see attached

As with my general objections this would result in Stratford DC bearing the support costs that are Warwick DC's. In addition the financial cost of relocating Leamington F. C. would render the option untenable. The adjacent roads are already straining with the increase in traffic caused by the increase in size of JLR and this is not taling into consideration the potential development at Lighthorne

This does not seem an unreasonable choice. I am concerned to understand who maintains a 'non-mains solution' for foul water and what the implications of 'drain away from the south' are.
In addition, is there an opportunity to be innovative and provide a low carbon decentralised energy solution for this and other traveller sites as part of the redevelopment?

firstly i feel that leamington football club needs protecting as an asset of community value when you consider the number of teams using the grounds many youth teams ladies teams and vets the club hasbeen built largely with supporters money with many hundreds of people investing many thousands of pounds how you propose to commpensate all these people for thier time and hours spent developing the ground whilst i accept that people in town do not want these people on thier door step your criteria states adequate access to drs and schools really i do not think ethier of these ammeinites are close enough
why was a large chunk of land removed from eariier doccument leaving just leamington fc ground for consideration has some sort of preliminary arraege ment already been agreed
the smell from chicken farm opposite must be a consideration very unpleasant for long periods
cheterton windmill also a site of beauty and heritage would be unacceptably blited
if this site is to be used leamington football club must be protected and eny new ground must be ready for use before lfc vacate current site as the football club along with the work of the brakes trust does enormouse amounts of good for community allthis should not be lost to accomdate travellers

I object to this location for a number of reasons:

Traffic & Road Safety - Due to the massive and unmanaged increase in traffic commuting to JLR, Harbury Lane is now much busier. This has then had a knock on effect to the junction with the Fosse Way which a constant serious accident location. This additional traffic is also heading South, down the Fosse Way compounding the problem. Traffic is backing up along Harbury Lane as well as N up the Fosse, also creating a bottleneck. This is also a 'High Risk Route' so the problem can only get worse. Development at the Whitnash end of Harbury Lane will also only increase traffic strains.

Access to amenities - (doctors, shops, schools etc) from GT04 is also difficult as there is nothing in walking distance, as well as there being no footpaths, therefore requiring cars to be used.

Smells from Barnwell Farm - I can only imagine that any development money spent would be wasted at this location as the smell from Barnwell Farm is unpleasant to the point of unbearable, particularly in the warmer months and this would no doubt deter occupants.

This is not an appropriate location for any form of new development, whether for travellers or not. On one side of it, Harbury has just recently had the "Harbury Fields" develoment on Bush Heath Lane, and on the other side there's the major development occurring opposite the Manor Court Hotel. The Council is proposing placing 10 pitches here, e.g., the equivalent of roughly 10 single-family homes. The area has had too much recent infill already, the last thing it needs is yet another development.

I object to this location for a number of reasons:

Traffic & Road Safety - Due to the massive and unmanaged increase in
traffic commuting to JLR, Harbury Lane is now much busier. This has then
had a knock on effect to the junction with the Fosse Way which a constant
serious accident location. This additional traffic is also heading South,
down the Fosse Way compounding the problem. Traffic is backing up along
Harbury Lane as well as N up the Fosse, also creating a bottleneck. This is
also a 'High Risk Route' so the problem can only get worse. Development at
the Whitnash end of Harbury Lane will also only increase traffic strains.

Access to amenities - (doctors, shops, schools etc) from GT04 is also
difficult as there is nothing in walking distance, as well as there being
no footpaths, therefore requiring cars to be used.

Smells from Barnwell Farm - I can only imagine that any development money
spent would be wasted at this location as the smell from Barnwell Farm is
unpleasant to the point of unbearable, particularly in the warmer months
and this would no doubt deter occupants.

As an unfortunate, but timely illustration to my previous point, there was crash debris at the junction between Harbury Lane & Fosse Way at the beginning of this week. There was also a three car collision there at approx 7.30am yesterday (27/03/2014). I can only imagine the likelihood and implications of an accident involving a slow moving caravan. It would seem impossible to ignore such a high risk situation.

I have lived in Harbury all my live and of course know the area extremely well. The roads that surround the Football Club at GT04 are serious flood areas. The land on either side of Harbury Lane is in many places higher than the road which also causes major flooding issues. This road has always flooded, please ask any local person and they will tell you - I do not know what DEFRA or Environmental reports tell you regarding flooding along these roads but if they are not highlighting a flooding issue to you then they are very very wrong - I am amazed to see that GT04 is a preferred option for a site simply due to the awful drainage in this area!

FROM HARBURY SOCIETY.
We are concerned about the impact that a G & T Site here would have on the landscape and Chesterton Windmill, a heritage asset of international value. Planting could not screen the site adequately when viewed from the Lias ridge. Surveys have shown the Roman Town spreads over this area. Harbury Lane is a Lorry Route with a 50mph limit. Further we believe the danger at the Fosse Crossroads would be exacerbated by the movement of lorries with trailers. Your analysis suggests Radford Semele could take school children from the site but although it is closer as the crow flies, Harbury is nearer by road and its school now struggles to find places for village children. The Surgery has similar problems. This is not a sustainable or appropriate site - the surrounding area floods, it sits on junction of the Whitnash faults, has a high pressure gas main and will be upwind of the Chicken Farm. If Brakes do not find an alternative home then GT04 would not be available in the short to medium term. We believe there are better options at Oaklands Farm; East of Europa Way; Brookside Willows, Banbury Road and Tachbrook Hill Farm.

Test comment, please disregard.

My family live at Highdown Cottage Harbury Lane Bishops Tachbrook.

We are responding to the consultation of the gypsy sites in WDC

Firstly will they be contributing to the council as we do to maintain our amenities????

We have had experience of travellers many times at the recreation ground Harbury Lane and felt threatened by them and had to call the police to our property when one of them trespassed in our grounds as was ready to steal a dog. It was only our vigilance that prevented him.
We have also seen the filth left behind and one of your workers physically retching at what he had to clear up. Too disgusting to put in print!!
My concern is that any rural site which is isolated will end up the same and we as rate payers will foot the bill again and again.
When you move maybe Riverside would be a good place for them where they can be part of a community and have shops ETC that they can walk to.
Harbury Lane is a fast and dangerous road to start a new family community with no paths or lighting

Thank you for your E-mail concerning the proposed travellers sites.
I can only really comment on the site on the junction of the Leamington to Southam road and the Fosse Way.

I would consider this site to be unsuitable for the following reasons;

1 The Midlands Exhibition Centre, which at present is a highly successful venture, would be badly affected, probably resulting in its closure and subsequent loss of jobs. It has potential to inrease its present business, but no further investment would be forthcoming.

