May I make my views known in connection with traveller "sites for consideration".

One of the proposed sites on the list for consideration is:

Kites Nest Lane,
Hatton,
Warwick

May I firstly ask why this site is deemed suitable for consideration?

It is a field that used to contain horses and the then owner was asked to remove the horses as the field was and is susceptible to flooding. The proposed site is in an established green belt area and is of outstanding natural beauty. Enjoyed by large numbers of walkers, cyclists and public in general. This site has already been subject to planning applications and two appeals, one of which resulted in a planning refusal.

On these grounds I absolutely object to the site appearing on the list of land being considered for traveller occupation. It is patently not suitable for the reasons outlined.

I object totally against the proposal for Kites Nest Lane, Hatton as a traveller site.

My point is that this site has already been through public consultation and a highly expensive assessment process and deemed unfit for purpose in the form of planning refusal and appeals. Why then are you contemplating further scrutiny and expense?

I am a supporter of FRoG. I want to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

The "WDC Gypsy and Traveller Sites Options for Consultation" document includes the Green Belt site at Kites Nest Lane in Beausale as an option for Gypsy and Traveller Sites. Its inclusion is very wrong given that in the past three years two applications for planning permission as a traveller site have been refused.

The inappropriateness of the site is clearly identified in the report of the Inspector from the first appeal and in the submissions made by WDC and FRoG in the context of the current appeal.


I look forward to hearing from you urgently and receiving your personal assurances that:
* the Kites Nest Lane site was included not because it is deemed suitable, but only because it was suggested in response to a public "Call for Sites";
* the executive shall recommend that the Kites Nest Lane "option" should not be considered as a viable option as a traveller and gypsy site; and
* you shall ensure that the list of sites proposed by FRoG is reconsidered and that they are included in the consultation paper.

I am a supporter of FRoG. I want to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

The "WDC Gypsy and Traveller Sites Options for Consultation" document includes the Green Belt site at Kites Nest Lane in Beausale as an option for Gypsy and Traveller Sites. Its inclusion is perverse given that in the past three years two applications for planning permission as a traveller site have been unequivocally refused by the Planning Committee (each time in line with the Council's officers' recommendation). Both those planning decisions have been appealed and both have been resisted by WDC.

The first of those appeals was - following scrutiny at an expensive 7 day long Public Inquiry - unambiguously and entirely refused by the Inspector and the Secretary of State. The second appeal is currently being opposed by the Council.

The inappropriateness of the site is clearly identified in the report of the Inspector from the first appeal and in the submissions made by WDC and FRoG in the context of the current appeal.

Tens of thousands of pounds of local council taxpayers' money has been and is being spent in resisting what has already been determined to be an attempt at wholly inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
My concern is exacerbated by my understanding that potential sites put forward by the local parish council to the Council on 8th April 2013 have not been included as options. I understand that the reasoning for the omissions include because sites have previously been identified as "a potential housing site in the Local Plan", and because sites are "promoted for residential use through the Local Plan and [are] too close to the urban area". It does not appear to me that these reasons are sufficient to justify the sites being excluded as options, particularly when one as obviously inappropriate as Kites Nest Lane is included as an option.

I look forward to hearing from you urgently and receiving your personal assurances that:
* the Kites Nest Lane site was included not because it is deemed suitable, but only because it was suggested in response to a public "Call for Sites";
* the executive shall recommend that the Kites Nest Lane "option" should not be considered as a viable option as a traveller and gypsy site; and
* you shall ensure that the list of sites proposed by FRoG is reconsidered and that they are included in the consultation paper.
I am also very concerned as we have heard there is further proposals for mr Butler who owns a property next to the shell garage in budbrooke / hatton on the Birmingham road is also planning to sell a section of his land for travellers to live on. Again we feel strongly that this is a very unsuitable location and use of green land

I was surprised to see the Kites Nest Lane traveller site amongst the proposed council sites that was published last week.

Given that this site has failed planning applications and appeals on legitimate grounds over the last several years, I don't understand how it can be considered as a candidate - presumably the planning criteria would be the same for land owned by the Council as it would be for privately owned land?

It is disappointing that the Council has been unable to enforce planning conditions on this site, and would be doubly so if the site was acquired by the council, and all the previous objections over ruled.

I was very concerned to see that Kites Nest Lane Site has been included in the above consultation document despite it being a green field site and the subject of two failed applications for planning permission and a refused Secretary of State appeal. Reading the criterior included in the consultation document it fails on every point I understand from FROG that the travellers themselves who of course have a vested interest have put the site forward and that other appropriate alternative sites submitted by the local parish council have been rejected on very flimsy grounds.
In view of the above can you confirm that the executive will be recommending that the Kites Nest Lane Site should not be considered a viable option and that reconsideration should be given to the list proposed by the Local Parish Council.

