I wish to object to the aforementioned preferred site GT04.
My reasons for this objection are as follows:
1) WDC utilised the findings in the Salford GTAA report in order to establish need. However, there is no evidence of WDC's due diligence in validating the data contained therein and therefore the extrapolated need:
2) According to the Government's planning policy framework, adjacent DCs are required to collaborate. This is not the case because SDC is behind WDC with their consultations. This was obvious at the Harbury meeting:
3) There has been little proactive publicity of the consultation process on the part of WDC. Had it not been for a Harbury group of residents then this "consultation" would have passed them by:
4) This feels like an underhanded and opaque move to deceive:
5) There could be the real result of an overstatement of G&T need because of this general confusion from the Government down.

My objections specific to site GT04
1) The site does not meet the fundamental planning criteria laid out in the NPPF, namely:
2) Accessibility to shops and local services (5-10 minutes walk on a pavement):
3) Proximity to a local community (no integration):
4) Proximity to local schools / surgeries (5-19 minutes walk away) proposed 45 minutes. Also local schools and surgeries are at capacity:
5) It lies on an undrained flood plain with no sewerage connection and is opposite a zone of aerial discharge from Barnwell Chicken Farm which raises serious environmental and health concerns due to noxious smells emanating from this farm at certain times.

I feel this site is not suitable due to the main road network being the Fosse Way. This road is notoriously a high risk road with several fatalities each year. In particular, the situation of the proposed site is close to a major cross roads on the Fosse Way where accidents happen regularly. Increased traffic flow to this area would have an impact on traffic and heighten the risk of further fatalities. For this reason I wish to object.

This site fits the criteria mentioned above and should be chosen

1. Site is excessively valuable and would be better used for proper housing.
2. Unfair preferential treatment of small section of society giving countryside views, open space, short distance to amenities, transport routes, local town, local village - everyone wants this and some of us pay a lot of money to achieve it.
3. Any facilities for gypsies will only serve to encourage more to take up the lifestyle. Allegedly some 'travellers' have homes in Ireland for example and will use the sites as 'working' holiday facitilties. Constantly moving them on from public places is preferable as it spreads the problem and maintains their itinerant status while also limiting the numbers as a natural deterrent.
4. The decision on location of any site must be done democratically and therefore by number of objections, not based on the assessment of so called 'needs' by any self righteous individual or comittee.

I wish to object to the Gypsy and Traveller preferred site GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way.
My comments and some of my concerns are as follows:
- 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:-
- Accessibility to shops and local services: GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommended 5-10mins walk on a pavement.
-Proximity to local community: GT04 does not meet the national planning framework guidelines recommendation for sites to be on community periphery to encourage integration.
-Establishing 5-10 pitches at GT04 would be disproportionate to the local community (8 residential properties, with 16 adults and 4 children). This is contradictory to national planning framework guidelines recommendations.
-Planning policy for G&T requires schools / GP surgeries to be a 5-10 minute walk away, GT04 is at least a 45 minute walk away.
- The nearest GP surgery is three miles away
- that GP surgery is at capacity.
- According to the Government's planning policy framework, adjacent DCs are required to collaborate, and yet Warwick DC and Stratford DC are very much out of phase with their consultations so logically they cannot collaborate. Further there is no evidence that WDC has collaborated or discussed with Stratford DC other than a reported "10 minute long but un-minuted meeting" or with Rugby DC
- there is no evidence in WDC's consultation report that as required by NPFF and CLG , that WDC have weighed up the cost to council of Compulsory purchase vs development of underutilised brownfield sites including those that the council already own.
. - The WDC proposals will provide for more accommodation than there are G&T 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
- There has been 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 - it feels and looks like this is a deliberate underhanded approach.