The agricultural/growers business would find it hard to remain in business, possibly again with job losses.

The general attractive rural setting overlooking the valley would be destroyed.

With regard to alternative sites, Iwould suggest that the present Leamington football ground should be considered as the football club are willing to sell, thereby removing the need for possible compulsary purchase orders and the associated costs

Bishop's Itchington Parish Council has major concerns about the assumption WDC has made that Bishop's Itchington has/will have spare education (nursery and primary school) places and local GP surgery provision. Planning permission has already been granted to build 112 new homes in this village, in addition to which a planning application for a further 200 new homes on the site of the former Harbury Cement Works is due to be determined in May 2014. The additional number of homes already approved, plus those currently in the planning process, means that the village will not be able to absorb any additional people seeking educational and medical services from outside the village. We ask that you take this information into account and review the viability of site GT04 accordingly.

I am writing to let you know that I am not happy with the proposal or the location for the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site.

The basis for my objection is as follows:-

* The local amenities in the area are already over stretched with the local school already full to capacity.
* Appointments needed at the Surgery result in a 1 to 2 week delay and often means travelling to Bishops Itchington. This is difficult for those without transport.
* The road are suffering already with poor maintenance with pothole left un-repaired for months on end. You only need look at Constance drive as the junction has laid un-repaired for several months and is a danger to cyclists.
* The locations indicated on the map appears to not consider the high levels of traffic that have already resulted in injury and fatalities in a relativity short period of time.
* I may be wrong but a site was established a short distance away on the Prince Thorpe to Coventry road. To date this has still not been fully utilised.
* There is also a site on the road to Stow that remains less than half filled.
* Last year and several years before, we experienced sever flooding in this proposed area that resulted in the main road being closed for a long period of time and this area was under water.
* Harbury has already taken more than their fair share of new housing putting excessive loads on the sewer, water and power systems. We are already experiencing lower water pressure even though we were told at the time of the new dwelling development at Bush Heath lane that there would no effects on us. The sewers I understand has already had to be modified.

Before we start tearing up farm land, all other sites should be fully utilised. I am a tax payer and do not feel that this plan has been thought through very well. If we have spare cash for poorly thought out schemes like this this, spare cash should first be used to provide the services we have already been charged for within our rates and the employment tax we pay as PAYE.
Last year we experienced floods and this area was under water. You my think that it was a one off, but this has been happening quite regular. Poor location of site could result in the cost of re-homing/housing flood victims putting additional strain on the already stretched resource.

I am aware that there is an enquiry/judicial review currently underway to see if this policy being used to justify this additional provision is flored. I therfore believe it is only right for all parties to wait untill this has policy/rule has been review befoe we move forward to use for agricultural or other land for this provision, directly or indirectly or by compulsary purchase as once commited there is no way back.

If we have to go ahead with one site the invietigation work to establish suitable sites has been floored. The team have missed of one piece of land that was not in the plan for consideration and can be found driving south on the Fosse way approximatly 1 mile south of the M40 motor. Formally a gaurage this has recently been redesignated as 'for building purposes'. There are no dangerous road junctions near by and this has good sight lines. Finally this would clear up what is currently an eyesaw. Why was this missed?

I would therefore like to formally object to the proposal on the above grounds

not viable sites as the traffic and movement in these areas is already far too heavy. It is difficult to move round these areas especially in the morning and later in the afternoon so more people and traffic is not an option if the people who already use the area are to be able to travel in safety. Even more traffic means traffic jams, short tempers, dangerous driving and serious accidents.

Appears to be located in an very suitable location

This would appear to be a GOOD CHOICE in every way with minimal impact on existing residents - every help should be mobilised to assist the FC to move as they wish. The site could easily take 15 pitches if WDC can change the 5-10 restriction.

This is a VERY GOOD SITE on most criteria and impacts very few residents. Every assistance should be given to the FC to achieve the move they wish.

1) I support all five sites listed as Preferred Options
2) I object to inclusion of site GT11 in the list of Alternative Sites, for reasons stated in my submission to initial consultation of June 2013, as per attached file
3) i reserve the right to submit further comments and/or objections on any listed site(s) prior to any final decisions being made by the Council

SITES FOR GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS, JUNE 2013
SITE GT11 - SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS
I was quite shocked to learn that this land, labelled GT11, adjacent to the Chase Meadow estate, is being considered by the Council for use as a possible large scale permanent site for Gypsies and Travellers (Gypsies and Travellers Sites - Options for Consultation, June 2013, Warwick District Council) in connection with its new Local Plan.
Indeed, there are so many reasons why the use of a large part of this land as a Gypsy and Traveller site cannot possibly fit any rational planning policy criteria that, as a qualified planner, I have to question why it was ever considered in the first instance?
It is hard to know where to start with objections to this proposal but in this detailed submission I set them out in three sections as follows:
 Objections to the Council's approach to needs assessment, which underpins the subsequent site search options.
 Specific objections to site GT11.
 Recommendations for a sustainable approach to site search and assessment, with additional potential sites proposed.
Throughout this submission, 'GTC' refers to Gypsy and Traveller Community; 'the Council' refers to Warwick District Council (WDC); 'the District' refers to Warwick District.
OBJECTIONS TO OVERALL APPROACH
1. Assessment of Accommodation Need - General Approach
The document 'Planning Policy for Travellers Sites', March 2012 is part of the National planning framework and sets out guidance in respect of the government's aims in respect of traveller sites, an extract from which states:
 to ensure that local planning authorities, working collaboratively, develop fair and effective strategies
 that local planning authorities should make their own assessment of need for planning purposes

