Hi:

I am very much against the proposal for Gypsy and traveller sites in Warwickshire, in particular close to Chase Meadow, for the reasons sighted below:

1. House prices will fall / houses will become hard to sell, this is notable from looking at some national statistics where traveller sites are located, just look at the 3+ acre plot of land in Pathlow Stratford upon Avon, this plot has planning permission, however as it's located near a traveller site it's been on the marker over two years at a reduced price, elsewhere this would have commanded twice the asking price.

2. It will be detrimental to the incoming view of Warwick when coming in from Calverdon direction, this could affect local tourism.

3. The local doctors surgery in Warwick is very busy already, will it be able to cope with additional families, don't forget the Chase meadow is expanding.

4. finally, can you please confirm how much council tax the traveller site families will pay? will this be in accordance with other residence that utilise the services in Warwickshire.

Hi,

I object to the proposed traveller pitches at Little Chef on the A46 and at the Hampton road / chase meadow locations.
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.

Dear Sir / Madam:

I am writing to express my objections to the suggestions contained within the New Local Plan, specifically the proposals in respect of provision for Gipsy and Traveller sites within the Warwick area.

Following extensive development in the local area over the past decade particularly in the Chase Meadow area a huge burden has already been placed on the local infrastructure and amenities.

The Chase Meadow estate with the current and planned future development will place a further burden on the local schools, doctors, roads and recreational / social facilities which already struggles to cope.

There is currently already a 3-4 day lead time at the Doctors surgery without the currently planned development which would only be further exacerbated by the locating of Gypsy and Traveller sites in close proximity to this estate.

Another major concern for those resident in the surrounding area as well as for those who plan to reside there themselves should be the potential impact that the location of hard standing could have on the flood plain.

Further excavation can only increase the risk of flooding in the surrounding area including the land bordering the proposed location owned by the race course.

The racecourse provides significant income to the surrounding areas and business's through it's many events as well as providing much needed employment opportunities.

The loss of a race meeting due to flooding could have negative long term effects on the local economy and in addition the local residents.

I do hope that the views of the Warwick population are considered seriously during this review that the historical town of Warwick can continue to be the wonderful place it is to live and raise families.

see attached

Dear Sir / Madam,

I would like to strongly register my objection to site GT11 (also GT17 and GT18) as possible sites for Gypsies and travellers.

My husband and I, after much searching and research, have recently purchased a property in Warwick. We are both young professionals in management roles with full time employment. I felt that Warwick had the perfect mixture of a beautiful rural town and historic culture with all the facilities perfect for our lifestyle, furthermore, a safe environment and good local schools should we want to start a family in the area.

I feel I am representative of the type of person the town of Warwick is currently attracting to purchase here and hopefully the type of person who the council would want to attract into the area. I spend my earnings eating in local restaurants, drinking in local pubs and furnished my new house from local furniture shops.

If a traveller site were to be facilitated at site GT11, I would certainly look to move out of the area. I believe house prices would be negatively affected, crime would increase and schools would be over populated. I have attended the session held at the local school and none of these concerns were alleviated. I really feel strongly you need to consider the macro economics of your decision on the area. Should such people like me also take the same choice of leaving Warwick, shops would lose profits and may end up closing; house prices would decrease further, leading to council tax reductions; less money being spent on the upkeep with income reductions and an overall depression could be a serious threat to Warwick town.

I would ask that you please reconsider the long term consequences of the actions about to be undertaken, particularly with the housing development directly adjacent to GT11. The target market of these properties is likely to be young affluent people and families who I feel would share my concerns and possible share my intentions to leave should this go ahead. I want to keep Warwick the beautiful town that first attracted us here.

I look forward to hearing the outcome, hopefully outside of Warwick.

Gypsy & Travelers sites

I have considered this consultation and agree that Warwick District Council needs to address the matter and identify suitable sites. Rather than consider all the available sites, because each will have a local context I have considered the 6 sites that WDC has identified that are nearest to and that would impact on my parish and its residents.

