I write to express my utter disgust that the site at Warwick Road Norton Lindsey is being considered as a gypsy site.
As a resident of Hawkes Hill Close Norton Lindsey, instead of my elevated glorious views of the Warwickshire countryside for which I paid hundreds of thousands of pounds re my house purchase, I will potentially be looking down at rows of caravans and a hub of anti-social behaviour. The proposed site is directly in our viewline as we look out of our lounge window.

If this scheme goes ahead, it will devalue my house by perhaps half and put me into negative equity for the rest of my life. This is causing great stress to myself, my wife and family.
The wider picture is that the beautiful village that is Norton Lindsey will be forever blighted and never again the peaceful oasis that it presently is.

I appreciate the obligations that the council has but surely, I beg you, there has to be better options than destroying Norton Lindsey and the lives of the people that live in such close proximity to the planned camp.

I write to you in utter dismay that, as a resident of Hawkes Hill Close, Norton Lindsey, the first that I am told about the proposed Travelers campsite development on my doorstep is delivered to me by a representative of a local internet radio station carrying out canvassing. That, in itself, is appalling.

I then note that there has been a consultation period on this proposal (which ends on 29/07/13), and that not one local resident whose life will be affected by the 'decision' has any idea what is being planned for our village.

I have subsequently received a letter from Norton Grange (Norton
Lindsey) Management Ltd which uses inflamatory language in labeling the development a 'gypsy camp'. Approaches such as these cause distress and promote oppression towards minority communities. I find this very disturbing: a direct consequence of your self-serving actions in this regard.

I would like to know who is responsible for this procedural mess, as I intend to take whatever action is available to me to bring this person to task.

As for the development itself, although I do not discriminate against the traveler community, the average UK house buyer most certainly does, and I am afraid this will be reflected on the market value of my property. I will, therefore, be challenging the progress of this proposal in no uncertain terms, and will be taking legal advice in due course.

This is a site in the Green Belt just outside the village of Norton Lindsey. It would be harmful to the Green Belt and to the village to allow a gypsy site at this location. It should be removed from the list of potential sites.

The sustainability of the site does not meet the criteria already set down by WDC.
The site is currently for sale at c£550,000 and may also require professional clearance as the current buildings may contain asbestos.
There are no public footpaths from the site so pedestrian access is very dangerous.
The site does flood as we have witnessed it.
The local area does not have any amenities or facilities to support the site.
Norton Lindsey doesn't have a doctors, shop or even a public house.
The site is within greenbelt and close to the conservation area and will not be in keeping with the local street scene.
I have looked at the other sites on the local plan and believe they are by far more suitable locations than the 2 pitches proposed for GT14.
The road is a dangerous road with frequent incidents and having extra vehicles turning into the location on a blind hazardous bend would be ludicrous.

This site is very remote from local amenities and therefore does not meet the site requirements as laid out in the relevant consultation document.

GT 14 should not be considered as a potential traveller site for various reasons.

The situation of this site, which is located just outside Norton Lindsey on the approach road to the village, would inevitably adversely affect the character of both the Green Belt and the village itself.

Accessing the road from the site is hazardous as it is close to a crossroads on a winding country lane which is frequently used by cyclists, horses and farm animals as well as vehicles.

There is no GP surgery in Norton Lindsey and no public transport to Warwick. Other public transport is extremely limited.

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

I am currently about to purchase a house in Norton Lindsey which backs on to the proposed gyspy /traveller community site.
I am wholly opposed to this on the following grounds, as detailed by the council's own policy criteria:
Please note, I am also now wary of buying the property as It is an unfortunate fact that the proximity to the site will lower the value of the house, possibly causing negative equity.
1. The site , on a minor B road, does not have convenient access to GP surgeries, offer safe access to road networks or turning space /access/parking etc
2. There is no provision for toilet facilities, waste disposal etc
3. It would add to noise and disturbance in a very peaceful, rural area and have an adverse impact on important features of the natural, rural environment.
4. The local primary school, I am told, is full and over-subscribed at present.
5. The site would not be well integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area
6. Local opposition is such that in such a small, rural community, the travelling community would be at once on the doorstep of their neighbours but also ostracised.

I would very much like to know when the final decision about this site is to be made as I am set to exchange contracts in two weeks. I will pull out of the purchase if the site is to be used for this purpose. I am a single parent living alone with two young sons; I am sure that most travellers live quiet, socially responsible lives but I am concerned that my back garden has open access and is adjacent to the proposed site and I would feel vulnerable, I'm afraid.
Unfortunately, my relatives in the local police force say crime rates - burglary in particular are higher near such sites.

