gypsy and traveller families are typically larger than the settled population and so a site with 5, 10 or 15 homes are likely to contain 15, 30 or 45 children. A Department for Education and Skills (2005) report, Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils, reports that gypsy, Roma and traveller pupils are more likely to be identified as having special educational needs. Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is always at capacity and so may not be able to provide the infrastructure required to support these needs. All the sites identified which lie within Bishop's Tachbrook parish are too remote from major centres with all journeys requiring a motor vehicle.

Public transport is limited within the parish and with no pavements joining the sites to other urban areas, pedestrian access would be dangerous. Gypsies and travellers already have a lower life expectancy than the settled population so introducing them to additional known hazards would be a serious undertaking.

Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding:SiteGT15 is on the banks of the Tach Brook. The Environment Agency designates this area as being at likely risk of flooding from rivers or sea without defences. It is also close to Lower Heathcote Farm fishery lakes which pose additional flood risks.

Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site:Site GT15 is on a main road with no pedestrian access making safe access to the road network dangerous.

Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance:The traffic noise from the A452 would be detrimental to the residents' well-being.

Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc):The site is rural and therefore has limited access to utilities.

Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment:There is a strong potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. Tourism in Warwick is very important to the local economy and any impact would severely damage the town.

Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area:There is a strong potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. Tourism in Warwick is very important to the local economy and any impact would severely damage the town.

Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community: There is very strong local opposition to siting a gypsy and traveller site in this location as evidenced by the local meeting held on 17th July 2013.

Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services:The A452 is the main route off the M40 motorway into Leamington from the north and south. The M40 junctions already have large queues at peak times. The A452 is such a busy and dangerous route that a 50mph speed limit was introduced in 2009. There are few local services nearby and so those that do exist are likely to be put under undue pressure by a large gypsy and traveller site.

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:Site GT15 is on the banks of the Tach Brook. There is therefore a risk of contamination given that the proposed gypsy and traveller site may be used as a place of work.

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

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

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

* 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

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.

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 624455 / 07802 470896
Email: mark.griffin@expom.co.uk
Would you like to be made aware of future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites - YES
Gender: Male
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.

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

* 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

* Sites 12 and 16 - sit within (part) and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

* 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 12 and 16 - there is 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 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 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 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.

* 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 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 it's likely requirement to provide 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 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, 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, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - are not locations which allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

* Availability - only 3 of the sites listed are available, namely sites 15, 17 and 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 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 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 revisit its Greenbelt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure to allocate land for Gypsies and Travellers during the new Local Plan period to the south of the District.

* WDC should consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington including The Asps and Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 in the Revised Development Strategy for the Sites for Gypsies and Travellers
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.

see-attached

Dear Sirs

Revised Development Strategy Response

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

Part A

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


Part B

Commenting on the Revised Development Strategy.