These are our views:

* Budbrooke Lodge [Site gt11] although this area sometimes floods, it has particularly good access to local shops and Warwick town centre, by public transport [bus stop adjacent to Budbrooke Lodge] and reasonable access to the main arterial roads. Servicing the site will be potentially low cost. Not sure if this is green belt site.
* Norton Lindsey [site gt14] is green belt, outside main development, dangerous location on a busy road, no public transport, not easy access to infrastructure /facilities.
* A46 [sites gt17 & gt18]- green belt, outside main development, particularly dangerous location on bypass, considerable air and noise quality issues, no public transport, not easy access to infrastructure /facilities
* Oaklands farm [site gt19] access is an issue identified by Warwickshire Highways Authority on numerous planning applications, proximate to canal so would impact on tourist, walkers and canal users, dangerous access on Birmingham Road and Ugly Bridge Road, both busy roads, loss of greenbelt, previous refusal because of business needs & hazardous sites.
* Watery Lane [site gt20] is green belt, outside main development, particularly dangerous location on bypass A46, M40, and Junction 15, considerable air and noise quality issues, no public transport, not easy access to infrastructure /facilities it floods.

The Local Plan
I have carefully considered the paper by Ray Bullen, which was supported by Rural Parish Councils, and the response from WDC on 18th July 2013. I regard the overall estimated residential development growth in the Local Plan to be significantly out of proportion to the local need; unrealistically high and untenable.

The District Council as failed to acknowledge, address or take account any of the issues identified in Budbrooke Parish Council's response to the first consultation in this second document. [1]

In respect to development in Budbrooke:
* All proposed development is in the green belt and there are no special reasons for using the green belt [reference: NPPF 2012 development in green belt is inappropriate.]
* Taking land out of green belt for development, I.e. re-drawing green belt boundaries, is tantamount to a gross misapplication of NPPF 2012. To do so is not a special reason.
* Loss of green belt will mean a loss of prudent use of land potential loss of value to special/ high landscape value
* Identifying potential sites in green belt, when there is other unused land outside the green belt and outside the local plan, constitutes a breach of NPPF 2012, referenced above.
* Budbrooke Parish Plan has not identified any significant demand for development locally.
* Hampton Magna is surrounded by high grade agricultural land
* Negative effects on strategic siting such as increased levels of traffic
* Air, Light & noise pollution will increase especially in the construction phase
* Presence of Railway will be a nuisance to potential development

People live here because they like the area, any development, and in particular an up to 25% increase, will have a significant impact on the nature and locality. This issue must be considered as it has previously been accepted by WDC in its dealings with other councils.

Capacity of the Infrastructure
Hampton Magna was built on the site of an army barracks in 1960s to the standards that prevailed at that time. Little or no improvement has been made since the site was first built on, and none since I came here in 1979.
* Minor cosmetic road improvements were made to accommodate a substantial increase to traffic due to the building of Warwick Parkway Station. Car parking since originally built has increased 3 fold with no change to roads or traffic management.
* Consequently, traffic is already extremely heavy. Approaches - Birmingham Road, Old Budbrooke Road, Woodway, Church Hill and roads to Hatton via Ugly Bridge, and through Hampton on the Hill. Any additional development will have a considerable negative impact on roads and traffic
* Traffic issues have not been addressed or even assessed
* Sewage arrangements is a major concern of the PC - Although adopted, prior to privatisation the system falls below the standard normally required.
* The main local electricity supply arrangements area the same as those for the barracks which left nearly 50 years ago. Supplies into the village are subject to frequent fluctuations and outages.

Budbrooke School, with only around 50% children resident in Hampton Magna, already draws traffic from surrounding areas -Hatton, Hatton Park, and Chase Meadow - and the county lanes are increasingly congested and hazardous. Increasing the size of the school to accommodate the 25% increase increases the congestion and hazard, and fails to address the Green Agenda unless additional resource is allocated in the current catchment areas, which idea has been discounted.

Sustainability
The argument that additional development will help address the sustainability of local facilities and services is flawed. There is no evidence is provided to show that this would be the case.

Without the publication of specific sites. I can make little assessment of the local internal impact of any development other than to state that in my judgment all development will have a significantly high negative affect on the community and community facilities. I challenge the council to draw up any development plan that doesn't have a negative effect on residents.

General Observations

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

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

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

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

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to raise my objections to the proposed Gypsy/Traveller sites that are adjacent to Chase Meadow and the Forbes Estate (GT11).

