Site is adjacent to the Barford By-Pass a derestricted road (60mph) with an accident record, some fatal. Access to the village amenities will involve crossing this road.
Dr's surgeries at BTachbrook & Hampton Magna are not accessible by public transport.
Noise from the By-Pass will be excessive and probably unsolvable by attenuation measures.
The reread aspect and views over the water meadows will be severely compromised. Connection to utilities will be, for sewerage, be impossible.
Vehicular access from the site onto the by-pass will be very dangerous.
Gypsy sites should be located within the new major proposed housing developments
This site is not suitable.

1. Doctors surgery by road is over 4 miles away In Bishops Tachbrook
2. The proposed site is adjacent to the A429 which is very busy with fast flowing traffic at all times being one of the main routes through. We have also had a Number of accidents on this road with a death last year due to these speeds. It's dangerous enough just pulling out in the morning let alone anyone trying to cross it on foot etc.
3. We have had substantial flooding along this area which would then impact further out should this development take place.
4. The site would be very noisy due to its location so near the road especially at peak commuting times that would be difficult to negate.
5. Pollution from traffic fumes so near road.
6. There are no services for this site which provision would be expensive for amount of pitches
7. There would be a negative visual impact on this special tourist route from Stratford to the Cotswolds
8. This is a greenfield location And cannot be integrated into the area without effecting the Character of the village in a negative way
9. The A429 Road cuts te site off from the village And thus prevents proper integration
10. This site does not meet the obligations of the gypsy and travellers policy And does not promote a peaceful co existence between the tie and community

There is no convenient access to a GP surgery. Access to the school would involve crossing the bypass.
Access to the road network is not safe. The bypass is also noisy and directly adjacent to the proposed site.There are no utility services.

Objections/concerns for the Preferred Gypsy/Traveller Site - GT12.

There is no convenient access to a Doctor's Surgery, the nearest ones are:-
The New Dispensary, 2 Alder Meadow, Warwick,
The Croft Meadical Centre, Bishops Tackbrook,
Budbrooke Medical Centre, Hampton Magna,
Priory Medical Centre and Cape Road Surgery, Cape Road, Warwick
Warwick Gates Family Health Centre, Warwick

All the above are not within walking distance due to very busy roads and no pavements, therefore to get to the doctor's surgery a car would be required or bus journey.

The nearest bus stop, public transport would be over the very busy A429 and within the village of Barford near the old bridge. The travellers would have to cross this very busy/dangerous main road to get to the bus stop unless an underpass was built for safety - (cost implications). It would be too dangerous for a bus stop to be sited on the main road A429.

To access the nearest village primary school, again the travellers' children would have to cross the very busy A429. An underpass would have to be built for their safety! Secondary School bus services leave from within Barford Village, the children would have to cross the A429.

The proposed site is on the edge of a flood plane and with global warming how long would it be before the site flooded?

Access to and from the proposed site would be off the very busy A429 and although the speed limit is 50, traffic do not obey this speed limit. I have pulled out from the village of Barford to turn right, one second the road in both directions is clear the next second there is a speeding car slamming to a halt in your rear!

As the site is situated very close to the road you have to take into consideration the safety of the dwellers, children and animals being so close to this very busy road. Also, traffic noise for the dwellers.

At the moment there are no utilities on this site, how much would it cost to 'bring in' these utilities/services and from where? If from Barford would it put extra strain on existing drains, would the drains of Barford have to be modified/updated to cope with the extra use/strain - again maybe extra cost implications.

How would the dwellers on the site be able to integrate into the village of Barford and feel part of the village with the busy A429 running in between, as mentioned previously for their safety an underpass would have to be built, then you would wonder if you were out in the countryside or in the middle of Coventry where you would normally find underpasses!

I do wonder what the impact environmentally would be, on Green Belt land! Also, the impact on tourism if this site was to be on route between Warwick and the Cotswolds.

Not suitable- very busy noisy road - any mitigation for noise would be expensive and render non-viable. Unsafe pedestrian access to services. Already significant accident record on this road. Severe landscape impact and loss of Grade 2 land rendering holding non-viable. No services on site. Main tourist route would be blighted in this high value landscape area. Dangerous ponds and reedbeds nearby. Quoted doctor surgery at BT is actually 4.4 miles away and no public transport link.

1.There is no GP surgery in Barford. Other surgeries on a direct route from Barford e.g. Wellesbourne no longer take patients from Barford. Other GP surgeries e.g. at Chase Meadow, Warwick or Bishops Tachbrook require car transport for access.
2. Transient populations put considerable pressure on schools. A small school such as Barford does not have the expertise or resources to deal with the issues. It would seem better to have a greater concentration of need and then pool resources so that G+T children can benefit from high quality specialist support. WCC's EMTAS service is already stretched and serving scattered population will not be as effective.
3. Public transport is not regular from Barford and particularly restricted in evenings and weekends.
4. Part of the identified area practically falls within the flood plain identified by the Enironment Agency.
5. The site is adjacent to the Barford bypass with its fast moving traffic. Access to the bypass is not easy at certain times of day from the village. A new access point for the site onto the bypass will have the same problems. There is particular concern for pedestrians who have to cross the bypass to access any village services
6. Siting a residential area alongside a busy main route does not seem to have any logic when trying to avoid noise and disturbance for the residents.
7. Utilities are not currently provided to the site. It does not seem cost effective to provide utilities for a very few pitches.
8. Breaking the village of Barford beyond the bypass intrudes on the natural landscape and historic rural environment.
9. The major obstruction of the Barford by-pass presents an obvious barrier to prevent integration between the existing Barford community and site residents.

This site is well located, with easy access to public transport and nearby amenities in Barford.

I believe this site is unsuitable as a Gypsy and Traveller site for the following reasons:
- The top half section of this land is the run-off well for the bypass so the water runs off the bypass, through the reed beds there that cleans the water before returning it to the river. Therefore this area needs to be left alone as it provides a vital function.
- This site is Grade 2 agricultural land and is some of the best agricultural land in Warwickshire, so it would be completely wasted should it become a Gypsy and Traveller site. The fact that Sherbourne Nursery was run until recently on land close to this site is further evidence of the quality of the local soil.
- The gypsies and travellers would not be part of the community as they would be cut off from the village by the A429, which is a really busy and dangerous road for them to cross.
- The additional traffic in and out of Westham Lane cutting on to the A429 is busy enough already and if the other developments go ahead that are being proposed in Wellesbourne then the traffic on that road towards the motorway would be even worse, so getting on and off the A429 would be very difficult and dangerous.
- The site in Barford is very noisy with noise from the adjoining bypass and associated pollution. There is talk of putting up a screen or bank to try and reduce the noise, however houses in Mill Lane and Wilkins Close still suffer fro the noise anyway so that would be inaffective, plus it would take away yet more Grade 2 agricultural land.
- The nearest doctor's surgery is in Bishop's Tachbrook as although there was talk of a new doctor's surgery in Barford, this is no longer happening, and the Wellesbourne surgery is closed to new patients.
- The school is at capacity now and is currently rated 'Outstanding' by OFSTED, so there is unlikely to be any space for additional children from the site and the overall standard of the school may be affected if children were to frequently come and go.
- It is an area of natural outstanding beauty looking across the fields to Sherbourne and its historic church.
- The area is home to an extensive range of wildlife - for example there are bats and kingfishers along the nearby river - which would all be affected too.
- Barford has recently been voted in the Top 30 of the best places to live in England in the Times List so why would anyone want to ruin one of the jewels in Warwickshire when some of the other sites, for example the land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way, does not impact any village, it just has a few farms around it; there is better access off the Fosse Way and the site is in a slight dip.

This site just doesn't meet the criteria set out by the council.

Not suitable.
Significant safety issues crossing bar ford bypass.
Compulsory purchase order should not be used for this purpose.
Site is vulnerable to flooding.
Limited access to facilities - very small school and no gp facilities.
No mains utilities available.

This site does not meet a number of the WDC's criteria. A key one being it is not 'available' and therefore deliverable in a timely period. To make it 'available' would require a CPO action which would have to be justified and this would take several years. With other sites 'available' and deliverable in a timely period, pursuit of this site would seem an inappropriate use of 'scarce' public funds.

Objection to GT12. It is so disappointing that this site is even being considered, let alone promoted, following earlier consultation with local residents and the feelings and concerns expressed at that time. This site will undoubtedly harm the character of the village and surrounding area, will negatively impact tourism and visitor numbers to local pubs and the hotel. It is also impossible to understand how the site promotes integration with the local community, or is not seen as putting undue pressure on local infrastructure, especially the roads through Barford. Safety implications re access from A429 also prohibit site for consideration.

1. A clear criteria for selecting appropriate sites is to avoid areas with a high risk of flooding. The Environment Agency have stated that the western part of this site lies in the flood plain.
2. Due to the volume of traffic on this section of the A429, noise levels are consistently high. Barford village is buffered to some extent by distance and established trees, but noise levels on this proposed narrow site immediately abutting the road would be intolerable.
3. This proposed site is greenfield land, clearly separate from any of the nearby villages. Because of this, successful integration of the site and village would be impossible without imposing devastating changes to the visual character of the village. This is contrary to WDC criteria which states that landscapes should be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.
4. According to WDC guidelines, a site for Gypsies & Travellers should allow for easy access to a doctor's surgery. There is no surgery or similar service available in Barford; the nearest GP is in Bishops Tachbrook almost 4.5 miles away, and not easily accessible.
5. The A429 Barford bypass is an extremely fast-moving, dangerous road, with a near constant flow of traffic including many articulated lorries. The speed limit is 60mph, and there have been several serious & fatal accidents on this section of the road, notably at the junction for entering Barford village. Based on personal experience, this road is impossible to cross from Westham Lane into Barford on foot, and the proposed site would not allow for safe access to the road network. For this reason, it would also fail to provide adequate provision for parking, turning and servicing on site, as required by WDC.
6. In addition to the A429 being a vital road link for heavy goods vehicles and commuter traffic, it is also the main route linking the tourist areas of Warwick and the Cotswolds. The detrimental impact of a Gypsy & Traveller site on this route would be contrary to the WDC criteria.
7.WDC requires the provision of services including running water, toilet facilities and waste disposal. There are no facilities available on this site, and the prohibitive cost of installing all the necessary services to make this location habitable, for a relatively small number of pitches, would I believe render the plan economically unviable.
8. The difficulties in crossing from the proposed site into the village itself would render it impossible for site residents to integrate into the fabric of the village.

My concerns are raised in connection with site GT12 (Westham lane, Barford). The main concern is around safety of people crossing the Barford bypass (a429). Should a traveller site be granted they would need to cross that road to gain access to local services. That road is incredibly dangerous with huge volumes of traffic. I regularly witness cars travelling too fast on the road, often overtaking and indeed last year, there was a fatality on that same stretch of road. To think we would have people actively crossing the road is incomprehensible. It would also be a hazard for turning vehicles or vehicles pulling in.

The second point of concern for the same site is around access to schools. Barford village school is already oversubscribed. Indeed even local village school children and parents often have agonising waits to see if they have a place at the school, quite often being told they may have to travel to a neighbouring school and hoping someone drops out so they have a place. A traveller site (or indeed more houses) will only seek to perpetuate that issue.

I am concerned about the issues raised in the documentation about potentially not being able to connect to a public foul mains sewer.

And generally I feel a site of this nature would place too much pressure on the small number of local facilities , e.g. school, roads through the village - already the village can be grid locked in the mornings), shop, public house, in Barford given how small it is in nature anyway.

No GP in Barford.
Local school is oversubscribed.
No safe access to and from Barford by-pass. This is a single carriageway designed to improve traffic flow, trailered vehicles such as caravans turning onto and off this road would be a nuisance and a danger. Pedestrians would have to cross a main road, which probably means a Pelican crossing causing further traffic disruption.
No mains utilities.
Major detriment to the character of the area - high grade farmland with views across the river Avon plain.
Would place huge strain in a thriving local community and would ruin a community which has worked damned hard to build itself into something special, eg the local shop. This would promote antagonism and resentment in the local community.
Junction 15 is one of the busiest motorway junctions in the area and is a major bottleneck, despite huge recent expense aimed at alleviating congestion. Adding regular towed vehicle access to this junction would cause further delay and increase accident rates.

The site is not as close to a GP surgery as other sites.
The A429 is a dangerous road with fast moving, high volume and many lorries. It is not safe to cross and is noisy. There have been many accidents and a recent fatality here.
Part of the site has significant flood risk.
Some villagers have reported to have seen water voles on this site.
The site has no utilities.
The site would have a detrimental visual impact on the countryside
The school has only just been extended and many of the school classes already operate beyond capacity.

It is in a dangerous situation with fast driving traffic to access amenities in barford and an eyesore on approaching Warwick

I wish to object to the proposed site of GT 12 and GTalt12, Barford due to the following reasons based upon WDC Criteria:

The nearest GP Surgery is 4.4 miles away by road in Bishops Tachbrook and is not easily accessible from Barford and both sites are still either within or very close to flood plains (reference Environment Agency). The sites are adjacent to the A429 Barford bypass which is a fast road with a history of significant accidents including a recent and very distressing fatality. Access would be difficult and expensive to achieve whilst remaining potentially very dangerous for vehicle users and pedestrians alike plus there is significant noise from the road which could have an adverse effect on the occupants of the site. Both sites are cut from Barford by the bypass which means the sites would be difficult to integrate. It appears much more sense to incorporate the new sites within the framework of the proposed housing developments off Europa Way as these must surely lead to better integration, efficient and economic planning of the sites and the significant convenience of services available on site. These sites would then become at one with the new housing straight from inception. It also seems easier to have a smaller number of larger sites rather than many smaller sites that are slotted piecemeal into the area. Again due to integration and economics this surely is preferred?

Regarding the G & T site consultations, Barford Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council have reviewed all the sites under examination and commented thereon. As a Councillor for Barford I commend our deliberations to you for serious consideration.

I also wish to make personal comment on the sites which are proposed alongside Barford Bypass, namely GT12 and GTalt12 as follows:-

Almost half of the site designated as GT12 consists of the storm overflow and pollution pond and ditch systems constructed as part of the works associated with Barford Bypass. These are not of course available for other development without compromising the integrity of the drainage of the Bypass and the pollution protection of the river. The choice of this site would appear to be the result of a desk study lacking in local knowledge and examination in the field.

GT12 is in an open area of the Avon valley, close to the river and with spectacular views along and across the valley.
It is on a popular north - south tourist route.
The location of GT12 would under no circumstances be granted permission for development for domestic or other use. It would contravene almost every single one of the planning guidelines to which the Parish and District councils normally work.
It is astonishing that those who would be the guardians of these rules and values can see fit to put them aside and propose a totally alien development in this rural landscape.
The site is close alongside a busy 60 mph A-road. The noise levels at this proximity are quite unpleasant to say the least.
The site is close alongside a large storm overflow and pollution pond containing deep standing water with steep banks.
The site is close to the river containing several deep pools and swift currents.
The above three factors make this a dangerous location for children.

GTalt12 suffers from all of the above disadvantages, except close proximity to the pollution pond, but also is situated on a bend of the 60 mph road and also would render the agricultural holding non-viable.

Both of these sites would require CP Orders which would be contested by the landowners and resisted by the inhabitants of Barford.

There are other far more suitable sites and I would again commend to you the JPC analysis and comments. GT12 and GTalt12 should be discounted

1. Environmental impact.
The site is open arable land which lies on a level plateau except where it falls to areas prone to flooding.The vista from south to north is across the river Avon to Sherbourne and its beautiful Gilbert Scott church.It would be impossible to design a site which would "enhance the environment" as required by para 24 (b) of the Government Planning Guidance.A site would not "protect the local amenity and environment"---- 9(b).Whether or not the site is bunded or landscaped it will stick out like a sore thumb.
2. Planning.
The site is open green field land.There is no way in which a planning consent would be granted for residential development on this land.Indeed Mr Tym Morgan was refused planning permission to build a house next to his buildings despite farming a viable holding and having real security concerns which were realised when serious damage was caused to his buildings and diesel and small tools were stolen.The thieves came with bolt cutters to open the main doors and a key for the fork lift truck which they used to force up the roll up door on the lean-to.The owners of Westham House were refused consent to add to the flats at their property despite the fact that the proposed development would not have been visible outside the boundaries of their own property.To grant consent for a Travellers site would be discriminatory and unfair to those who have been refused perfectly reasonable applications.
The site lies outside areas allocated for development in the Local Plan,would certainly not respect the interests of the settled community and would dominate the settled community in Westham Lane thereby breaching the guidance in paras 10,12 and 23.
3. Infrastructure.
There are no public services west of the bypass.Any water supply would have to be brought from Wellesbourne Road ,along the whole length of the eastern half of Westham Lane and then under the bypass and across farm land to the site.Mains drainage would have to be by septic tank.This is not straight forward.We struggled with our own system for some years until an expert advised that the outfall was below the water table.We have had to instal and maintain a pump.The water table is high in the area and tends to vary greatly--- particularly over the past 12 months.It is more variable where the substrata is gravel as is the case with the site and its surrounding land.
4. Access.
There is no satisfactory access on to the bypass.Traffic travels at speed along the bypass where the speed limit is 60 mph. The fact that traffic could travel at speed and thereby save travel time was a highly relevant factor in assessing the Cost Benefit Analysis when the bypass was built.The initial scheme which proposed safer junctions for access to the village was rejected by the Department of Transport on account of the extra cost and the effect that such junctions would have on the speed of through traffic.Subsequently the County Council rejected a request from the Parish Council that available funds be spent in reducing the speed limit on the bypass to 50mph.Slow moving mobile homes/caravans turning off or onto the bypass would be hazardous.Pedestrian access would be just as hazardous.There is no pavement along any of the site frontage.There is no central reservation for pedestrians.We have direct knowledge of the hazards.Mr.Hunt from No.5 Westham Lane has cycled daily to shepherd stock on our land.When the bypass was opened he judged it too dangerous to cycle down so he drove.He collided with a vehicle as he crossed the bypass. That vehicle turned over.There were no human fatalities but a dog in the vehicle was killed.I am not at all certain that that incident was recorded in the statistics.Mr.Hunt now cycles to us crossing at Westham Lane.He waits until he can see no traffic in either direction but frequently a car is virtually upon him before he has completed the crossing.He has been hooted at and abused.It beggars belief that the study concludes that there is good pedestrian access to the the village for the school and buses.It should also be noted that considerable development is taking place in Wellesbourne which can only increase the traffic.At peak times,when children would need to go to the village,it is common to have to wait several minutes to exit Westham Lane safely.The greater part of
Westham Lane is a private road --- resurfaced at the cost of the residents a few years ago.It is narrow and not well suited to the traffic that would be generated by a travellers site.
5. Agriculture.
The site is on land classified as grade 2. Only a tiny percentage of land in Warwickshire is of that quality.If required,it is capable of irrigation for intensive vegetable cropping as is the case with other land in the valley which runs to Wellesbourne.Anyone travelling from Barford bridge to Wellesbourne can see the high value cropping that is possible on the land.Only a few months ago I was telephoned by a former client ( who grows salad crops on a substantial scale ) asking if I knew of any land for sale or to rent in the Barford/Wellesbourne corridor as he is well aware of the suitability of the land in this area for intensive cropping.He is desperate to find more land and would pay well over the price for such suitable arable land.The land is well farmed by Mr.Morgan and is viable despite a relatively small acreage for an arable holding.It would be wholly wrong for any site to be located on "the best and most versatile land".The site would lie downwind of the adjoining land and would inevitably be affected by any spraying of the crops,thereby bringing the travellers into conflict with the farmer of the land.Mr.Morgan applied treated sewage sludge to part of his holding last autumn.There would surely be conflict when sludge is applied to the land adjoining the site.Our land and that immediately adjoining is farmed entirely for livestock production.It is a fact that dogs form an important part of the travellers community --- indeed Best Practice advice suggests the provision of kennels with pitches.It is also well known that travellers dogs are kept reasonably free.That represents a hazard for livestock producers and a potential conflict.Although livestock owners are within their rights to shoot dogs causing a nuisance to stock,such action would bring about open warfare rather than the harmonious relationship the policies aspire to.

6. Compulsory Purchase ( CPO )

The site ( and any alternative site to the west of Barford bypass )is not available as the owners,including my wife and I, would not be willing to sell.I have grave reservations as to whether compulsory purchase powers are appropriate in this case.Such powers should only be used for the public benefit --- not simply to get the Council off the hook.No public benefit can be demonstrated in this case.Where land is acquired by CPO for public benefit compensation is paid to those adversely affected.There is no provision for compensation in the case of land acquired for a travellers site.That is simply because there is no public benefit.We will fight any CPO tooth and nail whether of our own land or neighbouring land.

7. Other locations.

There are other locations far more suitable than GT12.In particular,GTalt01 and GT15.There is some suggestion that gas is a problem with the former but that is a problem well capable of resolution --- even beneficial.If the Council is obliged to provide a site then,if that site is in all other respects suitable,the Council should take such steps as may be necessary to resolve any problem with the site.There are other potential sites within the possible major developments south of Warwick and Leamington or east of Kenilworth which should be considered.It would be far more sensible to locate a site within a development where it can be planned from the outset rather than impose a site on an established community in a location where it simply does not fit.Any large scale development has to provide facilities for "public benefit" such as affordable housing.Why not a travellers site? Those locations may not be immediately available but,bearing in mind that the Government is considering redefining the term "travellers"it would be right to withdraw the present proposals altogether and plan for an an appropriate site as part of the new developments.




In summary it seems to us that the location of a site GT12 would have a disproportionate effect upon the existing small community that lies to the west of the bypass.It is a poor location for the potential occupants,will be damaging to the environment,will take extremely valuable agricultural land and will be expensive to deliver.For all those reasons we oppose it.

GT12 This site is unsuitable for development for the following reasons:

It is located alongside an A road that carries a large number of vehicles in each 24 hour period, including many heavy goods vehicles and others, throughout each day and night.
There is noise, vibration and traffic fumes all of which will be difficult to endure inside and outside of caravan accommodation.
Access onto and from the A road is poor, having to use a narrow, private lane to do so.
Even of the junction were to be changed, it requires care and good judgement to enter or cross the path of oncoming traffic, the access is situated on a bend in the road. Therefore a hazard would be created for
both any site users and traffic on the A road itself.
The site is cut off from Barford Village, physically and psycologically, being on the opposite side of the bypass and therefore is not community based as required by the criteria and objectives set by WDC.
There is no safe pedestrian access to the village and the provision of a crossing will not be possible within safety guidlines.

The site floods.

The site and activity upon it creates possible contamination to soil and watercourses, ultimately flowing into the River Avon, as a result of occupation and possible use of the site for processing and storage of materials.

There are other more suitable sites available, including those which have not been formally identified during the consultation processes.
These include the larger new mixed development sites which are being proposed, where access to facilities can be planned in and where integration between communities can be more readiliy achieved.

The Gateway and Siskin Drive developments are alternatives which can achieve the objectives and sustainability aims set out in the criteria and objectives.

Larger development sites will enable average site costs to be lower than with the smaller, piecemeal developments proposed and create lesser impact than a greater number of smaller developments will.

Overall the site does not allow the criteria and objectives set to be met.

In addition, other more suitable sites have been overlooked, as identified above, or little considered in the search process.

I object to the sites GT12 & GTalt12 at Barford on the following grounds:

Harmful to the open flat landscape being within the Feldon Parkland/Terrace farm landscape an area of importance and should be protected from unsuitable development such as proposed which is out of character for the area.
The layout would form a ribbon type of development along side the road, One of the reason that the Town and Country Act was created.
The visual open views into the rural countryside and also looking inwards towards the village from across the river will be spoilt.
Light pollution from the development will also cause harm to the rural atmosphere of the area at night.
The development adds an extension to the built up area of the village extending beyond the bypass.
The proposal for GT12 would sever the service road serving the collection pond which was part of the planning application requirements for the Bypass.
As this field for GT12 consist of the owner entire land holding any reduction in its size will have greater impact on the financial variability that it can earn.
There are great safety issues for pedestrians crossing and for vans with trailers, etc gaining access to and from the bypass which is an unrestricted main road for both sites.
The school in recent years has been expanded to cope with the village needs and Barford is not classed as a growth village and so there no need to expand the school.
The village has very little services only one community store, no doctors.

Sites Specific.
Possible sites should also be investigated on the approach into Warwick from Longbridge were there are areas suitable on either side of the road including land belonging to the District Council. Also within or near the proposed development areas of Kenilworth near the A46 which would give easy links to more Motorways.
There are sites mention in the Council consultation list which are more suitable and less harmful to the countryside should be used / reconsidered as suitable:-
GT01 (as part of the employment land). GT02, GT04, Also at by the breaker Yard GT08, GT11, GT15,Also next to the Motorway Police depot. GT19, GTalt02, GTalt09, Gtalt11(This area is now becoming a rural development zone so is more suitable) & GTalt16.
The Council in its Local Plan should be making provision for these sites within the proposed large development areas both residential and employment land as part of the community package.
It is also wrong to be concentrating the majority of sites within the small area of the south side of the District and having many small sites as oppose to one or two, some should also be located in the north of the District and all of them should be under the control of the Council.

Barford Residents Association wishes to submit an objection to site GT 12 as a preferred option based on the criteria stated on P 13 of the Preferred Options Document March 2014
1. The first criterion is for convenient access to a GP surgery. There has not been a GP surgery in Barford for over 30 years. The nearest surgery quoted is in Bishops Tachbrook which is a difficult 4.4 miles away by road. Although there is a school and buses do pass through the village hourly during the day - the need to cross the Barford Bypass means that these services are not easily accessible by pedestrians.
2. The western part of the area falls within the flood plain. Development in this area would not be consistent with avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding.
3. Safe access to the road network would not be possible. Large slow moving vehicles trying to enter or leave this site would cause an unacceptable and unnecessary hazard on a fast moving (60 mph) road that already has a poor accident record. (12 notifiable accidents, 3 severe and 1 fatality since opening in 2006)
4. The Barford Bypass is adjacent to the site and therefore this is not consistent with an objective of avoiding locating development where there is potential for noise and other disturbance. When the Barford Bypass was built compensation was paid to several households on the West side of Barford in respect of the noise disturbance caused. Site GT 12 is much closer to the Bypass than these houses and caravans are thin walled and provide little attenuation for occupants. This is proposed as a site for only 8 pitches - but if noise reduction measures are to be taken then the area needed for this would significantly reduce the space available for sites and make the site un-viable.
5. There are no utilities within the proposed area so these would have to be provided. The cost of providing these would make it an uneconomic proposition.
6. The Council has produced no evidence in relation to the ecological and biodiversity importance of the land within the areas proposed. Development in this area would cause unacceptable harm to biodiversity interest contrary to the provisions of the NPPF. The area contains a number of protected species including water voles and badgers. This represents a failure to accord with the Council's proposed criteria to avoid areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural environment.
7. As site GT12 is in flat open countryside any new development could not be considered to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness. If a site of eight pitches is planned within GT12 then a significant development of some 1.8 hectares including at least eight or so permanent amenity buildings could not be integrated into the landscape without harming the unspoilt character of the area.
8. This site is physically separated from the settlement of Barford by the Bypass. It will not be possible to achieve peaceful integrated co-existence between the site and the village as the Bypass will cause a natural barrier.
9. Undue pressure will be placed on the local infrastructure which is stretched at the moment and will be further strained by the addition of 70 - 90 houses allocated in the New Local Plan. In particular the school is full at present - and although only 8 pitches are planned we are advised that Traveller families tend to be larger than average and this could result in more than 20 extra places being required.
There are some additional factors that are relevant to the decision but do not fit into the response categories defined.
The proposed site is Grade 2 agricultural land. It forms part of a small holding and selecting this area as a Gypsy & Traveller site will render the holding un-viable. The loss of this resource is not necessary and selecting an alternative site would enable this to be conserved.
The owner of the site is not willing to sell and Compulsory purchase proceedings would therefore need to be initiated. This will necessarily take a long time and is not guaranteed to be successful. No previous CPOs have been granted for Gypsy & Traveller sites in England. We are aware of one CPO by Mid Suffolk DC that has failed. There are alternative sites where the owner is willing to sell or the land is currently owned by WCC. These sites should be considered in preference to sites that may not be deliverable.
ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
BRA supports the proposal that a number of the required Gypsy and Traveller sites should be accommodated in the new housing developments allocated in the Local Plan. This will give Warwick District Council the opportunity to address all the Gypsy and Traveller's needs at the planning stage rather than imposing them on existing communities.
The new Local Plan proposes a residential site at Thickthorn near Kenilworth. Currently the site is in the Green Belt and this indicates that WDC is willing and able to adjust the Green Belt boundaries to accommodate new development. The Publication 'Planning Policy for Travellers Site DCLG March 2012' states that 'a Local Planning Authority can make an exceptional limited alteration to the defined Green Belt boundary which might be to accommodate a site inset within the Green Belt to meet a specific identified need for a traveller site. It should do so only through the plan making process and not in response to a planning application. If land is removed from the Green Belt in this way it should be specifically allocated in the Development Plan as a traveller site only.' The WDC decision to exempt the green belt from the areas allocated for Gypsy and Traveller sites has resulted in an unacceptable concentration of these sites in the South of the District. This is evident in the brochure where the plan of the Green and amber sites is at twice the scale of the red sites and all the green sites are in the Southern half of the map. The council are currently preparing the New Local Plan and thus have an opportunity for a full review of the Green Belt throughout the whole district. Section 9 of the NPPF about protecting Green Belt land also makes it clear that the Local Plan is an opportunity to review the boundaries of the Green Belt.
SUMMARY
Barford Residents Association strongly objects to the inclusion of Site GT12 as a preferred site for a Gypsy and Traveller site to be located.
It fails all the criteria set out by Warwick District Council for a suitable site.
Necessary measures to reduce noise at the site from the adjacent Barford Bypass would reduce the available area to such an extent that less than 5 pitches that could be established making the site unviable.
The need to use a Compulsory Purchase Order to obtain the site and the likelihood that this will fail makes the site undeliverable.
FOOTNOTE
Although this objection is to the selection of GT 12 as a preferred site it should be noted that these comments are equally applicable to site GT alt 12, (not on the preferred list) which is nearby and also separated from Barford by the Bypass.

I have been made aware of the proposals for the Barford area, Warwick and wish to comment as follows :

Site ref GT12 This site has a number of dangers and difficulties for Travellers.

1. A long narrow site with difficult access for vans and trailers.
2. Adjacent to the A429, a very busy road with fast traffic, 60 mph limit. This section is the new Barford bypass.
3. Very close to the junction for Barford village and the road to Leamington Spa which is difficult and busy now.
4.Very few local services are available in Barford. No Doctor, no Dentist, no service station. No Secondary School and no shops except the community store in the village hall.
5.The land is prime agricultural land producing good grazing.

The proposed site ref: GTalt12 is very close to GT12 and poses all of the above problems for travellers.

I think a better safer site is on the old A41 , now A4100 Banbury Road at the Asps Warwick. If it has been selected I don't have the reference number. The site seems to have planning for caravans but remains undeveloped for many months now. It is close to Warwick with its many facilities.

I do hope you will consider my comments and let me have your acknowledgement.

I am writing to strongly object to the proposal for a traveller site GT12

The site is in appropriate due to its close proximity to the busy road net work

The location of the site will cause major conflict between the two communities.
The highway network may appear to be a physical barrier but this is not a cultural barrier.

Traveller sites need to be an appropriate distance to current communities or settlements.
The proposed nursery residential site will be too close to the proposed gypsy site.
The current houses on Westham lane will also be adversely affected by the proposal GT12

For these reasons GT12 is inappropriate

Whilst I understand the need for these pitches, I object to Site GT12 Westham Lane as it does not comply with your own criteria on page 13 of the Preferred Options document where it states "the council has applied consistent criteria".

1. Access is not safe in any way. It is situated alongside the very busy A429 (Barford bypass) with a speed limit of 60 mph. Pedestrians and potential schoolchildren would have to cross this road to get access to the village. This road unfortunately has a history of too many serious accidents, some fatal.
2. Provision of utilities would be expensive, not cost effective
3. The physical aspect of this site would be extremely detrimental as it is situated on the main trunk road from historic Warwick to the Cotswolds, a very popular tourist route.
4. Integration into the landscape would be very difficult and the natural environment around the pretty River Avon would be destroyed.
5. There is no doctor's surgery nearby.

A much more obvious choice would be GTalt01 Brookside Willows.
It is still located at the edge of Warwick with all its advantages but
1. Is screened form the Banbury Road
2. Has a good and safe access already built
3. Safe pedestrian access to town
4. Choice of good schools, surgeries and transport readily available
5. A pleasant environment and no issues with noise (either way).
6. It is a larger area and potentially could hold more pitches, making it more sense economically.

A longer term solution, surely, would be to provide larger G & T sites within the planning of new, larger mixed developments which will surely happen with the introduction of the Local Plan.
This makes sense both economically and from a planning point of view.

Barford Residents' Association has consulted with many residents in Barford since the Gypsy and Traveller sites were first proposed last year, and we wish you to know that the residents of Barford object most strongly to the sites GT06, GT12, GTalt 12 proposed in the recent plan, with particular reference to the area known as GT12 as we (the Barford Residents) believe they are totally unsuitable for the following reasons mindful of the Council's own criteria.
The first criterion is for convenient access to a GP surgery. There are no GP surgeries in Barford, the nearest quoted in the brochure in Tachbrook is actually 4.4 miles away by road. This site would therefore fail in this criterion.
Although there is a school and limited public transport - the need to cross the Barford Bypass means that these services are not safely accessible and certainly there is no adequate pedestrian crossing facility to assist in accessing these services.
The western part of the area does fall within or very close to the flood plain as identified on the Environment Agency maps. Development in this area would not be consistent with avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding.
In our view safe access would not be possible. The Barford Bypass already has a poor accident record. Adding slow moving vehicles and turning traffic would exacerbate an already unsafe situation.
The Barford Bypass is adjacent to the site and therefore this is not consistent with an objective of avoiding locating development where there is potential for noise and other disturbance. Noise mitigation, if it were possible, would reduce the land available for the site, be very expensive and not very effective.
There are no utilities within the proposed area so these would have to be provided at considerable cost and disturbance to traffic using the Bypass whilst this work was being undertaken. There has to be a question as to whether the Gypsies and Travellers would be able to, or wish to, fund this development as it would add significantly to the individual pitch price.
The proposed site is Grade 2 agricultural land and a reduction in the holding area it is situated in would render it non-viable as a holding.
The Council has produced no evidence in relation to the ecological and biodiversity importance of the land within the areas proposed. It is our contention that development in this area would cause unacceptable harm to biodiversity interest contrary to the provisions of the NPPF. Indeed we are very much aware that the area contains a number of protected species including, but not limited to, water voles and badgers which we understand, to be legally protected species. This, in our view, represents a failure to accord with the Council's proposed criteria to avoid areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural environment.
Given that this site is greenfield and divorced from the settlement of Barford by the Bypass it is not considered capable of accommodating development that could be successfully integrated into the landscape without materially harming the character of the area.


This site does not fully accord with the provisions of 'Planning Policy for Traveller sites' as it does not promote peaceful integrated co-existence between the site and the local community and does not avoid undue pressure on local infrastructure and services.
The owner of the site is not willing to sell and Compulsory purchase proceedings would therefore need to be initiated. This would be strongly resisted by both the landowner and the residents of Barford.




SUMMARY
There are no GP surgeries in Barford.
There is no safe access to the school or public transport as to access both would require crossing the very busy and dangerous Barford Bypass.
The Barford Bypass already has a poor accident record, adding more traffic in this location and particularly large slow moving vehicles would exacerbate an already unsafe situation.
There are no utilities i.e., running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal. GT12 places undue pressure on local infrastructure and services and therefore does not promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.
In light of the above we wish you to represent our objections to the appropriate interested parties on the basis that these sites, particularly GT12, is not appropriate as a Gypsy and Traveller site as it is unsuitable, undeliverable and could not be developed

PROPOSED STRATEGY
A number of the required Gypsy and Traveller sites should be accommodated in the new housing developments allocated in the Local Plan. This will give Warwick District Council the opportunity to address all the Gypsy and Traveller's needs at the planning stage rather than imposing them on existing communities.

I trust you will take the above points into consideration and reflect the views of many of your constituents when considering the recommendations for Proposed Gypsy & Traveller Sites in the New Local Plan

Please accept the enclosed as an objection to site GT12 (as a Preferred Option) and GT12a of the Preferred Options Document March 2014


Has WDC really considered the building design and layout of these proposed sites and their effect on open surrounding countryside?
Has the Government or WDC consulted with any of the Gypsy Traveller Community to find out their views on their proposals?

If Gypsies and Travellers wish to be integrated into a Community then the obvious solution is to incorporate the sites into the proposals for new planned communities. The design of G&T permanent dwelling sites will not be 'so obvious' set amongst new housing developments. Communities will naturally form and facilities be automatically shared.

Few of the current proposals meet the strict criteria set down by WDC .

Sites GT12 North of Westham Lane and GT12a Barford Community Meadow certainly do not meet these criteria.

Intrusive building in open Shakespearean Countryside on the edge of an Historic Village.
Spread along a dangerous and noisy trunk road of the A429 and no safe access for vehicles or pedestrians.
No access to a doctors surgery, nurse, dentist or pharmacy.
No safe access to public transport, the School or the Village shop

Both these locations are ill considered. I would not want to live there.

Taking the proposed area of land will render my business unviable and thus I will require compensating accordingly.

The site is on the east of my land and the prevailing west wind would make it unpleasant for the occupants when pesticides are being applied or when sewage sludge is being stored and spread.

Having had a planning application and an appeal rejected for a farmhouse on my land,for me to occupy personally, I feel it would be most unfair to allow the provision of accommodation and no doubt business premises for a number of families.

I trust that you will give most serious consideration to above and withdraw my land from the Preferred Option Sites.

Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail.

LOCAL PLAN.
Gypsie and Travellers Preferred Option site GT12
West of Westham Lane

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposals on the doorstep of Barford Village.
These proposals are completely ridiculous
* The nearest GP Surgery is 4.4 Miles away
* The site is next to a de- restricted road where the 60 mph limit is frequently broken.
* What about the flaming noise from the road, huge articulated trucks roaring past day and night. Noise barriers would just add to the expense.
* No Utility Services presently available.
* The impact on Landscape and Tourism of a Gypsie Camp would be dreadful. You would get a good view of it from the top deck of the X18.
* The site would be completely cut off from safe access to Village facilities and they wouldn't be welcome.

Barford, recently voted one of the top 100 places to live in the UK, not for much longer if the Council get their way.
This travesty must be stopped. Please register my most strongest objection.