You will no doubt be familiar with the text body below which I have included here given that I whole heartedly support the comments. To include the Kite's Nest Lane site as "an option" is so preposterous that it borders on comic.

In my view the sites proposed which are south of Warwick and Leamington seem to be more appropriate. Having previously lived in Bishops Tachbrook I am aware of the vast expanses of land away from green belt or urbanization that would make for more appropriate Traveller sites.

You will be aware that Lighthorne Heath was earmarked for a major development some years ago (I believe it was blocked ultimately), the reason being of course that it makes good sense to develop on the land between Lighthorne and Leamington/Warwick when the overall picture is looked at.

As for the proximity of local transport, doctors and schools, what is all that about? This is the 21st century, we all have cars, and these people are supposed to be able to travel! Living in Beausale I am 5 miles away from my doctor, my kids school, and we have one bus that stops once a week on a Saturday! It is all just so much boloney

I am a supporter of FRoG. I want to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

The "WDC Gypsy and Traveller Sites Options for Consultation" document includes the Green Belt site at Kites Nest Lane in Beausale as an option for Gypsy and Traveller Sites. Its inclusion is perverse given that in the past three years two applications for planning permission as a traveller site have been unequivocally refused by the Planning Committee (each time in line with the Council's officers' recommendation). Both those planning decisions have been appealed and both have been resisted by WDC.

The first of those appeals was - following scrutiny at an expensive 7 day long Public Inquiry - unambiguously and entirely refused by the Inspector and the Secretary of State. The second appeal is currently being opposed by the Council.

The inappropriateness of the site is clearly identified in the report of the Inspector from the first appeal and in the submissions made by WDC and FRoG in the context of the current appeal.

Tens of thousands of pounds of local council taxpayers' money has been and is being spent in resisting what has already been determined to be an attempt at wholly inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
My concern is exacerbated by my understanding that potential sites put forward by the local parish council to the Council on 8th April 2013 have not been included as options. I understand that the reasoning for the omissions include because sites have previously been identified as "a potential housing site in the Local Plan", and because sites are "promoted for residential use through the Local Plan and [are] too close to the urban area". It does not appear to me that these reasons are sufficient to justify the sites being excluded as options, particularly when one as obviously inappropriate as Kites Nest Lane is included as an option.

I look forward to hearing from you urgently and receiving your personal assurances that:
* the Kites Nest Lane site was included not because it is deemed suitable, but only because it was suggested in response to a public "Call for Sites";
* the executive shall recommend that the Kites Nest Lane "option" should not be considered as a viable option as a traveller and gypsy site; and
* you shall ensure that the list of sites proposed by FRoG is reconsidered and that they are included in the consultation paper

As a frequent visitor to the area of the Kites Nest area I have been against the use of this site from day zero.
On that fateful evening I was baby sitting my grandchildren on Brownley Green Lane and heard and saw the
convoy moving in. I was able to call my Daughter and Son in Law and advise them of the goings on and so
they could start the ball rolling.

I also called the Daily Mail who were able to tell me that Meriden was also under attack and was advised that
the challenge should begin without delay.

Having seen the "progress" of the site and the total unsuitability of it, I find it incredulous that the "council"
having fought the case and won the case on the unsuitability of the site sees fit to include it as a possible
on their site list. A totally moronic decision, a real shot in the foot, and whoever is responsible should be
disgusted with themselves. In my working environment head or heads would have rolled for such complete
ineptitude; it is as if such an important subject had been left in the hands of an unsupervised office junior.

The site is unfit for purpose in many ways: it would be a quagmire if it were not for the pumps pumping
gathering water during wet days and depositing the water into drains unfit for purpose and causing flooding
further down Brownley Green Lane: the site is on a narrow country lane which would bring an over volume of
traffic to the area, a danger to road users as much larger vehicles would be brought into play: Eric Pickles is
doing his best to protect the green belt from these people, and the council should follow his lead not be
looking for an easy option: and of course all the other reasons that have been listed previously. I strongly
suggest that the Kites Nest site be removed from the list put up by the Council.

We strongly object to the Kites Nest site being included on the list of suggested traveller sites.Considering the time and expense incurred in appeals against the illegal development which were all upheld by the council it does seem perverse.

Please add our names to the objection list, we simply cannot understand why the site has been included in the Council list of proposed sites after the last appeal was totally unsuccessful?

We are sure you'd like to know what's been happening at the Public Inquiry. Firstly, thank you to everyone who was able to spare some time to support the FRoG team. The constant flow of coffee and moral support was really appreciated.
As explained below, simply by replying to this email you can still make a difference!

