I object strongly on the proposal to use the New Windmill Ground as a Gipsy and Travellers site.

After the upheaval when the old ground was used for housing and no alternative was made available, the club eventually obtained the current ground and worked tirelessly to change a field into the fine award winning ground it has become.

No decision should be made until an alternative site is acceptable and transformed into a "fit for purpose" site in order that games can progress without a break.

I trust the proposal will be reviewed and rejected.

The policies set out in the March 2014 Preferred Options should be refined to improve the decision making process and to help towards arriving at a successful outcome - and one that can be seen as "sound" when subject to Examination in Public.

Policy 1 - to distribute the sites evenly across the District.
This is not only in the interests of the existing settled communities, but more importantly of the G & T family groups themselves.
They will benefit, from not being "bunched " in the southern area which covers only a fifth of the District. G & T groups should not be put in a position where they are in competition with each other for services, schooling or business opportunities.
Most of the proposed sites are remote from Coventry, Kenilworth and northern section of the Fosse Way where much of their traditional activities have been centred.

Policy 2 - only one site should be allocated to any given parish. This make sense in terms of acceptance by the local community, and encouraging the possibilities for positive social contacts with the newcomers. Local services and resources like schools and doctors surgeries, have a much better chance of coping if only one G & T group has to be taken care of.

Policy 3 - sites to be limited to between 5 and 7 pitches - original government advice was 5 to 15 pitches per site, but in para 2.1.2 the report states that "advice has been amended and the lower end of this scale is now recommended". However the Preferred Options ignores this policy by listing 13 of the 15 "preferred"sites to take 15 pitches.

Considering these 3 policies and applying them to the Preferred Options, the following conclusions emerge:-

2.1 Only one site to be in the parish of Bishop's Tachbrook. In this case GTalt01 Brookside Willows is the least worst but should be limited to 5 pitches.

2.2 It is difficult to understand why GT06 at Park Farm is designated AMBER - it is flat and could be easily accessed from the M40 slip road - so if Gtalt01 fails, then this site should be the next in line for this parish.

3.1 The possible selection of GT04 should not be contingent on the football club being relocated. It is highly questionable whether the football club would be better off on a new site - there are many strong reasons for not moving it. But the point here is that the original GT04 meets many of the criteria in para 6; and within that larger extent a suitable site could be identified, probably with access onto the Fosse.

4.1 GT08 in Cubbington should be reinstated as GREEN and "preferred". It's on previously developed land and meets nearly all the criteria.

5.1 Likewise GT01 at Siskin Drive should be reinstated. In the event that Gateway does get the go-ahead, a condition must be that that this large area must provide G & T site as an alternative to GT01.

6.1 At least one small site has to be found in the green belt in the west of the District - see Policies 1 and 2 above. But GT19 looks wrong for reasons of access and proximity of local businesses- and should be regraded as RED.


Site Size

It has become clear through the consultation period that each pitch on a designated site should be sufficient to allow for at least 2 caravans, parking and turning space for several vehicles and outside washing /toilet facilities. The area quoted is 500 sq. m.per pitch. In terms of this space requirement and the noise and activity that will arise, it is understandable that the recommendation is for small sites. The target should therefore be to select sites for 5 -7 pitches rather than 10 to 15.


Conclusion

For WDC to plan for 5 sites spread around the District @ 5 pitches each. To allow for 31 pitches post 2021, one other alternative site for future development to be listed OR 2/3 of the 5 sites to be earmarked for expansion up to 7 pitches.

I would like to object to the plans for 2 gypsy/ traveller sites on the edge of Harbury.

1. Why are we expected to give land to certain people on which to put their caravans ? Can they not finance and provide for themselves as I do?

2. I strenuously object to land at Leamington Football Club being given away as this is going to end up causing massive extra expense for WDC in ultimately WDC having to provide new quarters for the Football Club.

3. I strenuously object to you targeting land at the Exhibition Centre on the Fosse Way. Do you not realise that this is going to interfere with a business that has been carefully developed over many years and which provides jobs and entertainment in the area ?

4. Both sites are traffic accident hotspots and not suitable for families possibly with young children, or teenagers on bicycles.

5. There are so many more suitable and worthy causes we would all like to see our council tax money spent on in these difficult financially lean times.

6. Which of the over-subscribed schools in the area do you intend to send their children to ?

7. Is there some reason you have chosen sites right on the extreme edge of Warwick District Council ? Is it so that Stratford District Council will have to pick up the costs of education and health-care ?

8. Providing such sites creates the possibility of attracting more travellers to the area and creating more and more expense. We should not have to finance people just because they choose an unconventional life-style.

I strongly wish to object to the proposed number of Gypsy & Traveller sites/pitches proposed for this area.
Why this end of town?? Why should we pay for hard-standing, toilets and showers (not to mention the clearing up after them) from our rates? What do they pay themselves?
On Warwick Gates, we are continuously harassed by these people for various jobs that "they think need doing on our properties" for cash in hand. Who monitors this for tax purposes by the way?
Last week, I was continuously harassed by these travellers. As an elderly widow I felt very vulnerable. Eventually I rang the police.
With what we have to endure in this area, I think we should have a rates reduction. However, the attitude appears to be, "Pay up and shut up."
Also, the amount of houses to be built, concreting over our beautiful countryside is a disgrace! Always, always, it has to be the South of Leamington. How about Cubbington, Lillington or Kenilworth??
I strongly object to the following proposed sites:
1. GT15- Land to East of Europa Way
2. GT04- Harbury Lane
3. GT05 - Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Bishop's Tachbrook- (WDC Alternative site)
4. GTalt01 - Brookside Willows, Banbury Rd

Please note my objections and further comments regarding the siting of pitches, etc, for Gypsy and Traveller families at the following locations:
1. GT04- Harbury Lane
* Objection to yet more tax payers money paying for the a relocation of Leamington Football Club
* Very remote from any main facilities
* No pedestrian access - no amenities within walking distance

2. GT15- Land to East of Europa Way
* Pollution risk: Located by the banks of the Tachbrook, as this proposed site could be used as a place of work, there are contamination risks to the environment
* Access onto Europa Way would be dangerous- busy, very fast trunk feeder road
* Busy road would cause noise and air pollution to site
* No bus route to nearby towns and villages
* No pavements- unsuitable as very fast road
* Nearest schools already under pressure
* Land floods regularly
* Steep, sloping ground
* Only a small site, therefore more would be needed
* Tree felling would be required- not environmentally friendly
* Visual impact on route into "Historic Royal Leamington Spa"
* Would be unfair to develop this site and GT04- negative impact on Warwick Gates

3. GTalt01 - Brookside Willows, Banbury Rd
* Would need a safe pavement for walking into Warwick for nearby facilities/ bus routes
* Already has planning/facilities for a caravan site
* Not ideal, but more suitable than others
* Need to overcome contamination issues


4. GT05 - Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Bishop's Tachbrook- (WDC Alternative site)
* Prone to flooding
* Accident blackspot- Adjacent to road junction with history of road accidents
* Visual impact on entering the village
* Oversubscribed GP practice and school
* Unsuitable for business use

Additionally, when making the final decision, please can it be taken into consideration that with the vast amount of housing that is to take place South of Leamington and Warwick, that it would be extremely unfair for one community/ area to have more than one G&T site impacting on it, ie: Warwick Gates and Whitnash. These communities already have major housing developments having been granted planning permission very recently by certain political local Councillors, plus a Solar Farm at Bishop's Tachbrook as well as housing. The positive schooling of non-traveller children also needs to be considered.
Therefore it would be more suitable for chosen sites to be several miles apart, impacting on the North and not just the South of Leamington/Warwick, perhaps in areas not earmarked for vast housing developments.....

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 thatGT04 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.

Reference the subject Gypsy and Traveller Sites.

Please accept this e-mail as my formal method of opposing the two proposed gypsy sites GT02 and GT04.

My comments are as follows:
Both sites are not required. The so called need is based on an out of date report produced by Salford university some years ago.
I believe several councils are questioning the data presented in this report.
I propose Warwick District Council, like other councils, investigate the validity of this document before progressing with this extremely costly and unnecessary activity.

If there is such a desperate need for G&T sites in this area why is it, "just up the road"at Ryton, the site is three quarters empty.

With regard to the actual local proposals.

GT02 (Warwickshire Exhibition Centre site):
* Would close this prosperous business after taking many years to build up. It would destroy the owner.
* Would make staff redundant (jobs in the countryside being extremely hard to find).

GT04 (Leamington Football Club site):
* It says this site isn't in a flood area yet the ground becomes very wet, that's why the pitch itself had to undergo extensive drainage work when being constructed.
* On certain days the smell of the chicken farm is intolerable. Ask any local, particularly in summer. I wouldn't want to take up permanent residence in this area.
* The cost of moving the football club wouldn't make this site viable.
ie:
Cost of securing a new site within Leamington.
Cost of building an equivalent, or better, facilities than the current site.
Transferring the flood light system.
This would be the minimum requirements, before you then need to consider the costs incurred in constructing the G&T requirements.
* I assume the residents will becoming to Harbury school and the doctor's surgery. Both of these are currently over subscribed. Warwick District Council would state they've achieved the G&T requirements, but Stratford district would have to fund all educational & health needs. This isn't acceptable and certainly not to the locals who will suffer even worse services and will have to fund it.
* This site would place travellers at risk. They would have to cross one of Warwickshire's most dangerous crossroads on their daily trek to school, or visit to the doctors (check statistics).
* This site would harm the views from the historic Chesterton windmill. This attracts many visitors to the area and is used in tourism advertising. To place a large G&T site at the foot of this landmark is an ill thought-out move.