I know there is huge local opposition to this site and hope you are able to bear in mind my practical and other objections. Personally, it doesn't make sense that the council has to make provision for people who choose a travelling lifestyle when social housing could be made available.

If no decision is reached and I go ahead with my house purchase, what is the council's legal position on compensating to the home owners nearby, please?

PS In addition, the site , adjacent to a road and with no pavements or street lighting, is unsafe and unsuitable for children to play.

I would like to take this opportunity to register my strong opposition to the traveller sites that have been proposed in south west Warwickshire.

I have been a resident of Warwickshire for the past 12 years, residing in Leamington, Kenilworth and now Warwick.

I believe that the Warwick District Council have agreed to a meeting and I think this is critical in order to share information, views and concerns both ways between the residents of Chase Meadow and the council.

The basis for my objection is based on the factors which I will outline below.

- School Places;
It is my understanding that the children from traveller communities will be given a higher priority with regards to the allocation of school places and this is a concern that the schools in the proposed areas would be unable to cope with any potential increase.
This is two-fold. Firstly, with the projected school intakes for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 based on the birth rates in the area and secondly, taking into account the large extensions to family estates such as Chase Meadow where it is not possible to estimate the additional places required.

- GP Access;
Living on Chase Meadow, I know how difficult and stretched the GP Surgery (The New Dispensary) is and my concern is that this surgery can not cope with the number of additional patients that the proposed sites may house.

- Infrastructure;
Chase Meadow is largely unadopted by the council and it already suffers with issues surrounding speeding on the estate and leading to and from the estate. One of the proposed sites (plot 11) is located on the border between a 30mph and 60mph limits. My concern is the additional traffic flowing through the chase meadow estate and the need to police the speed limits on the unadopted roads.
Hampton Road is a fast road and the concern of an additional turning so close to an existing turning on this type of road is a risk to the residents safety.

- Aesthetics of the Warwickshire countryside.
Warwick is such a beautiful and historic town for which tourists travel to visit annually. Having seen a number of traveller sites over recent years and months, the risk to the tourism economy for Warwick has to be taken seriously.
The proposed Hampton Road and Junc 15 sites are key routes into Warwick and should be preserved.
Also, the Hampton Road site is located next to the Flat Straight for Warwick Race Course and will be visible to those attending the races.


I would like to thank you for taking to the time to read and file my objection to these proposed traveller sites and look forward to the opportunity to meet with you at the forthcoming meeting

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

The site suggested for possible usage for the above is most unsuitable for the following reasons:-
1. The privately owned site is on the open market.
2. Situated on Warwick Road, the site comprises 1.35 acres and is a long narrow strip of land
that would accommodate only two visitors(possibly).
3. I believe the criteria for managing Traveller sites is to have a resident on the site. This would
make the site suitable for one resident and one visitor, so not cost effective.
4. The vendor is asking over £500,000. for this site and it has derelict chicken houses on it
involving extra costs for demolition, despite the fact that the vendor was ordered to demolish
these following appeal.
5. The site would contravene the Green Belt Policy.
6. Residents would rather see the site purchased for low cost housing thus fulfilling the Govt. objective for more housing in a sensible way, but of course the Planning Dept would have to compromise on permission.
I honestly believe this would be a great solution to a tricky piece of land.,

I live on the Chase Meadow estate and my daughter attends Newburgh School, which even with it's double form entry is operating at full capacity for the current reception year and the September 2013 reception year. The Chase Meadow estate is dramatically increasing in size and new families are moving onto the estate swelling the population and putting more demand on the facilities available. It is my concern that the schools in the area will not be able to cope with a further increase in pupils outside the anticipated increase that has been expected from the new houses on the estate.
My family is registered with the local GP Surgery (The New Dispensary) as are many families on the estate and the availability for appointments is already restricted due to the sheer number of patients, this will only increase as the estate grows and my concern is that the surgery cannot cope with the number of additional patients that the traveller sites may house.
Warwick is a beautiful and historic town for which tourists travel to visit annually in conjunction with Stratford Upon Avon. The proposed Hampton Road and Junction 15 sites are key routes into Warwick and should be preserved. The Hampton Road site is located next to the Flat Straight for Warwick Race Course and will be visible to those attending events.
I would like to thank you for taking the time to read and file my objections and I would like a indication of what happens after the consultation period has expired.

I would like to lodge my objection to your proposed location of Travellers and Gypsy sites in the South West of Warwick.

Dear Sir/Madam

Warwick District Council - Sites for Gypsies & Travellers - Local Plan consultation of preferred options - 14th June to 29th July 2013

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposal for a Gypsey site off Warwick Rd Norton Lindsey. I have looked at the criteria for selection contained within the documentation and would comment as follows:



Sustainability

* No. of Pitches / Site layout
GT14 has been proposed to accommodate 2 pitches, and is clearly the smallest site amongst all sites proposed. A fewer number of sites accommodating a greater number of pitches would benefit WDC in reducing opposition to the sites proposed and the cost of providing on-going services. The layout of the site is long and thin and does not provide suitable scope for turning articulated vehicles, particularly if the site had existing pitches and vehicles parked. In summary the sites layout and size is significantly restrictive for the proposed use, compared with all of other options proposed. The site currently houses two dilapidated battery hen farming buildings. A recent planning application to reuse the buildings for battery hen farming was refused. The refusal related to many reasons, however, access and the turning for articulated vehicles was included as a valid reason. The Warwick Road does not include a footpath or street lighting and would be dangerous for pedestrians to walk along.

* Access to Public Transport
Norton Lindsey is not included on a regular daily public transport route to provide access to neighbouring towns and villages for regular commutes for employment and or shop. Therefore this site would not be serviced by a public transport system which could promote a sustainable lifestyle and prevent unnecessary car journeys to work or shop. In contracts most of the other options are situated in areas which will provide a regular public transport system to facilitate a sustainable lifestyle.



* Shops & Services
Norton Lindsey does not contain a shop of any description. The public house is now closed (August 2013) and the potential reopening of this facility is uncertain, potentially it may not reopen. Most of the other options have shops within the community the sites are being proposed or are close enough to walk to the facility or public transport is available to enable sustainable travel to the shops and services.

* Employment Infrastructure
As detailed above the village of Norton Lindsey does not contain shops or services. Therefore the employment infrastructure is not available to sustain local employment. The public transport system does not provide a regular daily service and therefore cannot sustain travel to other areas for regular employment. Again most of the other sites proposed have some or significant employment infrastructure or are situated close to and have regular public transport links to employment infrastructure to provide a sustainable lifestyle.

Essential Services

* Health Service (Doctors Dentist Surgery etc.)
The Norton Lindsey site does not have any health service facilities within close walking proximity. As detailed above public transport routes do not service the village regularly and therefore could not provide a sufficient service to access these facilities regularly especially for families with young children whom need access to doctors surgeries on a daily/weekly basis. The closest facilities are situated within the larger towns of Leamington Spa, Warwick, Stratford upon Avon or larger villages of Hampton Magna and Claverdon. In excess of 65% of the other proposed sites are situated in areas providing direct access to these services or are close enough to the larger areas to gain access to these services by walking or via public transport. I.

* Education/Schools
The village of Norton Lindsey does include a small school, with an approximate intake of 15 pupils per year. The ages range from 4-11. The school is currently at full capacity. Most of the other proposed sites have access to larger schooling facilities for a wider age range and with greater numbers of placements available. Access to the school would also be along safer roads (for walking) which is certainly not afforded by the Warwick Road into Norton Lindsey, which would require journeys to be made by private vehicles.

* Services/Utilities
With reference to the previous use, GT14 will include an electricity and water supply and potentially be linked to the sewage system, however, in view of the condition of the buildings on site, the equipment and courses will be dilapidated and require upgrading. It is unlikely that the site will have a gas supply as the Hawkes Hill development situated close by was required to have gas storage tanks installed. GT20 is unlikely to have any facilities due to the sites nature and location. If separate gas tanks are required to be installed or small gas bottles delivered and refuse collected access to the site will be compromised by the two pitches and the delivery vehicles unable to turn on the site. The site would be unserviceable from these perspectives. If Warwick Road deliveries and refuse collection were proposed, dangerous implications would be experienced on Warwick Road. The road is busy and has experienced accidents recently, due to the blind corner upon which the entrance to the site is situated. Most of the other options proposed are located in areas where there are existing services on site, close to site or in areas with significant populations close by where services will be capable of being diverted and supplied.

Impact on the Environment/Landscape

* Visual/Noise Impact
The proposed site in Norton Lindsey is on the main road in Norton Lindsey. There will therefore be a detrimental visual impact on the access to the small country village. The site is also low lying with a number of dwellings sitting above the site and having a direct line of sight onto the proposed pitches. A significant noise impact will also be experienced by local residents due to the elevated position of the surrounding houses. Approximately 80% of the other options proposed are situated on larger sites which can be screened or hidden from view or are located adjacent to major roads and therefore would not impact upon the locality of the areas proposed and therefore not cause a visual intrusion.

* Conservation Areas/Greenbelt/Character of local area
The proposed site is situated in a Greenbelt very close to a conservation area, the use would spoil the character of the immediate local area and that of the village. 70% of the alternative proposed options would be more suited to this type of use and the character of those areas not affected to the degree that Norton Lindsey could potentially experience.

* Access to the Road Network
The entrance to the site is situated on a blind corner on Warwick Road. The junction to the west end of the site is dangerous with poor visibility splays and has experienced a number of accidents as recent as last year. The entrance to the site could not be relocated due to the thin nature of the site. As described above deliveries to the site and access would be impractical, for articulated vehicles and other larger vehicles. Turning into and out of the site will be hazardous due to poor visibility splays. Loading on the Warwick Road will be necessary therefore causing congestion on a blind corner and the potential for further accidents.

Inclusion within established Communities
The proposed siting of pitches at GT14 and GT20 would place undue pressure on the local infrastructure and the scarce services in existence. For the reasons expressed above and the impact this would cause on the locality, the sites GT14 and GT20 would not promote a peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and local community. The proposed sites GT14 and GT20 do not promote a sustainable lifestyle for the proposed use or the local community.

* Flood Impact
The site does not sit within a flood zone, however, the Warwick Road along this stretch of road does suffer severe pooling of water during and following prolonged and heavy rainfall. The pooling impacts upon traffic flow and movements along Warwick Road. Additional hard standing on the site to facilitate pitches would exacerbate this problem.

Cost & Inclusion as a proposed option
We understand that this site was the only option put forward by a land owner for inclusion within the list of proposed sites. The reason is clear, the land owners application to reuse the site for battery poultry farming was refused due to local opposition. It would therefore provide an unethical base to consider this site as a viable option. The site is also being marketed at a price of £550,000, which is unlikely to be deliverable either privately or by the Council.


Conclusion

I cannot comprehend based on the evidence above just why this site has been selected for consideration? In my opinion the facts above are irrefutable and the debate is a result of mischief making by the land owner with no real benefit identified to either the gypsy community or the local community.

I look forward to confirmation that the site is to be removed from the list of potential options.

Local Plan-Revised Development Strategy July 2013
Norton Lindsey Parish Council
Para.4.4.2 This Parish Council supports the proposal to establish new village envelopes to enable limited development to take place but remain concerned that Developers will see this as a 'green light' and not an objective for the period of the plan i.e.2013-2029. The phasing of developments is crucial to enable small communities to absorb new housing and to grow community facilities. We acknowledge that Paras.4.4.6&7 do give some protection for this issue.
General comments
This Council has supported the development of affordable housing within the community but has reservations about the 40% figure quoted in the Plan. This figure should also cover dwellings for the Elderly in order to release larger properties to the stock. We are concerned how organisations such WRHA fit into these proposals and acquire sites for housing.
In response to the general proposals for developments in the District, the Parish Council are concerned at the proposed extensive developments to the south of Warwick. The Traffic and services in this area are already stretched and although your modelling indicates this could be absorbed, it is essential that the road improvements are complete before development proceeds. An indication of this requirement is the chaotic situation at the time of road works adjacent to the ex-ford foundry site. We have not commented on the proposed sites as this has been well documented elsewhere.
The Parish Council remain concerned that the Plan does not strongly guard against the threat of the Growth of out of town outlets to the detriment of our Town Centres. There are significant examples from the US of Town Centres becoming ghettos with the development of out of town car parks/stores.

I wish to register my objection to the traveller sites across South Warwickshire as I believe that the local community will be seriously impacted due to the excess cars, caravans etc

Dear Sirs

I object to the possible siting of a travellers site at Warwick Road, Norton Lindsey

My objection is chiefly because this site would have dangerous access on a 50 mile an hour road with a blind corner with no pavements. Towing caravans in and out would be most dangerous and I believe the site is too narrow for the proposed two gypsy sites.
Planning permission for the erection of houses on this site has been turned down on previous occasions on this basis, so there can be no reason to accept permission for a gypsy encampment.

The Council's aim is to provide good healthcare and educational facilities for travellers and gypsies, however there are few facilities in Norton Lindsey with NO medical facilities, shop, post office, bus service or railway station. The primary school, shared with the village of Wolverton is already overstretched

There are no commercial businesses employing temporary labour in the village.

Sirs
I object to the possible placing of a travellers site on the outskirts of Norton Lindsey

My comments are as follows:

The village of Norton Lindsey has :

No medical facilities
No retail shop
No Post Office
Lacks footpaths on many of the roads
No daily bus service
No railway station
An over-stretched primary school it shares with Wolverton
No commercial businesses employing temporary labour.

The site is small and is on a 50 mile an hour road with a blind corner and no pavements, so very difficult for vehicles towing caravans to move in and out safely

The site is an agricultural site not for dwelling on, and so it is not available for building houses on so must the same rule also apply to caravans and mobile homes

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.

Budbrooke Parish Council has considered this consultation and agrees 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 the council has considered the 6 sites that WDC has identified that are nearest to and that would impact on the 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.

Summary, if any of these sites are chosen Budbrooke Parish Council would support GT11.

General comments
I have lived in Warwick for over 20 years, and as a child grew up in Chesterton, Warwickshire. As a teenager I gave evidence to the Barn Hill Service Station inquiry; objecting to the loss of part of Chesterton Wood and the environmental impact to the hamlet of Chesterton and its wildlife. Obviously we lost that battle (thanks to Mr Heseltine) but I can drive past the M40 services knowing that I used the full process available to state my concerns at the time.

My reasons for comment on the Gypsy and Traveller site options follow that same logic; sites are needed but some sites are wholly unsuitable.

Also, my parents own 9 acres of land close to Middle Farm, Bishops Tachbrook which we use as a family for leisure purposes. The land has been planted with trees and native plants as a sanctuary for wildlife including foxes, badgers, deer, birds of prey as well as bees, butterflies and many birds.

Site Suitability - GT03 Land at Bamwell Farm, Harbury Lane COMMENT

I do not consider this suggested site to be convenient to a GP surgery, school and public transport;
there would be undue pressure on local infrastructure and services. It would be unsafe for pedestrian access to Harbury or Whitnash.

Site Suitability - GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way COMMENT

I do not consider this suggested site to be convenient to a GP surgery, school and public transport;
there would be undue pressure on local infrastructure and services. It would be unsafe for pedestrian access to Harbury or Whitnash.

Site Suitability - GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury Road OBJECT

I do not consider this suggested site to be convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport;
The Banbury Road is still a very fast and busy road and there would not be safe access to the road network. It would be too dangerous for pedestrian access into Bishops Tachbrook to catch public transport or attend the GP surgery.
There would be adverse impact on the landscape and character of the area into historic Warwick. Also there are listed buildings on the site which would be adversely affected by building work.
I don't believe that this proposed site could be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.
This proposed site would place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services.

Site Suitability - GT06 Land at Park Farm Spinney Farm OBJECT

I do not consider this suggested site to be convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport;
The Banbury Road is still a very fast and busy road and there would not be safe access to the road network. It would be too dangerous for pedestrian access into Warwick until the pavement starts at the junction with Barford Hill.
There would be adverse impact on the landscape and character of the area into historic Warwick.

Site Suitability - GT09 Land to the North East of M40 OBJECT

I do not consider this suggested site to be convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport;
The Banbury Road is still a very fast and busy road and there would not be safe access to the road network. It would be too dangerous for pedestrian access into Bishops Tachbrook to catch public transport or attend the GP surgery.
There would be adverse impact on the landscape and character of the area into historic Warwick. Also there are listed buildings on the site which would be adversely affected by building work.
I don't believe that this proposed site could be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.
This proposed site would place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services.

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

I do not consider this suggested site to be convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport;
The Banbury Road is still a very fast and busy road and there would not be safe access to the road network. It would be too dangerous for pedestrian access into Bishops Tachbrook to catch public transport or attend the GP surgery.
There would be adverse impact on the landscape and character of the area into historic Warwick.
I don't believe that this proposed site could be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.
This proposed site would place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services.

There is the potential for noise and disturbance to the Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre and Tollgate Farm. This would not p
romote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community. I would question the viability of the businesses already at this location should the site be developed as proposed.

Site Suitability - GT11 - Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road COMMENT

This site would give convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport; and s
afe access to the road network.

There could be
adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic
environment as the Racecourse has varied habitats and ground nesting birds. It is difficult to know if the s
ite can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area. It is also hard to decide if
peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community could be promoted. I am not sure if there would be
undue pressure on local infrastructure and services (including GP, dentist and school places)

I would question if this site is in a flood area. There is
the potential for noise and other disturbance.

