see-attached

see-attached

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to object to the proposed plans for Oaklands Farm to a Permanent Gypsy Site, Kites Nest and other local planning on the Birmingham Road are ; they are as follows:

1: The current owner & his father before him have applied for change of use/ building of small residential houses for many years & only recently been granted planning permission for 1 home & outbuilding. As a council you have objected due to the land accessing a country lane & the busy Birmingham Rd, along with other objections which are a matter or record. Proof of the dangers of this road are public knowledge with many deaths and serious injuries; which has seen yet again been brought to our attention the last few weeks with RTA's one of which requiring the Air Ambulance to attend!

2: A4177 Birmingham Rd is the main road between Warwick and the second city Birmingham this handles not only increased local traffic but Warwick Towns lifeline of visitors to its historic town and famous canal side. Putting a gypsy site there would intimidate people using the canal, it's walkways; this has already happened at the illegal Kites Nest Site where people no longer feel safe to walk or take their dogs due to the attitude of the illegal residents and their aggressive dogs. Does Warwick council really want to deprive the local shops, businesses and town folks of their incomes and feeling safe in their surroundings and driving potential much needed visitors away?

3: There is also the increase of pollution whether from activities that would take place on such a site or motor vehicles; our community should be protected from this. Warwick already suffers from pollution levels above European guidelines on safety. This not only takes it toll on our health but also the structure of our historic buildings.

4: The 1993 Local Plan along with the inspectors report in 1994 required measures to reduce the impact of traffic on our town centre; and yet over a decade on we have been unable to mitigate the traffic effect on this development, despite funding from the developer.

5: The local infrastructure cannot cope wether it being our local GP's, Hospital, Schools or Emergency Services; these should be paramount to being brought in line for the existing residents before adding to our community. These plans should be in place prior to any others for additional housing.

6: We should be looking at using empty properties, factories and building sites before using our treasured green belt areas for future housing; one can only presume it is easier and less costly for a developer to clear existing neglected housing and sites; they just want to make as much profit as they can in the shortest of time regardless of the local people and their feelings or safety.

7: As much as you do not consider the value of people's properties to be important in your proposals, it has shown in other areas that house prices can fall by up to 40% where gypsy sites, illegal or otherwise are. As a home owner and having worked for everything I own, paid taxes national insurance etc I feel having contributed into the system along with other hardworking taxpayers in our area that our home is our castle and should not have its value diminished by these sites.

8: We should therefore not have inflicted upon us non contributing, untidy and unruly people living within our community as the gypsy site proposals you as a council have put forward. Kites Nest illegal site has shown no respect to the locals or yourselves as councillors as they have blatantly disregarded the law and cost thousands of pounds opposing over the last three years!!! It is beyond belief that you now consider giving into this and even thinking of having a proposed additional site on the busy Birmingham Road on Oaklands Farm area.

9: Putting gypsy sites in and around our village would hamper any future development of housing as people would not be prepared to purchase homes with these sites in place. This is surely being very short sighted as a council representing our community.

see attached

see attached

see-attached

see-attached

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.

I refer to the proposal to build houses on the land behind Tidmington Close, Combroke Grove & Ebrington Close (proposal R115), on Oakland Farm on the A4117 adjacent to the Shell Garage (proposals R25 & R125), & on land at the top of the Barcheston Drive loop (proposal R114) and on other sites along the A4117 owned by Mr Arkwright. I object to these proposals as the infrastructure and the road system of Hatton Park adjoining the A4177 are not adequate to deal with the increased amount of traffic that building an extra 70 - 90 houses there between 2015 and 2029 would create. Such development would desecrate existing green field sites which preserve the distinction between Warwick town and outlying communities such as Hatton Park. In addition, nearby Ferncumbe Primary School is already oversubscribed and there are no medical facilities to cope with the needs of the considerably enlarged population that would result. The gypsy site at Beausale Lane is still il! legally developed with their refusal to accept the eviction order that has been placed on them, so what hope would there be of a good relationship between them & the local community if a gypsy site is sanctioned at Oaklands Farm? On all these counts, I object to the proposed development of these sites.

see attached

Dear Sirs,
Please note my objection to the proposed building on R115. I object to this proposed site on the basis that the site will not have sufficient infrastructure in order for the proposed development on greenbelt land. The infrastructure I am referring to is Road infrastructure coping with the increase in traffic on the Birmingham Road and the road safety issues related with this dramatic increase of 90 - 100 houses.At present Warwick can not cope with the increase in population in relation to community facilities such as the provision of school places,medical facilities such as GP provision and indeed Warwick Hospital provision . On top of this, and the proposed development of a travellers site on Oaklands farm the road safety issues are a real concern .
The situation of the proposed building site near to a proposed travellers site would bring into question the commercial viability of being able to sell the properties.
Another major concern is the ground works that leads to the balancing lake that runs under the land (R115) .This is a main drainage / balancing of water from all the Hatton Park estate.There is also underground streams that run under the proposed site.
At a public meeting in 2011 assurances were given that this land would not be built on and I understand this has been revoked and the land thrown back into the proposal pot.Warwick was known for protecting its land and for considerate planning .It appears that this proposal is beyond all comprehension.There is a building in Saltisford (The gas works) that could accommodate apartments and assist with the housing shortage. I understand this is privately owned.This property is an eyesore in its present state.Why don't you consider using that?
Please note my objection.