Firstly there will be too much pressure on local schools, Doctors surgeries and amenities. Chase Meadow is an already growing estate with new builds currently extending the estate, this already puts pressure on the local primary schools who are already struggling to provide places this year. The Doctors surgery already has to cover the Chase Meadow estate, the Forbes estate and surrounding areas in Warwick. With one of the proposed Gypsy/Traveller sites being across the road from Chase Meadow and the Forbes, and being one of the larger proposed sites I feel it is unacceptable and unfair to place the site in that location, so close to an already heavily populated area. It will also cause house prices in the area to decrease and prospective buyers will be put off by the traveller sites being in such close proximity.

Secondly, the Hampton Road site is on a flood plain and given the amount of rainfall we have had in recent years it would be very likely that it would flood.

Thirdly, I do not believe that the settled community and traveller community would be able to live peacefully alongside each other and become integrated given the amount of discord amongst the local community as shown in the consultation that took place at the Aylesford School meeting on the 15th July. This is one of the requirements for such sites and I don't believe that this can be met.

I hope that my concerns will be taken into consideration when deciding which sites will go ahead.

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development of permanent traveller sites in the proximity of the Chase Meadow Estate in Warwick. This has been a quiet and well regarded neighbourhood for a number of years and the proposed development of traveller sites, especially the GT11 land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road (as well as sites GT20, GT17 and GT18) will be a permanent blight on the community, significantly affecting the quality of life for residents of this respectable area.

The infrastructure is not in place to accommodate traveller communities. GPs and Schools are already at or over capacity and traffic is a problem at peak times in this area. But my overriding concern is the impact on our community. Locating a traveller site next to an already built up, well established and respectable residential area is illogical - why would the council consider locating a traveller site in this area is beyond me, and I wish to formally lodge an objection, urging councillors to see sense and locate the sites away from established residential areas and avoid the inevitable conflicts, concerns and issues which will result if the sites are located near here.

I am writing to you this morning to express my concerns and dissatisfaction regarding your proposals for Gypsy and Traveller Sites in and around the Warwick area - in particular, the proposed site on Hampton Road by the racecourse.

I am a resident in Warwick Chase estate, located extremely near to this proposed site. I have only recently moved into the area in the last year and have a small family (my daughter was born last October).

Whilst I'm extremely happy with the local facilities in terms of their close proximity and convenience, I can already see an impact on surrounding roads, Doctors and local facilities due to the large number of people moving into the area. This area has undergone significant development over the last few years and there is definitely an overburden on the area.

I'm particularly concerned regarding schools too - it won't be long before I send my daughter to school and I am already concerned about how difficult this may become due to the higher number of applicants.

I'm extremely concerned that allowing these sites will only exacerbate the issues I've just outlined. I believe the local infrastructure will simply not be able to support one or more of these sites and after reading your planning policy, this appears to be in direct conflict with the policy.

Also, the proposed site on Hampton Road is extremely close to green belt land and sits within part of the flood plain. I believe green belt land should be protected where possible and also, any further building work / hard standing within that area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain and put that area at further risk - severely impacting us local residents.

Taking all of these reasons into account, I strongly object to your proposals and would ask that you take serious thought in re-considering / reviewing your original proposals.

After having talked to many people I know living locally, I can assure you their sentiments are the same - there is an overriding feeling of strong objection and this is shared widely across the local area.

Dear Sir/Madam

We write to you in response to the above consultation document. We object in particular to the following proposed sites in the consultation document: GT11, 17, 18 and 20. We also object in principle to the plan to put any sites in Warwick District.

In paragraph 1.1, you state that the Council is required to meet the needs of the population in the area. The placing of these sites will encourage travelers from outside of the area to settle in the area, therefore the whole premise of your proposal is wrong. What about the needs, quality of life and standard of living of the population of Warwick that is already here, and pays you Council Tax? You should be putting our rights ahead of those that do not live here, and do not wish to live in a manner that is compatible with 99.7% of the population.

We object to the proposal on the basis of a likely increase in crime:-
At the meeting at Aylesford School on 15th July, a question was made from the floor about the issue of crime that travellers bring. The member of the council responsible for Gypsy and Traveller sites stated that there is no evidence to say that there is a difference in crime between travelers and the general population. This generalised comparison given by the council member compared travellers to the entire population. This is not relevant, the comparison should be made to the District of Warwick, where crime is lower than average, therefore it follows that if there is no difference in crime between travellers and the total population, then there must be a difference in crime between the travellers and Warwick District, and therefore there will be an increase in crime if you allow travellers to settle in Warwick.

