see attached

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to forward my objection to the proposed gypsy travellers site above.
I feel this site is completely inappropriate for many reasons.
I have been a resident of Warwick all of my life and have recently bought my first house on Chase Meadow. I thought long and hard about where to buy, taking the immediate local area into close consideration. I looked at schools, doctors surgeries and other public services in the area. Each of these are already running at oversubscribed capacity as is all of Warwick. In the near future I would like to start a family and I feel it unfair that my children would be struggling to get into the local preferred schools even though their roots are in Warwick because additional families will have moved to the area from all over the place and be entitled to eduction in the local area. You are proposing a site of 12, this could mean an increase of 24 or more additional children to find school places for in an already oversubscribed community.
Further concerns I'm raising is the local charities of Warwick such as the Sir Thomas White fund and the King Henry VIII fund. These local grants and loans may not be able to withstand the increased capacity of the gypsy travellers which would see a historic part of the town come to an end. Moreover, who is to say that the gypsy travellers are genuinely living on this site and not from another but using that address to gain access to such luxuries.

Another reason for me moving to Chase Meadow was the Racecourse being in such close proximity. Being brought up with horses and racing I take great pleasure in walking over on race days. With the proposed site this would not be possible given that the site would cut straight through the footpath to the racecourse and in fact go onto the racecourse track itself. This site would also have huge effects on the impact that the racecourse has on Warwick given that it is such a huge investor into the towns revenue from holiday makers and race goers alike. The racehorses would also be put at a higher risk of disease from unvaccinated horses that the gypsy travellers may have as the preparation stable area is within arms length of the proposed traveller site.
Warwick is a historical town and attracts tourists from all over the world to experience its natural and historic beauty. This proposed site would have a dramatic and adverse impact on how the town is viewed and will negatively impact Tourism to the local area, particularly the Racecourse, and many local businesses who heavily rely on it for trade which is in direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
Finally the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' suggested that these sites should promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community. The response from myself and other local residents highlights to you that this requirement would not be met.
I realise that you have to provide an area for these travellers, however, I do not agree that the Hampton Road site would be a suitable location to house them.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to object about the proposed Traveller/Gypsy site at Chase meadows near the racecourse.

My objections are as follows;

1. It is directly conflicting with the 'Planning and policy for traveller sites' as the local infrastructure cannot support one or more of these sites as the local schools, doctors and local facilitates will not be able to cope.

2. The policy itself states that it should promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community and this is not the case the majority of residents in both the The Chase Meadows estate and Shakespeare Avenue estate object to having travellers move into the local area.

3. Warwick generates a lot revenue through of tourism and having a Travellers site so close to the centre of Town and near the castle will have a detrimental effect on tourism as it will put people off from visiting as they will be more wary of visiting due to the fact they will be either approached by travellers. As most Police services are aware the crime rates tend to increase when Travellers/ Gypsy's move into an area and this too will effect tourism.

4. The Hampton Road (GT11) site sits in part within the Flood plain and having a site here will increase the issues that are already being faced.

5. The Racecourse generates a lot of revenue for local businesses here in Warwick and there are potential risks of diseases being transferred from the Travellers non-vaccinated animals to thoroughbred race horses. It will also be a issue for the owners of the Horses as they may seek other grounds instead of Warwick to race their horses due to the presence of the travellers.

6. The sites are located near major roads which already see large volumes of traffic, the Councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the danger faced and issues faced by the travellers.

7. Unfortunately and this is with no malice or prejudice and can be backed up from various Police services throughout the UK but it is a known fact to the Police services that when Travellers/Gypsies move into an area the crime and theft rate increases. In an already struggling economic climate the local Businesses will be adversely affected and in addition to this theft and robberies will deter tourists from visiting Warwick.

8. The Chase Meadows estate attracts a number of Professionals to move to Warwick having a site so close to an estate will effect House prices and the desire to live in Chase meadows will have a negative impact if Travellers move close by as not many people want to live close to Travllers as they do not integrate into society and theft and crime rates are linked to Travellers moving into a new area.

Hi,

I object to the proposed traveller pitches at Little Chef on the A46 and at the Hampton road / chase meadow locations.
The area of SW Warwick has undergone significant development over the past 10 years with the Chase Meadow Estate and Tournament Fields Business Park. This is already placing an overburden on the area, roads and the schools have/are undergoing extensive works to cater for the increased volumes this brings.

Dear Warwick Council,

I would like to register my objection to site 11 as a possible sites for Gypsies and travellers.

My husband and I, have recently purchased a property in Warwick. I am an accountant who spends my earnings eating in local restaurants, drinking in local pubs and furnished my new house from local furniture shops.

If a traveller site were to be placed at site 11, I would move out of the area. I believe house prices would be negatively affected, crime would increase and schools would be over populated. I have attended the session held at the local school and none of these concerns were alleviated.

I would ask that you please reconsider the long term consequences of the actions about to be undertaken. The target market of the nearby housing estates is likely to be young affluent people and families who, like myself, may consider leaving should this go ahead. How many good citizens who contribute to Warwick's economy would have to leave before we see serious consequences impacting on the area?

Dear Sir / Madam,

I would like to strongly register my objection to site GT11 (also GT17 and GT18) as possible sites for Gypsies and travellers.

My husband and I, after much searching and research, have recently purchased a property in Warwick. We are both young professionals in management roles with full time employment. I felt that Warwick had the perfect mixture of a beautiful rural town and historic culture with all the facilities perfect for our lifestyle, furthermore, a safe environment and good local schools should we want to start a family in the area.