The Inquiry
The inquiry finished on Thursday afternoon. We don't think we learned much new. Our planning consultant and barrister did a fantastic job convincingly arguing that the Appeal should be dismissed for all the reasons the last Appeal was unsuccessful. Working closely with the council, we demonstrated that the proposed development scheme simply cannot work. The Council's barrister did a terrific job: a master class in cross-examination. We believe that our evidence has cast yet further doubt in the Inspector's mind about the reliability of the travellers' evidence as to their personal circumstances.
The Inspector was unhappy about the council's continuing failure to provide traveller sites (which is something that they are required to do) and the appellant's agent made much of the fact that Kites Nest Lane is included in the council's current consultation list of possible sites. That Kites Nest Lane is in the list seems completely perverse in all circumstances. Many of you have already objected to its inclusion, and we are very grateful to you for this, however it is important that each of us objects to Warwick District Council as soon as possible. We hope that if enough of us object the council may change the Options Paper in time to influence the Planning Inspector's decision.
So ...please object to the council by replying to this email...
You can object by simply "Reply All" to this email, giving your name and address. This will send an email to us and Sue Gallagher (but nobody else). Sue is our tremendously supportive local councillor and she will be able to use your "vote" to lobby WDC to help her argue that the inclusion of the Kites Nest Lane site in the council list should be investigated. Any comments you make she can add to her arguments, too. If you are writing on behalf of more than one person (a family or social group), please say that, too.
Thank you again to those of you who contributed to FRoG's fighting fund; rest assured that the funds we raised this time were again well spent.
We don't expect a decision for a number of weeks/ months: probably not before the autumn. We will continue to keep you updated with any new developments. Meanwhile, please let us know if you'd like any further information at this stage.
Thank you for your continued support- and please do lodge your dissatisfaction that Kites Nest Lane is included in the consultation document at all!
FRoG


I am also objecting on behalf Michele , Zoe and James Pearman.

I wish to register my objection to this application.
I support the case against, as compiled by FRoG.

Lionel and Vivian Charlton of Fernton, Haseley Knob, Warwick strongly object to the Kites Nest Lane site's inclusion in consultation list of possible sites for all the reasons previously stated by ourselves and others.
Why are these travellers allowed to carry out actions that if pursued by taxpayers such as ourselves would mean punitive results from the authoritative members of the community.

Please record my (and my family's (4 of us)) opposition to the inclusion of the Kite's Nest Lane site in the list of potential traveller sites that are being considered by the Council.

I strongly object to the Kites Nest site being included as a possible gypsy site as so much effort has gone into convincing the Inspector and WDC that it is completely unsuitable for this usage.

I was amazed to see that the site at the junction of Kites Nest Lane and Brownley Green Lane, Beausale, Warwick had been included on the Council's list of suitable sites for travellers.

This site should never have been included on such a list since planning permission has already been refused twice and these decisions were upheld at a Public Enquiry in 2012.

The site is located in the Green Belt in a particularly beautiful part of Warwickshire, which should remain unspoilt. Travellers' caravans, miscellaneous buildings and vehicles would have a huge impact on the local community and due to their high visibility would ruin the area for not only the local community but the hundreds of walkers, cyclists and horse riders who regularly enjoy using the lanes and surrounding bridlepaths and foopaths.

The site is also subject to flooding because it is the lowest point for the surrounding fields and lane to drain on to and the narrow lanes would also be totally unsuitable for the amount of emerging traffic to and from the proposed site.

When I moved here in 1978 I found an old book detailing the history of the local area in which it was stated that Kites Nest Lane had one of the finest collections of flora and fauna in the United Kingdom. I am currently trying to find this again.

One only has to walk down Brownley Green Lane and Kites Nest Lane to see the pride the local people take in their houses, outbuildings and gardens. Those altering their properties have sought the proper permissions to do so and have followed planning guidelines to the letter in order that their properties blend in to the surroundings.

Kites Nest Lane alone, within its short length, has several Grade II listed buildings which are of special architectural interest, some of which have extremely interesting histories.

I was surprised and disappointed that the sites suggested by FROG were not included in the list of suggested sites and I hope serious consideration will be given to the fact that the land at Kites Nest Lane/Brownley Green Lane is wholly unsuitable and that Green Belt Land should not be used for such a development.

We object to Kites Nest Lane site being included on the list of possible Traveller Sites by WDC - it was deemed unsuitable at the last planning appeal, nothing has changed to alter that fact

Anne and John Beaumont
The Cottage
Lyon Farm
Beausale
Warks
CV35 7NZ

#in response to the email from FRoG#

Thank your for the update. I object.