We also object to all proposals on the basis that they will make a very attractive and pretty town (except for Barrack Street car park and the Council offices in Market Square), look bad. Warwick is the most historic town in Warwickshire. The sites will have a negative impact on how the town will be viewed, and would have a negative impact on tourism which is the lifeblood of the town and upon which a lot of businesses rely. Furthermore, site GT11 will also have a negative impact on Warwick race course which is also vitally important to the town, and also a key element of the local community given the other events that it hosts throughout the year.

We also object to the proposal in particular on site GT11 as it will place increasing pressure on local infrastructure. There are already further new homes being built which is adding to the demand on, amongst other things, GP services, schools etc. Site GT11 is also far too close to a large housing development. The location of travellers here will create tension with a population that has only recently invested in living in a nice area.

Chris White, MP for Warwick and Leamington, supports us in our opposition to site number GT11 and the fact that you should listen to residents, please see attached letter. I hope you will listen to the MP.

If traveller sites are needed at all, they should be somewhere that is remote from the rest of the population to avoid tensions and avoid negatively affecting the quality of life of the people who have worked hard to buy a nice place to live in a nice area, and equally will cause less stress to the travellers. I believe that there is already one site that is out of the way on Kites Nest Lane. This site also counters your point made at the 15th July meeting that sites need to be near facilities. Not everyone who works hard has the luxury of being able to live next door to everything that they may need on a particular occasion. As the sites are proposed for travellers, perhaps you should take into account the fact that they like travelling.

I hope you realise the amount of concern amongst existing residents your proposals have caused. At the meeting on 15th July, which was predominantly attended by Chase Meadow residents, it was clear that almost 100% of those in attendance were against the proposals. I only heard one voice all evening in defence of the proposal from the floor. You will be making a massive error if you go against the residents. Therefore I hope you will withdraw your proposal for a site at GT11 immediately, because it will show you just do not care about resident opinions if you persevere with this site and others.

see attached

Budbrooke Parish Council has considered this consultation and agrees that Warwick District Council needs to address the matter and identify suitable sites. Rather than consider all the available sites, because each will have a local context the council has considered the 6 sites that WDC has identified that are nearest to and that would impact on the parish and its residents.

These are our views:

* Budbrooke Lodge [Site gt11] although this area sometimes floods, it has particularly good access to local shops and Warwick town centre, by public transport [bus stop adjacent to Budbrooke Lodge] and reasonable access to the main arterial roads. Servicing the site will be potentially low cost. Not sure if this is green belt site.
* Norton Lindsey [site gt14] is green belt, outside main development, dangerous location on a busy road, no public transport, not easy access to infrastructure /facilities.
* A46 [sites gt17 & gt18]- green belt, outside main development, particularly dangerous location on bypass, considerable air and noise quality issues, no public transport, not easy access to infrastructure /facilities
* Oaklands farm [site gt19] access is an issue identified by Warwickshire Highways Authority on numerous planning applications, proximate to canal so would impact on tourist, walkers and canal users, dangerous access on Birmingham Road and Ugly Bridge Road, both busy roads, loss of greenbelt, previous refusal because of business needs & hazardous sites.
* Watery Lane [site gt20] is green belt, outside main development, particularly dangerous location on bypass A46, M40, and Junction 15, considerable air and noise quality issues, no public transport, not easy access to infrastructure /facilities it floods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site Suitability - GT06 Land at Park Farm Spinney Farm OBJECT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site Suitability - GT14 - Warwick Road, Norton Lindsey OBJECT

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

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

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

Site Suitability - GT15 - Land East of Europa Way OBJECT

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

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

Site Suitability - GT16 - Land West of A429 Barford OBJECT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Site Suitability - GT20 - Land at Junction 15 M40 OBJECT

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Sir,

Having read your published information about proposed gypsy and traveller sites, I must object to the proposed site GT02 (Fosse Way - Warwickshire Exhibition centre.

This site would appear to fail your own criteria in that it is on the site of a viable business that brings money into the area, and would be adversely affected. The site would be clearly visible from surrounding areas, as it lies in a valley, which is of significant historical interest, being a roman road, and which has very dangerous roads (you have numerous warning signs of the dangers of the road)

As such I feel you should cease considering this site, and concentrate on the sites more appropriate.