I feel I am representative of the type of person the town of Warwick is currently attracting to purchase here and hopefully the type of person who the council would want to attract into the area. I spend my earnings eating in local restaurants, drinking in local pubs and furnished my new house from local furniture shops.

If a traveller site were to be facilitated at site GT11, I would certainly look to move out of the area. I believe house prices would be negatively affected, crime would increase and schools would be over populated. I have attended the session held at the local school and none of these concerns were alleviated. I really feel strongly you need to consider the macro economics of your decision on the area. Should such people like me also take the same choice of leaving Warwick, shops would lose profits and may end up closing; house prices would decrease further, leading to council tax reductions; less money being spent on the upkeep with income reductions and an overall depression could be a serious threat to Warwick town.

I would ask that you please reconsider the long term consequences of the actions about to be undertaken, particularly with the housing development directly adjacent to GT11. The target market of these properties is likely to be young affluent people and families who I feel would share my concerns and possible share my intentions to leave should this go ahead. I want to keep Warwick the beautiful town that first attracted us here.

I look forward to hearing the outcome, hopefully outside of Warwick.

Dear Warwick Council,

I would like to register my objection to site 11 as a possible sites for Gypsies and travellers.

My wife and I, have recently purchased a property in Warwick. I am an analyst who spends my earnings eating in local restaurants, drinking in local pubs and furnished my new house from local furniture shops.

If a traveller site were to be placed at site 11, I would move out of the area. I believe house prices would be negatively affected, crime would increase and schools would be over populated. I have attended the session held at the local school and none of these concerns were alleviated.

I would ask that you please reconsider the long term consequences of the actions about to be undertaken. The target market of the nearby housing estates is likely to be young affluent people and families who, like myself, may consider leaving should this go ahead. How many good citizens who contribute to Warwick's economy would have to leave before we see serious consequences impacting on the area?

I look forward to hearing the outcome, hopefully outside of Warwick.

Gypsy & Travelers sites

I have considered this consultation and agree that Warwick District Council needs to address the matter and identify suitable sites. Rather than consider all the available sites, because each will have a local context I have considered the 6 sites that WDC has identified that are nearest to and that would impact on my parish and its residents.

These are our views:

* Budbrooke Lodge [Site gt11] although this area sometimes floods, it has particularly good access to local shops and Warwick town centre, by public transport [bus stop adjacent to Budbrooke Lodge] and reasonable access to the main arterial roads. Servicing the site will be potentially low cost. Not sure if this is green belt site.
* Norton Lindsey [site gt14] is green belt, outside main development, dangerous location on a busy road, no public transport, not easy access to infrastructure /facilities.
* A46 [sites gt17 & gt18]- green belt, outside main development, particularly dangerous location on bypass, considerable air and noise quality issues, no public transport, not easy access to infrastructure /facilities
* Oaklands farm [site gt19] access is an issue identified by Warwickshire Highways Authority on numerous planning applications, proximate to canal so would impact on tourist, walkers and canal users, dangerous access on Birmingham Road and Ugly Bridge Road, both busy roads, loss of greenbelt, previous refusal because of business needs & hazardous sites.
* Watery Lane [site gt20] is green belt, outside main development, particularly dangerous location on bypass A46, M40, and Junction 15, considerable air and noise quality issues, no public transport, not easy access to infrastructure /facilities it floods.

The Local Plan
I have carefully considered the paper by Ray Bullen, which was supported by Rural Parish Councils, and the response from WDC on 18th July 2013. I regard the overall estimated residential development growth in the Local Plan to be significantly out of proportion to the local need; unrealistically high and untenable.

The District Council as failed to acknowledge, address or take account any of the issues identified in Budbrooke Parish Council's response to the first consultation in this second document. [1]

In respect to development in Budbrooke:
* All proposed development is in the green belt and there are no special reasons for using the green belt [reference: NPPF 2012 development in green belt is inappropriate.]
* Taking land out of green belt for development, I.e. re-drawing green belt boundaries, is tantamount to a gross misapplication of NPPF 2012. To do so is not a special reason.
* Loss of green belt will mean a loss of prudent use of land potential loss of value to special/ high landscape value
* Identifying potential sites in green belt, when there is other unused land outside the green belt and outside the local plan, constitutes a breach of NPPF 2012, referenced above.
* Budbrooke Parish Plan has not identified any significant demand for development locally.
* Hampton Magna is surrounded by high grade agricultural land
* Negative effects on strategic siting such as increased levels of traffic
* Air, Light & noise pollution will increase especially in the construction phase
* Presence of Railway will be a nuisance to potential development

People live here because they like the area, any development, and in particular an up to 25% increase, will have a significant impact on the nature and locality. This issue must be considered as it has previously been accepted by WDC in its dealings with other councils.

Capacity of the Infrastructure
Hampton Magna was built on the site of an army barracks in 1960s to the standards that prevailed at that time. Little or no improvement has been made since the site was first built on, and none since I came here in 1979.
* Minor cosmetic road improvements were made to accommodate a substantial increase to traffic due to the building of Warwick Parkway Station. Car parking since originally built has increased 3 fold with no change to roads or traffic management.
* Consequently, traffic is already extremely heavy. Approaches - Birmingham Road, Old Budbrooke Road, Woodway, Church Hill and roads to Hatton via Ugly Bridge, and through Hampton on the Hill. Any additional development will have a considerable negative impact on roads and traffic
* Traffic issues have not been addressed or even assessed
* Sewage arrangements is a major concern of the PC - Although adopted, prior to privatisation the system falls below the standard normally required.
* The main local electricity supply arrangements area the same as those for the barracks which left nearly 50 years ago. Supplies into the village are subject to frequent fluctuations and outages.