see-attached

see-attached

See attached

see-attached

see attached

I would like to register my objection to the Warwickshire revised local plan (2013).
I agree that sustainable development should go ahead throughout the country, however I feel that Warwickshire does not currently have the local infrastructure to support the large amount of houses currently planned. My concerns over the current plan are:
1. Warwick Hospital is already at maximum capacity with patients being cared for in areas not designed for overnight care on a weekly basis. Due to the location of the hospital there is very little area for future expansion. This issue needs to be addressed prior to considering any development.
2. Many schools in proposed planning site are at capacity.
3. The road network in Warwick already experiences a volume of traffic that it struggles to cope with which is a main contributing factor to Warwick experiencing pollution levels above European guidelines on safety.
Planning in Budbrook/Hatton (Sites R75, R114, R115, R117, R124, R125, R126)
I would like to highlight my concerns over the above planning sites
1. The A4177 of which the above sites feed onto already experiences a high level of traffic and has congestion on a daily basis. This will be increased not only by the planned 90 houses on one the above sites but also many of the other sites outlined in the local plan feed onto the A4177. This road would need to be improved dramatically to cope with proposed local development.
2. Many of the planned sites line the A4177 this will dramatically affect the approach along this road into Warwick. West Midlands have also highlighted sites along this approach and will cause an effect of one county sprawling/merging into the other. Clear boundaries will be lost.
3. Due to the poor transport links to Hatton Park the average house has two or more cars. This increase in traffic turning onto the A4177 from Hatton Park or the other proposed site will inevitably increase road traffic congestion and accidents on this stretch of road.
4. The increased traffic will make it dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians to use this route as the cycle path is too narrow to pass pedestrians also using the path. Therefore residents currently using this method will also have to revert back to car journeys. The national planning policy framework highlights sites selected should minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists/pedestrians
5. Ferncumbe Primary School and Budbrook schools are both on sites restricting their growth. With the proposed planning in Hatton Park and Hampton Magna, these schools will not be able to cope with the increased population resulting in children having to be transported to further afield.
6. Hatton Park currently has very little amenities with only a very small limited shop on the site, making it an unsuitable site to develop for anyone without a car.
Site R115
The greenbelt site R115 is of great concern as it borders Smith's Covert. Development of this site will result in the ancient woodland being locked by development. This piece of woodland is home to many protected animal species; bats as well as Muntjac deer, badgers, foxes, rabbits, and birdlife including green and spotted woodpeckers and buzzards to name a few. These species will suffer if this corridor link from Smith's Covert to the greater countryside is blocked by housing.

Critically the development of this site will go against some of the key points in the national planning policy which aims to have sustainable planning that ensures development will not mean a worse life with loss of environment for future generations and actually greenbelt land that can be refilled by nature should be encouraged.
Site R115 already meets another key point of the national planning policy as it is a rural area that not only houses the above wildlife but is an area that contributes to carbon storage as it supports Smiths covert of which the biodiversity would change with development of the site while also supporting rural industry as it is an area of food industry.
Development of this site will result in Warwickshire council fundamentally going against key points of the national framework
Sites for Travellers
As I understand the need for designated sites within Warwickshire for the travelling community to remove the temptation of illegal sites, these sites above all need the most consideration to limit the impact on the exiting residents and the tourism in the area.
Proposed sites at Kites Nest Lane (GT13) and land adjacent to Shell Petrol station, Birmingham Road (GT19).
1. Kites Nest Lane is currently occupied by travellers of which have been served an eviction notice. By granting planning on this site sets a precedent for future illegal sites seeking retrospective planning.
2. Planning on either site will increase the amount of heavy vehicles along the A4177 increasing the risk of accidents.
3. Until Kites Nest Lane eviction is settled, Birmingham Road should not be considered, as the two sites along with the existing travelling community based on canal boots along the nearby adjacent stretch of canal would result in the travelling community representing an above average percentage of the community in an area that is one of Warwick's main tourist attractions (Hatton Locks)

To summarise the revised local plan is not sustainable development, it does not give enough consideration to the local environment, the current capacity of local services and the impact it will have on tourism and ultimately the impact lives of future generations living in the area.