In addition, the 2011 Localism Act sets out a 'duty to co-operate' in the production of joint development plans on a cross-authority basis, especially where a local planning authority has planning constraints across its area as in Warwick District where the Green Belt covers 81% of its modest 109 square miles, (in comparison Stratford District contains 378 square miles).
However, in respect of the foregoing, the Council admits it has attempted to, but failed to liaise and work with adjacent councils, both in assessment of need and in the identification of suitable sites, and has therefore continued to try and identify land within its own boundaries to serve its own need, ie at a relatively small geographical scale.
Such an approach makes little sense in relation to the GTC, which is by its very nature transient, and where administrative boundaries have little if any, relevance. Thus identification of need and planning of site provision is best carried out at a larger (sub-regional or county) scale in order to be strategic, robust, rational and equitable.
The Council's approach to this issue can therefore be seen to be fundamentally flawed, even at this preliminary stage.
2. Assessment of Accommodation Need - Quantification
Since 2008 there have been a whole series of GTC accommodation needs assessments for permanent pitches the District, with widely varying results.
The original 2008 (South Housing Market) assessment identified a District requirement for 11 permanent pitches, subsequently the Regional Spatial Strategy allocated 23 to the District for the period 2007 - 2017.
However the Council subsequently rejected this figure suggesting it was based on limited evidence and therefore not robust or reliable, and undertook its own assessment which reported in April 2011. This concluded that demand for permanent GTC sites in the area was 'low and transitory in nature' and recommended provision of a 12 pitch transit site only, (15 caravans).
In 2012 the Council appointed consultants from Salford University to carry out a detailed assessment of GTC accommodation needs within the District. Although the final report is quite lengthy, the key figure of 31 permanent pitches (2012 - 2026), is based fairly simplistically on current (2012) unauthorised encampments of 23 pitches (1 pitch = 1 household). However, their separate estimate, from interview survey, of the number of GTC households 'based in the District' was 30, but of these, only 7 were actually living in caravans, the rest were living in bricks and mortar houses!
In view of their wide range, the reliability of all these estimates of GTC permanent pitch need must be questionable.
OBJECTIONS TO SITE GT11
Site Location and Nature
This is a substantial area of search, within which a large site of 12 pitches/19 caravans would be located i.e. approximately 6,400 m2 in area, (at 500 m2 per pitch). Such a site would be expected to accommodate some 45 persons, based on an average GTC household size of 3.7, however it is not unreasonable to take this as a minimum estimate for planning purposes.
Bounded by mature trees to the A4189, it is currently in use as farmland but also contains a spur to the racecourse track and one large residential property. The area is less than 20 metres via the A4189 from the edge of Chase Meadow, a large residential estate of approximately 1,000 dwellings, due to increase to approximately 1,400 when fully developed. Hence present and future population figures of 4,000 and 5,600 respectively can be estimated for the estate at an average of 4 persons per dwelling.
Assessment against Policy Criteria
The suitability of GT11 can partly be determined by assessing the extent to which the site meets, or fails to meet, each of the 10 policy criteria as listed in the Council's document 'Sites for Gypsies and Travellers', June 2013, paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4, as listed in the next section.
It should be noted however that these ten are not necessarily the only or the most appropriate criteria, have not been consulted upon, moreover they do not fully take into account the National guidance ('Planning Policy for Travellers Sites', March 2012), as they omit a key National policy requirement, namely the protection of local amenity - see page 7.
1. Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
Whilst access to these may be physically convenient, both the local GP practice on Chase Meadow and both Newburgh Primary and Aylesford schools have no spare capacity, primarily due to existing demand from the resident population of the Chase Meadow and Forbes Estates and from projected future demand from the former - an additional 1,600 persons. Moreover, in the case of the schools, the demand on teaching time and resources from the GTC is likely to be disproportionately greater per pupil than from the settled community, due to the former's well documented special educational needs
CONCLUSION - FAILS
2. Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
The site is directly bounded to the east by the Gog Brook and a tributary stream to the north, the former falling within the Environment Agency's Flood Zone 3, hence a measurable risk of flooding is present. (See also under 3. below)
CONCLUSION - FAILS
3. Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site
In the vicinity of the site, there is already a high volume of peak time traffic flows along the A4189 Hampton Road with eastbound traffic approaching at relatively high speeds and considerable traffic turning movements from and into the Chase Meadow and Forbes estates. Due to the high levels of GTC vehicle ownership, the proposals for this site would significantly exacerbate traffic congestion by generating additional flows and turning movements, in particular of large, slow moving commercial vehicles, many towing caravans and/or trailers. Moreover, this is a road that is subject to periodic flooding in the vicinity of the racecourse main entrance, and where the road is restricted in width due to parked vehicles along the residential frontage.
CONCLUSION - FAILS on safe access
4. Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance
The site is subject to significant traffic noise from the adjacent A46. A related issue is the 'noise and disturbance' which might be generated by the resident GTC themselves and so would be likely to adversely affect the amenity of adjacent Chase Meadow residents. CONCLUSION - FAILS
5. Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)
As this is essentially a green field site, there are no utilities present; they would all have to be provided from scratch at considerable cost and higher than that for other brown field equivalents.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
6. Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment.
This is a sensitive urban fringe location, adjoining the Green Belt boundary at the A46 by pass, and this importance was reflected in its designation by the Council in 2012 as a 'Green Wedge' search area, areas that the Council are committed to protecting in future:
The Council will identify and protect a network of green wedges important for their ecological, landscape and/or access functions in the setting of differing urban areas and urban rural fringe. It is intended that this approach will revise and replace the existing policy of Areas of Restraint in the Local Plan 1996 - 2011.'
(New Local Plan Preferred Options report, May 2012, WDC, paragraph 15.14).
Related to the above, the site lies at a key 'Gateway Route' via the A4189, into the town of Warwick. Despite screening, due to its large scale there would most likely be an adverse visual impact from the perspective of both the racecourse and the A4189. In particular in the case of visitors and coach borne tourists approaching from the east, their first visual impression of Warwick, a town of national historic and cultural importance, would be a large gypsy encampment!
CONCLUSION - FAILS
7. Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.
As for 6. above.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
8. Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community
Site locations close to existing residential areas are more likely to increase rather than reduce tensions between settled and traveller communities, especially if both are at larger scales as with GT11. This is due to fundamental incompatibilities between the two communities, arising from the nature of the GTC culture, way of life and economic activity, and regardless of whether sites are authorised or not.
There is also evidence that crime and antisocial behaviour increases due to the presence of large numbers of the GTC in a locality.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
9. Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
As for 1. and 3.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
10 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
There will be no net increase in 'sustainability' as the same factors already apply to existing unauthorised sites, and all GTC sites will generate many 'travel to work' journeys. Moreover, to the extent that these sites are commercial and industrial in nature as well as residential, this is clearly incompatible with established planning principles of zoning and separation and likely to be detrimental to local amenity and environment. ie detract from 'sustainability'.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
The protection of local amenity is an important consideration in any planning process and a specific requirement of the government's March 2012 guidance for traveller sites: 'for local planning authorities to have due regard to the protection of local amenity and local environment'
It has already been noted this key aspect is not even included in the Council's 10 criteria, and one has to question why - could it be because the Council are fully aware that GTC sites invariably have a detrimental effect on local amenity, and extending beyond the boundaries of the sites themselves?
There have been several large scale unauthorised gypsy encampments in the District in recent years, including locations in Kenilworth, on Warwick Racecourse and on Myton Fields. In all these cases it is on the record that the sites have been left badly littered and degraded when vacated, requiring costly clean up and remediation work, all paid for out of public funds. Similar ongoing negative impacts are likely to be generated with permanent sites, which could affect the amenity of any adjoining residential areas. The larger the sites and the closer to the residential areas, as in the case of GT11, the larger the impacts are likely to be.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
SITE SEARCH AND ASSESSMENT
Site Search and the Green Belt
Twenty options for sites/areas of search are listed, the sizes are not given but many comprise substantial areas. The distribution of these sites within the District is noticeably skewed, with 65% located in the south, 40% immediately west of Warwick and 4 or 20% located within 1 kilometre of a major residential area, Chase Meadow estate
The Council may claim this is due to a need to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development, but it is also a result of the Council's failure to co-operate with adjoining councils, necessary because it is both small in area, and predominantly Green Belt.
It is important to note at this point that Chapter 9 of the 'National Planning Policy Framework', March 2012, makes it clear that the Green Belt, which covers the northern four fifths of the District, does not represent an insuperable barrier to development; indeed the preparation of a new Local Plan provides opportunities 'to review and adjust Green Belt boundaries and also to identify areas for development' (Paragraph 84).
The Council took on board this National guidance in its Green Belt policy, (New Local Plan Preferred Options report, May 2012, WDC, Chapter 16), which allocated substantive residential and employment development on Green Belt land with associated boundary adjustments. The justification for this Preferred Option was set out in the Housing Chapter of the same report, and although Chapter 16 is silent on GTC sites, it seems logical that they would be permissible on the same grounds as housing. Regrettably, and misguidedly, the Council has now changed its approach to the broad location of growth from that set out in the May 2012 report, and which is now the subject of major but separate objections.
Nevertheless, the March 2012 National Policy Framework still applies and should be taken into account by the Council in the identification of suitable traveller sites, as outlined in the next section.
Site Search Process
As things currently stand, in moving to the next stage of this part of the Local Plan process the Council will need to identify a 'preferred' list of suitable sites, not necessarily from the current options.
How should the Council go about this crucial next stage?
Good access to the trunk road network and locations within reasonable travelling time, say 15 minutes, of major urban areas should be the key initial considerations.
As the GTC have high levels of vehicle ownership, the availability of public transport is a subsidiary issue.
A sequential search process, (a well established planning principle), should then be followed, starting with brownfield sites, (which may already have some infrastructure, utility connections etc), including those close to/adjacent to industrial/commercial land use areas.
Only when the previous stages have been exhausted would it be necessary to consider greenfield sites, some of which may be in the current Green Belt and starting with those close to/adjacent to agricultural/industrial/commercial land use areas.
Only as a final stage, and if necessary, would consideration be given to greenfield sites close to or adjacent to small scale residential areas.
There should be no need in this process to consider sites close to or adjacent to large scale residential areas, with all the conflicts and problems this would be likely to generate. Indeed, a search exclusion zone of at least 1 mile should be applied around such areas. The reason for this is the fundamental incompatibility between the GTC and the settled community, due to the nature of the GTC culture, lifestyle and economic activity, previously referred to.
At each stage, sites can be assessed against the relevant national and local policy criteria.
As an example of a robust and rational approach to site assessment reflecting the above principles, I would commend that recently adopted by Lewes District Council, ('Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment 2011 - Lewes District Council'), based on a set of 14 criteria, which had been widely consulted on by both the local settled and traveller communities. Sites were scored against each criterion, and subsequently ranked.
One of the criterion was the proximity to large numbers of residential properties, identified as a negative factor, on the grounds that:
'In order to promote understanding and tolerance between local residents/landowners and Gypsies and Travellers, it is important that any impact on the living conditions for local people are acceptable. The number of residential properties in proximity to sites is therefore a factor'
This is yet another very good reason to reject site GT11 on the grounds of its proximity to the large Chase Meadow estate.
Locations Not Yet Considered
There are a number of locations apparently not yet considered by the Council with potential to provide suitable sites, including:
 Castle Park - an extensive tract of land to the south of the town but with no public access
 Various areas of vacant land north of Warwick town centre in the vicinity of the canal, e.g. sites around Lower Cape
 Open fields adjacent to the river/canal/railway line between Warwick and Leamington
 Areas adjacent to Warwick/Leamington southern urban fringe and industrial estates e.g. Gallows Hill, Heathcote Lane, etc
In conclusion, this objections submission clearly shows the perversity of ever including site GT11 in the present options list, a site which demonstrably fails to meet ANY of the relevant national and local policy criteria. Thus, the Council should give no further consideration to this site.
Whilst the Council's underlying approach to this whole GTC sites issue is also shown to be fundamentally flawed, some constructive proposals are put forward in relation to identification of suitable alternative sites.
I rest my case.

I recently attended a consulatation in Whitnash regarding this issue, to get an overview of the options and current proposals. I remain very much opposed in particular to the site proposed at GT04 Harbury Lane/Fosse Way for the following reasons:

Safety:

The junction Harbury Lane Fosse Way is a notorously dangerous junction, with a speed camera having been required to be installed there to slow northbound vehicles. Approaching fast moving Fosse Way traffic is very difficult to see when approaching from either Harbury or Harbury Lane, and as a Harbury resident I have observed regular accidents there, many serious enough to require the air ambulance. If you care to visit the junction you will see the remaining debris from the multiple accidents there over time quite clearly.

An increase in vans, lorries, trailers and caravans right next to this junction, as travellers enter and exit the site at GT04 and turn on to the Fosse Way at relatively low speed, will only increase the accident risk even further with the speed and volume of traffic currently using the Fosse Way. This junction has a very serious accident history, and I do not believe that GT04 therefore offers safe access to the road network.

Flood Risk:

GT04 is not a sustainable or appropriate site as the surrounding area is at risk of flooding as noted on the Environment Agency website, and I have personally observed on many occasions. I believe that WDC should research this site and obtain a full flood risk assessment.

Health Care:

The consultation document states that 'GP surgeries are located at Bishops Tachbrook(2.7 miles), Whitnash or Harbury(2.6 miles)'.The nearest and most convenient medical facility to this site is at Harbury and the surgery is already struggling to cope with demand as it has more than 6000 registered patients. As a resident of Harbury I can confirm that, excellent surgery though it is, they are completely overloaded with the current demand. I do not believe the surgery could accept additional patients, and that there are therefore any suitable medical facilities close to the proposed site.

Education:

The consultation document states that 'the nearest school with places is likely to be Bishops Itchington Primary School.. This does not take into consideration the 115 houses which have already been granted planning permission in Bishop's Itchington or the 200 proposed houses for the former cement works site between Bishop's Itchington and Harbury. It is therefore unlikely that there will be any spare capacity at either Harbury or Bishop's Itchington schools. As a consequence, any school age children from GT04 would have to travel into Leamington Spa to attend school. I do not believe that there are no suitable educational facilities close to the proposed site.

GT04 would also have an impact on the historic landscape and setting of Chesterton Windmill which is a heritage asset of international value. It is adjacent to the Roman Fort at Chesterton.This site would have a detrimental impact on the historic landscape.

Alternative Option Site GT02: Land abutting the Fosse Way close to its junction with the A425:

The landowner is not willing to sell this site and the Government is no longer supporting compulsory purchase powers. I support Harbury Parish Council's view that this site is no longer viable.

In summary there are far more appropriate sites which satisfy the criteria for convenient access to shops, schools and medical facilities.

I do not believe that either GT04 and GT02 satisfy the criteria for reasons of safety, flood risk, local health care, local education facilities and environmental concerns as above, and very strongly feel they should be disregarded.

This land is available, close to services and amenities, the landscape character already has similar uses so the impact would be low, there is good access to the road network, access would be safe, the land is previously developed, and the topography and size are suitable.

I wish to object to the Gypsy and Traveller preferred site GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way, for the reasons detailed in the attached document.

I wish to object to the Gypsy and Traveller preferred site GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way, for the reasons detailed in the attached document.

Objection to the Preferred Site GT04 for Gypsies and Travellers (G&T)

I wish register my objections to the Gypsy and Traveller preferred site GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way, the reasons outlined below. Please also note my concern that there has been a lack of publicised consultation by Warwick District Council on its interpretation of the Government's planning policy framework, the impact on the green belt and heritage of the area, the unsuitability of the site as regards health and safety and access to public amenities for the gypsies and travellers likely the use the site.

My comments and some of my concerns are as follows:

It is a requirement that councils should consider the existing capacity of current sites within its own district and adjacent districts. This has not been considered during the WDC consultation process. It has recently been reported in the press that the Bidford- on Avon traveller site is now defunct and being used to build 62 new houses. This can be interpreted that there is no need for extra traveller sites in the Stratford District or surrounding council districts


Planning Criteria
The site does not meet the fundamental planning criteria laid out in the NPPF, guidance from Department of Communities and Local Government and WDC's own consultation documents for Gypsy & Traveller sites.

GT04 does not comply with planning policy whereby sites should provide access to nearby services and quality of life. Specifically:-

Impact on the green belt, heritage, landscape character, farmland and wildlife
Site GT04 is on green belt land and neighbouring properties have had planning permission for extensions turned down for the very reason that they would visually compromise the green belt and landscape. This site will lack integration to the landscape and spoil the views from Chesterton Windmill, a 17th-century Grade I listed building and a striking landmark in South-East Warwickshire. The site
will have an adverse visual impact from Harbury and The Fosse Way (Roman Road).

GT04 is an area of good quality farmland fully utilised for livestock and arable farming. This would be detrimental to the farmers and community as a whole. Furthermore, the site will damage wildlife habitat.
The area is prone to flooding with Harbury Lane and surrounding fields are often under water. In accordance with planning and building regulations, the site would be unable to use soak away or runoff based drainage systems as the soil is clay based and will require connection to mains sewerage which does not exist in Harbury Lane.

Poor access to local amenities and transport
The site is well away from shops and local services - certainly not within the 5 -10 minutes walking distance as recommended by the planning framework guidelines.
If the site were to be developed, the use of a vehicle or public transport to shops and schools is a necessity and not considered eco-friendly.

The nearest doctor's surgery and primary school is approx. 3 miles away and would take at least 45 minutes to walk - according to government guidelines sites should be within 5-10 minutes' walk. These facilities are already at capacity so children and persons requiring these facilities will have to travel quite a long way - possibly Leamington or Southam.

Busy road and poor lighting
The site is located near to the very busy Harbury Lane and Fosse Way cross roads which is a high risk travel route. This crossroads has poor visibility and an increasing number of accidents. Speed cameras and warning signs highlight this fact. Children will be at risk if allowed to stand on a busy road to wait for transport to school.

GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommendations for availability of good infrastructure (roads, pavement, street lighting, broadband, cellphone reception).The infrastructure at GT04 is poor - there are no street lights and no pavements on this very busy stretch of road. In order to meet these requirements considerable investment would be needed. This is an expense that WDC should not incur during times of cutbacks in public expenditure and services.

Other health and safety hazards
Furthermore the site is within 400m of the Harbury Lane Breakers yard, which generates noise and air pollution and which would make GT04 an unpleasant place to live but also an unhealthy one. Furthermore according to aroma maps the site is within the zone of aerial discharge from Barnwell Chicken farm. Not only will the aroma and pollution from these sites be very unpleasant but it also raises serious environmental and health concerns. The aroma factor was a primary reason that the potential Gypsy &Traveller site at Barnwell farm was previously rejected. Site GT04 is only across the road.

Effects on local businesses and local residents
By placing the site in this position would mean that the Leamington Football Club would need to be relocated at a cost. There is no evidence that the Gypsies and Travellers could afford these additional costs or in fact would wish to pay it. Therefore the additional costs are likely to fall on the tax payer. Can this additional cost be justified?

The NPFF requires that the assessment of site suitability should be consistent with other planning requests. However I understand that other residential planning applications within 200m of GT04 have been recently rejected by council planning authorities, referencing rural policy on the grounds that the proposal would have an adverse "impact on the character of the area.

Other concerns about the application for the site.
There has been very little (and passive) publicity of the Consultation process and key milestones. Had it not been for the local Community group I would not have known about it, there were no posters in the village, no letters, leaflets or press release from the council advertising the consultation at the Village Hall. I am very upset about this approach towards the local community and it feels and looks like this is a deliberate underhanded approach

I understand that during the process to find out if there was a need for traveller/gypsy sites in the area Warwick District Council (WDC) used the findings from the Salford GTAA report. However there appears to be no evidence that WDC verified the accuracy of the report or its relevance to this area.

According to the Government's planning policy framework, adjacent District Councils (DC) are required to collaborate with each other. As Warwick DC and Stratford DC are at very different stages with their consultations they are clearly not working together on this matter.

The GTAA also ignores the impact of the planned Transit site near Southam which has been agreed since completion of the GTAA

The WDC proposals will provide for more accommodation than there are Gypsy &Traveller residents within WDC boundary the vast majority of whom already live in houses so the requirement is clearly seriously over-stated

There is clear evidence via Hansard that MP's now want a fair planning policy that should result in the abolition of the G&T planning requirement

Alternative site
I strongly believe that the preferred site in the Warwick District should be GT15 - land east of Europa Way. This land already belongs to Warwickshire County Council and is not in the Green Belt.

Objection to the Preferred Site GT04 for Gypsies and Travellers (G&T)

I wish register my objections to the Gypsy and Traveller preferred site GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way, the reasons outlined below. Please also note my concern that there has been a lack of publicised consultation by Warwick District Council on its interpretation of the Government's planning policy framework, the impact on the green belt and heritage of the area, the unsuitability of the site as regards health and safety and access to public amenities for the gypsies and travellers likely the use the site.

My comments and some of my concerns are as follows:

It is a requirement that councils should consider the existing capacity of current sites within its own district and adjacent districts. This has not been considered during the WDC consultation process. It has recently been reported in the press that the Bidford- on Avon traveller site is now defunct and being used to build 62 new houses. This can be interpreted that there is no need for extra traveller sites in the Stratford District or surrounding council districts


Planning Criteria
The site does not meet the fundamental planning criteria laid out in the NPPF, guidance from Department of Communities and Local Government and WDC's own consultation documents for Gypsy & Traveller sites.

GT04 does not comply with planning policy whereby sites should provide access to nearby services and quality of life. Specifically:-

Impact on the green belt, heritage, landscape character, farmland and wildlife
Site GT04 is on green belt land and neighbouring properties have had planning permission for extensions turned down for the very reason that they would visually compromise the green belt and landscape. This site will lack integration to the landscape and spoil the views from Chesterton Windmill, a 17th-century Grade I listed building and a striking landmark in South-East Warwickshire. The site
will have an adverse visual impact from Harbury and The Fosse Way (Roman Road).

GT04 is an area of good quality farmland fully utilised for livestock and arable farming. This would be detrimental to the farmers and community as a whole. Furthermore, the site will damage wildlife habitat.
The area is prone to flooding with Harbury Lane and surrounding fields are often under water. In accordance with planning and building regulations, the site would be unable to use soak away or runoff based drainage systems as the soil is clay based and will require connection to mains sewerage which does not exist in Harbury Lane.

Poor access to local amenities and transport
The site is well away from shops and local services - certainly not within the 5 -10 minutes walking distance as recommended by the planning framework guidelines.
If the site were to be developed, the use of a vehicle or public transport to shops and schools is a necessity and not considered eco-friendly.

The nearest doctor's surgery and primary school is approx. 3 miles away and would take at least 45 minutes to walk - according to government guidelines sites should be within 5-10 minutes' walk. These facilities are already at capacity so children and persons requiring these facilities will have to travel quite a long way - possibly Leamington or Southam.

Busy road and poor lighting
The site is located near to the very busy Harbury Lane and Fosse Way cross roads which is a high risk travel route. This crossroads has poor visibility and an increasing number of accidents. Speed cameras and warning signs highlight this fact. Children will be at risk if allowed to stand on a busy road to wait for transport to school.

GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommendations for availability of good infrastructure (roads, pavement, street lighting, broadband, cellphone reception).The infrastructure at GT04 is poor - there are no street lights and no pavements on this very busy stretch of road. In order to meet these requirements considerable investment would be needed. This is an expense that WDC should not incur during times of cutbacks in public expenditure and services.

Other health and safety hazards
Furthermore the site is within 400m of the Harbury Lane Breakers yard, which generates noise and air pollution and which would make GT04 an unpleasant place to live but also an unhealthy one. Furthermore according to aroma maps the site is within the zone of aerial discharge from Barnwell Chicken farm. Not only will the aroma and pollution from these sites be very unpleasant but it also raises serious environmental and health concerns. The aroma factor was a primary reason that the potential Gypsy &Traveller site at Barnwell farm was previously rejected. Site GT04 is only across the road.

Effects on local businesses and local residents
By placing the site in this position would mean that the Leamington Football Club would need to be relocated at a cost. There is no evidence that the Gypsies and Travellers could afford these additional costs or in fact would wish to pay it. Therefore the additional costs are likely to fall on the tax payer. Can this additional cost be justified?

The NPFF requires that the assessment of site suitability should be consistent with other planning requests. However I understand that other residential planning applications within 200m of GT04 have been recently rejected by council planning authorities, referencing rural policy on the grounds that the proposal would have an adverse "impact on the character of the area.

Other concerns about the application for the site.
There has been very little (and passive) publicity of the Consultation process and key milestones. Had it not been for the local Community group I would not have known about it, there were no posters in the village, no letters, leaflets or press release from the council advertising the consultation at the Village Hall. I am very upset about this approach towards the local community and it feels and looks like this is a deliberate underhanded approach

I understand that during the process to find out if there was a need for traveller/gypsy sites in the area Warwick District Council (WDC) used the findings from the Salford GTAA report. However there appears to be no evidence that WDC verified the accuracy of the report or its relevance to this area.

According to the Government's planning policy framework, adjacent District Councils (DC) are required to collaborate with each other. As Warwick DC and Stratford DC are at very different stages with their consultations they are clearly not working together on this matter.

The GTAA also ignores the impact of the planned Transit site near Southam which has been agreed since completion of the GTAA

The WDC proposals will provide for more accommodation than there are Gypsy &Traveller residents within WDC boundary the vast majority of whom already live in houses so the requirement is clearly seriously over-stated

There is clear evidence via Hansard that MP's now want a fair planning policy that should result in the abolition of the G&T planning requirement

Alternative site
I strongly believe that the preferred site in the Warwick District should be GT15 - land east of Europa Way. This land already belongs to Warwickshire County Council and is not in the Green Belt.

Objection to the Preferred Site GT04 for Gypsies and Travellers (G&T)

We wish to object to the Gypsy and Traveller preferred site GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way in the way that there has been a lack of publicised consultation by Warwick District Council the WDC's interpretation of the Government's planning policy framework, the impacto n the green belt and heritage of the area, the unsuitability of the site as regards health and safety and access to public amenities for the gypsies and travellers likely the use the site.

My comments and some of my concerns are as follows:

It is a requirement that councils should consider the existing capacity of current sites within its own district and adjacent districts. This has not been considered during the WDC consultation process. It has recently been reported in the press that the Bidford- on Avon traveller site is now defunct and being used to build 62 new houses. This can be interpreted that there is no need for extra traveller sites in the Stratford District or surrounding council districts


Planning Criteria
The site does not meet the fundamental planning criteria laid out in the NPPF, guidance from Department of Communities and Local Government and WDC's own consultation documents for Gypsy & Traveller sites.

GT04 does not comply with planning policy whereby sites should provide access to nearby services and quality of life. Specifically:-

Impact on the green belt, heritage, landscape character, farmland and wildlife
Site GT04 is on green belt land and neighbouring properties have had planning permission for extensions turned down for the very reason that they would visually compromise the green belt and landscape. This site will lack integration to the landscape and spoil the views from Chesterton Windmill, a 17th-century Grade I listed building and a striking landmark in South-East Warwickshire. The site
will have an adverse visual impact from Harbury and The Fosse Way (Roman Road).

GT04 is an area of good quality farmland fully utilised for livestock and arable farming. This would be detrimental to the farmers and community as a whole. Furthermore, the site will damage wildlife habitat.
The area is prone to flooding with Harbury Lane and surrounding fields are often under water. In accordance with planning and building regs, the site would be unable to use soak away or runoff based drainage systems as the soil is clay based and will require connection to mains sewerage which does not exist in Harbury Lane.

Poor access to local amenities and transport
The site is well away from shops and local services - certainly not within the 5 -10 minutes walking distance as recommended by the planning framework guidelines.
If the site were to be developed, the use of a vehicle or public transport to shops and schools is a necessity and not considered eco-friendly.

The nearest doctors surgery and primary school is approx. 3 miles away and would take at least 45 minutes to walk - according to government guidelines sites should be within 5-10 minutes walk. These facilities are already at capacity so children and persons requiring these facilities will have to travel quite a long way - possibly Leamington or Southam.

Busy road and poor lighting
The site is located near to the very busy Harbury Lane and Fosse Way cross roads which is a high risk travel route. This crossroads has poor visibility and an increasing number of accidents. Speed cameras and warning signs highlight this fact. Children will be at risk if allowed to stand on a busy road to wait for transport to school.

GT04 does meet national planning framework guidelines recommendations for availability of good infrastructure (roads, pavement, street lighting, broadband, cellphone reception).The infrastructure at GT04 is poor - there are no street lights and no pavements on this very busy stretch of road. In order to meet these requirements considerable investment would be needed. This is an expense that WDC should not incur during times of cutbacks in public expenditure and services.

Other health and safety hazards
Furthermore the site is within 400m of the Harbury Lane Breakers yard, which generates noise and air pollution and which would make GT04 an unpleasant place to live but also an unhealthy one. Furthermore according to aroma maps the site is within the zone of aerial discharge from Barnwell Chicken farm. Not only will the aroma and pollution from these sites be very unpleasant but it also raises serious environmental and health concerns. The aroma factor was a primary reason that the potential Gypsy &Traveller site at Barnwell farm was previously rejected. Site GT04 is only across the road.

Effects on local businesses and local residents
By placing the site in this position would mean that the Leamington Football Club would need to be relocated at a cost. There is no evidence that the Gypsies and Travellers could afford these additional costs or in fact would wish to pay it. Therefore the additional costs are likely to fall on the tax payer. Can this additional cost be justified.

The NPFF requires that the assessment of site suitability should be consistent with other planning requests. However I understand that other residential planning applications within 200m of GT04 have been recently rejected by council planning authorities, referencing rural policy on the grounds that the proposal would have an adverse "impact on the character of the area.

Other concerns about the application for the site.
There has been very little (and passive) publicity of the Consultation process and key milestones. Had it not been for the local Community group I would not have known about it, there were no posters in the village, no letters, leaflets or press release from the council advertising the consultation at the Village Hall. I am very upset about this approach towards the local community and it feels and looks like this is a deliberate underhanded approach

I understand that during the process to find out if there was a need for traveller/gypsy sites in the area Warwick District Council (WDC) used the findings from the Salford GTAA report. However there appears to be no evidence that WDC verified the accuracy of the report or its relevance to this area.

According to the Government's planning policy framework, adjacent District Councils (DC) are required to collaborate with each other. As Warwick DC and Stratford DC are at very different stages with their consultations they are clearly not working together on this matter.

The GTAA also ignores the impact of the planned Transit site near Southam which has been agreed since completion of the GTAA

The WDC proposals will provide for more accommodation than there are Gypsy &Traveller residents within WDC boundary the vast majority of whom already live in houses so the requirement is clearly seriously over-stated

There is clear evidence via Hansard that MP's now want a fair planning policy that should result in the abolition of the G&T planning requirement

Alternative site
We believe that the preferred site in the Warwick District should be GT15 - land east of Europa Way. This land already belongs to Warwickshire County Council and is not in the Green Belt.

Objection to the Preferred Site GT04 for Gypsies and Travellers (G&T)

We wish to object to the Gypsy and Traveller preferred site GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way in the way that there has been a lack of publicised consultation by Warwick District Council the WDC's interpretation of the Government's planning policy framework, the impacto n the green belt and heritage of the area, the unsuitability of the site as regards health and safety and access to public amenities for the gypsies and travellers likely the use the site.

My comments and some of my concerns are as follows:

It is a requirement that councils should consider the existing capacity of current sites within its own district and adjacent districts. This has not been considered during the WDC consultation process. It has recently been reported in the press that the Bidford- on Avon traveller site is now defunct and being used to build 62 new houses. This can be interpreted that there is no need for extra traveller sites in the Stratford District or surrounding council districts


Planning Criteria
The site does not meet the fundamental planning criteria laid out in the NPPF, guidance from Department of Communities and Local Government and WDC's own consultation documents for Gypsy & Traveller sites.

GT04 does not comply with planning policy whereby sites should provide access to nearby services and quality of life. Specifically:-

Impact on the green belt, heritage, landscape character, farmland and wildlife
Site GT04 is on green belt land and neighbouring properties have had planning permission for extensions turned down for the very reason that they would visually compromise the green belt and landscape. This site will lack integration to the landscape and spoil the views from Chesterton Windmill, a 17th-century Grade I listed building and a striking landmark in South-East Warwickshire. The site
will have an adverse visual impact from Harbury and The Fosse Way (Roman Road).

GT04 is an area of good quality farmland fully utilised for livestock and arable farming. This would be detrimental to the farmers and community as a whole. Furthermore, the site will damage wildlife habitat.
The area is prone to flooding with Harbury Lane and surrounding fields are often under water. In accordance with planning and building regs, the site would be unable to use soak away or runoff based drainage systems as the soil is clay based and will require connection to mains sewerage which does not exist in Harbury Lane.

Poor access to local amenities and transport
The site is well away from shops and local services - certainly not within the 5 -10 minutes walking distance as recommended by the planning framework guidelines.
If the site were to be developed, the use of a vehicle or public transport to shops and schools is a necessity and not considered eco-friendly.

The nearest doctors surgery and primary school is approx. 3 miles away and would take at least 45 minutes to walk - according to government guidelines sites should be within 5-10 minutes walk. These facilities are already at capacity so children and persons requiring these facilities will have to travel quite a long way - possibly Leamington or Southam.

Busy road and poor lighting
The site is located near to the very busy Harbury Lane and Fosse Way cross roads which is a high risk travel route. This crossroads has poor visibility and an increasing number of accidents. Speed cameras and warning signs highlight this fact. Children will be at risk if allowed to stand on a busy road to wait for transport to school.

GT04 does meet national planning framework guidelines recommendations for availability of good infrastructure (roads, pavement, street lighting, broadband, cellphone reception).The infrastructure at GT04 is poor - there are no street lights and no pavements on this very busy stretch of road. In order to meet these requirements considerable investment would be needed. This is an expense that WDC should not incur during times of cutbacks in public expenditure and services.

Other health and safety hazards
Furthermore the site is within 400m of the Harbury Lane Breakers yard, which generates noise and air pollution and which would make GT04 an unpleasant place to live but also an unhealthy one. Furthermore according to aroma maps the site is within the zone of aerial discharge from Barnwell Chicken farm. Not only will the aroma and pollution from these sites be very unpleasant but it also raises serious environmental and health concerns. The aroma factor was a primary reason that the potential Gypsy &Traveller site at Barnwell farm was previously rejected. Site GT04 is only across the road.

Effects on local businesses and local residents
By placing the site in this position would mean that the Leamington Football Club would need to be relocated at a cost. There is no evidence that the Gypsies and Travellers could afford these additional costs or in fact would wish to pay it. Therefore the additional costs are likely to fall on the tax payer. Can this additional cost be justified.

The NPFF requires that the assessment of site suitability should be consistent with other planning requests. However I understand that other residential planning applications within 200m of GT04 have been recently rejected by council planning authorities, referencing rural policy on the grounds that the proposal would have an adverse "impact on the character of the area.

Other concerns about the application for the site.
There has been very little (and passive) publicity of the Consultation process and key milestones. Had it not been for the local Community group I would not have known about it, there were no posters in the village, no letters, leaflets or press release from the council advertising the consultation at the Village Hall. I am very upset about this approach towards the local community and it feels and looks like this is a deliberate underhanded approach

I understand that during the process to find out if there was a need for traveller/gypsy sites in the area Warwick District Council (WDC) used the findings from the Salford GTAA report. However there appears to be no evidence that WDC verified the accuracy of the report or its relevance to this area.

According to the Government's planning policy framework, adjacent District Councils (DC) are required to collaborate with each other. As Warwick DC and Stratford DC are at very different stages with their consultations they are clearly not working together on this matter.

The GTAA also ignores the impact of the planned Transit site near Southam which has been agreed since completion of the GTAA

The WDC proposals will provide for more accommodation than there are Gypsy &Traveller residents within WDC boundary the vast majority of whom already live in houses so the requirement is clearly seriously over-stated

There is clear evidence via Hansard that MP's now want a fair planning policy that should result in the abolition of the G&T planning requirement

Alternative site
We believe that the preferred site in the Warwick District should be GT15 - land east of Europa Way. This land already belongs to Warwickshire County Council and is not in the Green Belt.

Option GT04 Land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way

Bishop's Itchington Parish Council has major concerns about the assumption WDC has made that Bishop's Itchington has/will have spare education (nursery and primary school) places and local GP surgery provision. Planning permission has already been granted to build 112 new homes in this village, in addition to which a planning application for a further 200 new homes on the site of the former Harbury Cement Works is due to be determined in May 2014. The additional number of homes already approved, plus those currently in the planning process, means that the village will not be able to absorb any additional people seeking educational and medical services from outside the village. We ask that you take this information into account and review the viability of site GT04 accordingly.

I wish to register my objections to the proposed site GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way for Gypsies and Travellers. My comments and concerns are as follows:

1.Access to Local Amenities
There are no local amenities within a reasonable walking distance and there is no access to public transport on the Fosse Way. There is little capacity in local schools and health facilities. Walking to nearest health services and schools would require walk of around 45 minutes however this would be a highly dangerous thing to do given the surrounding road conditions and lack of pavements.

2. Travel
The roads surrounding the proposed site can at best be described as hazardous. There has been a noticeable increase in traffic due to the ongoing expansion of Jaguar LandRover, and the potential development of housing in close proximity to the site will further exacerbate this situation increasing the risk of accident. There have been a high number of minor and major accidents in recent years, and even with the siting of speed cameras, the road is used at high speed by a great many drivers which adds to the risk to pedestrians and cyclists incurred by the lack of pavements and bike paths.

3. Utilities
The proposed site has no mains gas, mains sewerage or drainage. Telecommunications are poor with low speed and unreliable internet access, and weak mobile signal coverage. Telecommunications companies continue to refuse to improve the infra- structure and any new residents would be subject to a growing 'digital divide'.

4. Environmental
There are a number of areas of high risk of flooding along the portion of Fosse Way and Harbury Lane in question. Land within the proposed area has flooded on a number of occasions in recent years. The impact on the local environment should be considered with the proposed site being in the direct sight line from the popular tourist attraction of Chesterton Windmill.

5. Consistency of selection criteria
It seems a strange anomaly to the consistent application of the site selection criteria that the neighbouring Barnwell Farm site (GT03) has not been named as one of the preferred sites, where the majority of reasons for the non-selection of this site are replicated in GT04 (namely the presence of gas pipes, access issues, distance to GP surgeries, schools, dentists, hospitals, shops, community facilities, road noise from Harbury Lane and Fosse Way) and any site would be subjected to the same odours emanating from the chicken farm.

The National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 74 states:
Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:
* an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open
space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or
* the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by
equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable
location; or
* the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the
needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.

Unless the there was an agreeable relocation with the football club, which would include the same level of ancillary facilities or better, in a n agreeable location, Sport England would object to the proposal. This is in line with the second bullet point in the NPPF.

This is also in line with Sport England's own Planning Policy Exception E4:Playing field lost would be replaced, equivalent or better in terms of quantity, quality and accessibility


It is important that WDC do not leave the football club in limbo as it will have an impact on the club, its supporters and its position in the league. Sport England would urge that WDC should meet with the club and the FA to work out a suitable timeframe which would either result in an agreed new home for Leamington FC or the abandonment of the WDC's aspiration to use this site as Gypsy and Traveller Site. For the Football club this time period should be as short as possible, as its current identification has lead to uncertainty on the club's future.