I received your flyer today with regards the revised development strategy and sites for gypsies and travellers.

Having lived in Kenilworth for 14 years now my wife and friends have experienced some awkward experiences with regards local gypsy fayres in terms of fighting and disruption in the town and security being added to local restaurants and pubs.

While I have no objections to travellers and gypsies settling where there would be sufficient amenities and services available to accomodate them, or if they contributed to council tax or local services.

However, if they were to be allowed to settle in Kenilworth, where clearly there have already been significant issues, I would have no alternative to move away. I regret that recent experiences have made this a non-debatle area and I hope it will not come this.

I returned home from work today to find a booklet from yourselves regarding a proposed Gypsie & Traveller site close to where i live with my small children in Leamington Spa.

I am totally against this proposal as it will bring nothing but trouble to the local neighbourhood as it did in Meriden!..
My children will not feel safe to play out like children should plus the local industrial estates close to the propoesed site will be at risk of damage etc.

I do hope our local Council will put the residents of Leamington Spa first before making a drastic decision that may put all our wonderful countryside at risk.

I hate feeling like I'm labeling these people for who they are but why should we take responcibility for them, i pay my taxes for more important things than trying to find them a place to take over and destroy.

Travellers should keep on travelling hence the name.

I think the proposal for gypsie and traveller sites in the warwick district is the worst idea yet and just asking for trouble. If travellers want to travel and not pay taxes then let them travel. Ireland sent their gypsies packing for a reason, unfortunately they came here. My family grew up around those gypsies in particular and they are not the kind of people i want any where near to me and my family. Nobody wants them living anywhere near to them, hence the latest community stand in at Meriden.
They do not want to intergrate in to society but they want the same as the rest of society, i do not know of a poor traveller or gypsie do you?
There's plenty of room on the moores send them there.

I have a few objections to traveller sites but understand that they are needed. I am not anti-traveller. Most peoples opinions are based on the travellers themselves not the sites. I feel my following questions are necessary and I would like to them to be considered and answered.

1) My main concern is who is allowed to use these sites? I own a campervan - can I use them? Are all the new EU travellers allowed to use them? The Romanian and Bulgarian travellers who are allowed to enter the UK soon have a fearsome reputation, as portrayed in news from the UK, Europe and the rest of the world. Are all people who travel here considered travellers? Will the number of sites continue to rise as our neighbours from Europe continue to enter? More and more UK/Irish born travellers are seeking permanent residences. Who are we catering for? Are these sites needed?

2) Why are the majority of the sites the south side of Warwick? I have looked at the map of considered sites and 14 of the 20 are clustered around Warwick. Warwickshire is a large county and I am unsure why the new sites are not evenly spread.

3) Who will clean up these sites once the travellers have moved on? Who will clean the communal sanitary facilities that are to be based on each site? Will each site be given waste and recycling bins for refuse collection? How will fly tipping/dumping be managed around the sites? Is this being taken into account in next years budget?

4) Will there be local police teams set up to manage typical public complaints and concerns - such as anti-social behaviour, petty crime, dog baiting, joy-riding, unlicensed drivers, doorstep selling etc.

4) Will local schools (specifically primary as few traveller children go to secondary school) be expected to take traveller children as they move around sites? I live near Wolverton School, Budbrooke, Ferncumbe CofE and Claverdon Primary School. These schools are already at maximum capacity with long waiting lists. Will children of local families who are on the waiting lists be ignored as Traveller children are put first? Everyone deserves an education but this concerns me greatly.


The suggested sites which are near motorways, or on the edges of towns should be considered over the rural village sites. They may also be more convenient and comfortable for the travellers themselves. Towns can absorb a greater number of people and have always been a melting pot for all ethnicities and races. Town services can cope with a fluctuating population of people far better than a rural village as there is more to go around. We are already struggling with stretched rural community services for doctors, nurses, schools, transport and emergency services. Traveller sites near or around villages will stretch some of these beyond breaking point. Affordable housing is needed in rural areas to stop depopulation, not traveller sites.

We, Rate/Taxpayers, do not provide public funds to subsidise these people's lifestyle
They are not taxpaying citizens. They pay nothing into society and so should not expect any special benefits.
It is of course true that not all gypsies are criminals, but as a general rule, their campsites create mess and
foster petty crime, putting further pressures upon our hard pressed services.
Until the local council and government collect funds from travellers for services and rubbish clearing we
should spent not a penny.
They should use a Campsite / Caravan Park like every other person who wants to travel. If they were willing
to pay like everyone else the Private sector would be building these Campsites all over the country; but since
they are demanding the rate/taxpayer provide these; at no cost to themselves, this isn't going to happen.
I would suggest any councillors voting for these proposals should buy a caravan, and become a traveller, because
voters will not forgive or forget.

I would just like to ask how much the council spends each year cleaning up as a result of the traveller community.

I live on Warwick Gates and get angry every time they park there or thereabouts and leave a disgusting mess when they move on. Personally I would sent them back to Ireland where the majority have a house.

Let them pay to clear the mess up every time and maybe then and only then should we consider setting aside a permanent site.

I understand the council is considering a potential site for gypsies and travellers at Birmingham Road, next to the Shell Garage. I would ask that you record my objection to this site. I would be most grateful if you could let me know the details of the consultation meeting in order that local residents may attend.

As residents of Chase Meadow for nearly 20 years we are very concerned that the council, we have supported during this time, do not feel it appropriate to hold a public meeting in this area to discuss the proposals of the plan. What happens in Warwick is just as important to this area of Warwick as other areas. We live, work, shop and spend plenty of leisure time in the town and would appreciate the opportunity to listen and comment on the proposals. It is also important that we understand the next steps beyond the end of the consultation period.
We strongly disagree with the Chief Executive's decision not to hold a Public Meeting in this area and would ask you to reconsider and hold a Public Meeting before the end of this consultation phase of 29th July 2013.

I wish to OBJECT to the inclusion of Site GT11 (Land adjacent to Budbrooke Lodge, Warwick Racecourse and Hampton Road).

I intend to submit further details of my objection, with grounds, in due course.

I reserve my position on the remaining sites at this stage.

More generally, I would further comment that whilst 8 (40%) of the 20 listed sites are in the south west of the District, and 16 (80%) in the south, it is important that both sites and pitch quotas finally chosen for implementation reflect a much more equitable spatial distribution, even if this means making exceptions within the Green Belt.


Finally, please note that with regard to the sites adjacent to A46,
GT17 and GT18 - Southbound is East, and Northbound is West, but these are transposed in your documentation, which is confusing.

We have suggested certain specific locations in representations on the following areas of search:
GT01
GT03
GT20
See responses on those locations for details.

I am curious as to why North Leamington / South Kenilworth is never considered as a suitable site for any proposed building/G&T sites given that government has now given permission to build on green filed sites

The old Ford Foundary car park site adjacent to Pets at Home. This has the new road infrastructure upgrade, local services and schools available and requires less expenditure on upgrade that the other sites proposed. It is also in the middle of the district and ensures that Warwick DC are the local council responsible for this site and not relying on other councils borders as they are with 10 of their other proposals.

I believe that sites should be spread across the district and cannot understand why there are no sites selected Kenilworth or North Leamington, as concentrated pockets of Gypsies and Travellers as currently planned will not help social cohesion or make the best use of existing infrastructure and services.

WDC should have identified brownfield sites within existing areas of Kenilworth, Leamington & Warwick which are better suited for integration into the local community and not use what is effectively 'greenbelt'.

Objections on the basis of:
- any agricultural land should be kept as such ref Government policy on biodiversity
- safety and security issues for village and surrounds
- environmental issues
- dangerous road crossings
- no facilities within easy walking distance

Have you looked at what appears to be a defunct caravan site around Apps Farm on the Banbury Road. It appears to be set up for caravans in the past but has closed down? It might be a site to explore.

- no easy or safe access to schools and other facilities

I believe that sites should be spread across the district and cannot understand why there are no sites selected Kenilworth or North Leamington, as concentrated pockets of Gypsies and Travellers as currently planned will not help social cohesion or make the best use of existing infrastructure and services.

I believe that sites should be spread across the district and cannot understand why there are no sites selected Kenilworth or North Leamington, as concentrated pockets of Gypsies and Travellers as currently planned will not help social cohesion or make the best use of existing infrastructure and services.

There are no options to comment on the consultation process and so I am placing my overall comments here.
Two people living at the same household with one email address cant comment separately.
The digital format for response is cumbersome and time consuming.
The consultation period has been set during the start of school holidays when many families are on holiday. The promotion of information to the general public needs to be considered more carefully during any reconsultation period. for example a notice on a recycling bin is a rather misleading promotion route.

My main objection is that the local towns are not capable of dealing with the current volume of traffic at peak times without adding several more thousand houses.
In addition our local schools and hospitals are already at or very near capacity and there are no definite plans to increase the capacity of either.

I am also very much against the provision of either permanent of temporary transit camps for itinerants from any source. The council must be aware of the state that Myton Fields were left in after a fairly recent visit from them. I don't understand why we are constantly bending to the "needs" of minority groups when a democracy should be for the needs of the majority. If it is the government who is driving the issue of camps then I suggest that there should be one large permanent camp next door to David Cameron's house in the Cotswolds as I am sure that the itinerants would welcome the opportunity to live in a very pleasant rural community.

see attached

see attached

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to make my objections to the Gypsy and Traveller Site (G&TS) options clear.
It is clear that when considering G&TS's the following must be considered:
Convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport
Is Bishops Tachbrook being penalised for having a part time GP surgery? It is extremely difficult to get an appointment within a week at the local surgery. More often than not I have to travel to Sydenham to the main full time surgery to get an urgent appointment. What will be the impact if 6 G&TS sites are created around Bishops Tachbrook. Will the GP surgery expand, including longer opening hours and more than 1 GP and 1 nurse as is the current standard?
Gypsies and Travellers experience the worst health status of any disadvantaged group in England. Life expectancy is 12 years less for a woman and 10 years less for men than amongst the settled community. Baring in mind these statistics this would suggest an increased usage of medical facilities
In 2007, 2.7% of children of Gypsy/Romany origin and 8.4 % of traveller children of Irish heritage achieved 5 or more A* to C grades or equivalent exams including English and Mathematics in England compared to a national average of 45.4%. 8% of Gypsy and Traveller mothers have experienced the death of a child compared to less than 1% of the settled community. This could put a major strain on the already overworked education and medical facilities already available in the area.
The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash are at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients. There is no dental care provision in Bishops Tachbrook.
The Catholic Primary in Whitnash, St Josephs' has had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate. Is the council going to supply additional funds to help support these children's needs? Given that the parents of many of these children are unable to read & write themselves they are not in a position to help children with their own learning and this identifies yet another pressure point. As an adult not being able to read & write seriously narrows down the type of work you would be able to apply for, there are limited employers within in the village of Bishops Tachbrook therefore there is no immediate local economy for them to join with.
Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
Field on the corner of Mallory Road, Banbury Road floods on each side whenever there is a significant rainfall. Sites GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT10 are all prone to flooding.
Provision of utilities
Who would be expected to provide this? Sites GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT10 do not have adequate provision of utilities such as sewerage, drainage, gas and water.
Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site
Sites GT05,GT06, GT09 and GT10 are all on very major roads with no means of pedestrian access. There are no bus routes and they are all fast moving roads.
Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance
Banbury Road is the main road off the M40 for people travelling from both the North and the South. GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT10 are all bordering the M40 meaning that these sites will be very noisy for occupants. GT05 is in extremely close proximityto residents of Bishops Tachbrook and so any noise from this site would have a major effect on current residents.
Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment
St Chads church in Bishops Tachbrook has many historical features. It is mentioned in the Domesday Book. GT05 and GT09 are both situated on the approach to Bishops Tachbrook and would be the first visual sight that visitors would see of the village.
Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.
It is difficult to think of any area at all that would meet this criteria. The character of the area around GT05, GT09 and GT10 is agricultural farm land. I fail to see how a G&TS would integrate into this landscape without harming the character of the area.
Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and local community
I would suggest this is highly unlikely due to the level of local disagreement with the proposed sites, in particular GT05, GT09 and GT10. I have concerns over the level of noise that any sites may incur, both from the inhabitants and also the local community expressing their objections. Local residents have discussed various methods of protest if these plans are to go ahead. Various residents have offered financial assistance regarding legal advice. The press and local MP's have been engaged and shown their support.
Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
Will additional funding be provided to the village school to support with the proposed number of children likely to attend? If not will a new school be built to support in this area? Will this cause a change in the catchment areas for the school? It would be unfair for tax paying residents to be moved out of the catchment area to accommodate these new developments.
The school in Bishops Tachbrook is single form entry and is already oversubscribed. G&TS of 5,10 or 15 are likely to provide homes for 10,20 or 30 children. A small school which is always at capacity is unlikely to be able to provide the infrastructure required to support the needs of the proposed sites. The school does not have the resource to support children that have received very little if any formal education. They will struggle to integrate into the local school environment.
The school also relies on the parent teacher working relationship meaning that parents support the school by giving up their time to help teach and read with pupils. It is known that 81% of Gypsy and Traveller children's parents are illiterate. This will mean no support for the school. It will also mean that these children will require even more support from existing parents. The extra support that these children will need will put the current children at a disadvantage. The school is simply not equipped to deal with the needs of these children.
There are already concerns that the secondary schools in the area are oversubscribed and that there is not adequate provision for the current population of the parish. Any additional strain on these numbers will only make the situation worse.
There is a grade 1 listed church and a sports and social club built through local fund raising. There is a small local shop, a hairdresser and one public house. That is it.
The villagers choose to live with limited resources as they prefer the quiet friendly community feel of the village.
There are limited public transport options in the area with limited bus services and no train routes. Reaching a place of employment with public transport would be extremely difficult.

Reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location thereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability
I would suggest that it is a small minority of Gypsy and Travellers that live and work from the same location. I would be interested to see the evidence to show how a Gypsy and Traveller site can support local sustainability in this area.
Specific sites
GT05, GT09- Vehicle access is onto a very busy main road, with vehicles travelling at speed. To introduce caravans and mobile homes turning into the site would be dangerous. Additional traffic at the junction of Mallory Road & Banbury Road would put too much strain on an already busy junction onto a road where cars are travelling at speed, because of the north and southbound approaches to junction 13 of the M40. This is not an easy junction to get out of especially if you have to move slowly due to pulling a trailer or caravan.
Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals? For instance a horse on the Banbury Road especially a loose one could end in fatalities. As could loose dogs.
No pedestrian access and to create any would be dangerous. There are also no pavements between this site and the village, nor the main Banbury Road. For any children living on this site the walk to school will be extremely dangerous. There are no bus stops in the immediate vicinity and nowhere safe to put one. Cycling would be hazardous
The potential visual impact would be devastating on the approach to the Historical Warwick town and could discourage visitors and tourists. There are listed buildings on this site in need of protection. The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document. It would be the first thing that people see when travelling into the village from the M40
This site does not provide utilities. There are no gas, sewerage or drainage facilities.
GT06 - Very remote from main centres and no means of pedestrian access
GT10 - Close to the Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre. The risk of disease from any unvaccinated animals belonging to Gypsies and Travellers could be devastating. Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals? For instance a horse on the Banbury Road especially a loose one could end in fatalities. As could loose dogs.
Vehicle access is onto a very busy main road, with vehicles travelling at speed. To introduce caravans and mobile homes turning into the site would be dangerous.
The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document.
GT15 - site located on the banks of the Tachbrook. There could be a chance of contamination, given that the proposed site may be used as a place of work. Europa Way is an already congested road and adding further traffic to this mix could be devastating.
Sites GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT10 are currently homes to many forms of farm and wildlife animals. They are also working farm land.
Other considerations
6 out of the 20 sites have been proposed around the small unique village of Bishops Tachbrook.
Are the sites identified in and around Bishops Tachbrook too remote from the main infrastructure of Leamington Spa or Warwick to be suitable for this type of development?
On behalf of Warwick District Council, Salford University has determined that there is a requirement for 25 pitches initially expanding to 31. Why the need for so many propsed sites then?
Who will monitor the sites. It is my understanding that the sites will be operated by Gypsy and Travellers and not Warwick District Council. If this is the case how can concerns such as noise pollution land pollution and overcrowding be controlled?
Recommendations state that the size of each site must be between 5 and 15 pitches but does not specify how many people can populate this sites. What plans have been put in place to ensure that what happened at Dale Farm does not happen again. This was where a legitimate site expanded?
What about the effect on house prices in the general area around these sites?
What will be the visual impact on Bishops Tachbrook village and surrounding area. Will it have an impact on tourism in the area?
Where will the Gypsy and Traveller community find work locally? All the sites suggested are too remote from employment and facilities and so are unsuitable for this type of development.
All proposed sites are on busy roads where it would be a danger for any children to wait for transport to school.
Why are 15 of the proposed sites in the south of Warwick & Leamington? The small village of Bishops Tachbrook has 6 of these proposals within a mile of it, 3 are on its immediate doorstep. Potentially all of these sites could be approved and the very nature of our community and how the approach to our village would look would be irrevocably changed. The effect on Bishops Tachbrook would be devastating to our way of life. This is not acceptable nor a reasonable request for the council to make.
There is no statement from the Gypsy Council of Great Britain or any other organising body on behalf of the Gypsy & Traveller community, within your brochure/document, that they wish to join our community in Warwickshire or anywhere else. Perhaps this is because they have no desire to permanently live here? What evidence does the council have that the Gypsy & Traveller community wish to use these sites as a permanently settled site with a fixed maximum number of 15 Pitches? You also do not state how many people are able to live within a pitch or who is responsible for the site. Due diligence has not taken place here. I appreciate that you state the Regional Spatial Strategy & commissioned Salford University have produced a report but you have failed to put any meaningful back up data into this document . Therefore I have to question the validity of the study as you have not put it in the information you are handing out. Where is the proof that so many sites are needed? Much needed data is missing here & the council are remiss in leaving it out.
You also state that the Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment shows a need for 31 pitches, 25 within the first five years & a further 6-8 transit pitches over the Plan period. Yet the brochure you have produced is only showing 19 of these. Why are you not identifying where all these sites will potentially be? Are you planning to use these larger identified areas to put up multiple sites? Please be clear & honest!
Your brochure has not been laid out in a way that makes for easy & understandable reading. For instance sites GT05 & GT09 in reality face each other on opposite sides of the Banbury Road yet in your document the numbers on the map are shown as far away from each other as possible and are shown in map form pages apart from each other & at different scales & angles. This also occurs for site GT06 which is opposite GT09. You are failing to make your documentation easy to read & this is inexcusable.
Sites GT05, GT06, GT09, GT10 are all next to each other meaning that of all these sites are successful there would be a huge Gypsy encampment in a small area.
The images you are using on your front cover, page 3 & page 4 are clearly stock images of holiday camping sites. They are not permanent sites and they are certainly not Gypsy & Traveller sites. Why is the council not using real images from existing successful sites to give an honest & truthful photographic representation of how these sites will look?
Proposals
Has the area next to the police site on the west side of Europa Way in between GT06 and GT15 been considered. This could have access onto one of 4 roads and would have a high Police presence.
A further alternative site and one that is a much more suitable at addressing the issues that are set out in Section 4 of the consultation document is on the opposite side of Stratford Road, Warwick to Aylesford School. This site is located within walking distance of medical, educational and recreational facilities.
It is located on a straight section of road with good sight lines and a 40 mph speed limit. It is served by bus routes and has wide pedestrian footpaths. This site is also set back from the road so would provide some protection from any negative visual impact.
Other comments
The instructions for this plan are very unclear. I have been advised that a separate letter needs to be submitted for each proposed site but I can not see anywhere that this is mentioned for email responses, this is unclear. If that is the case I have grave concerns that this consultation has not achieved its legal goal of "improving the efficiency, transparency and public involvement in large-scale projects or laws and policies" as people do not know how to respond in the correct manner.

I request to know the name of the authorised Gypsy site shown in your brochure.
Whilst I appreciate that WDC are under instruction to provide sites I would suggest that the proposed sites around the Bishops Tachbrook area are in the wrong places. This community is already stretched to capacity. I fail to see how the G &T could contribute to our small community.

Dear Sirs,

I write to voice our objection to the proposed 'gypsy' and travellers sites near Harbury.

1. There is a strong case for providing so called gypsies or itinerants with a place to stay only because they have nowhere to go and it is a big problem moving them on constantly and clearing up afterwards. The point is that in 2013 it is no longer viable or reasonable to expect to exist in this way living in caravans with no proper employment. Do you really believe these people survive on seasonal work such as was found in times gone by? We can only guess how they make their money but it is a fact that they pay no taxes and as such do not subscribe to the way of living sponsored by society in the main. Therefore the way of life should be discouraged and we would prefer to pay for housing benefit similar to any other under privileged peoples. If people decide to ride horses down the M40 we would hardly construct a lane specifically for them, it would be unreasonable in 2013 to allow this practice and there is little difference to wanting to set up communes in caravans.
2. The proposed sites are clearly prime residential locations, sited in open countryside but being within easy reach of local amenities and Leamington Spa. There is a live and let live theory but this is clearly far too biased towards one side. You have to be conscious of the developed society and how the majority have sought to establish the communities we live in. That is that more often than not the benefits of any particular location are linked to the cost of living there, mainly by the cost of the housing. This is typical of any human society founded on trade, be it money or any other currency. Why should the sites be in such highly valued locations, when ordinary people strive to achieve similar with such struggle? This is not snobbery or a 'nimby' attitude just plain laws of living which are seemed to be circumnavigated through some misplaced conscience or 'do good' feelings. Why should we not only sponsor the facilitation of sites, but also face the reduction in value of our most significant asset? It is a plain fact that the sites will cost some people hundreds of thousands of pounds and as a percentage of wealth even the 'gypsies' would object to such a plan. How can you expect people to continue to pay such high amounts of council tax dependent on their chosen style of living (ie. greater value apportioned to housing versus other asset forms - cars, jewellery etc.) when there is a section of the community paying nothing? There are plenty of suitable locations along the M40 corridor where the impact would be less or even negligible. What it seems is that the benefits for the 'gypsies' have been put way above the sacrifices of the society as a whole. Any site should not be within 1 mile of a residential property and should not impact on another community in any way.

In conclusion we object to the practice of providing any site, but can see the need in the circumstances. Given the need we object to the extremely biased and unnecessarily privileged locations being proposed.

see attached

Dear Sirs

Gypsy & Travellers - Consultation - Comments

The proposed sites close to Bishop's Tachbrook are a matter of concern to this small community for various reasons. It is difficult to understand the requirement to provide some permanent sites for people, who by their very nature, are itinerant travellers. If they wish to settle permanently in a community, they should accept the responsibilities it entails, caring for the site and paying the relevant taxes to the WDC.

*The proximity to the M40 motorway and busy trunk roads would be a hazard, particularly for their children.

*The effect on the small village school of an influx of itinerant pupils will be detrimental to the general standards of education and lower the rating of the school for local families

*Oakley Wood is a local beauty spot and leisure area for walkers, dog owners and families. The purchase and restoration of the wood by WDC was much appreciated and many of us support the efforts of the "Friends" to improve this ancient woodland and use it as an education facility with special events. A travellers' site nearby would threaten the peace and security of the area, and cause anxiety for lone female walkers in an unsupervised area.

*Travellers' sites are renowned for being depositories of rubbish, at the cost of local Councils. This prospect is daunting for residents of this well-kept area of Warwickshire.

*The multi-million pound Guide Dogs complex near Oakley Wood is the envy of the world. How will it look adjacent to an untidy Travellers' site? The security of the site and danger of infection would also be of concern in the strict hygienic conditions of the GD buildings.

*The rules governing the running and payment of the proposed sites is sketchy and unclear.

*Our recent local experiences of law breaking by travellers has led to concerns about the lack of effect law in dealing with miscreants and threatening behaviour

*Perhaps the legal requirement for local sites could be met by housing them near the police depot on A46, near Greys Mallory island.

Dear Sirs

We wish to object to a number of proposed sites as follows:

GT05, GT06. GT09, GT10 and GT20 - all these sites are too close to either busy main roads/motorways. There would be too much noise for travellers and the sites could cause a distraction to drivers on these nearby roads resulting in accidents.

GT09 and GT10 - safe entry and exit from these sites would not be possible and would be hazardous.

GT05 and GT10 - these sites are in close proximity to Oakley Wood and the Crematorium. Oakley Wood is a public amenity and is currently undergoing major regeneration as outlined in the Woodland Management Plan put in place by Warwick District Council. The Crematorium is a space for reflection and remembrance. Any increased activity from a nearby travellers site could be harmful to the current balance and harmony of the Wood and would almost certainly result in a reduction in numbers using the Crematorium and also the Wood.

GT10 - The Guide Dogs for the Blind breeding centre is a world renowned facility providing an extremely important service. Any disturbance would be counter-productive to the high standard of service provided by the breeding centre.

We are at a loss to understand why new sites, affecting the landscape, need to be found. There are existing caravan sites at Fields Farm Harbury, The Croft Hasely Knob, Heathcote Lakes, Oaklands Farm Budbrooke, Pitts Farm Shrewley and Warwick Racecourse - surely it would be possible to extend and/or convert these to travellers sites.

An area not being considered but which we feel would be suitable is land leading from Europa Way enclosed on 2 sides by Harbury Lane and Heathcote Lane adjacent to Heathcote Industrial Estate. This land is already a popular location and well used with the travelling community.

We wish our comments to be submitted to the public consultation process currently being held.

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.

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

Development Strategy:

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

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

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

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


Gypsy and Traveller Sites:

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

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

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

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

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