Budbrooke School, with only around 50% children resident in Hampton Magna, already draws traffic from surrounding areas -Hatton, Hatton Park, and Chase Meadow - and the county lanes are increasingly congested and hazardous. Increasing the size of the school to accommodate the 25% increase increases the congestion and hazard, and fails to address the Green Agenda unless additional resource is allocated in the current catchment areas, which idea has been discounted.

Sustainability
The argument that additional development will help address the sustainability of local facilities and services is flawed. There is no evidence is provided to show that this would be the case.

Without the publication of specific sites. I can make little assessment of the local internal impact of any development other than to state that in my judgment all development will have a significantly high negative affect on the community and community facilities. I challenge the council to draw up any development plan that doesn't have a negative effect on residents.

Dear Sir/Madam,

In line with the consultation process for the Local Plan I wish to raise a number of points/objections to the proposed traveller site on the Hampton road (GT11).

As you will no doubt be well aware, Warwick is an important historic county town which draws many tourists into the region, who in turn provide a key source of revenue for the many local businesses . It is therefore vital that the local plan drafted by the Council seeks to protect and nurture this privileged position and does nothing to jeopardise it.

The proposed traveller site located on the Hampton road (GT11) is situated on a key route into the town. At present, after passing over the A46, the views are of open countryside and the racecourse, with the town and church framed in the distance. Locating a traveller site here would interrupt this view and is out of keeping with the medieval nature of Warwick, so is likely to have a detrimental impact on the first impressions of many visitors to the town.

Whilst Warwick Castle will always be a unique draw for tourists, it's vital that their overall impression of the area is positive if we are to encourage them to stay and explore the wider town rather than immediately travelling off to their next destination such as Stratford or Oxford. Furthermore the site is likely to have a direct impact on the appeal of the Warwick Racecourse - itself another key attraction for visitors and an important investor/employer in the town.

To further reinforce the point of the altering the character of the town, I would also draw attention to the proximity of this site to green belt land, which should be protected in all circumstances, but especially when it forms one of the defining parameters of the town itself. As a secondary point, this site is also in/close to a flood plain area, so would not be considered favourable against the councils own proposed selection criteria.

On a more general note, the schools and amenities in this area are already been stretched, so situating more families in this area will only add to this unless steps are taking to improve facilities and increase capacity. This point also extends to the road system itself, which is already busy at rush-hour times and would be further effected by an additional turning.

Unless these points are satisfactorily addressed there is likely to be much cause for concern amongst the residents of Chase Meadow, which will do nothing to aid integration with the local community.

Hello,

Having spent time attending meetings, investigating the developments and reading what other communities have raised regarding the development of gypsy and traveller sites, I would like to make the following further objections regarding specifically, the location of GT11 - Hampton Road site.

* My firmest objection remains that the purpose of selecting sites is to ensure tensions are reduced between settled and traveller communities and that of the 20 sites earmarked, the site on Hampton Road is far and away the closest to a built up residential area. I would hope the strength of feeling toward this site was made abundantly clear at the meeting on 15th July and that this is not going to engender a feeling of peaceful co-existence with the settled community when so many other sites are in rural locations away from a settled (or in our case settling) community.

* Regarding infrastructure. GT11 is located on a major arterial road which is very busy throughout the days that already take huge numbers of vehicles and this is due to increase rapidly as Chase Meadow expands in the next 18 months with three phases of housing development plus further traffic serving the Tournament Fields Business Park from the North and from Warwick town centre. I understand that the WDC's own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.

* Also on infrastructure, according to the documentation produced by the WDC, part of the GT11 site sits within the Flood plain. The addition of further hard standing within the area is likely to amplify the current issues with the flood plain.

* My final objection is a re-iteration of the point that Warwick is the County town and a focal point for regional tourism to the Racecourse and Castle. Regardless of how you consider landscaping a site at GT11, this will have the closest proximity to tourist attractions and local amenities. Regardless of local residents view the site, a gypsy and traveller site in such close proximity to the town, does nothing to maintain the appeal of the town and the facilities such as the racecourse as a tourist attraction. How can WDC possibly see a gypsy and traveller site directly on one of the town's major attractions (and I would argue the one most used by local residents) as a viable solution and still hope to actively promote tourism to the region?

Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you

I am a wheelchair user living in Chase Meadow and am writing about my concerns about the proposed gypsy and traveller sites near the town, particularly the Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton road site.

I have discovered that house and possibly car insurance rates will go up due to the increased risk of crime. As a vulnerable adult, I do feel concerns about the proposals being so near our new estate which is heavily populated with young families. I appreciate that gypsies and travellers are vulnerable and have needs but very much hope that it will be possible to house them further away from the town.

Would we see a reduction in council taxes given the risks, should the proposed site be developed for the travellers?

Dear Sir

Please see below my objections to proposed site GT11 - Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Hampton Road, Warwick.
1) Warwick is an historic town and the proposed site close to the Racecourse, St. Mary's Land and Green belt, would negatively impact Tourism on which many local businesses rely. The site on Hampton Road is very close to the Racecourse stable. There is a potential risk of disease being transferred from non-vaccinated animals to thoroughbred racehorse. There is also lot of wildlife in this area and this would be adversely affected if this site were to become a Gypsy and Traveller site.
2) Part of the proposed Hampton Road site (GT11) sits within the flood plain, which is in conflict to the "Planning Policy for Traveller sites". If hard standings were placed in this area it would exacerbate the problems in the flood plain.
3) Judging by the depth of negative feeling regarding the proposed site on Hampton Road "peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community" appears to be impossible.
4) The noise from the A46 is very loud, especially where the vehicles pass under the bridge where the Hampton Road crosses the A46. The site on the Hampton Road is very close to this bridge so there is a high potential for noise on this site.
5) The junction of Purser Drive on to Hampton Road is very busy and will only become busier as the building on Chase Meadow estate increases. Traffic travels too fast down this stretch of road and to have an entrance to a Gypsy and Traveller site close by on the opposite side of the road could be dangerous especially with caravans turning in and out of the entrance.