We agree that it is completely perverse to include this site on the list of options for the area. To our mind this was an illegal site in the greenbelt that must be cleared ASAP

I object to Kites Nest Lane being included in the Local Plan.

I write further to the Council's announcement of the locations which are being considered for gypsy/traveller sites in the District.

I am extremely shocked and disappointed to note that the site at Kite's Nest Lane, Beausale, is amongst those being considered by the Council. I note that the Council's reasoning is that, because the site has been proposed by the owners of the land, it must be considered by the Council. As I am not aware of it, perhaps the Council could point me to the statutory authority that says this to be the case or, at the very least, the policy within which this assertion is made. To the best of my knowledge there is no legal requirement for the Council to do so.

It is completely perverse for this site to be included. I'm sure you don't need me to go into the history of this site; save to say that one planning appeal has already been refused, with the Planning Inspector and Secretary of State making it clear in no uncertain terms that the site was completely unsuitable for any sort of development of this kind. The second inquiry has now come to an end, and again I understand that the appellants simply could not show any evidence that development was possible, nor that there were special or very special circumstances for granting permanent or temporary permission.

The Council has objected to both of these appeals, and I applaud them for that. Surely you agree, therefore, that for this site to even be in the running makes no sense at all? The Council, Planning Inspectorate and DCLG have all deemed the site unsuitable; accordingly it must be the case that any consideration of this site is a waste of time and resources?

Please note our strong objection to the inclusion of Kites Nest Lane in Warwick District Council's current consultation list of possible traveller sites. The fact that Kites Nest Lane is in the list seems completely perverse in all circumstances. We hope you can change the Options Paper in time to influence the Planning Inspector's decision.

I would like to place our objection to WDC inappropriately including Kites Nest Lane in its consultation document. I feel this makes a mockery of due process our governing bodies put in place to enable a fair hearing, despite that this hearing itself is entirely questionable when a lot of time and money was previously spent by Warwickshire residents going through a similar appeal process - why are we here again? I feel it is grossly unfair to allow anyone living in our community to operate in this way, treating those who abide by the rules and contribute to our local area through paying taxes, with total derision.

I would like to object to the inclusion of Kites Nest lane as a potential gypsy traveller site as set out in the councils suggested sites in the consultation document. I could not believe it when I saw the list and thought that there must have been some mistake. It is a complete waste of local taxpayers money to have fought this process to then include it in the potential sites list. I feel the council has completely played into the hands of this group of travellers who are delighted and have now used this fact to their advantage in their latest round with the planning inspector. Their representative Mr Carruthers has recently written to the Planning Inspectorate to reiterate his assertion that the site should be granted permission because it is included in the consultation document.
I fear there may be many complaints about misuse of taxpayers money if this site remains on the list. Just what was the point of WDC paying tens of thousands of pounds of public money to fight the travellers to then put it on their potential list of potential traveller sites ? It defies logic.
This group of travellers has completely played and flouted planning laws and policies. Please can WDC make a stand, do the right thing and remove this piece of land from your potential list of traveller sites immediately.

The Kite's Nest Lane site at Beausale is still occupied by gyspies despite permission having been refused for a gypsy site here. It is wholly unsuitable as a site for a range of reasons given in refusal notices and appeal decision. It should be removed from the lost of potential locations.

The planning history of this site is a matter of public record with the Council, Planning Inspector and the Secretary of State making it clear that this site, within the Green Belt, is completely unsuitable for development of this kind. The site is unsustainable in terms of the above criteria, in particular flooding, integration within the Green Belt, and so on.

I object to GT19 development for the following reasons;

1, lack of local amenities/infrastructure, the local schools are already over subscribed.
2, It is in conflict with the character of the area, it is inappropriate development in green belt.
3, The local road network is already under strain, this will only increase that.
4, Noise pollution and disturbance.
5, Harm to landscape of the hatton locks.
6, It is not possible to integrate it into the landscape without harming the character of the area.

Regards

I object to this site for the following reasons.
- Road safety issue. Vehicles turning in and out of any entrance could cause accidents.
- Visual impact. Harmful to rural area and communities. Conflicts with character of area. It would not be possible to integrate any site into this rural area.
- Increased traffic to peaceful rural roads
- Lack of facilities for travellers. No shops. Schools are already over subscribed.
- Would be an appalling destruction of greenbelt.
- Noise and disruption to very close communities.
- Overpopulation and density of rural area.

This site is very remote from main amenities and the local schools would have difficulty to provide the numbers of places required to support the needs of the children. The site does not meet the requirements as set out in the relevant consultation document.

Objecting to the proposed inclusion of the site GT13 at Kites Nest Lane