lt has come to the attention of Leamington Football' Club that Warwick District Council are considering a proposal to situate a Gypsy and Traveller site on our land at the New Windmill Ground, Harbury Lane, Bishops Tachbrook, Leamington, CV33 90B. We wish to place on record our formal objection to such a proposal.
Leamington Football Club is a volunteer led body that operate at the very heart of the community delivering considerable benefrts to that community in terms of health, fitness, education, personal development and sporting opportunity.
The current six acre site was purchased in 1994 and has been developed into a 3000 capacity stadium with cfubhouse, parking and associated facilities. The vast majority of the funding plus development of facilities has been delivered by volunteers and local businesses. The loss of such facilities would have a significant impact upon the community and would lead to the demise of a football club that has gained six promotions in the past fourteen years and which currently operates at the sixth tier of professional/non-league football This would reflect poorly upon Leamington and Warwick. District in general.
Listed below is an outline' of current activity within the club and community:
* We run 15 boys/youth and development teams via our affiliate clubs Leamington
Brakes FC and Leamington FC Development Squads thus provid 'sport and
health benefits to boys of all ages and backgrounds. We also provide coaching for
boys aged 5-7 years concentrating on skills and enjoyment. A total of approximately 260 members..
* We run 3 girls/ladies teams via our other affiliate Club Leamington Lions/Girls FC, which cater for girls from the age of eight through to adult ladies teams - again providing sports and health benefits to potentially any female in the locality. We also provide coaching for gir1s aged 6-8 years -concentrating on skills and enjoyment. A total of approximately 65 members.
* We run an Adult men's team plus a Veterans men's team (40 members).
* We run coaching initiatives for children of both sexes at our facility during- school holidays and a further coaching initiative, via the Football Association 'Mars Just Play' scheme, for adults of all ages and backgrounds.
* We give free match entry to Leamington FC games for all 325 junior members of our affiliated clubs plus a number of volunteer coaches and administrators.
* We give free entry to all children aged Under 12 from within the community.
* We provide free use of our facilities for all our affiliated clubs for meetings and events and host a number of charitable events each year free of charge as well as holding a number of bucket collections annually for charitable institutions.
* We also promote and participate on our Site, health and wellbeing initiatives. Recent initiatives have included blood pressure testing and 'Stop Smoking Campaign' and Sexual Health Awareness plus heart screening and testicular cancer screening, as well as fundraising for Kidney Research UK
The club since it's re-birth back in the year 2000, has brought considerable publicity to both the town of Leamington Spa and the area as-a whole. and presently has an average attendance of 625 with some gates in excess of 1000 fans. Our FA Cup run (to the first round proper) a few years ago being a key example of the prestige the Club has brought to the town. We are also aware of many of our friends from visiting teams making the most of their visit by spending time in the area and thus the loss of the club would impact upon the
trade of local businesses.
In relation to specific proposal pertaining to Gypsy and Traveller Sites this is our position at the current time.

I am writing to express in the strongest possible terms by objection to the proposed Gypsy site at GT04 on the site currently offered by Leamington Football Club. Even if you believe that the council are required to provide such facilities, that they are necessary and that the people involved in fact want them (all of which are more than debatable), there are some very grave inaccuracies and irregularities about the process and the proposals.

It is absolutely clear that the whole process has been engineered by Warwick DC to push the sites chosen to the very boundaries of the District. This will have two very clear benefits to Warwick DC, firstly it will eliminate any impact on their residents (and therefore voters) of these sites, and secondly it will push the costs for the provision of services such as schools, Doctors, Policing and other welfare onto neighbouring districts. Both of these objectives are utterly deplorable.

On order to achieve these aims, Warwick DC have clearly judged each site not on defined, creditable, consistent, stated and scored criteria, instead they have mixed and matched criteria and weighing to achieve the outcome that suits their own political agenda. Issues that are deemed as worthy of comment for one site are omitted for another, and initial proposals - right down to the actual land in question - have been adjusted to include or exclude sites as required.

Contradictions and inconsistencies
The latest consultation document is full of contradictions, for example, one site is ruled out due to high pressure gas mains, the next a site is altered to accommodate the fact that there is a high pressure gas main. Similarly, one minute the residents of the travellers site needs access to major road network, the next minute they do not or it is too noisy. The arguments made are clearly 'convenient' to suit the agenda of Warwick district council, which is clearly to push this provision to the farthest boundary and onto Stratford-upon-Avon DC and their residents.

The idea that Gypsies will be content to avoid the closest services for Doctors and Schools in Harbury and head to Bishops Itchington due to an arbitrary district boundary as are fanciful as they are preposterous.

Changing the definition of GT04
Furthermore there have been several differences between the initial proposals and the revised proposal, not least that the initial proposal at GT04 stated that the site would be opposite Barwell Farm and it is now limited to the football club. This devious provision of information meant that objections to the first proposal focussed on a different area to that which is now being proposed, which meant that some key factors may have been overlooked and some key arguments voided.

Specific contradictions when comparing sites (and paragraph 6.1)
There are enormous irregularities in the pro's and con's provided in the consultation, where considerations that are applicable to one site are equally applicable to another but ignored. The application list shown in 6.2 of the document highlights this perfectly. In fact, 6.2 is actually a list of further considerations that may or may not be referred to as appropriate to suit the councils agenda.

For example:
GT04 lies within a flood plane, so the 'new' proposed area, which is different to that considered in the first consultation, has been cherry picked to cover only the part that does not lie in this area. This approach has not been afforded to any other proposed site with flood considerations.

GT04 has issues around danger to wildlife, again the 'new' proposed area, which is different to that considered in the first consultation, has been cherry picked to cover only the part that does not lie in this area. This approach has not been afforded to any other proposed site with wildlife considerations.

Various sites mention a high pressure gas main. Only site GT04 has been sub divided to get around this 'problem'.

GT06 'may cause problems for viable agricultural unit'. Of course the land at GT04 could otherwise form prime agricultural land (if indeed that is a consideration) should the football club vacate and the provision of these facilities will of course have an impact on neighbouring agricultural land.

GT08 is flagged as being within 1km of a railway line. GT04 is also within 1km of a railway line.

GT08 is noted as being (potentially too) remote from transport links and the like. It is no more remote than GT04.

Various sites mention potential road noise from the A46 and M40, yet the Fosse Way (which is adjacent to the GT04 site) is one of the busiest roads in the area.

GT13 mentions failed planning applications previously. Without any detail it is impossible to say that those same reasons for failing to approve this site be any less relevant to GT04.

GT13 is noted as being too remote from services and facilities, remote from primary road network and on high quality landscape. All three of these reasons are more applicable to GT04 than GT13.

GT14 mentions contamination from use as a poultry Farm. This is nonsensical, what possible contamination could there be arising from a poultry farm?

Gtalt02. By far and away the biggest irregularities focusses on Gtalt02, which is marked as 'amber'. When compared to GT04:
* it is apparently remote from services, although no more remote than GT04,
* it would require the purchase of a timber business, whereas mention of the cost and disruption of re-homing a football club is conspicuous by it's absence
* the road may be dangerous even though mention of the Fosse Way, the most dangerous road in Warwickshire if not the Midlands - again not mentioned in GT04.
* Mention of the ancient woodland, although the view from Chesterton Windmill is completely omitted in reference to GT04. (but then I suppose that falls in Statford-upon-Avon DC so that probably doesn't count).

Gtalt03 appears to have not been delivered as 'green' on the basis of being on Greenbelt. If this is an overriding issue or is simply too difficult, then these sites should never have been considered in the first place - what is the point of including and then omitting anything on a green belt is not to force non-green belt sites through. This is consistent throughout the document.

Gtalt04 is stated as being remote from ALL services and facilities, despite being next to a railway station and in a village every bit as well served as anything within 2 miles of GT04.

The reasons given for Gtalt06 are so vague it is not worth commenting on, and all of the positive reasons for inclusion at other sites (such as proximity to services, near to transport links, not being on the greenbelt etc etc) have been completely omitted. Very clearly this is bowing to pressure from a landowner and as such this site should be reconsidered and judged in parallel to the other sites whereby pro's are considered in addition to just the 'cons'.

Gtalt07 mentions being 'open to views from the West'. This is a very odd reason and I cannot see why views from Chesterton Windmill have been entirely omitted in the case of GT04.

Gtalt09 (and others) I am intrigued about the mention of land being 'allocated for residential use'. How a gypsy site would not be considered 'residential use' is very odd, except of course if these is a windfall to the council in selling the land to a developer.

Gtalt10 mentions that the area excluded for risk of flooding but that this is going to be remedied, it is completely unclear as to why this is a problem.

Gtalt13 (excusing typo) - states that the road is not suitable to serve caravans, but these are to be fixed units . This is an enormous and concerning irregularity. Furthermore, it is incongruous that the council are seemingly not willing to improve a road but they are willing to move a whole football club with the costs that this activity would incur.

Gtalt15 - again these are no comments about how 'good' the provision of services would be at this site. Furthermore, there is no 'Olympus Way' in Leamington spa, but access from ' Olympus Avenue' would be ideal for residents.

Gtalt16 is far too vague to comment.

Gtalt22 is mentioned as being 'very open and conspicuous', as well as unpalatable to the neighbours. This is a complete re-write of the rules that all other sites have been judged by.

Consideration of Neighbours

I was alarmed, concerned and ultimately unsurprised when told by a representative of Warwick DC that they have travelled the length and breath of the country to similar sites to speak to traveller families, council officials yet not (even once) those local residents that are affected by the sites. This is entirely preposterous, a scandalous mis-use of public money and shows the utter discontempt for residents (especially those of neighbouring Districts) that will be impacted by these plans.

Ideal sites

The following sites should be utilised. In each case they are either already marked 'Green' or the reasons for being amber or red are extremely weak in comparison with other sites.

GT06 - none of the reasons given against using GT06 are strong enough to preclude the site as being Green. Utilising 6 pitches at this site would spread the burden of provision around the district.

GT11 - as above, none of the reasons given are strong enough to preclude the site as being marked Green. This site would give access to the plentiful services in Warwick and has access to facilities and transport links. The only real reason this has been excluded is the council do not want Gypsy's 'in their backyard', as well as probably objections to a current or potential developer.

GT19 - again, an ideal site and possibly small enough for the local community to absorb, although this should be carefully monitored.

Gtalt01 - already earmarked as a camping site but unlikely to be viable as a business. If indeed there is a requirement, desire and need for such facilities, this a very clear and obvious place that gives residents access to the plentiful services on offer in Warwick Town.

On this point, it is as astonishing as it is unsurprising that the district council has not been 'able' to find any 'green rated' sites that would mean that the provision of services is drawn from the council home of Leamington Spa.