Dear Sirs,
I live on the Chase Meadow Estate, which as you know, is a modern
development, blighted by lack of off road car parking space, for both
residential and commercial areas.
Whose fault is it that buses often have to weave down the wrong side of
the road in Goggbridge Lane?
Was this done by design, or did it happen by accident?
Similarly, the planned bus service had to be curtailed because buses
could not even get through certain roads.
Was this not foreseen?
These factors I have to live with, but they do not fill me with
confidence about the planning concerning the Gipsy/Traveller sites.
In an ideal world we would all like to have plenty of car parking space
space and convenient public transport, but just recently the bus service
to the estate has been radically curtailed. The X17 used to arrive
every 15 minutes and go via Warwick town centre, to Warwick hospital.
But now the X17 doesn't even come onto the estate, and it is now two bus
rides to the hospital. I understand the financial constraints, and, like
others, I have to live with the inconvenience and amend my travelling
arrangements accordingly.
Since the Prime Minister assures us that "We are all in this together!",
I wonder (in the interests of fairness) if the same quality of foresight
and inconvenience will apply to the siting and planning of the
Gipsy/Traveller sites.
When the M25 was opened it catered for a need and then created an even
greater need. How confident are you that the provision of another 31
sites in the area will not simply create a demand for even more sites?
If modern estates are designed with the intention of driving cars off
the road, thereby reducing demand for parking (fat chance!!) then that
sort of planning and social engineering should apply across the board,
and inconvenience should be shared around all new developments.
After all "We're all in this together!"

Dear Sir/Madam
Please find our objections to GT11 - Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Hampton Road
1) Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of natural and historic environment and sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area: Warwick is an historic town and the proposed site is close to its Racecourse (which brings many tourists to the town) and St. Mary's Land (both of historical importance) and are the largest green space close to the centre of the town. The site on Hampton Road is very close to the Racecourse stable. There is a potential risk of disease being transferred from non-vaccinated animals to thoroughbred racehorses. There is also lot of wildlife in this area and this would be adversely affected if this site were to become a Gypsy site. The Hampton road is one of the main routes bringing tourists into Warwick if this site was chosen this is the first thing they would see when entering the town.
2) Avoiding areas with a risk of flooding: Part of the proposed Hampton Road site (GT11) sits within the flood plain, which is in conflict to the "Planning Policy for Traveller sites". If hard standings were placed in this area it would exacerbate the problems in the flood plain.
3) Promotes peaceful and integrated co existence between site and local community: Judging by the depth of negative feeling regarding the proposed site on Hampton Road "peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community" appears to be impossible. This could create anger, hatred and resentment within the local community.
4) Safe access to the road network: The junction of Purser Drive on to Hampton Road is very busy and will only become busier as the building on Chase Meadow estate increases. Traffic travels too fast down this stretch of road and to have an entrance to a Gypsy and Traveller site close by on the opposite side of the road could be dangerous especially with caravans turning in and out of the entrance.
5) Avoiding areas where there is potential for noise and disturbance:
Of all the proposed sites GT11 is the closest to an existing large populated area.
The noise from the A46 is very loud, especially where vehicles pass under the bridge where the Hampton Road crosses the A46, because the noise echoes. The site on the Hampton Road is very close to this bridge so there is a high potential for noise on this site.
6) Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services: Local services are already struggling with an ever growing population for example local schools are struggling to cope with the increase in pupil numbers.
7) Reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location omitting travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability. If we all had 500 sq metres as 'our pitch' maybe we too could live and work from the same location.

If this site gets the go ahead will existing residents be compensated for the knock on impact this site would have on house prices (leaving some in negative equity) and the ability to sell?

Dear Development Policy Manager,
Below are some reasons for my objections to having Gypsy and Traveller site being built in Warwickshire.


a) I am concerned about the saleability of my property. I as the seller can keep the price at market value but can guarantee that the list of buyers will drop dramatically when they find out that there is a gypsy encampment across the road from me. As the buyer list will be much smaller I will have drop the price in order to sell quickly to the limited number of potential buyers. Once buyers find out that there is a gypsy site close by, the Chase Meadow estate will become a much less desired area to live in.

b) I am also concerned about the fact that separating a community like the gyspies into their own village/cummunity will create immense friction between the current local residents and gypsies. I would rather see the gypsies buying current low cost housing that is already built in the Warwickshire area and allow them to integrate with us, thus avoiding a them and us situation. I am from an Ethic minority background so have felt the pain historically and have worked very hard to ensure I intergrate and live with the local people, to be part of a MIXED community.

c) In direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' the local infrastructure is simply not able to support one or more of these sites, especially the local schools, doctors, surrounding roads and social facilities.
d) In direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' it should promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community: the current discord the issue has created shows that this requirement would not be met.
e) The area of SW Warwick has undergone significant development over the past 10 years with the Chase Meadow Estate and Tournament Fields Business Park. This is already placing an overburden on the area, roads and the schools have/are undergoing extensive works to cater for the increased volumes this brings.
f) Warwick is the most historical town in Warwickshire. In direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' these sites would have a dramatic and adverse impact on how the town is viewed and will negatively impact Tourism to the local area,
particularly the Racecourse, and many local businesses who heavily rely on it for trade.
g) The sites are located close to major interchanges and major arterial roads that already take huge numbers of vehicles. The councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.
h) The Hampton Road (GT11) site sits in part within the Flood plain. There is also particular concern of extremely close proximity of the sites to Green Belt land. Any further hard standing within the area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain.
i) The racecourse is a major investor into the town of Warwick and draws a large volume of race goers and holiday makers. This will be adversely impacted by the sites as will most significantly the recent developments the racecourse have made in building a stable block for owners to prepare their race horses as this would be within a short distance from the proposed sites. There are potential risks of diseases being transferred from non-vaccinated animals to thoroughbred race horses.

