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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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

To whom it may concern,

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

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

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

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

To whom it may concern,

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

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

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

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

Dear Sir(s)

Please lodge my objection to the proposed Traveller Sites around Warwick.

I believe that there are four proposed sites close to Warwick itself. As Warwick is the most historical town in Warwickshire this plan can only negatively impact tourism in the local area. Why would the local council want to do anything that could impact revenue coming into the area in the current economic climate?

Further I believe that the Chase Meadows estate agents / house builders are all opposed. Again, why would the council embark on a course of action that is likely to adversely affect new house sales in the local area?

see attached

see attached

see attached

Dear Sir/Madam,

Revised Development Strategy and Sites for Travellers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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


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

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


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

We are writing to register our objections and give our views on the suitability of the following Gypsy and Traveller Site Options together with the Revised Development Strategy.

GT05 - Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury Road - (Site 5)
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles 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.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* 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 its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Warwick District Council have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and Caravan Sites). In all respects the site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

Cont/d .....

GT06 - Land at Park Farm, Spinney Farm - (Site 6)
* This site is situated on historic landfills which though closed still has the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.
* This site sits immediately approximate to the Asps which Warwick District Council decided, after further research regarding the landscape and transport impact of development, that the 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.
* 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 this site and beyond.
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors' surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles 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.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* 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 its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Warwick District Council have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and Caravan Sites). In all respects the site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


Cont/d .....

GT09 - Land to the north east of M40 and south of Oakley Wood Road - (Site 9)
* This site is situated on historic landfills which though closed still has the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.
* This site sits 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 9 and 6 for the same reasons.
* 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 this site and beyond.
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* 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 its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Warwick District Council have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and Caravan Sites). In all respects the site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

Cont/d .....

GT10 - Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre - (Site 10)
* This site is 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.
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* 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 its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

GT12 - Land at north and west of Westham Lane (area of search) - (Site 12)
* This site sits within (part) and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk.
* 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.
* There are inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village.
* Vehicular access to this site 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 site is entirely inadequate.
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* 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 its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Warwick District Council have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and Caravan Sites). In all respects the site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.
Cont/d .....
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


GT15 - Land to east of Europa Way - (Site 15)
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


GT16 - Land to north of Westham Lane and west of Wellesbourne Road, Barford - (Site 16)
* This 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.
* This site sits within (part) and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk.
* 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.
* There are inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village. Vehicular access to this site 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 site is entirely inadequate.
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* 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 its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Warwick District Council have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and Caravan Sites). In all respects the site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.


Cont/d .....
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


GT17 - Land of Southbound carriageway of A46 (former Little Chef) - (Site 17)
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


GT18 - Land on Northbound carriageway of A46 (former Little Chef) - (Site 18)
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


GT20 - Land at J15 M40/A46 - (Site 20)
* This site is 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
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* Warwick District Council have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and Caravan Sites). In all respects the site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

Availability
Only 3 of the sites listed are available, namely sites 15, 17 and 18. By definition the remaining sites are not deliverable.

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

Warwick District Council 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 ad 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.

Warwick District Council 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, doctors surgery and shops which are accessible on foot, on bike, by bus and by car.

Warwick District Council 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.

Warwick District Council should consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington including The Asps and Sites 5, 6, 9 and 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 allowed to be "swallowed up" by Warwick and Leamington over time.

Dear Sir / Madam

Revised Development Strategy and Sites for Travellers

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

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

Firstly we would like to express how disappointed we are by the 'consultation' methods used by WDC regarding the proposed local plan and Gypsy and Romany Traveller sites.

Hooking a flyer onto the handle of a wheelie bin is an inadequate way of passing information on to the public. Many had blown off in the wind, many were not even glanced at as people assumed they were more information about recycling.

There was one small paragraph in a local paper which is not even a free paper, so unless people purchase it, there was no chance is seeing the information.

Considering Barford has a number of proposed sites, perhaps a consultation meeting could have been organised within our village rather than our residents having to organise one ourselves.