Site Suitability - GT12 - Land North and West of Westham Lane OBJECT

This site may give convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport but I am not sure if this would be without undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services in Barford.

I would be surprised if this area does not have a high risk of flooding being so close to the Avon which certainly floods along the A429 towards Wellesbourne.

If there was inadequate GP, dentist, School provision then it would be difficult to promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.

Site Suitability - GT14 - Warwick Road, Norton Lindsey OBJECT

This site may give convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport but I am not sure if this would be without undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services in Norton Lindsey. If there was inadequate GP, dentist, School provision then it would be difficult to promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.

The access to the Warwick Road would be dangerous with blind bends and a notorious dangerous cross roads (New Road and Brittons Lane). It would be dangerous for pedestrians to walk into Norton Lindsey or Warwick along this road as the pavements don't start for some distance.

I would question the impact to the viability of the poultry business if this site was developed as proposed.

Site Suitability - GT15 - Land East of Europa Way OBJECT

This site would be inconvenient for access to a GP surgery, school and public transport. The nearest would be Heathcote/Warwick Gates/Whitnash. There is already a huge problem with the lack of school places as Warwick Gates has not had the school built that was required. This would put undue pressure on services and not promote the peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local communities.

With the Tach Brook so close is the area at risk of flooding and could there be an adverse impact on the natural environment if the site was used for domestic and business operations. Europa Way is a busy road and it would be unsafe to access the road network on the gradual bend. There is no pedestrian access.

Site Suitability - GT16 - Land West of A429 Barford OBJECT

This site may give convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport but I am not sure if this would be without undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services in Barford.

I would be surprised if this area does not have a high risk of flooding being so close to the Avon which certainly floods along the A429 towards Wellesbourne.

If there was inadequate GP, dentist, School provision then it would be difficult to promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.

Site Suitability - GT17 - Service area west of A46 Old Budbrooke Way COMMENT

I am not sure if this site would give convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport. If this was from Hampton Magna or Warwick the pedestrian access would need to be improved. Although there is a footpath across the A46 this is so busy it would be too dangerous for pedestrians especially children. I think the A46 is prone to flooding on the west side. There would be safe a
ccess to the road network for a vehicle to join the A46 from the garage slip road.

This site would only promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community if there was no
undue pressure on local infrastructure and services. Budbrooke School in Hampton Magna already has a problem with over-subscription because the new Hatton Park housing estate has never had a school built.

Site Suitability - GT18 - Service area East of A46 Old Budbrooke Way COMMENT

There is possible convenient access to a GP surgery on the Woodloes or Cape Road and schools/public transport in Warwick. Pedestrian access through the Racecourse would be a possibility. School, dentist and GP places would have to be increased in Warwick otherwise there would be undue pressure on local services and it would not promote peaceful and integrated co-existence.

There would be safe access to the A46 road network for a vehicle, There could be an impact on the natural environment of the Racecourse wildlife and habitat.

Site Suitability - GT19 - Land off Birmingham Road, Budbrooke, Oaklands Farm COMMENT

This site would provide convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport either in Hampton Magna or Warwick. There is pedestrian access along the Birmingham Road into Warwick and Hampton Magna. The speedlimit is lower on this stretch of the Birmingham Road to make the access to the road network safe. I do not know if the site is prone to flooding with the Gog Brook and Canal close by. There could be environmental concerns but businesses with high risk of pollution (farm/petrol station) operate from this stretch of the Birmingham Road at the moment.

To promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community there would have to be improvements to service provision, particularly schooling provision in Warwick or Hampton Magna as Hatton Park Estate already over-subscribes Budbrooke School.


Site Suitability - GT20 - Land at Junction 15 M40 OBJECT

20 years ago development at J15 M40 for a service station was dismissed by Mr Hesletine. I can't remember all the reasons but presumably they still stand for any type of development at this location.

This proposed site is inconvenient for access to a GP surgery, school and public transport. There are no footpaths into Hampton on the Hill or Warwick. There would be safe access to the road network for vehicles. Substantial investment for the provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc) would appear to be necessary for this site. There could be adverse impact on important features of the natural environment with the two water courses close by.

Peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community would not be achieved unless there is extra resource for local infrastructure and services improvements including school and dentist provision.

GT01 / GT02 / GT07 / GT08 / GT13
I don't have sufficient knowledge of the locations to comment.

I do not have any other suggestions for suitable land in the District

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.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see-attached

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.

see attached