Gtalt02 - again, none of the reasons given are strong enough to preclude the site as being marked Green. This site would give access to the plentiful services in Leamington Spa and has access to facilities and transport links. The only real reason this has been excluded is the council do not want Gypsy's 'in their backyard'.

Gtalt03 - again, reasons not strong enough to preclude the site as being marked Green. This site would give access to the plentiful services in Warwick and has access to facilities and transport links. Likely to be affected by the views of a potential developer.

Gtalt12 - Marked Green, although there does seem likely to be a significant amount of pressure put on services in Barford which I believe may fall in Stratford-upon-Avon DC area.

Gtalt15 - Again, it is not clear as to why this site is not marked as green as different criteria seem to have been given to this and other sites. To claim that some remote sites are close enough to facilities and services but then to not comment in relation to this site is entirely perplexing.

The proposed sites at GT17, GT18 and GT20 are all absolutely ideal for a development of this type. There is not a single criteria that are not met by these sites and it seems that the wishes of one group (in this instance the highways) are accepted and not questioned unlike the view of residents elsewhere.
Best mix

The best mix is to place up to 38 pitches all at GT17, GT18 and GT20. As an alternative, the following mix would best meet the needs of the travelling community, not impact disproportionally on the lives of small communities in and near to Warwick District. All of these sites would have significant space to expand.

GT06 Land at Park Farm, Spinney Farm - 6 'pitches' (currently AMBER)
GT11 Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road - 5 'pitches' (currently AMBER)
GT19 Land adjacent Shell Petrol Filling Station, Birmingham Road, Budbrooke, Warwick - 5 'pitches' (currently GREEN)
GTalt01 Brookside Willows, Banbury Road - 15 'pitches' (currently GREEN)
GTalt02 Land off Rugby Road, Cubbington - 5 'pitches' (currently AMBER)
GTalt03 Henley Road/Hampton Road, Hampton-on-the-Hill - 5 'pitches' (currently AMBER)
GTalt15 r.o. department store, Leamington Retail Park - 5 'pitches' (currently RED)

That is if these facilities are needed at all - which frankly nobody believes.

Yours sincerely

James Skidmore

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.

I would like to take this opportunity to register mine and my family's complaint at the proposed gypsy and traveller sites in the parish of Bishops Tachbrook.
As a resident of Bishops Tachbrook I feel duty bound to complain about the disgusting treatment that Warwick dc has shown to us on this matter . It amounts to the death of a village and the raping of a whole community.
I am complaining on the grounds of the fact that the villagers and the traveller community will not be able to integrate and as such the breakdown of the current harmonious community will be lost.
I will be using whatever media relationships I have to expose the councils plans as well as starting a campaign through social media where anybody who is experiencing the same treatment will be able to register their protest

I strongly object to the proposal to use the New Windmill Ground, Harbury Lane for a Gipsy and Travellers Site.
After losing the Old Windmill Ground to developers, to now lose the NWG would be a disaster after all the work the fans and supporters have put in to the transformation of that ground.
I urge the Council to reconsider the proposal unless a satisfactory new ground can be found and transformed to allow continuity of play.

I object to the following proposed gypsy and traveller sites for the reasons set out below:

GT04: Land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way
* 'The site is currently the home ground of Leamington Football Club.' Whilst the Football Club may be amenable to the sale of the land for a Gypsy and Traveller site the local people who support the team would have to travel a lot further to the ground, thus increasing traffic levels. It would also be a costly move for the Club which the District Council would have to subsidise.
* The consultation document states, 'It is unlikely that the site could connect to a public foul mains sewer, but could drain away from the south or be served by a non-mains solution.' Given the issues Warwick District has experienced in the past with disposal of human waste by gypsies and travellers a non-mains solution is not appropriate for this community and a site able to be connected to the mains sewer should be preferred.
* The consultation document refers to the GP surgery in the village but this is only open part time. The higher level health needs of the gypsy and traveller community could potentially overwhelm the existing service.
* It is in a very rural location, not connected to any footpaths and thus dangerous for access except by car.
GT05: Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm
* The site is in very close proximity to Bishop's Tachbrook School. As such it presents potential problems with school premises security as the transient nature of those living on the site may mean it isn't known who is living there at any given time. This has implications for the application of 'Sara's Law'.
* Bishop's Tachbrook School is already oversubscribed with children living in the village. The consultation document states that, 'Children living on this site would secure places over children at a greater distance.' This would disadvantage other permanent residents of the village as the transient nature of the gypsy and traveller lifestyle is such that the children may only be living on the site for a small proportion of the school year yet the school could be required to keep that place open for the whole year.
* There is currently a planning application for settled housing on this site which could be jeopardised by this site application. The Local Plan requires housing for both settled and travelling populations and by allocating this land for travellers, few settled people could be housed.
* The consultation document states, 'It is unlikely that the site could connect to public foul mains sewer and would need a non-mains solution.' Given the issues Warwick District has experienced in the past with disposal of human waste by gypsies and travellers a non-mains solution is not appropriate for this community and a site able to be connected to the mains sewer should be preferred.
* The consultation document refers to the GP surgery in the village but this is only open part time. The higher level health needs of the gypsy and traveller community could potentially overwhelm the existing service.
* The village has limited local facilities in general with just a single shop currently operating. This site would lead to additional traffic into Warwick and Leamington on already busy roads.
* The site is located close to the M40 and A452 with accompanying noise pollution and access issues which makes it unsuitable for residential development. This site is adjacent to a bad junction where there have already been a number of accidents.
* 'Compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward.' This would add additional cost to the planning process and also damage the feasibility of the agricultural employment currently being provided by Tachbrook Hill Farm. The economic viability of the farm could be compromised.
GT06: Land at Park Farm/Spinney Farm
* The site's proximity to major roads A452 and A425, with accompanying road noise pollution and access issues make this site unsuitable for residential purposes. The consultation document states, 'There may also be noise issues connected with proximity to Warwick By-Pass depending on where exactly the site is located'
* The consultation document highlights that, 'Use of just a central section of the site for this use may cause problems for a viable agricultural unit as it dissects fields'.
* The consultation document points out that whilst the site is within Flood Zone 1, 'There is however an ordinary watercourse running through the centre of the site and along the eastern boundary for which no modelling has been undertaken. This could affect the capacity of the site for development and therefore further assessment needs to be undertaken prior to allocation.' The potential contamination of this watercourse from the gypsy and traveller site should be taken into consideration given the possibility of contamination of the River Avon.
* The location of the site, on a major route into historic Warwick, could have an adverse impact on the rural landscape and approach to Warwick Castle tourist attraction.
* The consultation document highlights possible contamination issues 'There are unknown contamination issues relating to a former landfill site on western third of site which reduces the developable area.' This makes the size of the site less viable than other sites.
* The consultation document states, 'It is unlikely that the site could connect to public foul mains sewer and would need a non-mains solution.' Given the issues Warwick District has experienced in the past with disposal of human waste by gypsies and travellers a non-mains solution is not appropriate for this community and a site able to be connected to the mains sewer should be preferred.
* The consultation document refers to the GP surgery in the village but this is only open part time. The higher level health needs of the gypsy and traveller community could potentially overwhelm the existing service.
* 'Compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward.' This would add additional cost to the planning process and also damage the feasibility of the agricultural employment currently being provided by Park Farm/Spinney Farm. The economic viability of the farms could be compromised.
GT15: Land east of Europa Way
* The site's proximity to the A452, with accompanying road noise pollution and access issues make this site unsuitable for residential purposes.
* The A452 is a main route into Leamington for commuter traffic and access onto this road would be dangerous, with high potential for accidents.
* There are no footpaths connecting this site which would either force pedestrians to make dangerous journeys by foot or increase traffic congestion along an already congested route.
* Bishop's Tachbrook School is already oversubscribed with children living in the village and adding this site to the catchment area would disadvantage other permanent residents of the village as the transient nature of the gypsy and traveller lifestyle is such that the children may only be living on the site for a small proportion of the school year yet the school could be required to keep that place open for the whole year.
* The consultation document states, 'It is unlikely that the site could connect to public foul mains sewer and would need a non-mains solution.' Given the issues Warwick District has experienced in the past with disposal of human waste by gypsies and travellers a non-mains solution is not appropriate for this community and a site able to be connected to the mains sewer should be preferred.
* The consultation document refers to the GP surgery in the village but this is only open part time. The higher level health needs of the gypsy and traveller community could potentially overwhelm the existing service.
* As the site is in the ownership of Warwickshire County Council, this site could be in place more quickly than other sites.
GTalt01: Brookside Willows, Banbury Road
* The Tach Brook runs alongside this site and thus there is concern over the potential contamination of the Brook and the River Avon.
* As a previous landfill site there will be contaminants which may make the site unsuitable for permanent residential use (versus the holiday caravan site there is currently planning permission for).
* This site does have footpath access to the town of Warwick and the facilities and amenities therein.
* The site is well screened from the road and as much of the infrastructure is in place this site could be in place more quickly than other sites.

I object to the following proposed gypsy and traveller sites for the reasons set out below:

GT04: Land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way
* 'The site is currently the home ground of Leamington Football Club.' Whilst the Football Club may be amenable to the sale of the land for a Gypsy and Traveller site the local people who support the team would have to travel a lot further to the ground, thus increasing traffic levels. It would also be a costly move for the Club which the District Council would have to subsidise.
* The consultation document states, 'It is unlikely that the site could connect to a public foul mains sewer, but could drain away from the south or be served by a non-mains solution.' Given the issues Warwick District has experienced in the past with disposal of human waste by gypsies and travellers a non-mains solution is not appropriate for this community and a site able to be connected to the mains sewer should be preferred.
* The consultation document refers to the GP surgery in the village but this is only open part time. The higher level health needs of the gypsy and traveller community could potentially overwhelm the existing service.
* It is in a very rural location, not connected to any footpaths and thus dangerous for access except by car.
GT05: Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm
* The site is in very close proximity to Bishop's Tachbrook School. As such it presents potential problems with school premises security as the transient nature of those living on the site may mean it isn't known who is living there at any given time. This has implications for the application of 'Sara's Law'.
* Bishop's Tachbrook School is already oversubscribed with children living in the village. The consultation document states that, 'Children living on this site would secure places over children at a greater distance.' This would disadvantage other permanent residents of the village as the transient nature of the gypsy and traveller lifestyle is such that the children may only be living on the site for a small proportion of the school year yet the school could be required to keep that place open for the whole year.
* There is currently a planning application for settled housing on this site which could be jeopardised by this site application. The Local Plan requires housing for both settled and travelling populations and by allocating this land for travellers, few settled people could be housed.
* The consultation document states, 'It is unlikely that the site could connect to public foul mains sewer and would need a non-mains solution.' Given the issues Warwick District has experienced in the past with disposal of human waste by gypsies and travellers a non-mains solution is not appropriate for this community and a site able to be connected to the mains sewer should be preferred.
* The consultation document refers to the GP surgery in the village but this is only open part time. The higher level health needs of the gypsy and traveller community could potentially overwhelm the existing service.
* The village has limited local facilities in general with just a single shop currently operating. This site would lead to additional traffic into Warwick and Leamington on already busy roads.
* The site is located close to the M40 and A452 with accompanying noise pollution and access issues which makes it unsuitable for residential development. This site is adjacent to a bad junction where there have already been a number of accidents.
* 'Compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward.' This would add additional cost to the planning process and also damage the feasibility of the agricultural employment currently being provided by Tachbrook Hill Farm. The economic viability of the farm could be compromised.
GT06: Land at Park Farm/Spinney Farm
* The site's proximity to major roads A452 and A425, with accompanying road noise pollution and access issues make this site unsuitable for residential purposes. The consultation document states, 'There may also be noise issues connected with proximity to Warwick By-Pass depending on where exactly the site is located'
* The consultation document highlights that, 'Use of just a central section of the site for this use may cause problems for a viable agricultural unit as it dissects fields'.
* The consultation document points out that whilst the site is within Flood Zone 1, 'There is however an ordinary watercourse running through the centre of the site and along the eastern boundary for which no modelling has been undertaken. This could affect the capacity of the site for development and therefore further assessment needs to be undertaken prior to allocation.' The potential contamination of this watercourse from the gypsy and traveller site should be taken into consideration given the possibility of contamination of the River Avon.
* The location of the site, on a major route into historic Warwick, could have an adverse impact on the rural landscape and approach to Warwick Castle tourist attraction.
* The consultation document highlights possible contamination issues 'There are unknown contamination issues relating to a former landfill site on western third of site which reduces the developable area.' This makes the size of the site less viable than other sites.
* The consultation document states, 'It is unlikely that the site could connect to public foul mains sewer and would need a non-mains solution.' Given the issues Warwick District has experienced in the past with disposal of human waste by gypsies and travellers a non-mains solution is not appropriate for this community and a site able to be connected to the mains sewer should be preferred.
* The consultation document refers to the GP surgery in the village but this is only open part time. The higher level health needs of the gypsy and traveller community could potentially overwhelm the existing service.
* 'Compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward.' This would add additional cost to the planning process and also damage the feasibility of the agricultural employment currently being provided by Park Farm/Spinney Farm. The economic viability of the farms could be compromised.

GT15: Land east of Europa Way
* The site's proximity to the A452, with accompanying road noise pollution and access issues make this site unsuitable for residential purposes.
* The A452 is a main route into Leamington for commuter traffic and access onto this road would be dangerous, with high potential for accidents.
* There are no footpaths connecting this site which would either force pedestrians to make dangerous journeys by foot or increase traffic congestion along an already congested route.
* Bishop's Tachbrook School is already oversubscribed with children living in the village and adding this site to the catchment area would disadvantage other permanent residents of the village as the transient nature of the gypsy and traveller lifestyle is such that the children may only be living on the site for a small proportion of the school year yet the school could be required to keep that place open for the whole year.
* The consultation document states, 'It is unlikely that the site could connect to public foul mains sewer and would need a non-mains solution.' Given the issues Warwick District has experienced in the past with disposal of human waste by gypsies and travellers a non-mains solution is not appropriate for this community and a site able to be connected to the mains sewer should be preferred.
* The consultation document refers to the GP surgery in the village but this is only open part time. The higher level health needs of the gypsy and traveller community could potentially overwhelm the existing service.
* As the site is in the ownership of Warwickshire County Council, this site could be in place more quickly than other sites.
GTalt01: Brookside Willows, Banbury Road
* The Tach Brook runs alongside this site and thus there is concern over the potential contamination of the Brook and the River Avon.
* As a previous landfill site there will be contaminants which may make the site unsuitable for permanent residential use (versus the holiday caravan site there is currently planning permission for).
* This site does have footpath access to the town of Warwick and the facilities and amenities therein.
* The site is well screened from the road and as much of the infrastructure is in place this site could be in place more quickly than other sites.

I wish to report my objection to the proposed gypsy sites GT02 and GT04.

I have read the recent literature and attended the meeting/exhibition earlier in the spring at Harbury Village Hall. I have concerns about the original research that sourced these potential Gypsy & Traveller Sites and the fact that the research was not done locally and that gypsys were actually involved in the direction of the research.

GT04

I am concerned about its proximity to my home and village and if this site were successful I fear for the drain on resources that the site would create as school and doctors places are already at maximum capacity.

I am aware that the football club will only agree to the use of the land as a G&T site if they are able to relocate to a city centre site, if this is not possible they do not wish to move so if you choose this land it would be an attempt at a compulsory purchase.

GT02

I object to the suggestion that this site is put forward as a proposed G&T site based on the following facts:

1. I am employed at the Warwickshire Exhibition Centre (WEC) and am clearly aware that the land owners do not wish to sell, so if this site is forced through it would need to be via compulsory purchase which would be costly for the council and take years to complete if it ever would.

2. The threat of this site alone has been sufficient to deter potential event organisers from using our exhibition hall and it has also deterred current organisers working with us from signing extended contracts to work with us over the next 5 years.

3. I am one of 7 permanent employees at the WEC and when we have exhibitions on we employ many more people on a temporary basis, sometimes up to 30 or 40. If the site at GT02 was approved the WEC would be forced to close down and myself and all colleagues would be forced into unemployment.

4. The WEC brings significant revenue into the county/district through the thousands of visitors and hundreds of exhibitors it brings to the Centre each year. Revenue for the district is source through hotels, B&Bs, restaurants, other tourist attractions in the area etc. For some of our events we will book directly accommodation for our exhibitors and we promote local facilities via our website.

5. I have concerns about the location of the proposed site being on such a main road - this does not prove safe access to and from the site for vehicles and there is really no pedestrian access from the proposed site.

6. The proposed site is opposite a business but also a residential home.

7. The adjacent site is protected ancient woodland and igf a G&T site were placed next to it is would have severe damage to wildlife habitat.

8. The land is a historic toll site from medieval times.

9. The land is on the archaeological site.

10. I do question why all the sites are in the south of Warwickshire and I also question the governments suggestion on how manysirte are required - it is far too many for our asre and the proposed sites are too close to each other.

I do sincerely hope that Warwick District Council do remove these 2 options from the local G&T lists.

Regards proposed Site GT04 - Land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way

Objections to this site are
1. The proposed site is adjacent to a very busy junction (Fosse Way/Harbury Lane) where in the morning & evening traffic peak traffic backs up in all directions up to half a mile.
2. The junction is now the site of a Road Traffic Collision at least once a week
3. The view from Chesterton Windmill northwards will be spoilt by the proposed site.
4. Doctors surgery is over a mile away
5. Harbury school up to capacity

Suggested better site GT 20 by the M40 as this has better access with New Dispensary Surgery and schools nearby

If GT04 is adopted then think Section 106 monies (i.e. Warwick DC) should be used to fund the installation of traffic lights at the Fosse Way/Harbury Lane junction.

My wife and I are of the opinion that the Football Ground site, which has been
suggested for use as a permanent gypsy/traveller site is unsuitable for the
following reasons:

1. The land is prone to flooding and a raised site would be detrimental
to the environment.

2. Harbury Lane would be extremely dangerous for pedestrians - multiple
accidents have occurred at the junction with the Fosse Way. Provision of
a footpath would not only be expensive, but impracticable due to the
narrowness of the road.

3. The awful smell from the chicken farm opposite makes life very
unpleasant for people living nearby, particularly in hot weather.

4. Necessary facilities such as doctors surgeries, school and shops are some
considerable distance away and the doctors and school in Harbury are already
fully stretched. You must bear in mind that we are expected to absorb
families from the new housing already being built.

5. The land surrounding this site is currently home to sheep and horses and
the prospect of gypsy's dogs gaining access to these animals is worrying.

I would respectfully suggest that a more suitable site could be found closer
to Leamington, which would provide the amenities that families require.

I would like to object to the proposed plan to change use of Leamington Football pitch site into a traveller site ref GT04.
I have always supported the use of the site as a football ground and it is now well established so I can't see sensible reason to move it, the cost would be considerable and I suspect to be subsidised by the rates payers to at least some degree? I agree the site is some distance by road from Leamington which is not ideal for transport on match days but buses services are offered. The added benefit from being away from town is the noise level to many residents on match days either mid-week evening or weekend afternoon, this can be quite considerable as singing/chanting and cheers for a goal this would be annoying to nearby residents whereas at Leamington Hall most of us are 200m away.

The fact that the site is not near any local community is a major reason not to use this site as guidelines suggest the traveller sites should be near shops, surgeries, schools. There is no daily bus route here and I am confident a few traveller families requiring the occasional bus daily would not economically justify a new service to be started or is one going to be subsidised at ratepayers expense? There is no footpath along the Harbury Lane and it is not a pleasant road to cycle along which I know from experience. The distance from the site to shops is 2 miles+ to Whitnash or Bishops Tachbrook, maybe slightly less to Harbury but climbing a very steep hill.
There are a multitude of reasons in planning guidance in addition to the above as to why this site is unsuitable which have been listed by my neighbours here at Leamington Hall which I also back wholeheartedly and do not need relisting both wasting my time to write and your time to read!

It is well documented that the report recommending the need for the number of traveller sites is flawed and this should be investigated properly by WDC as time usefully spent here would save not only the cost of providing but also running a number of sites.

In summary
I object to GT04 on the grounds of -
Costs to move the football ground
Noise pollution in town
Distance to facilities for travellers and lack of infrastructure
Lack of adhering to planning guidance
I question the reliability of the needs report and therefore the cost of establishing and running the number of sites in the area.

Having reviewed the list of Preferred Options for permanent gypsy sites I would like to make the following comments.

The most appropriate site is clearly GTalt01 Brookside Willows on the Banbury Road. This already meets the majority of the conditions for a suitable site; partially developed with existing planning permission for caravans, well screened which benefits both the community and the travellers, safe access on to the main road which is important for movement of towed caravans, and close to the local amenities.

The site east of Birmingham Road at Budbrooke (GT19) should also be considered as it offers suitable conditions for a limited number of pitches, is partially developed for use of caravans, and therefore has access points and existing services.

Land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way (GT04), Leamington Football Club should be discounted as it is a successful and well supported club that has been developed with considerable effort by the local community. Moving it could have serious consequences for its' continued existence.

Land north of Westham Lane, Barford (GT12) is too close to existing housing and should be discounted on the basis of not promoting peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and local community.

Land east of Europa Way (GT15) is close to a busy road, therefore access would be dangerous and the noise due to traffic would be excessive.

I therefore recommend that you provide traveller sites at GTalt01 and GT19 as part of your Local Plan.

I wish to report my objection to the proposed gypsy sites GT02 and GT04.

I have read the recent literature and attended the meeting/exhibition earlier in the spring at Harbury Village Hall. I have concerns about the original research that sourced these potential Gypsy & Traveller Sites and the fact that the research was not done locally and that gypsys were actually involved in the direction of the research.

GT04

I am concerned about its proximity to my home and village and if this site were successful I fear for the drain on resources that the site would create as school and doctors places are already at maximum capacity.

I am aware that the football club will only agree to the use of the land as a G&T site if they are able to relocate to a city centre site, if this is not possible they do not wish to move so if you choose this land it would be an attempt at a compulsory purchase.

GT02

I object to the suggestion that this site is put forward as a proposed G&T site based on the following facts:

1. My wife is employed at the Warwickshire Exhibition Centre (WEC) and we are clearly aware that the land owners do not wish to sell, so if this site is forced through it would need to be via compulsory purchase which would be costly for the council and take years to complete if it ever would.

2. The threat of this site alone has been sufficient to deter potential event organisers from using our exhibition hall and it has also deterred current organisers working with us from signing extended contracts to work with us over the next 5 years.

3. My wife is one of 7 permanent employees at the WEC and when we have exhibitions on we employ many more people on a temporary basis, sometimes up to 30 or 40. If the site at GT02 was approved the WEC would be forced to close down and myself and all colleagues would be forced into unemployment.

4. The WEC brings significant revenue into the county/district through the thousands of visitors and hundreds of exhibitors it brings to the Centre each year. Revenue for the district is source through hotels, B&Bs, restaurants, other tourist attractions in the area etc. For some of our events we will book directly accommodation for our exhibitors and we promote local facilities via our website.

5. I have concerns about the location of the proposed site being on such a main road - this does not prove safe access to and from the site for vehicles and there is really no pedestrian access from the proposed site.

6. The proposed site is opposite a business but also a residential home.

7. The adjacent site is protected ancient woodland and if a G&T site were placed next to it is would have severe damage to wildlife habitat.

8. The land is a historic toll site from medieval times.

9. I do question why all the sites are in the south of Warwickshire and I also question the governments suggestion on how manysirte are required - it is far too many for our area and the proposed sites are too close to each other.

I do sincerely hope that Warwick District Council do remove these 2 options from the local G&T lists.

Please see below my comments in reference to the following sites:

GT04: Land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way - Object

- There are no footpaths connecting to this site, therefore pedestrian access will be dangerous as peak travel times.

- Increased level of healthcare required by the Gypsy and Traveller community will put pressure on the local GP Surgery, which currently only runs on a part time basis.

- There has not been an appropriate solution found in reference to the Sewerage Disposal. A mains connected sewer is preferable, but it is stated in the consultation document that this is "unlikely".

- Cost to move the football club would have to be subsidised by the District Council, this will be a costly exercise with no gain.

GT05: Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm - Object

- Bishops Tachbrook School is already over subscribed, however the consultation document states that 'Children living on this site would secure places over children at a greater distance.' This disadvantages other permanent residents in the village.

- The site is in close proximity to Bishops Tachbrook School and will therefore have implications for the application of "Sara's Law".

- Extra pressure will be put on the local facilities, small local shop.

- Additional traffic would end up using the already congested roads into Warwick and South Leamington

- Increased level of healthcare required by the Gypsy and Traveller community will put pressure on the local GP Surgery, which currently only runs on a part time basis.

- Site is located close to the M40, this makes it unsuitable for residential development due to noise pollution and access issues, at an already busy junction.

- "Compulsory purchase powers" required on this site would further increase the costs to the planning process. In addition the economic viability of Tachbrook Hill Farm may be compromised.

- There has not been an appropriate solution found in reference to the Sewerage Disposal. A mains connected sewer is preferable, but it is stated in the consultation document that this is "unlikely".


GT06: Land at Park Farm/Spinney Farm - Object

- There is the potential for viable agricultural fields to be dissected, through use of only the "central section" of the site.

- The consultation document points out that whilst the site is within Flood Zone 1, 'There is however an ordinary watercourse running through the centre of the site and along the eastern boundary for which no modelling has been undertaken. This could affect the capacity of the site for development and therefore further assessment needs to be undertaken prior to allocation.' The potential contamination of this watercourse from the gypsy and traveller site should be taken into consideration given the possibility of contamination of the River Avon.

- The consultation document highlights possible contamination issues relating to a former landfill site, this will reduce the developable area, making the site less viable.

- Again the site's proximity to major roads A452 and A425, with accompanying road noise pollution and access issues make this site unsuitable for residential purposes. The consultation document states, 'There may also be noise issues connected with proximity to Warwick By-Pass depending on where exactly the site is located'

- "Compulsory purchase powers" required on this site would further increase the costs to the planning process. In addition the economic viability of Park Farm/Spinney Farm may be compromised.

- Increased level of healthcare required by the Gypsy and Traveller community will put pressure on the local GP Surgery, which currently only runs on a part time basis.

- There has not been an appropriate solution found in reference to the Sewerage Disposal. A mains connected sewer is preferable, but it is stated in the consultation document that this is "unlikely".

GT15: Land east of Europa Way - Object


- Bishops Tachbrook School is already over subscribed, however the consultation document states that 'Children living on this site would secure places over children at a greater distance.' This disadvantages other permanent residents in the village.

- There are no footpaths connecting to this site, therefore pedestrian access will be dangerous as peak travel times, with the potential for increased accidents.

- Increased level of healthcare required by the Gypsy and Traveller community will put pressure on the local GP Surgery, which currently only runs on a part time basis.

- There has not been an appropriate solution found in reference to the Sewerage Disposal. A mains connected sewer is preferable, but it is stated in the consultation document that this is "unlikely".

- Site is located close to a busy road, this makes it unsuitable for residential development due to noise pollution and there are access issues, at an already busy junction/main road into Leamington and Warwick.

GTalt01: Brookside Willows, Banbury Road - Comments

- This site does have footpath access to the town centre of Warwick and its facilities.

- The Tachbrook runs along this site and therefore there may be potential contamination of the Brook and River Avon.

- The consultation document highlights possible contamination issues relating to a former landfill site, this will reduce the developable area, making the site less viable and unsuitable for residential use.

- The site is well screened from the road and more of the infrastructure is already in place.

- This site already has planning for a Caravan Site

Please see below my comments in reference to the following sites:

GT04: Land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way - Object

- There are no footpaths connecting to this site, therefore pedestrian access will be dangerous as peak travel times.

- Increased level of healthcare required by the Gypsy and Traveller community will put pressure on the local GP Surgery, which currently only runs on a part time basis.

- There has not been an appropriate solution found in reference to the Sewerage Disposal. A mains connected sewer is preferable, but it is stated in the consultation document that this is "unlikely".

- Cost to move the football club would have to be subsidised by the District Council, this will be a costly exercise with no gain.

GT05: Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm - Object

- Bishops Tachbrook School is already over subscribed, however the consultation document states that 'Children living on this site would secure places over children at a greater distance.' This disadvantages other permanent residents in the village.

- The site is in close proximity to Bishops Tachbrook School and will therefore have implications for the application of "Sara's Law".

- Extra pressure will be put on the local facilities, small local shop.

- Additional traffic would end up using the already congested roads into Warwick and South Leamington

- Increased level of healthcare required by the Gypsy and Traveller community will put pressure on the local GP Surgery, which currently only runs on a part time basis.

- Site is located close to the M40, this makes it unsuitable for residential development due to noise pollution and access issues, at an already busy junction.

- "Compulsory purchase powers" required on this site would further increase the costs to the planning process. In addition the economic viability of Tachbrook Hill Farm may be compromised.

- There has not been an appropriate solution found in reference to the Sewerage Disposal. A mains connected sewer is preferable, but it is stated in the consultation document that this is "unlikely".


GT06: Land at Park Farm/Spinney Farm - Object

- There is the potential for viable agricultural fields to be dissected, through use of only the "central section" of the site.

- The consultation document points out that whilst the site is within Flood Zone 1, 'There is however an ordinary watercourse running through the centre of the site and along the eastern boundary for which no modelling has been undertaken. This could affect the capacity of the site for development and therefore further assessment needs to be undertaken prior to allocation.' The potential contamination of this watercourse from the gypsy and traveller site should be taken into consideration given the possibility of contamination of the River Avon.

- The consultation document highlights possible contamination issues relating to a former landfill site, this will reduce the developable area, making the site less viable.

- Again the site's proximity to major roads A452 and A425, with accompanying road noise pollution and access issues make this site unsuitable for residential purposes. The consultation document states, 'There may also be noise issues connected with proximity to Warwick By-Pass depending on where exactly the site is located'

- "Compulsory purchase powers" required on this site would further increase the costs to the planning process. In addition the economic viability of Park Farm/Spinney Farm may be compromised.

- Increased level of healthcare required by the Gypsy and Traveller community will put pressure on the local GP Surgery, which currently only runs on a part time basis.

- There has not been an appropriate solution found in reference to the Sewerage Disposal. A mains connected sewer is preferable, but it is stated in the consultation document that this is "unlikely".

GT15: Land east of Europa Way - Object


- Bishops Tachbrook School is already over subscribed, however the consultation document states that 'Children living on this site would secure places over children at a greater distance.' This disadvantages other permanent residents in the village.

- There are no footpaths connecting to this site, therefore pedestrian access will be dangerous as peak travel times, with the potential for increased accidents.

- Increased level of healthcare required by the Gypsy and Traveller community will put pressure on the local GP Surgery, which currently only runs on a part time basis.

- There has not been an appropriate solution found in reference to the Sewerage Disposal. A mains connected sewer is preferable, but it is stated in the consultation document that this is "unlikely".

- Site is located close to a busy road, this makes it unsuitable for residential development due to noise pollution and there are access issues, at an already busy junction/main road into Leamington and Warwick.

GTalt01: Brookside Willows, Banbury Road - Comments

- This site does have footpath access to the town centre of Warwick and its facilities.

- The Tachbrook runs along this site and therefore there may be potential contamination of the Brook and River Avon.

- The consultation document highlights possible contamination issues relating to a former landfill site, this will reduce the developable area, making the site less viable and unsuitable for residential use.

- The site is well screened from the road and more of the infrastructure is already in place.

- This site already has planning for a Caravan Site

Please find attached electronic copies of my letter and detailed objection sent by post to your offices today.

Hopefully, our position as a group of shareholders is clear in that, notwithstanding any impression that the board may have given in discussions with the council, a voluntary sale of the New Windmill Ground as a gypsy and traveller site will not be approved.

However, should you have any questions, please do feel free to get on touch and I would be happy to help.

Please find enclosed a formal objection in respect of site GT04, land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way, currently the home of Leamington Football Club.

The objection started out as a personal one but, as other shareholders heard of my intention, a number came forward and asked to join in. It seemed sensible for us to submit a composite objection, rather than a number of individual ones making the same points.

As you will see, the objectors own or control 52.5% of the shareholding. Had I actively canvased support, I believe that the percentage would have been even higher and, should disposal for a G&T site be proposed by the board, the motion will be defeated.

Should the council look to proceed against our wishes, then it will be forced into using compulsory purchase powers, something it has told the club that it has no intention of doing.

Given this situation and taking into account the points in the objection, I believe that the New Windmill Ground should not be selected as one of the sites going forward.
BACKGROUND
1. The earliest recorded football club in Leamington Spa was in 1891. The current club can trace its roots back to 1933 when the Lockheed Sports Football Club was established.

2. AP Leamington, as Lockheed became known, played at the Windmill Ground opposite the factory in Tachbrook Road. But, Automotive Products sold the ground for housing in 1983 and football ceased to be played in April 1988.

3. The club, then called Leamington FC, continued in existence and, after an extensive search for a new site, bought six acres of farmland off Harbury Lane to develop a new stadium and commenced playing again in division two of the Midland Football Combination in August 2000.

4. The club has been a success both on and off the field, rising from step 8 of the national non-league pyramid in the year 2000 to step 2 and building, largely through voluntary effort, a stadium to match its new status.

CONSTITUTION
5. When the former ground was put up for sale, a new company was formed in which fans could buy a stake and have their say. This company took over the running of the club when its name was changed from AP Leamington to Leamington FC and now has over 400 individual shareholders.

6. Shareholding varies in size and the board of directors has a policy which limits the amount held by any individual or company. Historically, a small number of shareholders, who also gave many hours of their time to help build the new facilities, built up a holding which, if combined, gives them a strong influence over the club's affairs.

7. The board of directors hold 3.9% of the shares, but this objection has been signed by the four largest shareholders and others who, between them, control some 52.5% of the voting rights.


THE NEW WINDMILL GROUND

8. The search for a new ground came to an end when six acres of farmland were purchased for £30,000 from the local landowner, all the money that the club had at the time. The site was purchased subject to three covenants, as follows:
"The Transferee for itself and its successors in title and so as to effectively bind the land hereby transferred or any part thereof hereby covenants with the Transferor and his successors in title as follows:-
(1) that the land or any part thereof shall not be used other than as a sports ground with ancillary facilities

(2) within twelve months of the date hereof the Transferee shall erect and forever thereafter maintain a good and substantial fence both stock proof and of a design to meet the reasonable approval of the Transferor as well as the Planning Authority around the land hereby transferred as indicated on the plan between the points marked 'A' and 'B' and between 'B' and 'C'

(3) not to erect or suffer to be erected any building of any nature along the northern boundary of the land hereby transferred and not to plant or allow to grow any trees that attain a greater height of 15 feet along such northern boundary."

9. Planning permission was obtained for a change of use from agricultural to sports and slowly, but surely, money was raised from the local community and the ground developed to a standard that allowed the club to apply to re-join the Midland Football Combination in which it played back in 1988.

10. Over the years, many improvements have been carried out and, following the latest promotion to step 2 of the pyramid (Skrill North), the club spent some £150,000 to bring the stadium up to the standard required, which has been financed in part by a grant of £30,000 from Warwick District Council.

11. It is fair to say that, throughout the search, there was much opposition to the club being located in residential areas, but the new site was in the countryside and away from large blocks of housing. It had been thought by fans that, given the experience of 1983, the club's future was secure, playing on its own ground, but little did they know what was in store 20 years later.

DESIGNATION AS A GYPSY AND TRAVELLER SITE

12. The longlist of potential sites drawn up by Warwick District Council included an area of land off Harbury Lane which encompassed the football ground and surrounding farmland. At the time, there were no alarm bells, as this was just one of number of options being looked at and one of the few that included an existing use.

13. But, when the report to the Council's Executive on the shortlisting came into the public domain, the situation changed, as the New Windmill Ground (NWG) was listed as one of five sites that comprised the Council's "preferred option" to deliver on its target of pitches based on the Salford University study. The surrounding farmland had been removed from consideration and the NWG stood alone. The possible loss of the ground that was intended to secure the club's future became a stark reality

14. Throughout the board of directors' discussions with Warwick District Council, no consultation took place with shareholders and fans. The contention in the consultation document that the club is a willing vendor is flawed. Only when the Executive report came into the public domain did the board make a statement, but there was still no move to engage shareholders in the debate.



NATIONAL CONTEXT

15. The current exercise being carried out by the council follows the publication of the Government's "Planning policy for traveller sites" in March 2012. The guidance splits sites into those that are deliverable and those that are developable, defined as follows:

* A deliverable site must be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that development will be delivered on the site within five years.

* A developable site is one in a suitable location for traveller site development with a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.

16. Later in this paper, we set out why, in practical terms, the NWG cannot be regarded as a deliverable site. It is not available now and cannot realistically be delivered within the timescale of 2017. We also believe that it should continue as a football ground into the foreseeable future, thereby excluding it from consideration as a developable site to meet further needs beyond 2017.


BASIS FOR OBJECTION


17. As explained, the council consultation is taking place on the flawed premise that the club is a willing vendor. But, there are other good reasons for believing that the current ground is in the right place for the club and that it should not be selected as a gypsy and traveller site.

18. As set out above, the land is subject to a covenant that it shall not be used other than as a sports ground with ancillary facilities and the club and council should abide by this.
19. Twenty years ago, there was much opposition to siting the club and some 16 locations, including some owned by the council, were looked at. Although there has been some opposition to development plans in the past from residents of Leamington Hall Farm, by and large, the club has been accepted in this location and sits comfortably with other uses. Any proposals to relocate are likely to run into the same problems.

20. Any new site would necessitate finding at least six acres, the current area, and scope to develop facilities to meet the Skrill North grading standard with potential for further development should the club be promoted again. In reality, more car parking, a better training pitch and community facilities would probably require an area of up to twice as much, namely 10-12 acres.

21. Any new ground is expected to come as part of the proposed housing developments to the west of Europa way, signalled in the draft Local Plan. When this could happen is a big question, as the plan process will not be completed until March 2015 and the council's chief executive has said in a letter to the board "at present I cannot confirm an alternative location for the Club."

22. The stadium will have to be separated and screened from the housing, requiring yet further land to be given up. Looking at current development proposals around the district, it is difficult to see how such a sized site could be found but, whatever the solution, it is going to take time and a lot of effort to bring matters to a conclusion.

23. The current stadium has been developed over a period of years, but a new facility would need to be up and running before relocation could take place. Given the council will be looking to use the NWG to help meet its target of 31 pitches (25 by 2017), any new ground won't be operational within this timescale.

24. There is no other facility in the district that would meet the standards, so ground sharing on an interim basis is a non-starter. With no alternative ground, the club would be demoted through the pyramid and all the effort of the last 13 years would have been wasted. There has to be a serious question mark over the club's ability to rise from the ashes a second time.

25. Whilst some of the facilities could be moved to a new location, the clubhouse, Harbury Lane end covered terracing and North Bank open terracing could not. The capital cost will need to be met in some way and the club has little cash to put towards this. In the absence of a robust project plan, there has to be some doubt over how a new stadium can be funded should a developer not be prepared to pay for it all.

26. All the proposed new housing developments of any significance are in the south of the town, exactly where the club is currently situated. Growth in the fanbase is likely, therefore, to be greater at its current location than (say) from a move to the north. If you were looking to site a new ground today, Harbury Lane would be an obvious location to consider.


SUMMARY


27. It is right that the board of directors, as custodians of the club, look to the future, including the location. Dialogue with the district council is clearly part of that process, but this should not be linked to the designation of the New Windmill Ground as a gypsy and traveller site.

28. The two issues are quite separate and whether the ground should be a designated site must be decided on the basis of the evidence and fit with the national policy.

29. The council's consultation document says ""There remains a risk that one or more of these sites will not be able to deliver the pitches proposed. For instance, there may be issues regarding whether existing uses can be suitably relocated to enable the site to be available."

30. We believe this to be the case for the New Windmill Ground and have set out our position in this document. In summary, we wish to object to the selection of the NWG as a gypsy and traveller site on the grounds of:

* The contention that the club is a willing vendor is flawed as there has been no shareholder engagement
* The land is subject to a covenant that it shall not be used other than as a sports ground with ancillary facilities
* The club is an established and accepted use in Harbury Lane
* There is no identified alternative site to relocate to
* The timescale for developing traveller pitches is too short for the site to be considered a practical and viable option
* Any new stadium would have to be operational before the NWG is vacated and there is no scope for an interim ground sharing
* Only some of the existing facilities can be moved and the club does not have a robust project plan to develop and finance a new stadium
* All the major proposed housing developments are within the club's catchment area adding weight to staying in the current location

31. Also, it is our belief that the site does not fall into either category of the national planning guidance and should, therefore, also be excluded on this basis

Proposed Sites for Gypsies and Travellers

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.


I confirm I am over 17 years old. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.

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.

My reasons are as follows;

1. The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) (NPPF) requires that the assessment of site suitability should be consistent with other planning requests. WDC will recall that I attempted to obtain planning permission for a further extension to our property. This was rejected because it would have an "adverse impact on the character of the area". How can WDC now say that the construction of a site for 10 -20 caravans would not similarly have an adverse impact in the character of the area. This would be entirely inconsistent and therefore against NPPF and would be discrimination against me.

2. GT04 does not comply with the planning criteria laid out in the NPPF nor PPFTS nor indeed the criteria laid out WDC's own consultation documents for Gypsy & Traveller sites. In no way does GT04 comply with planning policy whereby sites should provide satisfactory access to nearby services and quality of life. Specifically:-

- Accessibility to shops and local services: GT04 does not meet the NPPF guidelines nor those of Dept. or Communities and Local Government (CLG) Planning Policy for Travellers sites (PPFTS) (March 2012) recommended 5-10mins walk on a pavement. There is no pavement on Harbury Lane and the width of the road and proximity of hedgerows would prevent the construction of one. The cost of building a pavement would be very high. But even if a pavement were in place, it would still be a 40-45 minute walk to the nearest shop and local services

- the published Planning policy for Gypsy & Traveller sites requires that schools / GP surgeries are a 5-10 minute walk away. Those closest to GT04 are at least a 45 minute walk away along unlit roads with no pavement. The nearest GP surgery is three miles away and that surgery is at capacity. Also not only are the nearest primary, junior and senior school 40 + minutes away on foot but they are all already at capacity.

-Proximity to local community: GT04 does not meet the NPPF or PPFTS guidelines recommendation for sites to be on at least the edge of a community to encourage integration. Indeed GT04 is of all the current 5 preferred sites furthest from any community and services

- The NPPF and PPFTS make it very clear that the size of sites should not be disproportionate to the local community. However WDC propose to Establishing 5-10 pitches at GT04 which using the GTAA figures of 1.6 caravans per pitch and four individuals per caravan would give a population of between 32 and 64 individuals in area where the local community consists of 8 residential properties, with 16 adults and 4 children. The scale of the proposed GT04 development is therefore clearly and grossly disproportionate to the local community and this is therefore contradictory to the NPPF & PPFTS guidelines and recommendations.

- GT04 does not meet the NPPF or PPFTS guidelines and recommendations for access to good local transport. There is a limited bus service along Harbury lane and there are no bus pull ins or indeed anywhere for people to stand whilst waiting for a bus. Both potential passengers and car drivers would be placed at significant risk.

- It follows from the above that GT04 does meet the NPPF and PPFTS guidelines and recommendations for availability of good infrastructure. This includes roads, pavement, street lighting, broadband, cell phone reception. Harbury lane is a narrow and already very busy and dangerous road. It has no pavement. There is no street lighting along it between the boundary with Whitnash and Harbury Village. The infrastructure at GT04 is poor and would require considerable investment to rectify.

3. Other planning issues:

The area is prone to flooding with Harbury Lane and surrounding fields are often under water. GT04 would be unable to use soak away or runoff based drainage systems since the soil is clay based (there is solid clay less than 300mm from the surface) and will therefore require connection to mains sewerage which does not exist in Harbury Lane. Simply it would not be possible to provide satisfactory drainage for 60 individuals.

-GT04 is located on Harbury Lane and close to the cross road with the Fosse Way which 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
- when WDC granted planning permission for the chicken farm at Barnwell farm (200m from GT04), the applicants documents contained detailed aroma maps. These clearly show that GT04 is within the zone of the densest aerial discharges from the Barnwell Chicken farm. Not only is the odour extremely unpleasant but the proximity to GT04 raises serious environmental and health concerns for its potential residents. We understand that this was a primary reason that the potential G&T site at Barnwell farm was previously rejected.
- another environmental issue is that 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.

- 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 and will have an adverse visual impact from Harbury and The Fosse Way (Roman Road).

- the development of GT04 would mean that that private vehicles would have to be used to access shops and local services thus adding to traffic on an already busy and dangerous road but also causing unnecessary environmental damage.

- The site will damage wildlife habitat -in recent years we have had a strong growth in the population of birds of prey (kestrels, Buzzards and owls) and also Muntjac deer. A permanent residential presence is sure to scare these animals away.

4. Alternative Sites

I believe there are more suitable sites that have not been raised by WDC.
These areas of Land are as follows;
a. Land off Poiseden way and Spartan close. Travellers regularly use this area.
b. Land off Dobson Lane Whitnash. Located at the back of the cemetery and Whitnash school.
Both the sites are walking distance from schools and other essential local amenities.

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.

My reasons are as follows;

1. The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) (NPPF) requires that the assessment of site suitability should be consistent with other planning requests. WDC will recall that I attempted to obtain planning permission for a further extension to our property. This was rejected because it would have an "adverse impact on the character of the area". How can WDC now say that the construction of a site for 10 -20 caravans would not similarly have an adverse impact in the character of the area. This would be entirely inconsistent and therefore against NPPF and would be discrimination against me.

2. GT04 does not comply with the planning criteria laid out in the NPPF nor PPFTS nor indeed the criteria laid out WDC's own consultation documents for Gypsy & Traveller sites. In no way does GT04 comply with planning policy whereby sites should provide satisfactory access to nearby services and quality of life. Specifically:-

- Accessibility to shops and local services: GT04 does not meet the NPPF guidelines nor those of Dept. or Communities and Local Government (CLG) Planning Policy for Travellers sites (PPFTS) (March 2012) recommended 5-10mins walk on a pavement. There is no pavement on Harbury Lane and the width of the road and proximity of hedgerows would prevent the construction of one. The cost of building a pavement would be very high. But even if a pavement were in place, it would still be a 40-45 minute walk to the nearest shop and local services

- the published Planning policy for Gypsy & Traveller sites requires that schools / GP surgeries are a 5-10 minute walk away. Those closest to GT04 are at least a 45 minute walk away along unlit roads with no pavement. The nearest GP surgery is three miles away and that surgery is at capacity. Also not only are the nearest primary, junior and senior school 40 + minutes away on foot but they are all already at capacity.

-Proximity to local community: GT04 does not meet the NPPF or PPFTS guidelines recommendation for sites to be on at least the edge of a community to encourage integration. Indeed GT04 is of all the current 5 preferred sites furthest from any community and services

- The NPPF and PPFTS make it very clear that the size of sites should not be disproportionate to the local community. However WDC propose to Establishing 5-10 pitches at GT04 which using the GTAA figures of 1.6 caravans per pitch and four individuals per caravan would give a population of between 32 and 64 individuals in area where the local community consists of 8 residential properties, with 16 adults and 4 children. The scale of the proposed GT04 development is therefore clearly and grossly disproportionate to the local community and this is therefore contradictory to the NPPF & PPFTS guidelines and recommendations.

- GT04 does not meet the NPPF or PPFTS guidelines and recommendations for access to good local transport. There is a limited bus service along Harbury lane and there are no bus pull ins or indeed anywhere for people to stand whilst waiting for a bus. Both potential passengers and car drivers would be placed at significant risk.

- It follows from the above that GT04 does meet the NPPF and PPFTS guidelines and recommendations for availability of good infrastructure. This includes roads, pavement, street lighting, broadband, cell phone reception. Harbury lane is a narrow and already very busy and dangerous road. It has no pavement. There is no street lighting along it between the boundary with Whitnash and Harbury Village. The infrastructure at GT04 is poor and would require considerable investment to rectify.

3. Other planning issues:

The area is prone to flooding with Harbury Lane and surrounding fields are often under water. GT04 would be unable to use soak away or runoff based drainage systems since the soil is clay based (there is solid clay less than 300mm from the surface) and will therefore require connection to mains sewerage which does not exist in Harbury Lane. Simply it would not be possible to provide satisfactory drainage for 60 individuals.

-GT04 is located on Harbury Lane and close to the cross road with the Fosse Way which 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
- when WDC granted planning permission for the chicken farm at Barnwell farm (200m from GT04), the applicants documents contained detailed aroma maps. These clearly show that GT04 is within the zone of the densest aerial discharges from the Barnwell Chicken farm. Not only is the odour extremely unpleasant but the proximity to GT04 raises serious environmental and health concerns for its potential residents. We understand that this was a primary reason that the potential G&T site at Barnwell farm was previously rejected.
- another environmental issue is that 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.

- 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 and will have an adverse visual impact from Harbury and The Fosse Way (Roman Road).

- the development of GT04 would mean that that private vehicles would have to be used to access shops and local services thus adding to traffic on an already busy and dangerous road but also causing unnecessary environmental damage.

- The site will damage wildlife habitat -in recent years we have had a strong growth in the population of birds of prey (kestrels, Buzzards and owls) and also Muntjac deer. A permanent residential presence is sure to scare these animals away.

4. Alternative Sites

I believe there are more suitable sites that have not been raised by WDC.
These areas of Land are as follows;
a. Land off Poiseden way and Spartan close. Travellers regularly use this area.
b. Land off Dobson Lane Whitnash. Located at the back of the cemetery and Whitnash school.
Both the sites are walking distance from schools and other essential local amenities.

see attached

I wish to register my opposition to the Gypsy and Traveller site, preferred option GT04. My reasons are contained in the attached documents.

I believe that the alternatives set out below are much more suitable

GT15 - quick and convenient as WCC already own the land
Good access to schools, gp surgery and public transport

GT19 - can be delivered in 5 years, good access to schools, gp and public
transport

GT alt01 - Already has planning permission for caravans, access to new schools

Response: Consultation - Gypsy and Traveller Preferred Option Sites - Consultation

Ref: GT02 Fosse Way-Junction B425 and GT04 Harbury Lane-Fosse Way

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objection.

Dear Sir,
As a family, we have lived in Harbury for some 32-years and as a long standing resident, write to object to your proposals for a site GT04 and an alternative option site GT02
Your required consultations with neighbouring planning authorities, as required by government guidance has not occurred; your Chief Planning Officer admitted:
Between February 2012 and January 2013 there had been just 3-meetings with Stratford District Council, apparently only one of which had any minutes taken.
Quote: Chief Planning Officer WDC , "Although the council continue to hold dialogue with other councils and in particular Coventry City Council, Rugby Borough Council and Stratford District Council, sites within Warwick District have not been discussed at length."
Government guidance notes
P5: Point 4:2 "to ensure that local planning authorities, working collaboratively, develop fair and effective strategies to meet need through the identification of land for sites"

P5: Point 9c: "consider production of joint development plans that set targets on a cross-authority basis, to provide more flexibility in identifying sites, particularly if a local planning authority has special or strict planning constraints across its area (local planning authorities have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries)
1. I can confirm community groups prior to the decision on the sites were not consulted. Although a meeting was held in Harbury AFTER GT02 and 04 were put forward as preferred sites, This was after the event as against the government's guidelines which state:
When assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community."
2. The surgery and the school in Harbury were not consulted to identify if there was spare capacity.
3. This lack of consultation seems to have ignored government guidance 4.11: "to enable provision of suitable accommodation from which travellers can access education, health, welfare and employment infrastructure"
Of special concern was Warwick District Councils failure to carry out due diligence in respect of the Salford University GTAA report, which unfortunately has formed the basis of its decision-making.

In 2011, the WDC's report identified the need for just 15 TRANSIT pitches and that "demand for permanent site-based accommodation was low and transitory in nature". Yet now we are led to believe that in addition to 15 transit pitches, there is now a need (according to Salford) of 15 PERMANENT pitches. Who has questioned this discrepancy?

Your officers have advised these sites may require the use of compulsory purchase powers if necessary. However, it is an important oversight that no associated costings have been presented either for the purchase or loss of livelihood of those displaced by the compulsory purchase.
There is also further advice, of which your officers until recently have not been aware;
current guidance from Minister Eric Pickles Department of Communities and Local Government saying such powers of CPOs should NOT be used in relation to G&T sites.

This is confirmed in the following report from Hansard


Perhaps it would be prudent if your officers further investigate this, as there appears to be contradiction and use of invalid assumptions that render the Salford report flawed. (?)

There also appears to have been positive discrimination favour of gypsies and travellers, and insufficient publicity to advise local communities of proposals, many of the settled community in the local area are still unaware of the proposals, implications and consequences.
>>>
The following objections were previously made during the consultation phase:

a) Both GT02 and GT04 are located next to a busy commuter route. It is also a known that the Fosse Way is a high-risk accident black spot.

Specifically, GT04 Harbury Lane is busy, with a 50mph speed limit on vehicles traveling to the M40, Gaydon industrial areas, Leamington Spa and Warwick.
The Fosse Way has a 60mph speed limit. There is a continual stream of traffic and is particularly heavy at the peak commuting times when traveling to and from work locations.

The stretch of road between the A425 and the B4100 is an accident black spot with a high casualty rate = 68 casualties in last 5-years
The junction with Harbury Lane Fosse Way crossroad is particularly dangerous due to the speed and volume of traffic = 10 casualties in last 3-years.

An increase in vans, lorries, trailers and caravans as travellers enter, exit the sites and by their nature, will be slow traveling vehicle that will increase the hazard for road users.
>>>

The proximity to the local community: GT04 and GT02 do not meet the NPPF or PPFTS guidelines recommendation for sites to be on at least the edge of a community to encourage integration

The sites are remote from the facilities, and the bus service infrequent should the gypsies and travelers be inclined to use then. This would be doubtful when, like most others, they have modern vehicles that they would simply use.

Site users would in general, not use buses, even if running at a convenient time for schooling or the doctor's surgery. In cases of emergencies cars would be used; for these reasons alone, the sites are unsuitably located.
Distances and lack of safe footpaths make the possibility of walking unlikely / impossible; it would be unrealistic to expect walking to happen, making the site locations once again unsuitable.
This appears also to be against government guidelines for sites 4.11 states "which travellers can access education,"
>>>>
Accessibility to shops and local services: Clearly, these sites do not meet the NPPF guidelines nor those of Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) Planning Policy for Travellers sites (PPFTS) (March 2012) which recommends a 5-10mins walk on a pavement

The sites do not meet the NPPF and PPFTS guidelines and recommendations for availability of good infrastructure. This includes roads, pavement, street lighting, and broadband, cell phone reception. There are no pavements, no street lighting along the roads adjacent to both sites.
>>>>
The Harbury schooling and medical facilities are already oversubscribed and is likely to remain so given the current village demographic. If 'cross border' liaison, as the government required, between Warwick DC and Stratford DC had happened, then this would have immediately been apparent.
>>>
Among other site requirements, your selected locations should not have a high risk of flooding.
However, site GT04 (+GT02 to a lesser extent) does have regular flooding. Flooding is not unusual along Harbury Lane and some serious flooding after heavy rains also has happened. Together with bad smells from the chicken farm, noises from the breakers yard, this site overall, makes a bad choice and any would be residents would soon realise this.

Aesthetically, site GT04 will directly impact on the views from the well-known Chesterton Windmill, which is an important heritage and tourist site given the historic nature and landscape of the surrounding area. Views toward GT02 from both the Radford Semele and Ufton escarpments would be also blighted with this location should it be developed

In Summary

I object to GT04 and GT02 sites on the basis that that there are more appropriate sites which satisfy the criteria

* These sites are not sustainable (a key requirement of NPPF and PPFTS)

* Gt02+GT04 do not meet any of the basic requirements of NPPF or PPFTS


* There is excess Gypsy and Traveller site capacity in Warwickshire, consequently, the need for these sites is based on a grossly flawed GTAA as there actual need is very much smaller than Salford have calculated the need to be.

* WDC have not properly consulted with neighbouring planning authorities as required


* The basis for the proposal around GT04 and GT02 is clearly positively discriminating against the settled community

* The local community of the area has not been properly consulted. The Warwick DC have advertised as they normally do, also latterly conducted (generally) poorly attended 'open days'

They can claim to have provided 'due notice to the public', yet the settled communities, in the main, remain uninformed; the communications exercise actually failed to convey the councils intentions and consultation process messages adequately.

Which site are you responding to? GT04

(e.g. GT04 Land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way)


What is the nature of your representation? Object

Please set out full details of your objection or representation of support with reference to the criteria above.
Apart from the obvious objections of the actual proximity of the proposed site to a very busy road and main thoroughfare junction and the obvious dangers to children having to be transported to local schools which are already at maximum capacity, according the Government's planning policy framework, adjacent DSs are required to collaborate, and yet WDC and Stratford DC are very much out of phase with their consultations so logically they cannot collaborate. There is no evidence that WDC has collaborated or discussed with Stratford DC other than a reported "10 minute long un-minuted meeting". Additionally there does not appear to have been any consultation with Rugby DC.
There is also no evidence that WDC have considered the cost of compulsory purchase vs development of underutilised brownfield sites including those that the council already won.
The site does not meet the fundamental planning criteria laid out in the NPPF guidance from the Department of Communities and Local Government and WDC's own consultation documents for Gypsy and Traveller sites. GT04 does not comply with planning policy whereby sites should provide access to nearby services and quality of life e.g. proximity to shops, schools, doctors, accessibility to public transport.

The area is prone to flooding with Harbury Lane and surrounding fields often under water. In accordance with planning and building regulations 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. The close proximity to Harbury Lane Breakers Yard and Barnwell Chicken Farm should be additional cause for concern on the basis of environmental and possible health issues. NPFF states that assessment of site suitability should be consistent with other planning requests. I understand that WDC have rejected other planning applications within 200m of GT04 due to rural policy on the grounds that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the area.



Which site are you responding to? GT04

(e.g. GT04 Land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way)


What is the nature of your representation? Object

Please set out full details of your objection or representation of support with reference to the criteria above.
I would like to place on record my objections to the proposed site for several reasons:-
Local amenities are not sufficient for this added development. The local doctor's surgery is over 3 miles away and is already at capacity as are the local schools. GT04 is located on Harbury Lane and Fosse Way cross roads which is a road with a history of multiple accidents and heavy volumes of traffic - signs indicate this fact. Children will be at risk due to having to travel to schools and therefore having to stand at the side of a busy road awaiting transport, if this transport is actually available.
Environmental concerns should be highlighted due to the close proximity to Barnwell Chicken farm and was a primary reason that the potential G&T site at Barnwell farm was previously rejected. The added proximity of the Harbury Lane Breakers yard should be an additional concern due to the noise and pollution concerns.
The NPFF requires that the assessment of site suitability should be consistent with other planning requests. I understand that other residential planning applications within 200m of GT04 have recently been 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 - 10 permanent pitches ranges between £352K and £650K, using government figures (£65K per pitch). Additionally, the Football club would have to be resited. Due to the recent history of Government and Local Council cuts I do not believe there is any evidence that this can be achieved. From visiting a recent meeting in Harbury Village hall I believe that the Travellers would be purchasing this site (information given by one of your representatives), why therefore should these funds be used for the development of the site.
The site could be considered to have a detrimental impact on tourism due to its close proximity to what is probably one of the only decent hotels in the town. Also, the views from local landmarks/tourist attractions, would be impaired.
There seem to be inconsistencies in the way that the consultation has been carried out by WDC e.g. WDC utilised the findings in the Salford GTAA report in order to establish need, however there is no evidence that WDC's due diligence in validating the accuracy of the report and/or the relevance of the established need.