We would like to object to the following G and RT sites as follows based on the criteria used for locating suitable spaces. We have tried to use the WDC objection sheets, however it is not the easiest method to use when wanting to object to multiple sites.

Our objections are as follows.

All sites will have an impact on wildlife and environment. There are water voles in the area of site of sites 12 and 16 . Numbers are declining and they are under threat.

Site 5,6,9,10,12 and 16. Impact on local schools will be an issue. Barford St Peters is an already over subscribed SMALL village school. It has already been indicated in the local plan that more housing in the area will be built. The school will not cope with increase in numbers of pupils.
Also with a transient population this could affect attendance and impact on school's OFSTED results.

Site 6 and 9 have wild deer inhabiting land. This should be considered.

Sites 6 and 9 are very close to proposed building within local plan, road networks will struggle.
Sites 5,6,9, 12,16 and 20. Loss of farmland impacting on local rural businesses and employment

Site 5,6,9,10,12,15,16,17 18 and 20 - these areas are not close to local communities and do not allow ' peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community'

Site 5,6,9,10,12,15,16,17,18 and 20 - access by vehicles will be difficult and dangerous. Potential safety issue.

Site 16 is not suitable due to it being a pond and not suitable for development

Site 12 and 16. Significant flood risk which has already been identified by Environment Agency in the past.

Sites 10 and 20. Historic landfill sites, not suitable for occupation.

Site 12 and 16. Very dangerous for pedestrians to access local facilities when crossing main road which has already been the site of fatal accidents.

Site 5,6,9, 10,12,15,16,17,18 and 20. Sites do not have access to local amenities such as doctors surgeries, schools etc. people would need to use a vehicle which adds more pressure to roads and impact on environment.


Site. We have a policy within our village for affordable housing, only people who have some links to the village are entitled to access the affordable housing stock. We do not understand how this can be completely ignored when allowing sites to be chosen. We fought very hard to remain in the village as we have had four generations living within Barford. It is unreasonable and unfair for this policy to be completely disregarded.

Please accept these objections as 2 separate people objecting, therefore each of above should be counted twice.

* Site 16. This is a flood compensation area and is cannot be used for any form of development.
* Sites 12 and 16. These are within areas which have been identified by The Environment agency of having significant flood risk
* Sites 12 and 16. Water Voles have been reported in areas immediately adjacent to these sites. Water Voles are a legally protected species.
* Sites 12 and 16. There are inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village.
* Sites 6 and 9. These sites are situated on historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gasses and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.
* Sites 10 and 20. Both are adjacent to 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 6 and 9. Both sit immediately approximate to the Asps which WDC decided after further research regarding the landscape and transport impact of development, that the site should remain open due to 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 f or the same reasons.
* 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 to these 2 sites and beyond.
* 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 since its opening, including a fatality. The existing access to the sites is entirely inadequate.
* Sites 5, 6,9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20. Vehicle 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.
* 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 these sites offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors etc) on foot or bike via a pedestrian footpaths or cycle routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would place further pressure on the locak highway infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* 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 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 its likely requirement to meet 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20. WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPS1 (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 the development.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 16 and 20. The development of all 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, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20. These are not locations which allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.
* Availability. Only 3 if the sites listed are available, namely 15, 17 an 18. By definition the remaining sites are not deliverable.
* 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 better enable integration in to the local community. Despite such sites existing, they are 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 suitable fashion and be fully integrated into a local community which will provide facilities such as 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 also 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.


Mark Mitchell
Barford Resident

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

Part A

The information required in addition to my address is:
Telephone number: 01926 624455 / 07802 470896
Email: mark.griffin@expom.co.uk
Would you like to be made aware of future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites - YES
Gender: Male
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.

Can you pleased confirm receipt of this response for my records.

* 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

* Sites 12 and 16 - sit within (part) and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

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

* 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 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 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 - 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.

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

* Availability - only 3 of the sites listed are available, namely sites 15, 17 and 18. By definition the remaining sites are not deliverable.