The planning policy advocates that any site should provide integration with the local community! If the proposed sites in the vicinity of Chase Meadow goes ahead this would not be the case! Speaking to neighbours of several years on the Chase Meadow Estate and we have witnessed many occasions of the aftermath of travellers presence, any accepted nearby site would be in direct contradiction to this policy and therefore should not be considered!!

GT11 Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road

I object for the following reasons:

1. The local infrastructure is not able to support this site, especially the local schools, doctors, surrounding roads and social facilities. it is in conflict with the planning policy for traveller sites because of this. There is already a large volume of traffic which uses the Hampton Road into Warwick.

2. The Hampton Road (GT11) site sits in part within the Flood plain. There is also particular concern of extremely close proximity of the sites to Green Belt land. Any further hard standing within the area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain. Historically flooding has been a problem on the side of the Chase Meadow estate closest to the Hampton Road.

On behalf of Warwick Chamber of Trade I am objecting to the potential siting of a permanent travellers site on land at Budbrooke Farm/Racecourse. This is too near the centre of town and we have grave reservations about the impact on crime levels in the town. We know that the police already advise some businesses to shut when the Easter Race meeting is on and the travellers visit. There is already a reduced level of policing in the town centre due to their budgetry restrictions.
We also think the number of sites proposed around this area of Warwick is unreasonable and should be spread fairly across the district even if this means encroaching on a small amount of green belt land.
Travellers all have vehicles so have the means to access school and medical facilities from anywhere in the district.

I wish to object to the proposal to site a gypsy and traveller site at Budbrooke Lodge/Racecourse/Hampton Road. This is far too near residential developments. I would think the 2 sites on the A46 and land at J 15 m40 would be more suitable if a pitch has to go in this area although I do not feel this area of Warwick should have more than one site. These 3 sites all fit the criteria and as these people are by nature travellers they will all have transport to access schools and medical facilities.

Dear Sirs

We attended the Local Plan consultation meeting at Aylesford School on Monday 15th July 2013. As you will be aware the event was very well attended and the strength of feeling about the proposals was very evident.

In general we object to the high concentration of proposed gypsy and travellers sites in and around the Chase Meadow/A46 area. Given the scale of the Warwick District territory, this appears to be disproportionate and unbalanced.

More specifically we object very strongly to the proposal for a gypsy and traveller site at Budbrooke Lodge (GT11 on your plan). This objection is based on a number of factors:

a) our understanding is that St Mary's Lands is designated for the recreational purposes of the people of Warwick. The proposal would take away a further recreational area for people who currently make use of the land

b) the area of land proposed supports a diverse and sensitive ecological environment and we would insist on a full environmental impact study to be undertaken.

c) the area is prone to flooding and sits within a flood plain. There has already been a good deal of flood alleviation work carried out around Gog Brook. However, last winter the Hampton Road was still subject to severe flooding on several occasions. Consequently, installing hard surfaces at Budbrooke Lodge seems incompatible with this flood risk. We still pass signs saying 'Danger; deep water' adjacent to this proposed site.

d) the proposed gypsy and travellers sites have potential for greater levels of noise pollution, air pollution and potential water pollution via Gog Brook. Furthermore, Warwick Racecourse has raised concerns about the stable block adjacent to this site in view of the potential for diseases being transmitted from non vaccinated animals to thoroughbred horses.

e) there has already been a huge expansion of the Chase Meadow housing development over the last few years and this continues. The semi-rural aspect and feel of the development (which was one of the features that attracted us to purchased our property has already been eroded. Consequently the prospect of further green land being developed for gypsies and travellers to the North of the estate means it will be completely surrounded by built up areas.

f) Hampton Road/Henley Street is already an extremely busy and congested thoroughfare. The road into Warwick is extremely narrow and already very congested. This is already exacerbated by the fact that there is a caravan site on the racecourse along with the existing racecourse traffic. As a result of the Chase Meadow development, this road is no longer wide enough to cope with the volume and type of traffic it now carries. Our concerns are that with the proposed gypsy and traveller site, on top of you proposal to build up to 150 homes at Hampton Magna, this road will become vitally unusable.

g) road safety is already a concern, at the junction between Hampton Road and Purser Drive. Whether they are reported accidents or not, we can assure you that there are numerous accidents at this junction. Consequently an increased flow of traffic from Hampton Magna together with the need for an additional access on to this road for the gypsy and traveller site will surely exacerbate road safety risks.

h) having read and listened to the answers you provided we have real concerns that you will be unable to control the expansion of gypsy and traveller sites. If travellers elect to buy the lands we are unconvinced that existing planning permission regulations or objections will be or can be enforced. As the Council has no intention of managing these sites it will be very difficult to avoid temporary or permanent expansion of the number of pitches and/or people occupying these sites. Furthermore, because there are 3 large adjacent sites including Budbrooke Lodge and the land around the A46 we have real concerns that this whole area could eventually be populated by a vary large gypsy and traveller community and that the Council will in reality have little interest or control in preventing this from happening.

i) the proposed sites are in direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller sites'. The local infrastructure is simply not able to support one or more of these sites, especially the local schools, doctors, Warwick Hospital, surrounding roads and social facilities.

j) the proposal is in direct conflict with the Planning Policy for Traveller sites', in that it should promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community. From the evidence of the public consultation meeting we attended this criteria clearly would not be met.

