As a resident of the Chase Meadow estate for 19 years I wish to put on record that I am Totally opposed to any sites within close proximity of this estate. We have seen from experience over a number of years the mess this 'travelling community' generate and the disruption they cause to local businesses.It is us council tax payers who have to foot the bill for the clean up operation and there behaviour is not acceptable!!!!.

No access to any public services or safe access to or from the site. Elements of the site are prone to flooding (as is the road that would provide access)

Site and road is prone to flooding with dangerous road junction

Unsuitable - no nearby facilities at all! Prone to flooding and waterlogging. Very noisy M40 and A46. Landowners not wishing to release.

CPRE would oppose the use of any of the land shown in the identified area for search for GT20. The former construction works site was returned to farmland under the planning consent. It is not suitable as a gypsy site.
Gypsy pitches could be located within the land encircled by the A46 to the west, the M40 to the north and the gyratory system. The field left in the middle has limited agricultural value and has now no landscape value. The present GT20 area of search should be deleted but this smaller location included in the next stage of option appraisal.

Dangerous location in view of blind bends used as rat run for those avoiding Warwick traffic issues which will be worse if Hampton Magna & Hampton on The Hill developments go ahead. If mitigating measures could be found then this area would seem suitable for houses relieving pressure to build in nearby villages/green belt.

This site is known locally as Gallows Hill. From the Council's document "Council-owned land was inappropriately located and largely comprises of urban parks and green spaces, which are not suitable for the use of Gypsies and Travellers." This site is green belt & similarly unsuitable. There is no Convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport. The B4463 is a dangerous road with no pavement. There would be an adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment. This site would not promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.

Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites unviable.
These sites are not sustainable in terms of multi-modal accessibility. None of these sites offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot, on bike via pedestrian footpaths, cycle routes or by bus. The only means of access is by car which increases further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure.
Not a location that allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community. It is Historic landfills that may release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for habitation.

Sustainability:
Access to Public Transport
Norton Lindsey is not included on a regular daily public transport route to provide access to neighbouring towns and villages for regular commutes for employment and or shop. Therefore GT20 would not be serviced by a public transport system which could promote a sustainable lifestyle and prevent unnecessary car journeys to work or shop. However in excess of 80% of the other options are situated in areas which will provide a regular public transport system to facilitate a sustainable lifestyle.

Shops & Services
The area local to GT20 does not contain a shop or any other local services of any description. In excess of 70% of the other options have shops within the community the sites are being proposed or are close enough to walk to the facility or public transport is available to enable sustainable travel to the shops and services.

Employment Infrastructure
The area immediately around GT20 is not available to sustain local employment. The public transport system does not provide a regular daily service and therefore cannot sustain travel to other areas for regular employment. 75% of the other sites proposed have some or significant employment infrastructure or are situated close to and have regular public transport links to employment infrastructure to provide a sustainable lifestyle.

Essential Services
Health Service (Doctors Dentist Surgery etc.)
GT20 does not contain any health service facilities within close walking proximity. As detailed above public transport routes do not service the village regularly and therefore could not provide a sufficient service to access these facilities regularly especially for families with young children whom need access to doctors surgeries on a daily/weekly basis. The closest facilities are situated within the larger towns of Leamington Spa, Warwick, Stratford upon Avon or larger villages of Hampton Magna and Claverdon. In excess of 65% of the other proposed sites are situated in areas providing direct access to these services or are close enough to the larger areas to gain access to these services by walking or via public transport. I am also aware from recent experience that the smaller health services in the local villages of Hampton Magna and Claverdon are at running at full capacity and unable to take on new patients. The larger towns will obviously provide greater flexibility and choice and service to new members. With particular reference to dentistry services a National Health Service facility will be available in the larger towns providing a free service, whereas local dentistry practises will not.

Education/Schools
The village of Norton Lindsey does include a small school which falls in the Stratford DC and with an approximate intake of 15 pupils per year. The ages range from 4-11. The school is currently at full capacity. In excess of 70% of the other proposed sites have access to larger schooling facilities for a wider age range and with greater numbers of placements available. Access to the school would also be along safer roads (for walking) which is certainly not afforded by the Warwick Road into Norton Lindsey, which would require journeys to be made by private vehicles.

Services/Utilities
GT20 is unlikely to have any facilities due to the sites nature and location. The road is busy and has experienced accidents recently, due to the blind corner upon which the entrance to the site is situated. If a site is to provide facilities such as gas/water and electricity may I enquire as to how the services are metered and charged to the pitches, especially if the occupants are transient ? 80% of the other options proposed are located in areas where there are existing services on site, close to site or in areas with significant populations close by where services will be capable of being diverted and supplied.

Conservation Areas/Greenbelt/Character of local area
The proposed site is situated in a Greenbelt very close to a conservation area, the use would spoil the character of the immediate local area and that of the village. 70% of the alternative proposed options would be more suited to this type of use.