* 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 Gypsies and Travellers 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 in the Revised Development Strategy for the Sites for Gypsies and Travellers
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.

see-attached

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 hence the version by letter.

Part A

The information required in addition to my address is:
Telephone number: 01926 624224 / 07970 058316
Email: jennifersheard@aol.com
Would you like to be made aware of future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites - YES
Gender: Female
Ethnic origin: White British
Age: 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.

* 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.

* 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 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.

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

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

* 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 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 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 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.


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.

Dear Sirs

Revised Development Strategy Response

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

Part A

The information required in addition to my address is:
Telephone number: 01926 624224 / 07801 787891
Email: mikesheard6@gmail.com
Would you like to be made aware of future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites - YES
Gender: Male
Ethnic origin: White British
Age: 56
Method of learning about consultation: newspaper


Part B

Commenting on the Revised Development Strategy.

In response to: Southern Sites: Sites South of Warwick & Whitnash. Map 3, pages 32 & 32.

I would like to OBJECT to the proposed development of approximately 3,500 houses in this area. The key reasons for objection are:

The volume and number of properties is disproportionate to the local road infrastructure in and around Leamington and Warwick. There is no evidence to support the sustainability of road junctions and traffic hours in the local area without severe congestion and impact on the public transport system.

The new proposals make no provision for allocation of Gypsy and Traveller sites into these developments. Any new housing area should seek to include ALL Gypsy and Traveller sites into those new developments so that they offer better quality of environment, local services and integration into community. Such schemes have been




successfully implemented near Watford and Milton Keynes areas. This would ensure better forward planning of proposed G&T sites with land developers rather than splitting G&T sites up and around the county.

There is little evidence to support the production of the total overall requirement of over 12,000 houses in the overall Local Plan.