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

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

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

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




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

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

GT01 Land adjacent to the Colbalt Centre:
Due to existing development, access would likely have to be taken from an existing private access
road. Without confirmation as to whether this would be permitted, the Highway Authority cannot
recommend a good place to gain access to the site from the existing Public Highway.
GT02 Land at Warwickshire Exhibition Centre:
If access were to be taken from the Fosse Way a new access would need to be created a minimum
215m from the existing roundabout. Visibility from the access would also need to be 2.4m x 215m in
both directions. It is considered that an access to meet these requirements could potentially be
achieved. If access were to be taken from the A425, a new access would need to be created a
minimum 160m from the existing roundabout. Visibility from the access would need to be 2.4m x
160m in both directions. Although potentially achievable the removal of a significant amount of
vegetation/hedgerow may be required.
GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm:
The Highway Authority would not recommend access taken directly off the Fosse Way in this
location. If access is taken from Harbury Lane, it should be at least 160m from the existing crossroad
junction with visibility splays of 2.4m x 160m in both directions. You should look to avoid position a
new access opposite an existing access. The existing access to Barnwell Farm is considered to be a
good location however; cutting back/removal of hedgerow is likely to be required in order to achieve
the required level of visibility.
GT04 Land at Harbury Lane:
The Highway Authority would not recommend access taken directly off the Fosse Way in this
location. If access is taken from Harbury Lane, it should be at least 160m from the existing crossroad
junction with visibility splays of 2.4m x 160m in both directions. You should look to avoid position a
new access opposite an existing access.
GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury Road:
Access taken from the A452 would require visibility splays of 2.4m x 160m. Use of the existing
Tachbrook Hill Farm access would not be recommended as it is sited opposite an existing junction
and it would not be recommended to locate the access any closer towards the Motorway junction. If
access were to be created northwest of the existing Tachbrook Hill Farm access it should be done so
in advance of the existing traffic calming features. Access from Mallory Road would not be
recommended. It should also be noted that there may be issues regarding forward visibility due the
existing vertical alignment of the road. Forward visibility to match visibility from the access would be
required at all sites (160m in this instance).
GT06 Land at Park Farm:
Access created from the A425 would need to have visibility of 2.4m x 215m in both directions. The
existing access to Park Farm is likely to meet this standard. If a new access is to be created it is
unlikely that an access could be created any closer to the existing roundabout without the
requirement for removal of hedgerow/trees. Any access created North West of the Park Farm access
must adhere to the required visibility standards. The access should not be created in proximity of the
existing layby on the A425.
GT07 Land at Smiths Nurseries Stoneleigh Road:
Access from the Stoneleigh Road is unlikely to be achievable due to visibility restrictions unless taken
from Smiths Nurseries. Even then it would have to be demonstrated that the proposed site was
unlikely to generate significantly more vehicle movements than the existing development (and that
it has not caused a Highway safety/operation issue). From Coventry Road (within 30mph limit) it may
be difficult to achieve access due to proliferation of existing accesses. Splays of 2.4m x 70m would be
required in both directions.
GT08 Depot to west side of Cubbington Hill Farm:
Leicester Lane is subject to a speed limit of XX. An access with visibility splays of 2.4m x xxxm would
therefore be required with equal corresponding forward visibility. It is considered that this should be
achievable at this site.
GT09 Land to North East of M40:
The A452 is subject to a speed limit of XX. The Highway Authority considers that achieving an access
to standard from the A452 would be difficult due to road alignment. Creation of an access onto the
Warwick By-Pass would not be supported.
GT10 Land at Tollgate House & Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre:
Gaining access from the B4100 is considered to be difficult due to existing accesses/lay-bys which
makes it difficult to find a suitable location for creation of a new access. Access from Oakley Wood
road is considered unsuitable and an access with required visibility standards unlikely to be
achievable.
GT11: Land at Budbrooke Lodge Racecourse and Hampton Road:
Land west of Warwick Racecourse - Access from the point of the existing access for Budbrooke
Lodge should be feasible. You would need to ensure that visibility splays of 2.4m x 160m can be
provided in both directions due to the access emerging onto a 50mph section of Highway. There
already appears to be a reasonable pedestrian connection to this point too.
GT12: Land at Westham House, Westham Lane
The by-pass onto which the proposed site off which Westham Lane adjoins, is subject to a
derestricted speed limit. Accordingly visibility splays of 215m in both directions must be provided.
This should be achievable. Westham Lane also narrows after a certain length and accordingly,
depending on access location and size of site proposed this may require widening. In addition if this
site was of interest, the Highway Authority would seek further comment from our transport
operations team to determine whether there was any capacity reason as to why a site could not be
served off the bypass.
GT13: Kites Nest Lane:
Kites Nest Lane and Brownley Green Lane are subject to a derestricted speed limit and although it is
acknowledged that vehicles are unlikely to be travelling at 60mph on either of these roads, a speed
survey would be required to establish the level of visibility required and this would ultimately
determine whether an access was feasible or not. In addition both roads are narrow and, depending
on the size of the site, some level of localised widening may be required.
GT14: Warwick Road, Norton Lindsey:
Warwick Road is subject to a derestricted speed limit and visibility from the existing access does not
meet standards of 2.4m x 215m. If it can however be demonstrated that vehicle movements from
the proposed development will not exceed that which could be generated by the existing permitted
development (and that the existing access has not caused a highway safety issues), use of the
existing access may be acceptable.
GT15: Land to east of Europa Way:
This section of the A452 is subject to a speed limit of 50mph and accordingly, splays and forward
visibility of 160m must be provided. It is considered that, with removal of vegetation, this should be
achievable at some point along the boundary line shown.
GT16 Land West of A429 Barford:
The by-pass onto which the proposed site off which Westham Lane adjoins, is subject to a
derestricted speed limit. Accordingly visibility splays of 215m in both directions must be provided.
This should be achievable. Westham Lane also narrows after a certain length and accordingly,
depending on access location and size of site proposed this may require widening. In addition if this
site was of interest, the Highway Authority would seek further comment from our transport
operations team to determine whether there was any capacity reason as to why a site could not be
served off the bypass.
If access directly from the bypass is proposed this would be subject to splays of 2.4m x 215m being
achieved and an access road being constructed to meet highway standards (subject to no objections
being raised from Warwickshire transport operation team about the creation of a new access onto
the bypass).
GT17: Service area West of A46:
The A46 is under the jurisdiction of the Highways Agency and not the Local Highway Authority.
Accoringly, Warwickshire County Council would have no comment to pass other than recommending
that further comment be sought from the Highway's Agency.
GT18: Service area East of A46:
The A46 is under the jurisdiction of the Highways Agency and not the Local Highway Authority.
Accoringly, Warwickshire County Council would have no comment to pass other than recommending
that further comment be sought from the Highway's Agency.
GT19: Land off Birmingham Road, Budbrooke (Oaklands Farm):
The access would be taken from a section of highway subject to a 40mph speed limit. Accordingly,
splays of 2.4m x 120m should be achieved and 120m forward visibility be achieved on both
approaches. The Highway Authority considers that this visibility is likely to be achievable at some
point along the proposed site boundary.
GT20 Land at Junction 15 of M40:
The B4463 is subject to a derestricted speed limit and accordingly, visibility of 2.4m x 215m must be
provided unless a speed survey can demonstrate actual speeds are less than this. The Highway
Authority considers that it is unlikely that visibility for a new access can be achieved without a speed
survey being undertaken. Access should not be taken closer than 215m from the roundabout
junction.
Disclaimer
Please note that the site assessments have been made following desktop studies only using various
software packages. It is likely that all comments accurately reflect the requirements of each site
however, in some circumstances the speed limit may have changed. For reference please note the
following basic visibility requirements set against posted speed limits:
Derestricted/60mph - 2.4m x 215m, Forward visibility of 215m.
50mph - 2.4m x 160m, Forward visibility of 160m
40mph - 2.4m x 120m, Forward visibility of 120m
30mph - 2.4m x 90m*, Forward visibility of 90m*
*absolute maximum - splays of 70m & 43m could also be applied depending on site location.

see attached

We write with concern over the prospective site options for Gypsy & Traveller sites in the Bishops Tachbrook area.

We attended the recent consultation meeting held in Bishops Tachbrook to be advised of the sites currently being considered for the Gypsy community to settle.

The booklet handed out to the residents and other interested parties, was indeed a beautifully illustrated booklet, but sadly, was nothing more to us than a piece of marketing. The parking of caravan in a secluded country park, with hills in the background, beautiful grand house in the foreground, this looked like a quiet holiday destination.

How long would it be before the site was littered with debris, faeces, used sanitary products, barking dogs, trucks, vans and lorries, to name a few.

As we understand it, the gypsy community are not in favour of internal toilet facilities but by tradition choose to deficate outside the caravan. One concerned person told me last week, that they could not walk in their usual route any longer because of the sights that greet them from the gypsies who had recently vacated the area they had illegally parked.

* Who will be paying for the mass clean up of these areas when the gypsies decide to vacate?
* How will the paying of Council Tax be monitored?
* What security measures will be in place for the local community, who feel insecure as a result of these sites?
* From other sites, in other local council areas, what has been the affect of the gypsies, i.e. cleanliness of the site and surrounding areas, contribution to the running of the site, security etc?
* Has there been an increase of crime rates in other occupied areas, and if so, how has this been addressed?
* How many people, not caravans, are the council proposing to allocate to each plot?
* How will this be monitored and policed to avoid overcrowding?
* How will the traveller sites affect local house prices in the Bishops Tachbrook area?
* How have house prices been affected in other areas to date where gypsies/travellers live?
* Has potential increases in house insurance been taken into consideration?
* Why should residents have to pay for these increased costs when they are not in favour of the sites
* What will the visual impact be on the village of Bishops Tachbrook?
* How will the Gypsy & Traveller sites affect the local services?
* What about the impact on the infrastructure locally?
* Schooling - what about the availability of school places and standard of education for the gypsy community?
* Gypsies and travellers do not tend to stay in one place and put down roots for lengthy periods of time, and this can be disruptive for the local community, who do pay their taxes, take pride in where they reside, and work hard to pay for what they have

These are just a few concerns that we have and concerns that we feel will have a potential impact on the community

Please give these the consideration they deserve as our lives and those of our families are directly affected by the location of these sites

I am objecting to the gypsy sites surrounding the bishops tachbrook area.
Site 3. Very remote from major amenities
Site 4 very remote from major amenities
Site 5. Access onto a very busy road, no pedestrian access. Potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick, putting off tourists.
Site 6. Very remote from main centres and no pedestrian access.
Site 9. Access onto a very busy main road, no pedestrian access. Potential visual impact to approach to historic Warwick, putting off tourists.
Site 10. Close to guide dogs for the blind national breeding centre.
Site 15. Site located on the banks of the tachbrook, so possible contamination if site used for business.
General considerations.
Remoteness. Are the sites identified in bishops tachbrook parish are too remote from the major centres to be suitable for this type of development.
Access. All sites are on very major roads with no pedestrian access.
Undue pressure on infrastructure and services. The school in bishops tachbrook is a single form entry. Even small gypsy sites could have many children that the school wouldn't be able to cope with. Are children that are local to the area with ties to the community such as mine who attends the preschool and the church, to be pushed out for gypsy site children that have no such ties to the community? this seems extremely unfair and totally wrong.
Yours sincerely
Suzy mcnamara
34 touchstone road
Warwick gates
Warwick
Cv34 6ee
Sent from my iPad

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

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

General considerations.

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

I am responding as a resident in Warwick District.

I trust that this response will suffice, despite the response forms suggesting a separate response is necessary for each proposed site.

1 - Strategic / Site-wide comments

a - Required Pitch Numbers
I remain highly sceptical and unconvinced by your evidence base for the required number of permanent pitches in WDC. The timing of the surveys was in the summer during the travelling season (the population in WDC at that time was not necessarily representative). The surveys were carried out by members of the travelling community on the travelling community. I suggest House builders would not be asked to interview house builders about how many houses they would like to build. I remain unconvinced that the Salford report provides a robust evidence base that fits with a national, logical and coordinated pattern of provision. It seems to be a knee jerk reaction against a previous inspector's findings. The massive shift from previous figures leaves me with no faith whatsoever in these figures.

b - Prematurity of the Consultation
The fact that sites are included in the consultation that quite clearly do not meet WDC's own criteria for selection suggests one of two things. Either officers are incapable of applying a simple set of criteria to sieve sites to rule out the totally inappropriate or those that do not meet the minimum requirements (which I am sure is not true), or the first sieve / down-selection has not yet been carried out in which case, the consultation is premature and is causing a huge amount of angst and worry unnecessarily.

c - Green Belt
I think it is unfortunate that the Local Plan is suggesting so much development south of Leamington and Warwick. WDC is failing a large number of its residents by not challenging the out-dated Green Belt designation to the north. It dates from a time when there was far less development pressure and is not fit for purpose today as a policy of restraint. The "exceptional circumstances" are the unprecedented development pressure on the district at the moment. I urge the council to review the green belt boundaries to the north of our district. You will find plenty of sites ripe for development without harming the aims and objectives of this regional green belt. To my mind by simply pushing all development to the south, WDC is delivering banal and crass spatial planning and failing in its duties to future generations.

2 - Site-Specific Comments.

GT6 - A prominent site occupying open countryside and adjoining the Castle Park. The site acts as an open buffer between possible new housing development along Banbury Road and land to the south and west. The site is excluded from the Local Plan for residential development due to its openness. The same logic holds for any built development including travellers and Gypsies. Development would have an adverse impact on the rural character by introducing urbanising influences and probable decrease in the condition of the landscape.
The site is on an historic tip.
The site does not meet some of the key criteria set by WDC and should be dropped.

GT9 - This site occupies a prominent, elevated and sloping site. The visual influence of development on this site would be widespread. The site would have a distinct urbanising effect. This is to all intents and purposes open countryside and for any other development would not be considered. Why is it even considered here? Development would cause distinct harm to the character of the area, it is isolated from services, would impact on the setting of Greys Mallory.
The site does not meet some of the key criteria set by WDC and should be dropped.

GT12 - I really struggle with this site and how it comes to be included in the consultation. It occupies open countryside on the iconic river floodplain of the River Avon. It comprises a distinctive meander in the one landscape feature that defines the Warwickshire Countryside. The site is remote enough from settlements to be perceived as urbanisation in open countryside. Access to the site if off the A429 on a sweeping 60mph stretch. Since the (welcomed) construction of the bypass, there have been a number of accidents involving vehicles joining and leaving the road including one very unfortunate recent fatality. In addition, everyone who uses the junctions into Barford has witnessed or been involved in countless near misses. The accidents will keep on coming. We are not particularly well served by public transport, nor doctors in the village. Our school is full to bursting. It is a small community school that excels for our children. A transient, part time element would not be beneficial.
The site does not meet some of the key criteria set by WDC and should be dropped. In particular, road safety and landscape character.

GT 16 - I refer to my prematurity point above. Inclusion of this site in a public consultation seriously undermines the credibility of WDC. It brings into doubt the seriousness of the other sites or the intellectual rigour with which this process is being carried out....This site is a balancing pond / flood compensation feature. Enough said.

After all that, I appreciate that this is a very difficult exercise. I hope the right answer prevails

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached