Barford, Sherbourne & Wasperton Joint Parish Council

I have responded on behalf of the JPC, with site specific comments, using your online system.

The system works well for responding to each site but does not allow wider comment - this is disastrous as most of our councillors' and residents' views go beyond the site specifics.

Please take on board the following generic views on this consultation and its proposals;
* This is a poor consultation and its timing parallel to the New Local Plan consultation has sadly had a debilitating effect on that consultation - or was that deliberate?
* The sites selected and proposed are very poor and their presentation is even worse.
* The GT12 and GT16 confusion is inexcusable and unacceptable - and the author should be made fully aware of their shortcomings - presumably it was a table-top study from someone out of the area...
* The JPC sees no reason why G&T sites should be considered any differently to any built development sites - indeed there are significant reasons to believe that the criteria applied should be stricter - eg caravans are at greater risk in flooding situations.
* Many of the proposed sites would never currently be considered for built development - evidenced by their not appearing in the main NLP proposals.
* This brings us to a major principle - G&T sites should be considered along with AND WITHIN the NLP
* G&T sites should be included within new development areas - such as the massive swathes proposed south of Warwick and Leamington - where they can be properly designed, provided at an early stage and fully integrated with their surroundings rather than parachuted into a settled community. This would make planning sense, would be acceptable to the major developers - they agree! - and most importantly would actually be best for the G&T community
* The consultation carried out by Salford University to measure Permanent G&T site needs is not remotely convincing. Their sampled population may well not be representative of actual need and would appear to be simply ticking a consultation tick-box. There are empty sites to the north of the district.
* The Sustainability Appraisal also lacks convincing evidence - it has clearly been dumbed down by its traffic light scoring system rather than the more conventional numeric scoring. The fact that on certain criteria some sites score wildly different extremes but are not averaged is bizarre! The fact that GT16 is scored as it is must cast the final doubt on this whole consultation - by objective assessment of the Sustainability Appraisal results for that site it would appear to rank in the top THREE despite being a flood compensation area!
* Whilst we understand, but may not actually agree with, the apparent requirement to address this matter on a District basis we are concerned that no cross-district boundary consideration or cooperation seems to have taken place. Specifically we consider that the Stratford DC site on the A46 just outside Sherbourne should be taken into consideration along with the problems that such an allocation have brought to the local community and indeed the WCC.
* Once again the Greenbelt issue is providing problems and requiring a district wide requirement to be shoe-horned into the small area south of Warwick/Leamington. Again this requires a more realistic and imaginative approach to how WDC deals with Greenbelt policies.

This is the Barford Bypass Flood Compensation Area - cannot be used for development! - and it floods regularly - totally unsuitable - also remote from barford facilities and highway issues - 60mph Barford bypass.

GT16 appears to be the same as GT12. The same reasons for objection apply:
The landscape west of Barford is the flood plain of the River Avon which makes a large meander to the west. The Westham area is open pasture landscape and no development west of the Barford Bypass is likely to be permitted. A gypsy site would seriously harm this rural landscape.

I object to the use of this site for gypsy and traveller accommodation on the grounds that it is not as sustainable as some of the other sites suggested; access to a GP surgery, school and public transport is more convenient in areas better related to the larger settlements. The site's proximity to the Barford bypass would inevitably cause noise and disturbance and it is questionable whether a satisfactory access could be achieved with such large vehicles entering and leaving the site onto such a high speed road. It is unlikely that the site could be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area. The site's proximity to an existing village may cause undue pressure on local infrastructure and services and promoting peaceful and integrated coexistence between the site and the local community may be difficult because of this.

Site GT16 is unsuitable and unsustainable as a Gypsy & Traveller Site for the following reasons.

The site does not have convenient access to a GP surgery, secondary school or public transport. Pedestrian access across the Barford bypass is unsafe and unsuitable;

The site has a high risk of flooding;

Safe access to the road network is unlikely onto the busy Barford Bypass;

The Barford Bypass will provide a noise disturbance;

Development would adversely impact the River Avon's important natural environment;

It would be impossible to integrate development without harming the character of the area;

Barford is a small village with limited services. The increased pressure on the infrastructure and services would prove impossible for peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community;

In summary site GT16 is unsuitable and unsustainable as a Gypsy & Traveller Site. Other suggested sites are more suitable and more sustainable - Sites 1, 11 18 and 17. These sites are more accessible to the major urban areas and will have less proportionate impact on smaller communities.

Site GT 16 is unsuitable for the following reasons:-
There are no Doctor's surgeries nearby.
To access Schools and public transport the busy Barford by-pass
would need to be crossed so this would be dangerous - especially for children.

The area is a pond, (drain off area for the by-pass) and thus an area that is constantly flooded

Access to the area from the busy Barford by-pass would be unsafe for slow moving vehicles with trailers.

The area is noisy by virtue of it's proximity to the by-pass.

No utilities are available West of the By-pass.

1. Use of this land is effectively extending the village envelope and the conservation area - this type of development was never intended to be contained within this area.
2. The current village infrastructure and utility supply does not support this type of development and I believe is on land that is either a floodplain or with high potential for flooding.
3. There is no safe crossing point on the by-pass which allows pedestrian access to the village. Access to the school would need to be by car increasing the already heavy volumes of traffic that use Church Street and High Street at peak times. With residents parked vehicles, these narrow roads are currently unsuitable to cope with the existing through traffic that is using this route as a short-cut.
4. Vehicle access to the site is directly onto the by-pass and is likely to require traffic lights to be constructed. Traffic volumes and speeds will be adversely affected particularly at peak times and Wellesbourne market days.
5. Development will result in loss of farmland and an adverse visual impact on the local environment.
6. The development outside the existing village boundaries (effectively split-off by the by-pass) does not faciltate integration into the community.

Is actually the flood compensation area from the Barford bypass build and contains a permanent central pond and is unsuitable for any form of development.

Environment Agency significant flood risk.

Inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village.

Existing vehicular access is inadequate.

No easy access to local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc).

Environmental impact not considered.

Capacity of school would need to be increased

Local services, facilities, medical care and schools cannot accommodate further development of this type and there would be many effects on what is a well established settled community.

Objections on the basis of:
- agricultural land and this should be kept as such ref Government policy biodiversity
- safety and security issues for village and surrounds
- environmental impact
- dangerous road crossing to village
- education - impact on primary school
- not enough research has been done on the damage to village communities/keeping local families in the area

Local services, facilities, medical care and schools cannot accommodate further development of this type and there would be many effects on what is a well established settled community.

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

- safety and security
- flood risk area
- conservation/environmental issues
- use of agricultural land should be avoided and instead use brownfield sites
- vehicular access concerns
- impact on village community and village school

The flood compensation from the Barford By-Pass and therefore unsuitable for any development. Needs to be withdrawn from the Option List.

THis site is a balancing lake for the A429 and floods. It is entirely inappropriate for a gypsy/travellers site.

It is my understanding that this site is a flood compensation area

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

I wish to strongly object to the location of Gypsy and Traveller sites 12 and 16 within the village of Barford. This type of development is totally inappropriate for a small, quiet rural village and would substantially change the character of the village. For example it is highly likely that crime rates locally would rise and that policing costs would increase. It is also likely that the performance of the school, built up by hard work over many years would be negatively affected.The survey which identifies the need for 31 permanent pitches within the District seems unreliable.

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.

I write concerning the proposed gypsy sites.

I note two of the sites (GT12 & GT16) are based on Grade 2 land.

J & A Growers are the largest producers of seedling trees and hedging plants in the UK and we are in the process of expansion planning.

Owen Paterson, the secretary of state for Environment Food and Rural Affairs recently stated that the Government will make Tree Health and Biosecurity a high priority, this is what is driving our expansion plans, coupled with the market demanding UK produced material after the outbreak of Ash dieback (Chalara Fraxinea).