GT01 Land adjacent to the Colbalt Centre:
Due to existing development, access would likely have to be taken from an existing private access
road. Without confirmation as to whether this would be permitted, the Highway Authority cannot
recommend a good place to gain access to the site from the existing Public Highway.
GT02 Land at Warwickshire Exhibition Centre:
If access were to be taken from the Fosse Way a new access would need to be created a minimum
215m from the existing roundabout. Visibility from the access would also need to be 2.4m x 215m in
both directions. It is considered that an access to meet these requirements could potentially be
achieved. If access were to be taken from the A425, a new access would need to be created a
minimum 160m from the existing roundabout. Visibility from the access would need to be 2.4m x
160m in both directions. Although potentially achievable the removal of a significant amount of
vegetation/hedgerow may be required.
GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm:
The Highway Authority would not recommend access taken directly off the Fosse Way in this
location. If access is taken from Harbury Lane, it should be at least 160m from the existing crossroad
junction with visibility splays of 2.4m x 160m in both directions. You should look to avoid position a
new access opposite an existing access. The existing access to Barnwell Farm is considered to be a
good location however; cutting back/removal of hedgerow is likely to be required in order to achieve
the required level of visibility.
GT04 Land at Harbury Lane:
The Highway Authority would not recommend access taken directly off the Fosse Way in this
location. If access is taken from Harbury Lane, it should be at least 160m from the existing crossroad
junction with visibility splays of 2.4m x 160m in both directions. You should look to avoid position a
new access opposite an existing access.
GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury Road:
Access taken from the A452 would require visibility splays of 2.4m x 160m. Use of the existing
Tachbrook Hill Farm access would not be recommended as it is sited opposite an existing junction
and it would not be recommended to locate the access any closer towards the Motorway junction. If
access were to be created northwest of the existing Tachbrook Hill Farm access it should be done so
in advance of the existing traffic calming features. Access from Mallory Road would not be
recommended. It should also be noted that there may be issues regarding forward visibility due the
existing vertical alignment of the road. Forward visibility to match visibility from the access would be
required at all sites (160m in this instance).
GT06 Land at Park Farm:
Access created from the A425 would need to have visibility of 2.4m x 215m in both directions. The
existing access to Park Farm is likely to meet this standard. If a new access is to be created it is
unlikely that an access could be created any closer to the existing roundabout without the
requirement for removal of hedgerow/trees. Any access created North West of the Park Farm access
must adhere to the required visibility standards. The access should not be created in proximity of the
existing layby on the A425.
GT07 Land at Smiths Nurseries Stoneleigh Road:
Access from the Stoneleigh Road is unlikely to be achievable due to visibility restrictions unless taken
from Smiths Nurseries. Even then it would have to be demonstrated that the proposed site was
unlikely to generate significantly more vehicle movements than the existing development (and that
it has not caused a Highway safety/operation issue). From Coventry Road (within 30mph limit) it may
be difficult to achieve access due to proliferation of existing accesses. Splays of 2.4m x 70m would be
required in both directions.
GT08 Depot to west side of Cubbington Hill Farm:
Leicester Lane is subject to a speed limit of XX. An access with visibility splays of 2.4m x xxxm would
therefore be required with equal corresponding forward visibility. It is considered that this should be
achievable at this site.
GT09 Land to North East of M40:
The A452 is subject to a speed limit of XX. The Highway Authority considers that achieving an access
to standard from the A452 would be difficult due to road alignment. Creation of an access onto the
Warwick By-Pass would not be supported.
GT10 Land at Tollgate House & Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre:
Gaining access from the B4100 is considered to be difficult due to existing accesses/lay-bys which
makes it difficult to find a suitable location for creation of a new access. Access from Oakley Wood
road is considered unsuitable and an access with required visibility standards unlikely to be
achievable.
GT11: Land at Budbrooke Lodge Racecourse and Hampton Road:
Land west of Warwick Racecourse - Access from the point of the existing access for Budbrooke
Lodge should be feasible. You would need to ensure that visibility splays of 2.4m x 160m can be
provided in both directions due to the access emerging onto a 50mph section of Highway. There
already appears to be a reasonable pedestrian connection to this point too.
GT12: Land at Westham House, Westham Lane
The by-pass onto which the proposed site off which Westham Lane adjoins, is subject to a
derestricted speed limit. Accordingly visibility splays of 215m in both directions must be provided.
This should be achievable. Westham Lane also narrows after a certain length and accordingly,
depending on access location and size of site proposed this may require widening. In addition if this
site was of interest, the Highway Authority would seek further comment from our transport
operations team to determine whether there was any capacity reason as to why a site could not be
served off the bypass.
GT13: Kites Nest Lane:
Kites Nest Lane and Brownley Green Lane are subject to a derestricted speed limit and although it is
acknowledged that vehicles are unlikely to be travelling at 60mph on either of these roads, a speed
survey would be required to establish the level of visibility required and this would ultimately
determine whether an access was feasible or not. In addition both roads are narrow and, depending
on the size of the site, some level of localised widening may be required.
GT14: Warwick Road, Norton Lindsey:
Warwick Road is subject to a derestricted speed limit and visibility from the existing access does not
meet standards of 2.4m x 215m. If it can however be demonstrated that vehicle movements from
the proposed development will not exceed that which could be generated by the existing permitted
development (and that the existing access has not caused a highway safety issues), use of the
existing access may be acceptable.
GT15: Land to east of Europa Way:
This section of the A452 is subject to a speed limit of 50mph and accordingly, splays and forward
visibility of 160m must be provided. It is considered that, with removal of vegetation, this should be
achievable at some point along the boundary line shown.
GT16 Land West of A429 Barford:
The by-pass onto which the proposed site off which Westham Lane adjoins, is subject to a
derestricted speed limit. Accordingly visibility splays of 215m in both directions must be provided.
This should be achievable. Westham Lane also narrows after a certain length and accordingly,
depending on access location and size of site proposed this may require widening. In addition if this
site was of interest, the Highway Authority would seek further comment from our transport
operations team to determine whether there was any capacity reason as to why a site could not be
served off the bypass.
If access directly from the bypass is proposed this would be subject to splays of 2.4m x 215m being
achieved and an access road being constructed to meet highway standards (subject to no objections
being raised from Warwickshire transport operation team about the creation of a new access onto
the bypass).
GT17: Service area West of A46:
The A46 is under the jurisdiction of the Highways Agency and not the Local Highway Authority.
Accoringly, Warwickshire County Council would have no comment to pass other than recommending
that further comment be sought from the Highway's Agency.
GT18: Service area East of A46:
The A46 is under the jurisdiction of the Highways Agency and not the Local Highway Authority.
Accoringly, Warwickshire County Council would have no comment to pass other than recommending
that further comment be sought from the Highway's Agency.
GT19: Land off Birmingham Road, Budbrooke (Oaklands Farm):
The access would be taken from a section of highway subject to a 40mph speed limit. Accordingly,
splays of 2.4m x 120m should be achieved and 120m forward visibility be achieved on both
approaches. The Highway Authority considers that this visibility is likely to be achievable at some
point along the proposed site boundary.
GT20 Land at Junction 15 of M40:
The B4463 is subject to a derestricted speed limit and accordingly, visibility of 2.4m x 215m must be
provided unless a speed survey can demonstrate actual speeds are less than this. The Highway
Authority considers that it is unlikely that visibility for a new access can be achieved without a speed
survey being undertaken. Access should not be taken closer than 215m from the roundabout
junction.
Disclaimer
Please note that the site assessments have been made following desktop studies only using various
software packages. It is likely that all comments accurately reflect the requirements of each site
however, in some circumstances the speed limit may have changed. For reference please note the
following basic visibility requirements set against posted speed limits:
Derestricted/60mph - 2.4m x 215m, Forward visibility of 215m.
50mph - 2.4m x 160m, Forward visibility of 160m
40mph - 2.4m x 120m, Forward visibility of 120m
30mph - 2.4m x 90m*, Forward visibility of 90m*
*absolute maximum - splays of 70m & 43m could also be applied depending on site location.