The sustainability of the site does not meet the criteria already set down by WDC.
There are no public footpaths from the site so pedestrian access is very dangerous.
The local area does not have any amenities or facilities to support the site.
Local amenities i.e. doctors, dentist, shop etc. are not accessible by foot.
The site is within greenbelt and close to nearby conservation areas and will not be in keeping with the local street scene.
I have looked at the other sites on the local plan and believe they are by far more suitable locations.
The road is a dangerous road with frequent incidents and having extra vehicles turning into the location on a blind hazardous bend would be ludicrous.
The site lacks most of the criteria laid out by WDC for sustainability and amenity.

This site is remote from local amenities and has access onto motorway.
Does not meet site requirements as laid out in consultation document.

Lack of integrated co-existence with the local community.

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

Right by the M40 so the site will be very noisy.

Lack of integrated co-existence with the local community.

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

Right by the M40 so the site will be very noisy.

GT20 should not be considered as a potential traveller site as it is in use as prime wheat growing agricultural land within the Green Belt. Converting it to a traveller site would significantly reduce wheat or arable production in this area and also create a huge incursion into the Green Belt on its southern flank.

A proposed site of this size would also result in a hazard for traffic on the B4463 and the adjacent roundabout on the A46.

There are also no social facilities such as GP surgery, school and public transport within easy reach of this area.

Object strongly to the allocation of site GT20 as it will cause a strain on the local community on a social, economic and environmental basis.

It would be great to be able to offer sessional youth work support to the young people on the sites. The Warwickshire Association of Youth Clubs would be interested in offering such support if funded by say the Community Levy

Subject to severe flooding
East of A46 and North of M40
Safe access impossible
No utilities on the site
No GP surgery
No school
No public transport
Situated within the Greenbelt and therefore unsuitable for any form of development
Could not be integrated with the landscape

This site is surrounded by busy roads and a high level of pollution. It is entirely unsuited to use as a gypsy or travellors site.

I run a family-owned dog boarding kennels and cattery from the outbuildings adjacent to my home, located just off the edge of the map referenced as GT20.

The property lies at the end of a track passing directly through the area highlighted as GT20. This track over which I and any visitors have a right of way provides the only vehicular access to my isolated property.

I wish to take this opportunity to voice my concerns regarding the locating of gypsies and travellers within the search area GT20.

I would like to take this opportunity to register my strong opposition to the traveller sites that have been proposed in south west Warwickshire.

I have been a resident of Warwickshire for the past 12 years, residing in Leamington, Kenilworth and now Warwick.

I believe that the Warwick District Council have agreed to a meeting and I think this is critical in order to share information, views and concerns both ways between the residents of Chase Meadow and the council.

The basis for my objection is based on the factors which I will outline below.

- School Places;
It is my understanding that the children from traveller communities will be given a higher priority with regards to the allocation of school places and this is a concern that the schools in the proposed areas would be unable to cope with any potential increase.
This is two-fold. Firstly, with the projected school intakes for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 based on the birth rates in the area and secondly, taking into account the large extensions to family estates such as Chase Meadow where it is not possible to estimate the additional places required.

- GP Access;
Living on Chase Meadow, I know how difficult and stretched the GP Surgery (The New Dispensary) is and my concern is that this surgery can not cope with the number of additional patients that the proposed sites may house.

- Infrastructure;
Chase Meadow is largely unadopted by the council and it already suffers with issues surrounding speeding on the estate and leading to and from the estate. One of the proposed sites (plot 11) is located on the border between a 30mph and 60mph limits. My concern is the additional traffic flowing through the chase meadow estate and the need to police the speed limits on the unadopted roads.
Hampton Road is a fast road and the concern of an additional turning so close to an existing turning on this type of road is a risk to the residents safety.

- Aesthetics of the Warwickshire countryside.
Warwick is such a beautiful and historic town for which tourists travel to visit annually. Having seen a number of traveller sites over recent years and months, the risk to the tourism economy for Warwick has to be taken seriously.
The proposed Hampton Road and Junc 15 sites are key routes into Warwick and should be preserved.
Also, the Hampton Road site is located next to the Flat Straight for Warwick Race Course and will be visible to those attending the races.


I would like to thank you for taking to the time to read and file my objection to these proposed traveller sites and look forward to the opportunity to meet with you at the forthcoming meeting

I wish to register our objections to the proposed traveller sites in South Warwickshire

I am writing to advise of my formal objection to the four proposed permanent Travellers sites to be situated close to Chase Meadow.

My main objections are:


The current local infrastructure would not be able to support one or more of these sites, ie. local schools, doctors, roads
Any further additional traffic could have an impact on the safety of existing residents
Warwick is the most historical town in Warwickshire - these sites would have an impact on how the town is viewed and could affect Tourism to the area which many local businesses rely on and therefore have a real negative impact on the local economy
Chase Meadow - I believe may still come up as having a high risk of flooding when local searches are undertaken - surely this would have to be taken into consideration when looking for where these sites can be placed?

I will be attending the Public Meeting on 15th July.

I am writing as a resident of the "Chase Meadow" estate, off the Hampton Road in Warwick. I live in Wake Grove, not far from the estate entrance. Like many other residents on the estate, I have grave concerns regarding the proposals for Gypsy Traveller sites situated extremely near the estate. It is my understanding that repeated requests for a meeting between the planning department and local residents have been refused. Therefore I would like to request that the Chief Executive of the Council meets urgently with the local residents in order for us to have an opportunity to discuss the situation further.