Our production requires high quality land (grade 1 or 2) and as can be seen on the map below there is very limited availability in the area and the removal of a substantial parcel in the area could severely limit any expansion plans.

cid:image003.png@01CE78B9.94DE1BB0

I am firstly extremely concerned that these sites on Grade 2 land would be considered as a potential Gypsy site but also given the Government Policy, I quote -

Government policy for England is set out in the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
published in March 2012 (paragraph 112).
Decisions rest with the relevant planning
authorities who should take into account the
economic and other benefits of the best and
most versatile agricultural land. Where
significant development of agricultural land is
demonstrated to be necessary, local planning
authorities should seek to use areas of poorer
quality land in preference to that of higher
quality.

General Observations

WDC should have identified brownfield sites within the existing urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington for Gypsies and Travellers. These sites would be more suitable and sustainable, and would enable better integration in to the local community. Despite such sites existing, they are all being proposed for redevelopment for more valuable uses. WDC should be requiring Gypsy and Traveller sites are delivered within the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. This would ensure that the sites could be properly designed in a sustainable fashion and be fully integrated into a local community which will provide facilities such as a school, a doctors surgery and shops which are accessible on foot, on bike, by bus and by car.

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

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

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

Dear Sirs

Gypsy and Traveller Site Options

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

Part A

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

Part B

Commenting on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Options.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I 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

An intention to avoid areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment is to be welcomed (para 7.3) as this echo's the requirements of the NPPF.

The following brief observations relate to those sites with the potential to be inconsistent with this objective. Further more careful assessment should be considered to understand how the proposed G&T sites relate to the significance of the heritage assets affected and whether the G&T developments would harm that significance. As I have been unable to consider whether any undesignated assets of importance or wider historic landscape matters are affected (Warwickshire Historic Landscape Characterisation, WCC) you should consider such matters when/if assessing the sites further.

GT03 Roman settlement close by at Windmill Hill. Issue of setting and potential for related archaeology.
GT05 Circa 17C barn. Impact on significance?
GT06 Adjacent to Grade 1 Castel Park (please refer to my comments to you re RDS July 2013).
GT07 Adjacent to Baginton Castle, associated settlement remains, ponds and mill sites.
GT09 Close to Warwick Castle Park; and includes West Lodge and Greys Mallory listed buildings
GT10 Potential for undiscovered archaeology relating to Oakley Wood Camp.
GT12/16 Setting of Barford Conservation Area. Potential for undiscovered archaeology.
GT15 Consider historic association with Castle Park.

I look forward to a refined version in due course. Please do contact me to discuss further if that would help.

It has been brought to my attention that there have been significant flaws in the consultation process.You will know that Barford Residents Association has been the voice for the people of Barford and most residents have made their views known via that body.I am told that WDC refused to supply copies of the consultation form,so that the information sheet delivered to every household referring to the form attached in fact had none.Residents therefore relied on the anonymous comment forms that had previously been circulated.As you are aware none of those forms will be taken into account.Quite simply the voice of Barford residents has not been heard despite the fact that your officer attended a packed meeting.
Please make this situation clear to those making the relevant decisions.

Please note your on line system to make comments is very confusing and following the instructions does not allow on line comments to be accessed and made

Site 12 comments and objection

NB Site 16 is within this area, although is designated as separate from it. Comments apply to 16 as well. It cannot be used. It's a flood compensation area.

Part of site 12 does flood or contains ground/surface water a number of times during the year. There are wildlife implications.

The site is high flood risk and according to the Salford Survey p9 para
7.3 such sites should be avoided on grounds of flooding and safe access to road network

On these sites there will be various industrial type activities occurring as acknowledged by the Salford document p9 para 7.4 and indeed sites should be able to allow this. Here there will be river contamination effects and effects on adjacent agricultural land.

Exit and entry onto the site is off the A429, a road with poor sight lines and an existing poor accident record and a fatality in the short time it's been open.

There will be a material impact upon Barford School

It makes better sense to integegrate any site within the new developments proposed.

The Salford Report overestimates the demand for pitches by using the concept of 'suppressed need'

The survey methods used by Salford are highly suspect in that they ask questions which will lead interviewees to give only answers that lead to there being more pitches required. Can we please see studies that show the impact of sites already being used? The analysis used by Salford is very convoluted and only leads to conclusions because of the way in which the survey is conducted and the weighting given to factors they have used, not just confined to suppressed demand.

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

see attached