see attached

I would like to register my concern over the proposed sites around south Warwickshire in particular to the site opposite the chase meadow estate. I do not feel we have the infrastructure to accommodate this level of community who will put additional burden on local service ie doctors, hospital, education etc especially with the plans for additional housing proposed in the local area which again will put more strain on the above areas, road network especially through town as no measure can elevate the narrowness of the roads without serious risk to historic building yet to mention the already polluted air.

It is a know fact the gypsy traveller although council state they want to be part of the community is not the case. They do not conform to working practices that enable a sustainable support to local communities and this is not my prejudice this is fact.

The proposals by council/government for 500sqm per pitch is ridiculous and out of proportion to the neighbouring developments which appears to give them beneficial rights over current occupiers of this beautiful town.

Tourism is a major attraction and support to local business and to sustaining the town we love and in my opinion this should be a priority measure over the other proposals and maintain the character of a historic town without the eyesore of gypsy sites where prejudice will always be against them regardless of their intentions.

Therefore in summary I do not feel this is the right decision to our community and resource and strongly oppose the plans.

My name is Ian Yarde and I live at 1 Jacombe Close Warwick CV34 6JN on the Chase Meadow estate and I write to formally object to the above proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites.

In relation to site GT11, I would object on the grounds that this site:

1 will place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services- there are already not enough school places and doctors and dentists to service the local community;
2 will not promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community;
3 will have an adverse impact on the entrance to the Chase Meadow Estate and have potential to cause road safety issues with regard to the entrance onto Hampton Road
4 will not be capable of being integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.

In relation to sites GT17, GT18 and GT20, I would object on the grounds that these sites:

1 will not avoid areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance;
2 will not provide convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport;
3 will place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services- there are already not enough schools places and doctors and dentists to service the local community

See Attached

I am writing to express my objections to the proposed locations of the gypsy and traveller sites in proximity to the warwick chase meadow estate. I am concerned re the impact this would have on local services such as school intake and also the impact on the gp service on the estate which is already extremely busy.

I would request that you confirm the receipt of this email and confirm that my objection has been noted.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached