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

Objection to the number of proposed allocations of gypsy and traveller sites in unspoiled Warwickshire countryside

References:
1. Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, Communities & Local Government, 2113371, March 2012
2. WDC Local Plan, Sites for Gypsies and Travellers, June 2013

Reference 1, Paragraph 14 states that traveller sites in Green Belt areas are inappropriate.
Of the proposed sites identified in Reference 2 for consideration as gypsy and traveller sites, 40% are within Green Belt areas. These are GT01, 7, 8, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 20. 40% is stretching the spirit of Reference 1 and this is objected to. The remaining 60% are mostly away from schooling and health centres except GT16. GT16 has no proper drainage as yet. Drainage or not, I would be concerned about the river regarding water quality downstream of this proposed site. Ditto GT01, GT09 and GT10.
If travellers meet the definition of a traveller given in Annex 1 of Reference 1, how does WDC know whether the travellers are "within their area"? Some explanation would be welcomed.

There are 20 proposed gypsy and traveller sites in one small corner of Warwickshire. Paragraph 23 of the Government Planning Policy (Reference 1) states that local planning authorities should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside. I object to Reference 2 in its entirety because it very much appears to be in direct conflict with the Paragraph 23 of this Government Planning Policy.

End.

I wish to object against the following sites for gypsies and travellers:-

* Site 6
* Site 9
* Site 12
* Site 16
* Site 20

For the following reasons:-

*Site 16 is the flood compensation area from the Barford bypass build and contains a permanent central pond and is therefore unsuitable for any development.

*Sites 12 and 16 sit within/immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having a significant risk of flooding.

*Sites 12 and 16 - apparently water voles reside here and immediately adjacent to these sites. These are a legally protected species.

*Sites 12 and 16 do not offer adequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access to Barford village.

*Sites 6 and 9 are situated on historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases and are therefore unsuitable for habitation.

*Site 20 is situated adjacent to historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases and are therefore unsuitable for habitation.

*Sites 6 and 9 sit immediately adjacent to the Asps which WDC decided should remain open due to its value as a backdrop to Warwick Castle Park. The Revised Development Strategy therefore excludes the Asps and should also esclude the adjoining sites 6 and 9 for the same reason.

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

*Sites 12 and 16 are accessed by vehicles from the A429 which was constructed as a bypass to Barford village. It is a 60 mph road and there have been a significant number of accidents on it since it opened, including a fatality. The additional traffic will exacerbate this issue due to the inadequate access from this major trunk road.

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

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

*Sites 6, 9, 12, 16, 20 - development would have a material negative impact on the local primary schools particularly Barford St Peters with it's requirement to provide 70-90 new homes during the plan period.

*Sites 6, 9, 12, 16, 20 - WDC have disregarded their own Rural Areas policy especially 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 6, 9, 12, 16, 20 - are not locations which allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

see attached

see attached

see-attached

see-attached

dummy

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

I am opposed to these proposals for the following reasons:

* All of the sites have some ecological value and environmental issues which does not appear to have been assessed.
* WDC should revisit its Green Belt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure to allocate land for all forms of development during the new Local plan period to the south of the District.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 16: Development would have a significantly negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a 'Secondary Service Village' and its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Sites 12 and 16: Access to these sites is from the Barford Bypass (speed limit 60 mph). There have been a significant number of accidents on it, one of which was fatal. The existing access into the sites is completely inadequate.
* Site 16 is a flood compensation area and therefore clearly an inappropriate site.
* Site 12 is immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk.
* Sites 6,9, 10 and 20 are situated on historic landfill sites which, though not in use, may still release greenhouse gases and are therefore totally unsuitable for any form of permanent occupation.

I am opposed to these proposals for the following reasons:

* All of the sites have some ecological value and environmental issues which does not appear to have been assessed.
* WDC should revisit its Green Belt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure to allocate land for all forms of development during the new Local plan period to the south of the District.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 16: Development would have a significantly negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a 'Secondary Service Village' and its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Sites 12 and 16: Access to these sites is from the Barford Bypass (speed limit 60 mph). There have been a significant number of accidents on it, one of which was fatal. The existing access into the sites is completely inadequate.
* Site 16 is a flood compensation area and therefore clearly an inappropriate site.
* Site 12 is immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk.
* Sites 6,9, 10 and 20 are situated on historic landfill sites which, though not in use, may still release greenhouse gases and are therefore totally unsuitable for any form of permanent occupation.

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

Development Strategy:

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

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

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

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


Gypsy and Traveller Sites:

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

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

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

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

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

see attached

see attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see attached