I represent the Evans family who own the land opposite the football club site. I am not going to repeat what many others have stated about lack of suitability of the site for foot paths, local shops, surgeries and integrating with the locals. Then there is the fact that the need report is flawed and the numbers are less than suggested. We object to the site because of all of the above and more but in addition our objection is based around the fact that we farm the land on the south side of the Harbury lane from the B4087 traffic light junction through to Windmill Hill Lane past the Fosseway. This area of over 600 acres stretching over 2 miles and probably is home to the most photographed windmill in the world.
We farm profitably and within the restrictions imposed by the European Union but we do voluntarily spend extra funds looking after wildlife, the environment and the general presentation of the land. I would like to think all who look think that the land is farmed in a neat and tidy manor and it is a joy to drive past and those numerous who walk to the windmill every hour of the day feel the same.
In addition we run several storage businesses from Squab Hall which serve members of the local community with self access storage and furniture removals and storage, we employ 35+ locals and throw a 6 figure sum into the business rate kitty every year. The problem we have with a traveller site so close is the stigma which is attached to these settlements, will local customers be happy with their goods being stored here any longer? We also run a document storage business Box It from here which serves local business right through to major utility companies. Many comment on the remoteness of this site, the fact that it is hidden away and again the stigma which goes with a traveller site close by along the same road is going to be detrimental to our business.
For all of the above reasons we strongly object to the building of a traveller site at GT04.

Harbury Lane is prone to flooding.
All amenities would be at least a 45 minute walk away.
Nearest GP surgery is in excess of 1.5 miles away and is already at capacity.
Nearest primary, junior and senior schools already at capacity.
Harbury Lane and Fosse Way crossroads a high risk travel route.
Vehicle or public transport to shops and schools would be necessary therefore proposal not eco-friendly.
Proposed site has no mains sewerage, drainage or gas also electricity supply is a limited rural line which would need upgrading at considerable cost.

This is the best site proposed - plenty of space, minimal impact on fewest residents, good road access and traffic slowed for roundabout. Low profile site and poorer agric land (compared eg GT12!) - services available at Harbury, R/Semele etc. This site should accommodate 15 pitches.

The area is isolated and remote. Why would any gypsy families want to use it. There are no footpaths along Harbury Lane which has fast moving traffic. To get anywhere the families would need to use cars or the bus, this does seem a poor choice from the gypsy point of view. As a resident in the area I know that we cannot build additional properties on our land due to the local plan - it may not be green belt, but planning permission for residents would and is refused. Our broadband won't be upgraded - it is currently 0.75MB (one of the worst in the country), we have no mains sewers or gas. We have no bus services or pavements and no PCSO support - is this appealing for a gypsy family. They seem to want to pitch near other communities, so you may build the site and no one would use it - what an expensive white elephant.

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:-
- Accessibility to shops and local services: GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommended 5-10mins walk on a pavement.
-Proximity to local community: GT04 does not meet the national planning framework guidelines recommendation for sites to be on community periphery to encourage integration.
-Establishing 5-10 pitches at GT04 would be disproportionate to the local community (8 residential properties, with 16 adults and 4 children). This is contradictory to national planning framework guidelines recommendations.
- GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommendations for accessibility to good local transport.
- 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 and would require considerable investment to rectify. And this is not an expense that WDC should incur during times of cutbacks in public expenditure and services.

I object to the Gypsy and Traveller preferred site GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way.
The WDC consultation does not consider as required the existing capacity of current sites within Warwickshire county and adjacent districts.
The GTAA also ignores the impact of the planned Transit site near Southam which has been agreed.

GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommended 5-10mins walk on a pavement.

GT04 does not meet the national planning framework guidelines recommendation for sites to be on community periphery to encourage integration.

Establishing 5-10 pitches at GT04 would be disproportionate to the local community (8 residential properties, with 16 adults and 4 children). This is contradictory to national planning framework guidelines recommendations.

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 and would require considerable investment to rectify. And this is an
expense that WDC should not incur during times of cutbacks in public expenditure and services.

The area is prone to flooding with Harbury Lane and surrounding fields are often under water.

Planning policy for G&T requires schools / GP surgeries to be a 5-10 minute walk away, GT04 is at
least a 45 minute walk away.

The nearest GP surgery is three miles away that GP surgery is at capacity.

According to aroma maps GT04 is within zone of aerial discharge from Barnwell Chicken farm. This raises serious environmental and health concerns, and was a primary reason that the potential G&T site at Barnwell farm was previously rejected. GT04 would be an unpleasant place to live but also an unhealthy one.