Please accept and acknowledge this email as a formal objection to council proposals to site traveller sites near to Chase Meadows estate in Warwick. The sites I am objecting to are listed as numbers GT11 GT17 and GT20.
Please respond in writing addressing all of the points of objection that I have raised individually. Please can you also confirm the process, criteria and scoring/weighting you will apply in selecting the location for traveller sites?
Summary of initial grounds for objection:
1. The Hampton Road site is unsuitable as it would involve a compulsory purchase order and has no services available at present which will drive up costs. The site is also far too big and there's a real risk that an unautorised number of travellers will seek to locate there. There is land at Kites Nest that is owned by travellers and they have expressed a desire to stay there.
2. Newburgh school and other schools in the immediate vicinity are already over subscribed and could not accommodate children from the travellers' site. This makes the Hampton Road site unsuitable against the required criteria.
3. The GP surgery on Chase Meadow is over subscribed and it is very difficult to get an appointment. The GP surgery could not accommodate travellers in addition to the existing number of people who are registered there. This makes the Hampton Road site unsuitable.
4. Chase Meadow is still being developed and there are hundreds more homes to be built which will only exacerbate the strain on local facilities such as schools and the GP surgery. This reconfirms that the Hampton Road site is unsuitable.
5. Many people who are resident on Chase Meadow would strongly object to the locating of a traveller site on the Hampton Road for the reasons stated. The council has many other sites that are suitable that are identified in the local plan consultation. The council should act democratically and in the best interests of the people it represents and locate the site elsewhere. It would be wholly inappropriate and undemocratic to locate the site on the Hampton Road against the wishes of local residents.
6. Locating a traveller site on the Hampton Road could have a material negative impact on the valuation of hundreds of peoples' homes on Chase Meadow for which we would likely receive no compensation. This could force many into negative equity and would therefore be socially irresponsible. This would be wholly inappropriate - especially as other potential sites make this outcome unnecessary.
7. There are multiple other sites that would provide the services that are required for the travellers but would not have such a negative impact on the local community. A much smaller number of people would be likely to object and this would provide a fairer and more reasonable outcome for all.
8. There is a disproportionate number of proposed sites in South Warwickshire and around Warwick. Why have more alternative sites in the north of Warwickshire not been considered?
9. The local plan includes large scale building of houses, new schools and other key facilities to the South of Warwick. Locating the travellers' site there would make far more sense as the local facilities could be planned with the required additional capacity in mind.

I live on the Chase Meadow estate and my daughter attends Newburgh School, which even with it's double form entry is operating at full capacity for the current reception year and the September 2013 reception year. The Chase Meadow estate is dramatically increasing in size and new families are moving onto the estate swelling the population and putting more demand on the facilities available. It is my concern that the schools in the area will not be able to cope with a further increase in pupils outside the anticipated increase that has been expected from the new houses on the estate.
My family is registered with the local GP Surgery (The New Dispensary) as are many families on the estate and the availability for appointments is already restricted due to the sheer number of patients, this will only increase as the estate grows and my concern is that the surgery cannot cope with the number of additional patients that the traveller sites may house.
Warwick is a beautiful and historic town for which tourists travel to visit annually in conjunction with Stratford Upon Avon. The proposed Hampton Road and Junction 15 sites are key routes into Warwick and should be preserved. The Hampton Road site is located next to the Flat Straight for Warwick Race Course and will be visible to those attending events.
I would like to thank you for taking the time to read and file my objections and I would like a indication of what happens after the consultation period has expired.

I would like to lodge my objection to your proposed location of Travellers and Gypsy sites in the South West of Warwick.

I have just become aware that there are several proposed sites under consideration for Gypsies and Travellers in the immediate vicinity to where I live in Purser Drive.

I would like to lodge my protest at this proposal and suggest that one of the sites earmarked adjacent to Budbrooke Lodge on the Hampton Road, would actually make an ideal location for the proposed Hotel that I understand is now not going to be built next to the Racecourse complex.

I am really pleased to hear that there is a plan to have up-to four sites for Gypsies and Travellers with my local conmunity.

I hope this plan goes ahead as before Gypsies and Travellers have been made to move on without having anywhere else to go and I think it's time as a conmunity we accepted there way of life because they are no different to the local people that live in council houses and council flats, they just prefere to live in a caravan instead.

I know that some people have dim views on the Gypsy and Traveller conmunity but I hope this won't stop the plan going ahead.

Unfortunatly I am unable to attened the meeting at Aylesford School on the 15th, but I hope my opion which is shared by others is heard and taken into consideration.

I would like to know the where-abouts of these four proposed sites for Gypsies and Travellers and how the meeting goes on the 15th. If that is not too much trouble of course.

As a resident of chase meadow I want to register my objection to the proposed Hampton road site and surrounding area proposals.
I work at tachbrook park warwick and have witnessed first hand the problems, damage, harassment and waste generated by travellers at my workplace and surrounding area, Police are as good as powerless and don't want this to become a problem within our family friendly residential area.

Please take this email as an objection and register my view.

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.