Whichever sites are chosen, it seems to us that if sites are purchased rather than rented, occupants should pay the equivalent levels of rates and council tax to private property owners, rather than the levels for social housing.

Dear Sir/Madam

Please find our objections to GT11 - Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Hampton Road

1) Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of natural and historic environment and sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area: Warwick is an historic town and the proposed site is close to its Racecourse (which brings many tourists to the town) and St. Mary's Land (both of historical importance) and are the largest green space close to the centre of the town. The site on Hampton Road is very close to the Racecourse stable. There is a potential risk of disease being transferred from non-vaccinated animals to thoroughbred racehorses. There is also lot of wildlife in this area and this would be adversely affected if this site were to become a Gypsy site. The Hampton road is one of the main routes bringing tourists into Warwick if this site was chosen this is the first thing they would see when entering the town.

2) Avoiding areas with a risk of flooding: Part of the proposed Hampton Road site (GT11) sits within the flood plain, which is in conflict to the "Planning Policy for Traveller sites". If hard standings were placed in this area it would exacerbate the problems in the flood plain.

3) Promotes peaceful and integrated co existence between site and local community: Judging by the depth of negative feeling regarding the proposed site on Hampton Road "peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community" appears to be impossible. This could create anger, hatred and resentment within the local community.

4) Safe access to the road network: The junction of Purser Drive on to Hampton Road is very busy and will only become busier as the building on Chase Meadow estate increases. Traffic travels too fast down this stretch of road and to have an entrance to a Gypsy and Traveller site close by on the opposite side of the road could be dangerous especially with caravans turning in and out of the entrance.

5) Avoiding areas where there is potential for noise and disturbance:
Of all the proposed sites GT11 is the closest to an existing large populated area.
The noise from the A46 is very loud, especially where vehicles pass under the bridge where the Hampton Road crosses the A46, because the noise echoes. The site on the Hampton Road is very close to this bridge so there is a high potential for noise on this site.

6) Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services: Local services are already struggling with an ever growing population for example local schools are struggling to cope with the increase in pupil numbers.

7) Reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location omitting travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability. If we all had 500 sq metres as 'our pitch' maybe we too could live and work from the same location.

If this site gets the go ahead will existing residents be compensated for the knock on impact this site would have on house prices (leaving some in negative equity) and the ability to sell?

I object to the planning proposals for permanent Gypsy and Traveller sites in my area of Warwick
in the reasons given.
A) The area of SW Warwick has undergone significant development over the past 10 years with the
Chase Meadows Estate and Tournament Fields Business Park.This is placing a strain on the areas
roads and schools witch are undergoing extensive strain to cater for the increased volume this brings.
B) The Hampton Road (GT11) site sits in part within the Flood plane.Also it is close to the racecourse
witch is a major investor to the town.The racecourse has invested in a stable block for owners to prepare
there horses and this would be a short distance from the proposed site. There are potential risks of diseases
being transferred from non vaccinated animals to thoroughbred horses

I would be grateful if you could register my objection to the New Local Plan, in particular my objections to the proposed gypsy and traveller sites GT11, GT17, GT18 and GT20 in the New Local Plan.

South West Warwick has been so heavily developed in recent years and there is so much ongoing development, especially on the Chase Meadow Estate and Tournament Fields Business Park, that there is already an overburden on roads, schools and doctors.

I have concerns that having the large numbers of gypsy and traveller pitches so highly concentrated in these areas will have a negative impact on property prices, and on the pool of people who are willing to purchase. I am worried about the negative effect that an influx of travelling children will have on any one school. It is unlikely that these children will be at the same stage of learning as others the same age and their integration into the existing classes will require additional support from the teachers and teaching assistants. I don't see how this can have anything but a negative effect on the standard of teaching and learning that can be delivered without extra support being provided to the schools.

While I appreciate that sites needs to be provided, I think there should be some assurance that there will not be more than one site within a given radius, such as a 5 mile radius. I also think that sites should be no larger than 5 pitches, as this might feel more acceptable to people living close by. I personally have major concerns about management of the proposed sites. How will you prevent the expansion of any existing site? This is especially worrying where the proposed site has a large area for growth such as GT11.

I am most concerned with the proposal GT11 for the following reasons:

1. The local infrastructure is not in place to cope with even more development in this area, in particular the school, doctors and surrounding roads. I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
2. There is a massive amount of discontent and unhappiness with the proposed site within the local community, this indicates that the site will not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community, I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
3. I believe that this site will have a negative impact on Warwick, in terms of house prices, desirability, tourism and ultimately businesses especially linked to tourism. This goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
4. The sites are located close to major interchanges and major arterial roads that already take huge numbers of vehicles. The councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.
5. This site sits in part within the Flood plain. There is also particular concern of extremely close proximity of the sites to Green Belt land. Any further hard standing within the area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain.
6. This site is located very close to the stable block that the Racecourse has built for the owners to prepare their horses, I have heard that there is a potential risk of disease from non-vaccinated animals. The racecourse brings many people into the town, this should not be put at risk.
7. GT11 is situated within a large area of land. I do not believe that there is any way of preventing illegal or legal growth at this site.

I have concerns with the proposal GT17, GT18 and GT20 for the following reasons:

1. The local infrastructure is not in place to cope with even more development in this area, in particular the schools, doctors and surrounding roads. I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
2. There is a massive amount of discontent and unhappiness with the proposed sites within the local community, this indicates that the sites will not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence between the sites and the local community, I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
3. I believe that these sites, all visible on major routes into Warwick, will have a negative impact on Warwick, in terms of house prices, desirability, tourism and ultimately businesses especially linked to tourism. This goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
4. These sites are located close to major interchanges and major arterial roads that already take huge numbers of vehicles. The councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.

I also have objections to the proposed numbers of new homes detailed in the New Local Plan. It is unrealistic to expect the infrastructure in Warwick to support 6,630 new homes without significant negative impact on Warwick town. It is dangerous and unrealistic to ask people to travel to Leamington via the M40 as this results in queuing on the motorway. I appreciate that Warwick town could be developed to allow for slightly better traffic flow, but this will most likely spoil the beauty of historic Warwick and thereby ruin the town as a tourist attraction. It may also result in people not wishing to settle or remain in Warwick which will rather defeat the need for expansion.

Please register my objection to the New Local Plan, in particular my objections to the proposed gypsy and traveller sites GT11, GT17, GT18 and GT20 in the New Local Plan.

South West Warwick has been so heavily developed in recent years and there is so much ongoing development, especially on the Chase Meadow Estate and Tournament Fields Business Park, that there is already an overburden on roads, schools and doctors.

I have concerns that having the large numbers of gypsy and traveller pitches so highly concentrated in these areas will have a negative impact on property prices, and on the pool of people who are willing to purchase. I am worried about the negative effect that an influx of travelling children will have on any one school. It is unlikely that these children will be at the same stage of learning as others the same age and their integration into the existing classes will require additional support from the teachers and teaching assistants. I don't see how this can have anything but a negative effect on the standard of teaching and learning that can be delivered without extra support being provided to the schools.

While I appreciate that sites needs to be provided, I think there should be some assurance that there will not be more than one site within a given radius, such as a 5 mile radius. I also think that sites should be no larger than 5 pitches, as this might feel more acceptable to people living close by. I personally have major concerns about management of the proposed sites. How will you prevent the expansion of any existing site? This is especially worrying where the proposed site has a large area for growth such as GT11.

I am most concerned with the proposal GT11 for the following reasons:

1. The local infrastructure is not in place to cope with even more development in this area, in particular the school, doctors and surrounding roads. I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


2. There is a massive amount of discontent and unhappiness with the proposed site within the local community, this indicates that the site will not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community, I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


3. I believe that this site will have a negative impact on Warwick, in terms of house prices, desirability, tourism and ultimately businesses especially linked to tourism. This goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


4. The sites are located close to major interchanges and major arterial roads that already take huge numbers of vehicles. The councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.


5. This site sits in part within the Flood plain. There is also particular concern of extremely close proximity of the sites to Green Belt land. Any further hard standing within the area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain.


6. This site is located very close to the stable block that the Racecourse has built for the owners to prepare their horses, I have heard that there is a potential risk of disease from non-vaccinated animals. The racecourse brings many people into the town, this should not be put at risk.


7. GT11 is situated within a large area of land. I do not believe that there is any way of preventing illegal or legal growth at this site.

I have concerns with the proposal GT17, GT18 and GT20 for the following reasons:

1. The local infrastructure is not in place to cope with even more development in this area, in particular the schools, doctors and surrounding roads. I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


2. There is a massive amount of discontent and unhappiness with the proposed sites within the local community, this indicates that the sites will not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence between the sites and the local community, I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


3. I believe that these sites, all visible on major routes into Warwick, will have a negative impact on Warwick, in terms of house prices, desirability, tourism and ultimately businesses especially linked to tourism. This goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


4. These sites are located close to major interchanges and major arterial roads that already take huge numbers of vehicles. The councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.

I also have objections to the proposed numbers of new homes detailed in the New Local Plan. It is unrealistic to expect the infrastructure in Warwick to support 6,630 new homes without significant negative impact on Warwick town. It is dangerous and unrealistic to ask people to travel to Leamington via the M40 as this results in queuing on the motorway. I appreciate that Warwick town could be developed to allow for slightly better traffic flow, but this will most likely spoil the beauty of historic Warwick and thereby ruin the town as a tourist attraction. It may also result in people not wishing to settle or remain in Warwick which will rather defeat the need for expansion.

To whom it may concern,

I wish to voice my strong objections to the council proposals regarding the planned gypsy sites close to chase meadow in Warwick. I believe they are ill advised for a number of reasons. See below;

1) Warwick is the most historical town of some significance within Warwickshire. In direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' these sites would have a negative impact on how the town is viewed by the visiting public and impact Tourism to the local area, particularly the Racecourse and Warwick castle who bring in a significant amount of revenue to the county.

2) The Hampton Road (GT11) site sits within the local flood plain. There is also particular concern of extremely close proximity of the site to Green Belt land used for farming, sports facilities and by local dog walkers etc.

3) As a regular race goer myself, I am also concerned that as the racecourse is a major investor into the town of Warwick and draws a large volume of race goers and holiday makers, the influx of travellers will impact course attendances and the local businesses which rely on them. It is a well known fact that the racecourse and the majority of the town centre businesses (I.e public houses, restaurants and shops) all close for business on the Easter bank holiday weekends as a direct result of the influx of travellers to the town for the racecourse Easter meeting.
The racecourse in recent years, have made a significant investment by building a stable block for owners to prepare their race horses and to provide overnight residence for horses and jockeys etc. and as this would be within a short distance from the proposed sites, there are potential risks of diseases being transferred from non-vaccinated animals to thoroughbred race horses.