Representation
The area is isolated and remote. Why would any gypsy families want to use it. There are no footpaths along Harbury Lane which has fast moving traffic. To get anywhere the families would need to use cars or the bus, this does seem a poor choice from the gypsy point of view. As a resident in the area I know that we cannot build additional properties on our land due to the local plan - it may not be green belt, but planning permission for residents would and is refused. The broadband won't be upgraded - it is currently 0.75MB (one of the worst in the country), there are no mains sewers or gas. We have no bus services or pavements and no PCSO support. The preference for Gypsy families appears to be to pitch near other communities, so with this site being isolated, it may provided and no one would use it - what an expensive waste of resources.

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:-
- Accessibility to shops and local services: GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommended 5-10mins walk on a pavement.
-Proximity to local community: GT04 does not meet the national planning framework guidelines recommendation for sites to be on community periphery to encourage integration.
-Establishing 5-10 pitches at GT04 would be disproportionate to the local community (8 residential properties, with 16 adults and 4 children). This is contradictory to national planning framework guidelines recommendations.
- GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommendations for accessibility to good local transport.
- 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 and would require considerable investment to rectify. And this is not an expense that WDC should incur during times of cutbacks in public expenditure and services.

GT04 is a poor site for Road Safety, 'Harbury crossroads' is a notorious road traffic accident blackspot. adding more traffic, probably including towing vehicles, would only add to the risk on the local roads.

GT04 is a poor choice with families having children being within yards of dangerous roads. ie Harbury Lane and The Fosse Way, both fast and dangerous roads.

This scheme would only add to the dangers for the Gypsy Community and to the local road going traffic, with added congestion and both vehicles and pedestrian use of the local roadways.

WDC is clearly trying to comply to the demands put upon it by central government by providing this site. I would question why all of the suggested and preferred sites are to the far extreme of the WDC area. It is clear from looking at the map ot the site suggested in the consultation doccument, that WDC is pushing any issues that may arise from the provision of this or similar sites onto the residents of neighbouring District Council Areas. This means that WDC fulfills their obligations under the Central Government requirements but with little impact on it's own electorate.

Harbury lane and Fosse way are both busy with communiting cars and causing traffic. Also there are no public footpath and building utilities will cause effect on the environment.
Near by GP surgery are already maximum capacity and difficult to make an appointment to see the doctor.
Village already have accepted new local plan of new housings and new nursery which increases population and traffic within the village.

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

Convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport

In terms of convenient access to a GP surgery, school or public transport the site, this site is in excess of 1.5miles from any GP surgery. The proposed site is outside of the catchment area of Harbury Surgery with the nearest surgery at the Warwick Gates Family Health Centre approximately 3 miles away. It is understood this surgery is full so there is no convenient access to a surgery.

The position with regard to schooling is similar with the site being outside of the Harbury catchment area. Harbury Primary School has also recently had issues with oversubscription and whilst there are several schools in Whitnash (over 2 miles away) these also have limited capacity.

There is public transport access and whilst this maybe considered by some as being satisfactory, this is largely irrelevant as the residents are unlikely to use anything other than their own transport. The bus services that serve the site are largely very irregular and although there is a bus stop on Harbury Lane, there are no pedestrian links from that to the site which has pedestrian safety implications.

Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding

The area is prone to flooding with field often under water so the area is effectively a flood plain. Livestock and ponies are moved accordingly. The Middle Road/ Fosse Way junction is often flooded and Harbury Lane is often flooded and also impassable.

Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site;

The proposed 15 pitch site could contain up to 50 vehicles and generating significant daily traffic flows. It is on the junction of two major roads and access into the traffic flow will possibly need highway improvements. It is possibly unwise to introduce even more traffic turns at this major junction and it will certainly add significantly to existing peak time delays. GT04 is sited on the junction of two main roads with high traffic flows and the Fosse Way in particular sees fast traffic despite the nearby speed camera and is a designated High Risk Route by the County Council. There have been more than 12 Serious Accidents at this junction over the last 3 years.

Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and disturbance

This site is adjacent the Fosse Way a very busy and noisy main road. In addition this is adjacent the Birmingham to London Chiltern railway line, causing both noise and a potential safety risk.

Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities waste disposal etc);

The proposed site has no mains sewerage, drainage or gas so fails to meet the criteria. The electricity supply is a limited rural line and will possibly need to be upgraded to meet the very considerable increase in demand.
GT04 is considered by British Telecom to be too far from the Whitnash Telephone Exchange to provide an adequate telephone or internet service (They term it as a long line). They will not upgrade the system resulting in poor telephone connections and intermittent (<1mbs) internet service.
GT04 does not have a reliable mobile phone service. There are no mobile phone networks that provide more than a mediocre service.