Sites GT17 and GT18 seem particularly appropriate to travellers

As a comment I do feel it is a tad misleading to produce a glossy brochure on the subject depicting Gypsy sites with images of touring caravans on a holiday caravan park - the truth of gypsy sites is generally very different.

The planning policy advocates that any site should provide integration with the local community! If the proposed sites in the vicinity of Chase Meadow goes ahead this would not be the case! Speaking to neighbours of several years on the Chase Meadow Estate and we have witnessed many occasions of the aftermath of travellers presence, any accepted nearby site would be in direct contradiction to this policy and therefore should not be considered!!

I would like to register my objections to the proposed gypsy and traveller sites in SW Warwick;

1. The infrastructure just cannot cope with even more pressure on it's roads especially as Chase Meadow is still under construction that will not be completed for several more years.As most homeowners have at least one or more cars per household the extra pressure on our roads especially Stratford Road and the more problematic Hampton road any further traffic from this area would create a tremendous burden .Race days already cause problems with traffic and parking,especially side streets and verges.

2. The local schools and Doctors surgeries are already under pressure and should not be put under any more strain to enable them to work efficiently.

3. The site proposed on Hampton road has parts which are on the local flood plain and should not be built on.

4.Warwick. is a beautiful old town.It' popularity with visitors should not be blighted by the fact that a traveller site with all it's implications stands within a fantastic historical area.I feel this would deter visitors from the town thereby affecting local businesses.

5.Air pollution is becoming a real problem in this area due to fumes from increased traffic.

6. I am also deeply concerned about the environmental effects on the wildlife and possible pollution problems on Gog Brook,also potential risk of transferable disease from unvaccinated animals to animals in the surrounding area i.e race horses.

I hope all of my objections and concerns will be taken into account at the next meeting to discuss the planned sites.

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.

Comment on Draft Local Plan
Clause 4.4.7
This should be made clearer as to whether the bullet points are an 'all or nothing requirement' or if there is some flexibility for mix and match. For instance, if there is a market housing demand for a small village which has the required local support, I would support the requirement that a component of 'affordable housing' is included.
The last bullet point is unlikely to be satisfied for a small village development of say 3 to 8 units within the context of a small village of say 50 houses and say 100 in the entire parish and with no school, bus or shop. The additional residents might marginally improve the social aspects of the community depending on the 'interests ' of the new residents. The clearest gain to the local community would come if there was a community facilities payment from the development of the market housing units directly to the Parish Council.. This could then be used for the benefit of community facilities, but otherwise this last bullet point should be deleted or relegated to an aspiration.

Gypsy and Traveller Site Options.
In Clause 7.3 , an additional criterion (bullet Point@ should be included to the effect that @The site selection should be in accord with other wider objectives in the Local Plan'. If there is such a conflict, this should be taken into account when making comparisons between the site options.
Sites GT17 and GT 18 are redundant brownfield sites and reuse of such land is/should be an objective of the Local Plan.
In site GT02, a significant portion of the search area is land associated with the operation of local businesses so taking of this land will adversely affect and may cause the closure of the business and this is contrary to the draft Local Plan clause 3.4 bullet Poin5t 1 re facilitating the growth of the local economy and 8in particular the rural economy (re statement on page 8)

see attached

see attached

I wish to object in the strongest of terms to both the Revised Development Strategy and the siting of Gypsies and Travellers Sites in close proximity to Chase Meadow Housing Estate. I particularly want to object to the locating of Gypsies & Travellers Sites in particular:

* GT 11(Hampton Road)
* GT 17 (Southbound A46)
* GT 18 (Northbound A46)
* GT 20 (M40 Junc 15)

I strongly object to the proposed Options fro Travellers sites as those outlined above are in direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' as 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. This I know has been supported by letters from both Aylesford and Newburgh Schools.

As recognised within 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 and is in direct conflict with this requirement.

Warwick is the most historical town in Warwickshire and once again, the siting of Gypsies and Travellers Sites as you enter Warwick is in direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' as 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. I am also aware that 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.

We have witnessed a worsening situation over recent years with flooding, a situation which shows no sign of changing in future years and the site on 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 hope you look at these views in the round and reject the proposed locations above as they are not suitable and in direct conflict with Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

see attached

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 and extremely difficult to use hence the version by letter.

Part A

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

Part B

Commenting on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Options.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I 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.