I object to the proposed GT11 as a suitable area for gypsies and travellers due to:
- The extra pressure that more traffic will put on the Hampton Road
- The local surgery can't cope with the demand that it exists at the moment, it's already very difficult to get an appointment with a doctor as it is.
- Hampton Road has been heavily flooded in the last 12 months making it unsuitable for traffic for days.
- The proposal has generated a lot of concern and anxiety in the neighbouring communities with a general feeling of objecting to it. This is not the right platform to expect an harmonious integration between the two communities.
- Hampton Road is one of the access routes into Warwick and placing a gypsies and travellers site there will go against the historical/traditional charm that makes Warwick so appealing to tourism.

To whom it may concern,

I wish to make known my objection to the proposed traveller sites for the following reasons;

I believe it to be in direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' the local infrastructure is simply not able to support one or more of these sites, especially the local schools, doctors, surrounding roads and social facilities.

The area of SW Warwick has undergone significant development over the past 10 years with the Chase Meadow Estate and Tournament Fields Business Park. This is already placing an overburden on the area, roads and the schools have/are undergoing extensive works to cater for the increased volumes this brings.

Warwick is the most historical town in Warwickshire. In direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' these sites would have a dramatic and adverse impact on how the town is viewed and will negatively impact Tourism to the local area, particularly the Racecourse, and many local businesses who heavily rely on it for trade.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Revised Development Strategy and Sites for Travellers

I should like to put my objection in writing,as requested on your comments feedback.

My outline objections are that the estate I live on, Chase Meadows, house prices will reduce with "sites" so very close to us.
Burglaries will increase. Local bars and shops have to close on Bank Holidays due to an over spill of Travellers attending the races.
Is this acceptable from a Warwick tax payers point of view?

Why can't these "sites" be put on green belt sites away from normal hardworking population, who struggle to improve their
lives i.e. moving to a semi rural area where the estate is advertised as "very sought after area". You intend to build 150
homes on green belts sites, so what difference, therefore, would a Traveller Site situated in the same environment make ??

I would advise to read the Sun newspaper, story below recently published:

Gypsy invasion as council boss goes on travels
Mob free to terrorise village West Parley after
liaison officer who deals with them went on hols

TRAVELLERS ran amok in a village for TEN DAYS while the council officer who deals with them was on holiday.

Scared locals were threatened with violence and urine was thrown at a child after 40 gypsies invaded a recreation ground.
The mob used a kids' play area as a toilet, damaged picnic and park benches and even chopped down a 20ft tree.
But when residents rang Dorset County Council to evict them they were told gypsy and traveller liaison officer Paula Clover was on leave.
The council had no proper back-up plan for dealing with travellers — which wins them a Sun Non-Sense Award in our campaign to highlight the battiness of rule-makers.
Parish council chairman John Cullen was chased out of the park in West Parley, near Bournemouth, as he tried to take photos of the damage.
He said: "A van drove across the field towards me with three extremely large blokes in the front.
"They told me to stick my camera where the sun doesn't shine, I legged it.
"I was told some people were threatened by lads on quad bikes and that a bucket of wee was thrown at a child."
The travellers quit the site after being served a 48-hour eviction notice — leaving the village with a £1,000 clean-up bill.
Villager Pat Couper, 77, said: "They broke a padlock to get on to the recreation ground.
"The following week the liaison officer said they had to spend 24 hours to assess their needs.
"The process had to be done in the proper way so not to infringe their human rights.
"It didn't seem to matter that they'd caused criminal damage."
Dorset council's deputy leader Hilary Cox said: "The parish council did not get, perhaps, the assistance needed, when they needed it."
Police said they had reports of anti-social behaviour but added "there is no criminal investigation".

Are these the sought of people that should be living around Chase Meadow???

Hello,

I wish to object to this and also did attend the recent public hearing at the high school.
Being on the outer side of Chase Meadow and physical less than 150 metres from one of the proposed sites is very worrying, and then there are two more less than half a mile away on the A46!
That's just too many and too close, at the recent hearing the council lady when questioned responded by saying " they want to be close to the M40 and A46 as they use them" is that seriously how the assessment is done? ( in conjunction with schools, shops etc )?


1. What allowance for increased police presence and action is being made to Chase Meadow Estate? Will there be more police in Warwick ? Who's paying?
Also they will have a walkway with instant access to Chase Meadow ( right opposite them )which will worry the residents also, and relates to my question below that wasn't raised at the recent hearing.

2. There is a nearby school ( Newburgh ) which I know is full, along with more children coming from the expansion on the estate. Will you or the government fund the extra rooms and teachers required?
I have been told they are full already? Appreciate that the parents will be worried and concerned with the treatment and extra resources in dealing with the children from traveller families, not to mention the parents should "issues" arise.
3. Doctors on the estate - we can't get an appointment now it's really difficult. Will funding be provided there also? Will it be expanded?


I feel that we as high rate tax and rate payers will be called upon in some way to fund the travellers by way of schools, rubbish clearance, and police.
I certainly object and totally disagree with the proposed close proximity to hard working, tax payer people on an already ( and increasingly ) crowded estate.

Dear Sir / Madam

Revised Development Strategy and Sites for Travellers

I should like to put our objection in writing,as requested on your comments feedback.

Our outline objections are that the estate we live on, Chase Meadows, house prices will reduce with "sites" so very close to us.
Burglaries will increase.
Why can't these "sites" be put on green belt sites away from normal hardworking population, who struggle to improve their
lives i.e. moving to a semi rural area where the estate is advertised as "very sought after area". You intend to build 150
homes on green belts sites, so what difference, therefore, would a Traveller Site situated in the same environment make