Avoiding areas where there could be an adverse impact on important, features of the natural and historic environment

This choice of site overlooks the fact that at this point the Fosse Way, as the original Roman road built nearly 2000 years ago is known, is on its original alignment and there is likely to be considerable archaeological remains in the area which will be destroyed by the development. There was also a tollhouse nearby in the 17th and 18th centuries and remains have been found. The site would be a blight on the vistas from the Grade I Listed building, Chesterton Windmill, which is maintained by Warwickshire County Council. The views from this famous, historic building would be of material consideration should a planning application ever be made.

GT 04 is located right next to the historic Fosse Way. The road now known as the Fosse Way was built following the Roman invasion in AD 43, nearly 2000 years ago, and has been a major highway throughout the centuries. There was a tollhouse on the junction of the Fosse Way and Southam Road in the 17th and 18th centuries. If GT 04 is approved it is important that a major archaeological dig should take place prior to site work so that the archaeology and heritage of the area can be recovered and safeguarded.


Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.

The proposed site will cover 0.8 hectare (8000 m2) which is larger than the New Windmill Football Ground and if Enfusion (the consultants) recommendation to include working space is adopted this would possibly increase to twice the area of the football ground. There will be a large variety of caravans and vehicles on the site so, being in the bottom of the valley, it cannot be integrated into the landscape without harming the visual appearance and character of the area. The site is also very visible from Chesterton Hill and would undoubtedly harm the character of the wider surrounding area.

Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community;

In this respect the local community forms two distinct sections. There is a very small community of some 20
houses within half a mile of the site along the Fosse Way and the far greater community in the villages of
Harbury and Whitnash over 1.5 miles away. It will be difficult to integrate the residents into the local Fosse Way community as with up to 120 residents on site rather than integrate they will actually absorb the local community. This does not meet the criteria of a peaceful and integrated co-existence.

Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services;

The proposed site has no mains sewerage, drainage or gas so fails to meet the criteria. Also the electricity supply is a limited rural line and will possibly need to be upgraded to meet the very considerable increase in demand.

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.

Whilst there may be an element of living and working from the same site, any sustainable or active travel gains could be negated by visiting traffic to the site in relation to any business ventures.

Other issues which should be taken into consideration include the following: -

There are many businesses that operate from GT04 site and the surrounding area and will potentially
suffer if the proposed sites go ahead. For example:

1. Will Russell - Farm land being fully utilised for sheep
2. Bob Wright - land being used for arable farming
3. Fosse Garage
4. Rollason Fencing
5. Barnwell Chicken Farm
6. MH Polo Ltd - teaching people to ride ponies
7. Fosse Paddocks Ltd - farming and ponies
8. Warwick Reclamation
9. Mallory Court Hotel
10. Harbury Lane Breakers Yard

Urbanisation
GT 04 will involve considerable infrastructure in addition to the actual site. The area surrounding GT 04 is rural in aspect and the proposed site will be a major invasion into the openness of the countryside and will be an irreversible urbanisation of the entire area. If the site is built, the council will be ill placed to prevent further 'ribbon' development.

Unauthorised intrusion from GT 04 into surrounding land could result in contractors not wishing to risk tractors and equipment and this together with crop damage and possible rubbish deposits could result in the land ceasing to be farmed and becoming unsightly.

Brown site, reasonable size and could be beneficial to the wider community if an alternative site is found for the football club.

Land is bordered by 2 busy roads, with a dangerous access, as is already evidenced by difficulties of access in/out of local football club.

This area is a rural band between Leamington and Bishops Tachbrook. It is currently peaceful, which would change significantly if any gypsy/traveller site settled there. Equally the road infrastructure is already, at times, busy and can be an accident hot spot. The school in the village is already oversubscribed and the Dr's surgery is only part time. I feel strongly that what is currently a gentle rural idyll would be under threat by any such settlement. Detracting from historical buildings around the area and the natural beauty of the area.

Preferred Site GT04 for Gypsies and Travellers (G&T)
I wish to object to the Gypsy and Traveller preferred site GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way.
My comments and some of my concerns are as follows:
- WDC utilised the findings in the Salford GTAA report in order to establish need, however there is no evidence of WDC's due diligence in validating the accuracy of the report and /or the relevance of the established need.
- The WDC consultation does not consider as required the existing capacity of current sites within Warwickshire county and adjacent districts.
- The GTAA ignores the impact of the planned Transit site near Southam which has been agreed since completion of the GTAA
- According to the Government's planning policy framework, adjacent DCs are required to collaborate, and yet Warwick DC and Stratford DC are very much out of phase with their consultations so logically they cannot collaborate. Further there is no evidence that WDC has collaborated or discussed with Stratford DC other than a reported "10 minute long but un-minuted meeting" or with Rugby DC
- there is no evidence in WDC's consultation report that as required by NPFF and CLG , that WDC have weighed up the cost to council of Compulsory purchase vs development of underutilised brownfield sites including those that the council already own.
. - The WDC proposals will provide for more accommodation than there are G&T 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
- There has been 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 - it feels and looks like this is a deliberate underhanded approach.
Specific to Site GT04:
- 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:-
- Accessibility to shops and local services: GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommended 5-10mins walk on a pavement.
-Proximity to local community: GT04 does not meet the national planning framework guidelines recommendation for sites to be on community periphery to encourage integration.
-Establishing 5-10 pitches at GT04 would be disproportionate to the local community (8 residential properties, with 16 adults and 4 children). This is contradictory to national planning framework guidelines recommendations.
- GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommendations for accessibility to good local transport.
- 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 and would require considerable investment to rectify. And this is an expense that WDC should not incur during times of cutbacks in public expenditure and services.

- The area is prone to flooding with Harbury Lane and surrounding fields are often under water.
In accordance with planning and building regs, GT04 would be unable to use soak away or runoff based drainage systems since the soil is clay based and will require connection to mains sewerage which does not exist in Harbury Lane.
-Planning policy for G&T requires schools / GP surgeries to be a 5-10 minute walk away, GT04 is at least a 45 minute walk away.
- The nearest GP surgery is three miles away
- that GP surgery is at capacity.
- The nearest primary, junior and senior schools are already at capacity.
- GT04 is located on Harbury Lane and Fosse Way cross roads that is a high risk travel route with high
volumes of traffic 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 if indeed such transport exists
- According to aroma maps GT04 is within zone of aerial discharge from Barnwell Chicken farm. This raises serious environmental and health concerns, and was a primary reason that the potential G&T site at Barnwell farm was previously rejected. Simply -Barnwell chicken farm can smell awful and GT04 would not be a good place to live
GT04 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.
- 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".

- the cost to create 5 to 10 permanent pitches ranges between £325k to £650k, using government's figures (£65k per pitch). In addition to this, G04 site may require relocation of Football club. There is no firm evidence that G&T can or will pay these sums of money and WDC have not suggested an alternative if G&T cannot or will not pay. GT04 should not be considered if there is not proof that G&T can and will buy and develop it
- GT04 is an area of good quality farmland fully utilised for livestock and arable farming.
- GT04 will lack of Integration into the landscape and would spoil the views from Chesterton Windmill, a 17th-century Grade I listed building and a striking landmark in South-East Warwickshire
- The proposed site will have an adverse visual impact from Harbury and The Fosse Way (Roman Road).
- If GT04 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 site will have a detrimental impact on tourism and visitors to Warwickshire especially including Mallory Court Hotel and a consequential effect on local employment.
- The site will damage wildlife habitat.

Preferred Site GT04 for Gypsies and Travellers (G&T)
I wish to object to the Gypsy and Traveller preferred site GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way.
My comments and some of my concerns are as follows:
- WDC utilised the findings in the Salford GTAA report in order to establish need, however there is no evidence of WDC's due diligence in validating the accuracy of the report and /or the relevance of the established need.
- The WDC consultation does not consider as required the existing capacity of current sites within Warwickshire county and adjacent districts.
- The GTAA ignores the impact of the planned Transit site near Southam which has been agreed since completion of the GTAA
- According to the Government's planning policy framework, adjacent DCs are required to collaborate, and yet Warwick DC and Stratford DC are very much out of phase with their consultations so logically they cannot collaborate. Further there is no evidence that WDC has collaborated or discussed with Stratford DC other than a reported "10 minute long but un-minuted meeting" or with Rugby DC
- there is no evidence in WDC's consultation report that as required by NPFF and CLG , that WDC have weighed up the cost to council of Compulsory purchase vs development of underutilised brownfield sites including those that the council already own.
. - The WDC proposals will provide for more accommodation than there are G&T 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
- There has been 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 - it feels and looks like this is a deliberate underhanded approach.
Specific to Site GT04:
- 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:-
- Accessibility to shops and local services: GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommended 5-10mins walk on a pavement.
-Proximity to local community: GT04 does not meet the national planning framework guidelines recommendation for sites to be on community periphery to encourage integration.
-Establishing 5-10 pitches at GT04 would be disproportionate to the local community (8 residential properties, with 16 adults and 4 children). This is contradictory to national planning framework guidelines recommendations.
- GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommendations for accessibility to good local transport.
- 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 and would require considerable investment to rectify. And this is an expense that WDC should not incur during times of cutbacks in public expenditure and services.

- The area is prone to flooding with Harbury Lane and surrounding fields are often under water.
In accordance with planning and building regs, GT04 would be unable to use soak away or runoff based drainage systems since the soil is clay based and will require connection to mains sewerage which does not exist in Harbury Lane.
-Planning policy for G&T requires schools / GP surgeries to be a 5-10 minute walk away, GT04 is at least a 45 minute walk away.
- The nearest GP surgery is three miles away
- that GP surgery is at capacity.
- The nearest primary, junior and senior schools are already at capacity.
- GT04 is located on Harbury Lane and Fosse Way cross roads that is a high risk travel route with high
volumes of traffic 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 if indeed such transport exists
- According to aroma maps GT04 is within zone of aerial discharge from Barnwell Chicken farm. This raises serious environmental and health concerns, and was a primary reason that the potential G&T site at Barnwell farm was previously rejected. Simply -Barnwell chicken farm can smell awful and GT04 would not be a good place to live
GT04 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.
- 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".

- the cost to create 5 to 10 permanent pitches ranges between £325k to £650k, using government's figures (£65k per pitch). In addition to this, G04 site may require relocation of Football club. There is no firm evidence that G&T can or will pay these sums of money and WDC have not suggested an alternative if G&T cannot or will not pay. GT04 should not be considered if there is not proof that G&T can and will buy and develop it
- GT04 is an area of good quality farmland fully utilised for livestock and arable farming.
- GT04 will lack of Integration into the landscape and would spoil the views from Chesterton Windmill, a 17th-century Grade I listed building and a striking landmark in South-East Warwickshire
- The proposed site will have an adverse visual impact from Harbury and The Fosse Way (Roman Road).
- If GT04 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 site will have a detrimental impact on tourism and visitors to Warwickshire especially including Mallory Court Hotel and a consequential effect on local employment.
- The site will damage wildlife habitat.

Available site so no compulsory purchase order.
Utilities available.
Access to schools and gps.
No issue with noise pollution or impact on historic sites.
Not using agricultural land.

Is deliverable, accessible and will have a reduced impact on the natural and historic environment and landscape.

1) site more valuable for housing
2) site probably more expensive than others
3) why not use existing site at Ryton?
4) decision should be based on the number of objections received
5) everybody wants to live in area with the specified criteria but cannot always afford to
6) too biased towards small minority of population
7) M40 corridor often alongside motorway is deemed satisfactory for paying citizens so why do gypsies need such a prime location

The site is unsuitable for many reasons. Sewage needs to be mains, which WDC have stated is not possible. Harbury lane is a very busy and already dangerous road, certainly not suitable for additional traffic and definitely not safe for pedestrians. The crossroad with the fosse way is a known accident hotspot, with accidents at least every other week. The schools and doctors surgeries in the area are already full and NOT within walking distance. There are no jobs available nearby and no community for integration.

Planning policy states that a site should be 5-10min walk to local shops and services. It is around a 40min walk to the nearest surgery and school - both of which are at full capacity already. The area is prone to flooding as per environment agency maps. Eric Pickles dept has removed compulsory purchase as an option - GT04 is private land and none of the owners wish to sell. There are no footpaths on the roads bordering GT04. Adverse impact on the historic area, in particular the views from Chesterton Windmill.

Football Club does not wish to sell. This is a WDC myth. Compulsory purchase is no longer an option (re Eric Pickles dept). Too far from shops and services regarding WDC's own policy and that of the national planning framework. Local GP and school are full. Detrimental effect on the historic site of Chesterton Windmill, and the views from it. No footpaths. Prone to flooding.

I object to the inclusion of GT04 for the following reasons: (i) Very poor provision of utilities (ii) Very busy road causing noise and disturbance (iii) A caravan site here would cause unacceptable adverse impact on the natural environment - the land is open countryside visible from many parts of the higher land around it (iv) It would place unacceptable pressure on the infrastructure and services provided by the local villages.

1. Commercial:
* The site cost to create 5 to 10 permanent pitches ranges between £325k to £650k, using government's figures (£65k per pitch). In addition to this, G04 site may require relocation of Football club.

* The economics of creating and letting permanent pitch sites does not add up. According to GTAA report section 7, typical pitch rental is £65-£80 per week (Approx £40k pa for 10 pitches). For a site landlord, this needs to offset an initial outlay of £650k for a 10-pitch site, ie 16 years to break even. GTAA survey found that G&Ts housed in brick & morter accommodation cannot afford G&T site rental costs.

* Due to the existing businesses affected by development of sites GT02 and GT04, Compulsory Purchase would incur significant costs due to relocation and loss of profit. Over 20 years this could amount to millions.

2. Environmental:
* Ref SDC Reg 18 consultation (Q1 2014) point 9, potential sites need consideration with respect to "previously developed, untidy or derelict land". GT04 (and GT02) do not qualify in these respects.
* Assessment of site suitability should be consistent with other planning requests. Note that domestic planning applications within GT04 has been recently rejected by council planning authorities, referencing rural policy on the grounds that the proposal would have an "impact to character of the area".

3. Planning:
* According to aroma maps (ref planning consultant John Pope's letter to WDC 28th March 2014) GT04 is within zone of Chicken farm. This raises environmental and health concerns, and is the primary reason that the Barnwell farm consideration was rejected.
* Accessibility to shops and local services: GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommended 5-10mins walk on a pavement.
* GT02/GT04 Proximity to school and doctors: Harbury school and doctors both full.
* Proximity to local community: Neither GT04 nor GT02 meet the national planning framework guidelines recommendation for sites to be on community periphery to encourage integration.
* Establishing 5-10 pitches at GT04 would be disproportionate to the local community (8 residential properties, with 16 adults and 4 children). This is in contrast to national planning framework guidelines recommendations.
* GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommendations for accessibility to good local transport.
* Neither GT04 nor GT02 meet national planning framework guidelines recommendations for availability of good infrastructure (roads, pavement, street lighting, broadband, cellphone reception).
* In accordance with planning and building regs, GT04 and GT02 sites are unable to use soakaway or runoff since soil is clay based.
* GT04 is within 400m of the Harbury Lane Breakers yard, which generates noise and pollution.
* GT04 and GT02 raise road safety concerns, due to proximity to Fosse Way and Harbury Lane/Southam Rd with no pavements.

The proposed site (GT04) is unsuitable for the following reasons and therefore formally reject the proposal.
1. Area and road specifically has been subject to flooding in prior years.
2. Road access is restricted and the Fosse way/ Harbury Lane junction is a high risk junction with a record of serious accidents.
3. There is insufficient capacity to accommodate additional residents at Harbury CofE Primary school and the GP practice.
4. The bus services are limited to a road side stop - no hand standing is available. This is a safety risk.

limited school places
Busy 50 m\h road, with no pathways for safe access of local facilities, making it dangerous for children

This site is not appropriate as it does not meet the stated criteria.
It does not have convenient access to a GP surgery, school or public transport.
The area is prone to flooding, Harbury Lane frequently floods.
The junction of Harbury Lane and the Fosse Way is an accident blackspot. A speed camera has been installed on the Fosse Way as it has been designated a High Risk route by the County Council. Additional traffic from the site would increase this hazard.
The propose site has no mains sewerage, drainage or gas. The area also has poor telecommunications and limited internet service.
It is difficult to see how the site could be integrated into the landscape without harming the rural character of the area. In respect of the local community, the site would be larger and have far more residents than already live in the area making it not possible to integrate into the community.